Key Liberal Democrat activists Dr Prateek Buch and Dr Evan Harris report on Liberal Democrat opposition to Andrew Lansley's marketisation of the NHS.
By Dr Prateek Buch, a research scientist and an executive member of the Social Liberal Forum, and former MP Dr Evan Harris, vice chair of Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee
In a move that clearly demonstrates his Party’s unease with the Health and Social Care Bill, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has taken a firm stance on a vital aspect of Health secretary Andrew Lansley’s NHS reforms – Liberal Democrats will not support a bill that sees Monitor become a purely economic regulator that arbitrates on and promotes competition.
Labour’s shadow health secretary, John Healey, suggests that is somehow new-found opposition to the reforms – in fact Nick’s language strongly echoes what our Party Conference agreed in March – before the local elections.
And this was at a time when the Yes to AV campaign was ahead in the polls so was nothing to do with disappointing results in either.
Mr Healey further states that “Lib Dem MPs have voted for it [the bill] at every stage in Parliament”, but surely must know, as his less Blairite colleagues will have experienced, that in government Labour rebels on foundation hospitals and academy schools did the same thing; they voted for the the host bill at second reading, which allows a bill with some parts that can be supported to go forward for amendment, then for specific amendments at report stage.
What Liberal Democrats have done to date then, is no different;as we believe the bill is amendable to deliver what was in the coalition agreement – policies such as a stronger role for GPs in commissioning, which was also in Labour’s manifesto and presumably remains Mr Healey’s policy too. As with the Labour government, the committee stage is a place for debate and the sole Lib Dem MP on the committee was appointed on the basis that any votes against the government would be saved until report stage.
Indeed when Nick told Andrew Marr recently that no bill is better than a bad one, he made clear that Liberal Democrats would go further than rebels in previous Labour governments – they’ll vote against the bill at 3rd reading unless sufficient amendments are made.
It’s also been suggested that Lib Dems should have raised these issues before the bill was published – perhaps to protect Mr Lansley from the embarrassment of publishing an unacceptable bill, or as some sort of counsel of perfection. Such thinking didn’t prevent the worst elements of the Private Finance Initiative (pdf) and of the scandalous Independent Sector Treatment Centre programme being published and implemented under Labour, so it’s unclear why it would have worked here.
In any case we can assure Mr Healey and other friends of the NHS, that Lib Dems did raise concerns at the white paper stage, but faced two problems:
• Firstly, Conservatives in government were encouraged to believe that these reforms would attract significant support from new Labourites given the backing for the market aspects given by Alan Milburn and John Hutton;
• Secondly, Mr Lansley simply asserted, as he did to the health select committee, that the reforms would be harmless.
It was precisely because Lib Dems weren’t prepared to accept these assurances that our very next conference, in March – that Mr Healey attended – debated in public its rejection of much of the Lansley reforms. It must have been a revelation to a Labour frontbencher to see a party publicly and democratically tell its leadership what they were prepared to accept. And to be fair to Nick Clegg, he didn’t oppose the much-amended conference motion, nor has he at any stage sought to downplay it.
In the end when this bill is gutted, rather than carping about the timetable, people will be pleased that the Lib Dems said no to more marketisation of the NHS, and will be wondering what more things – not in the coalition agreement – the Lib Dems should be blocking from happening!
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
19 Responses to “Health bill will be gutted, say Lib Dem left”
Richard Blogger
“the agreement uses the word aspects advisedly”
No it doesn’t. You are trying to weasel your way out of the fact that you were not paying attention when you signed the Coalition Agreement.
“So we are demanding that the letter and spirit of the agreement.”
Man up. Hold Lansley to account for abolishing PCTs when the CA says they would be directly elected. Hold lansley to account for the biggest re-organisation ever, when the CA says there would be no more. That is where the fight lies.
“that’s why the Bill attempts to do things like integrate social and mental health care with the NHS”
The Bill has nothing to do with Social Care. The House of Commons research document that accompanies the Bill (RP11-011) points this out: “Although the Bill deals primarily with health services, its title refers to social care because a number of measures would apply to bodies with joint functions and responsibilities; the Government intends to introduce legislation on social care reform later in the Parliament.” You are back peddling. The Bill is about setting up a healthcare market, that was always the intention of this Bill and it still is.
I recognise, and support the Lib Dem manifesto pledge to integrate health and social care. But the ONLY way to do that is to merge the budgets. It is ludicrous to have LAs and hospitals fighting over who have the responsibility to pay for patients. This Bill will not solve the issue. A bill that takes social care out of local authority hands and integrates it as part of a totally integrated service, would.
Can you explain why there was an emergency motion at the LibDem Sept Conference on the White Paper that was lost, yet a similar motion at the Spring conference was passed? Could it possibly be because LibDems had finally realised that the Lansley proposals were to destroy the NHS? Some LibDems realised that in September, but it appears tha the majority of LibDems are so slow thinking that it takes them 6 months to see the bleeding obvious. And I challenge you yet again, why didn’t Burstow address the Spring Conference concerns during the Committee stage? That is the time to change the Bill, yet he ignored the LibDem Spring conference entirely. Is he a Tory now?
Kill the Bill, it is the only sensible thing to do.
Anon E Mouse
Prateek Buch – I’m a Lib Dem supporter but you’re comparing the wrong thing. Nick Clegg was doomed as leader if Cameron hadn’t ridden to the rescue.
Also remember that the boundary changes will help but look at the unfairness of FPTP for the Tory’s – it takes a landslide to unseat Labour and finally your comparison is one where Labour had done particularly badly.
Agree on the unfairness of the system – Nick Clegg should have demanded PR which would ironically have benefitted the Tory’s as well…
Anon E Mouse
Richard Blogger – I find myself in agreement with a lot of what you say which leads me to believe I may need to see a doctor…
NHS reforms live blog | Birmingham Link
[…] view Dr Prateek Buch, a research scientist and an executive member of the Social Liberal Forum, writes on Left Foot Forward that it was Labour who let down the public over the […]