« | Home | »

Crystal Clear

Tags: |

The Health and Social Care Bill was passed in the House of Commons yesterday by 316 votes to 251. Before the vote, during Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron said:

We now see the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing all supporting our health reforms.

He may see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. On Monday, the deputy chairman of the General Practitioners Committee said:

The BMA is very clear – the majority of doctors have serious concerns with the Health Bill. We want to improve the NHS, but a wholesale review of the current plan is needed, which is why we are calling for it to be withdrawn.

And the chairs of the BMA, RCGP and RCN were among the signatories to a letter to the Times on Tuesday calling for MPs to reject the Health Bill on the grounds that it would ‘destabilise the NHS’.

Earlier this week, the campaigning blog SpinWatch claimed that it had documents showing that once the Health Bill was passed,

the Department of Health secretly plans to hand over the running of up to 20 NHS hospitals to foreign firms, despite the prime minister’s pledge that there will be ‘no privatisation of the NHS’.

Andrew Lansley denied this of course. ‘Claims that we aim to privatise the NHS amount to nothing more than ludicrous scaremongering,’ he told the Guardian. ‘We have made it crystal clear that we will never privatise the NHS.’

But the government is sending a different message to private healthcare companies. Speaking at an independent healthcare forum yesterday, the health minister and former banker Lord Howe told an audience of private healthcare representatives that the bill would create ‘genuine opportunities’ for private companies to take over from NHS hospitals and clinics.

Comments on “Crystal Clear”

  1. John H says:

    The Myth of Transparency in the new NHS.

    At least with the current NHS, press and public can scrutinise the organisation via the Freedom of Information Act. In the new, largely privatised NHS, it will not be possible to keep a watch on the private companies into whose pockets billions of taxpayers funds will be diverted. Lord Howe, Minister of Health, wrote to me recently confirming that the “FOIA does not apply to private companies providing general medical services”.

    I have raised the problems with the leaders of both major political parties only to be met with a stony silence. By the way, it was the recent Labour government that hid, in a minor Schedule to another statute, the clause freeing from public scrutiny private medical companies being paid with taxpayers money. .

    That freedom from the FOIA also implies that the proposed government regulators for the new NHS- Monitor, the Care Quality Commission and the NHS Commissioning Board- will not be able to publish results of any investigations they might make into the private sector on any services outsourced to it.

    It appears that the hefty investment the private health industry have made in the political parties- allegedly £750,000 since Cameron became leader- is about to realise a substantial- and hidden-profit.

  2. gerald says:

    If I remember correctly: wasn’t ‘Bedlam,’ funded by a fair-degree of public money (as well as private), exempt -due to most of the governors being ‘connected to parliament’ – from public scrutiny. Did they not in their lofty search for excellence commit all manner of inappropriate treatments on unsuspecting patients in the name of health care and avant garde practice. And all because, they ostensibly viewed themselves as ‘private.’

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement