The Nayler report, which Theresa May says she backs, requires the NHS to sell its assets as a condition of further funding. It's privatisation by the backdoor. Here's an explainer by Chris Holden:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s being done by using a land value tax,but not one that most people would recognise
Pardon?
there imposing a tax on NHS trust assets and charging the trust i believe 3.65% per year the value of those assets,so a building worth £200k will have to pay 7k tax back to the government cutting patient care or hand over yes hand over the buildings to NHS asset securities i believe it called but is a private company,and it is this NHS that the Tories are poring in £10b no NHS trust for patients are ,& properties an be sold in a two for one offer and if they still won’t hand over there portfilio they can be hit by sanctions that will hit patients are or even have there payments stopped like they do other benefits to force them into handing it over,there charging for assets is a form of land value tax,but for the few not the many,it turns land value tax on its head to enforce usage of land ,since many of the properties will be demolished for the land,& even it there not ward closures mean unused space that could be taxed & the same in any public buildings to make them ripe for selling of dirt cheap.whilst creating a financial mess to further push the hands of trust to relinquish there portfolio,that is the process from my understanding of the naylor report
It is worth noting that schools are also now required to make a notional rate of return on their buildings and are charged for it
This is insanity
It is curious that the Edward Hain community hospital, located in central St Ives, remains closed because of “fire safety concerns”. Presumably, if sold off cheaply to a developer, it will become another hotel.
If I was a member of HM opposition I would call this the ‘Nail Her Report’ as May’s backing for this odious piece of asset stripping is market fundamentalism gone mental makes her vulnerable and this should ruthlessly exploited.
All opposition parties should be making it very clear about May’s support for this stupid of stupid ideas.
I saw this yesterday in one of Richard’s blogs that someone had attached and was horrified to discover the May government is willing to waste £10 billion on selling off all nhs assets. Like many people I’ve always thought the Tories were about the efficient use of public money but the Naylor report as destroyed that delusion for ever. What gets me is why isn’t the BBC or national newspapers reporting this and why isn’t no one taking legal action against the May government after all no where does the Tory manifesto promise to privatize the nhs by selling off its assets. I believe the institute of fiscal studies claim the Tories will match Labour’s promise to increase spending on the nhs but don’t tell us that this increase in spending will all go to sell off its assets. I know many people aren’t bothered if they get treated in a nhs hospital or a private hospital as along their get treated but surely everyone is bothered that they money is being wasted in selling off nhs assets when it should be spent on providing health care.
This is one of the clearest examples where the Conservatives demonstrate their economic illiteracy. Rather than taxpayers owning an asset they will be paying rent to private companies forever into the future. Would you advise anyone that owns a house to sell it and then rent it back?
Only labour, land and knowledge have value, unless you will not need them again you should never give them away for money which has no intrinsic value.
Agreed, entirely
Agree of course, but would add it’s more than illiteracy: deliberate contrivance to enrichen the rich.
Giving them bargain-price assets is bad enough, but also the £10bn fire-sale costs are funded by the public. As they lose their assets and potentially all NHS services to profiteering vultures.
Needs to be mentioned constantly all this week.
Rather than being illiterate, I think the conservatives understand that very well.
They just want to set up the electorate as the rent payers, and themselves as the rentiers.
Re Naylor report: Sorry to be thick, but are (provider trusts) expected to sell off just those assets ‘released’ by STPs, or must they also sell off hospitals that are to be retained, in which case they will have to be rented back in some way – seems like PFI on steroids. I read the executive summary but am still not clear.
Odd that the MSM seem not to have picked this up – or perhaps not so odd – after all it would tend to further demolish the Tory narrative that they want a publicly owned NHS. Sounds like an extension of PFI – with a tory twist. The story line is of course – sell the land & propoerty and eventually itwill be the service provision that is contracted out to proviate providers – with the gov paying for services – one will finally reach a “medicare” point – which is what the Tories want.
You have it
The plan is to reduce the cost of entry for private care suppliers
Indeed. It will be a requirement of the private care suppliers.
With all disposals of public assets, the private companies formulate the plan’
Then the government announces ‘policy’.
You need to read the Naylor review; it is the thin edge of a very large privatization wedge. The private sector will feast on easy money from [first in London] property and rent over many decades. The Naylor review examines ways to fund NHS England’s “Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs)” and identifies property sales, especially in London to bring in up to £5Bn over a five year period. There is much that is unsaid for future [sell off / rentier] plans but this is a method that any Govt might use, except the Conservatives desire to deliver a private NHS.
The already bloated costs (£750M p.a.) of running NHS Property Services Ltd, will cut into gains from sales effectively enforcing transfer of ownership and title to the city.
This is a centralized grab for property rights as Naylor proposes to give all ‘property capabilities’ to NHS Property Services Ltd. The report states – “and other fragmented NHS property capabilities into a single organization.”
The offer of Her Majesty’s Treasury to “provide additional funding to incentivize land disposals through a “2 for 1 offer” in which public funds match disposal receipts” – is this new funding or funding that should have been found from capital budget anyway?
And its all has to be rushed through (so no-one notices) – “it will be vital to move quickly” [2]
[1] Full Annual accounts online 28 July 2016, “the core operating costs were £743M in 2015/16” at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07888110/filing-history
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-property-and-estates-naylor-review p36
This makes PFI look positively benign
Just to remind ourselves of Blair’s PFI mess.
£11,614.3M went to Dept of Health in PFI spending by 2013 [1] out of a total PFI spend of £54,714M. The kicker is that it will cost £313,433M in total when the final money is repaid in 2050 [2]. PFI is a different type of robbery of our public money. “By 2017-18 that [PFI] will have almost doubled to £10.1bn [p.a.] in a decade, and repayments will cost at least £9bn a year for the decade after that.” [2]
In money terms the Naylor scheme to raise £10,000M is less costly, but the start of the sell-off. Of course both are poor choices, we can afford to invest just as Attlee’s Govt did.
[1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/summary_document_pfi_data_march_2012.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/05/pfi-cost-300bn
Make no mistake, after they are re-elected the tories will embark on mass privatisation of all public properties. This will produce a windfall even larger than the Thatcher government’s from privatisation (remember she also had most of the proceeds from North Sea oil at her disposal). The longterm effects will be similar to those which resulted from PFI. In this case our public services will have an enormous rent bill to fund forever – and the landlords will no doubt be offshore and pay no capital taxes.
Two other things to consider wrt health privatisation & NHS asset stripping.
The Guardian & one supposes other papers reported on the 15 year sentence of the surgeon that undertook unecessary operation (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/breast-surgeon-ian-paterson-sentenced-for-carrying-out-needless-operations) – the fact that many/most/all of the operations (the exact proportion was not clear) were private – not NHS. Given its lack of resources it is very unlikely that the NHS would undertake unecessary operations.
In the case of NHS asset stripping: this may in the very short term help the trade deficit with foreign corporations purchasing the assets. To some extent, the large-scale purchase by non-British people of UK propoerty and land has off-set the growing trade deficit.
Demnetia tax, NHS asset stripping, I wonder what else is on the Tory agenda/non-manifesto. One thing for sure, the ghost of John “Pretty thing” Bentley is alive & well in the Tory party.
I have forwarded this to the Keep Our NHS Public team. It is the largest activist group in the UK for a public NHS. Full of doctors, very short on economics, which is why I am relieved by you (belated,nevertheless) intervention.
John
Another summary of the Naylor report ( hat tip to Mike Parr)
https://twitter.com/TBABlog/status/870013762803294208/video/1
Shame for putting this vlog up, it doesn’t represent what the Naylor review says and his full length version is actually factually incorrect and misinterpreted.
In the time available to me it seems a very good representation
What is wrong with it? Assertion does not become you
Take a look at the link Simon Cohen put up – plenty of extracts from the report – all in context. The Naylor report is the same old tory TINA nonsense (there is no alternative) – “ooooh we HAVE to sell all the NHS assets as soon as possible – to ensure funding for the NHS” – as if the country is a corner shop – hitting hard times & having to sell some inherited silver. Pathetic.
Anybody that buys into the Naylor report and its recommendations is a moron or a tory or both & wants to see the destruction of the NHS and what is left of the post war social infrastructure.
Thanks Mike
Surely Labour should put out a statement saying that when it gets into power, it will compulsorily buy back the peoples assets with no compensation. There can be no compensation when the assets have been stolen in the first place. They will say they are forced to do this because the population demand it, and we must.
In years gone by Labour local councillors were surcharged by a Tory government for refusing to set rates that cut services.
Could Labour not pass a law to surcharge members of the Conservative party to pay any compensation that was due.
Sorry if this sounds incoherent. This is off the top of my head because I am just so angry.
A coherent strategy needs thinking out which will put any investor off risking his money and will also frighten Tories with the thought of being surcharged.
How can we persuade Labour to come out with a powerful statement.
I think you’re being an optimist
The shocking thing is how baltent they are being about it. This video sums it up quite nicely.
https://youtu.be/tx3hrpDCct8
If you don’t like links search YouTube for Theresa May fully supports the Naylor Report
They are also doing it with the penson age. From the Tory manifesto. “We will also ensure that the state pension age
reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”
I am mortified that there isn’t a bigger protest. Maybe we should write it on a bus.
Peter
It makes perfect economic sense, for special values of ‘sense’ and widely-accepted values among economists.
The measurable economic value of a London hospital’s acivity is a fraction of the development value of the land it occupies.
It makes sense to KPMG too
I think they may have had an involvement…
There are, of course, a number of economic errors in this analysis; and some grave moral errors, too.
None of them matter to the people making the decisions: we would do better to focus on that, rather than on any single error.