This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've just watched this clip providing an analysis of Theresa May's support for the Naylor Report, declared during an interview with Andrew Neil, and found it quite troubling.
youtube.com/watch?v=tx3hrpDCct8&
Short version: The Naylor Report recommends an accelerated program of selling of NHS assets (land and buildings), backed/subsidised by £10bn of public funds. These assets, thanks to the actions of the coalition government, are currently owned by a private limited company - NHS Property Services.
Is this news to anyone? Can anyone provide an alternative analysis or explain why this is a good idea?
Cheers,
Dan
youtube.com/watch?v=tx3hrpDCct8&
Short version: The Naylor Report recommends an accelerated program of selling of NHS assets (land and buildings), backed/subsidised by £10bn of public funds. These assets, thanks to the actions of the coalition government, are currently owned by a private limited company - NHS Property Services.
Is this news to anyone? Can anyone provide an alternative analysis or explain why this is a good idea?
Cheers,
Dan
2
1
In reply to baron:
Not sure. This site has more info:
http://www.patients4nhs.org.uk/?s=Property
"Once any NHS land or property is sold it passes outside the provisions of the NHS Act, so that any future government will not be able to transfer these properties back into state ownership. Land that, until now, has been available to the NHS at minimal cost for the expansion of hospitals or other health provisions will have gone forever. Future development will therefore only be possible either at increased cost to the taxpayer, or by reducing spending on existing health services."
I'm assuming this mean sold by NHS PS, but I'm not sure. I don't know if the current situation is reversible or not.
Not sure. This site has more info:
http://www.patients4nhs.org.uk/?s=Property
"Once any NHS land or property is sold it passes outside the provisions of the NHS Act, so that any future government will not be able to transfer these properties back into state ownership. Land that, until now, has been available to the NHS at minimal cost for the expansion of hospitals or other health provisions will have gone forever. Future development will therefore only be possible either at increased cost to the taxpayer, or by reducing spending on existing health services."
I'm assuming this mean sold by NHS PS, but I'm not sure. I don't know if the current situation is reversible or not.
In reply to danj1974:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/naylor-report-tory-nhs-privatisati...
Some discussion on Radio 4 this morning. Unbelievable.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/naylor-report-tory-nhs-privatisati...
Some discussion on Radio 4 this morning. Unbelievable.
In reply to JMarkW:
I've worked in some of those Victorian hospitals and they all need demolishing, even hospitals built in the 70s are crumbling. They cost a fortune to maintain, light and heat and are impossible to keep clean.
Building technology has moved on and if they're selling off land and old buildings to build new better hospitals this can only be a good thing.
I've worked in some of those Victorian hospitals and they all need demolishing, even hospitals built in the 70s are crumbling. They cost a fortune to maintain, light and heat and are impossible to keep clean.
Building technology has moved on and if they're selling off land and old buildings to build new better hospitals this can only be a good thing.
5
3
In reply to danj1974:
what DancingonRock said is true. There is a community hospital near me where they had to close a ward upstairs because the lift broke and its a listed building and it would cost £100k's to repair it. So they had to move the whole ward downstairs.
When they say "selling off NHS assets" they don't mean to the detriment of the NHS they mean like... property portfolio rationalisation. E.g. not spreading expertise too thin across distant and inactive community centres. Rather than selling off NHS hospitals to be ran by private organisations.
That's my take.
Edit: I've just read some of that Independent article and I think it's pathetic.
Yes they are selling NHS assets and Land, Assets and Land which is surplus to requirements. Another recent example, a community hospital on a big site surrounded by grass (totally unused grass, no one ever ever walked on it, certainly not the patients of the hospital). They sold the grass to a housing company to build houses. How is this not good business sense?! It bring income into the NHS to fund services and saves them money through having to mow the lawn.
If they sell a Victorian hospital and someone turns it into swanky apartments this is not a loss to the NHS. This is not privatisation. This is good business sense. They can use the money to build nicer newer hospitals (which will be owned by the NHS/public) and which will provide better services to patients. That article is nonsense. No offence.
what DancingonRock said is true. There is a community hospital near me where they had to close a ward upstairs because the lift broke and its a listed building and it would cost £100k's to repair it. So they had to move the whole ward downstairs.
When they say "selling off NHS assets" they don't mean to the detriment of the NHS they mean like... property portfolio rationalisation. E.g. not spreading expertise too thin across distant and inactive community centres. Rather than selling off NHS hospitals to be ran by private organisations.
That's my take.
Edit: I've just read some of that Independent article and I think it's pathetic.
Yes they are selling NHS assets and Land, Assets and Land which is surplus to requirements. Another recent example, a community hospital on a big site surrounded by grass (totally unused grass, no one ever ever walked on it, certainly not the patients of the hospital). They sold the grass to a housing company to build houses. How is this not good business sense?! It bring income into the NHS to fund services and saves them money through having to mow the lawn.
If they sell a Victorian hospital and someone turns it into swanky apartments this is not a loss to the NHS. This is not privatisation. This is good business sense. They can use the money to build nicer newer hospitals (which will be owned by the NHS/public) and which will provide better services to patients. That article is nonsense. No offence.
Post edited at 14:39
5
4
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Agreed. I use to work in 1970s Polson building. Absolutely aweful. Leaked all the 16 years I was there. Goodness knows what the thermal qualities of it were like.
Now in a newish PFI hospital. Just as bad in that it's another example of desperately poor decision making by public servents. Bolted on cash cow for facilities management provider.
Looking on the brightside; I retire in 12 weeks
Agreed. I use to work in 1970s Polson building. Absolutely aweful. Leaked all the 16 years I was there. Goodness knows what the thermal qualities of it were like.
Now in a newish PFI hospital. Just as bad in that it's another example of desperately poor decision making by public servents. Bolted on cash cow for facilities management provider.
Looking on the brightside; I retire in 12 weeks
4
6
5
In reply to elliot.baker:
It's a loss to the NHS if it's not replaced in some way.
Why not lease the site out to developers, that way there's always money coming into the NHS for year to come. Seems to work alright for the Duke of Windsor, he didn't even have to pay inheritance tax.
> If they sell a Victorian hospital and someone turns it into swanky apartments this is not a loss to the NHS. This is not privatisation. This is good business sense. They can use the money to build nicer newer hospitals (which will be owned by the NHS/public) and which will provide better services to patients. That article is nonsense. No offence.
It's a loss to the NHS if it's not replaced in some way.
Why not lease the site out to developers, that way there's always money coming into the NHS for year to come. Seems to work alright for the Duke of Windsor, he didn't even have to pay inheritance tax.
6
In reply to elliot.baker:
An odd definition of income. Leasing the unused land to a third party would bring in income, while retaining ownership of the asset for the future. Selling it simply brings a one off capital injection.
Depending on the value at which the victorian hospital sold, and the cost of building and a new hospital, it *may* make good business sense, but that would need to be decided on a case by case basis. But using the public purse to double the price of the sale, and withholding funding completely distorts the calculation, meaning a sale that is not a sound business proposition for the tax payer can become a sound business proposition for the NHS trust.
e.g. (plucking random numbers out of the air for illustrative purposes)
If I'm a trust and I have a developer willing to pay £100million for my hospital building, but it costs £180million to build a new one, as it stands I'd be crazy.
Under these proposals, if I sell and build again, the taxpayer gives me anther £100million, and my trust makes a profit of £20million which can be used for patient care.
From the trust's point of view that's a good piece of business, but from a taxpayer's point of view we've paid £100million for £20million worth of patient care.
It's economic madness. Unless you're a developer interested in a glut of assets coming onto the market at a reduced price of course.
> Another recent example, a community hospital on a big site surrounded by grass (totally unused grass, no one ever ever walked on it, certainly not the patients of the hospital). They sold the grass to a housing company to build houses. How is this not good business sense?! It bring income into the NHS to fund services and saves them money through having to mow the lawn.
An odd definition of income. Leasing the unused land to a third party would bring in income, while retaining ownership of the asset for the future. Selling it simply brings a one off capital injection.
> If they sell a Victorian hospital and someone turns it into swanky apartments this is not a loss to the NHS. This is not privatisation. This is good business sense. They can use the money to build nicer newer hospitals (which will be owned by the NHS/public) and which will provide better services to patients. That article is nonsense. No offence.
Depending on the value at which the victorian hospital sold, and the cost of building and a new hospital, it *may* make good business sense, but that would need to be decided on a case by case basis. But using the public purse to double the price of the sale, and withholding funding completely distorts the calculation, meaning a sale that is not a sound business proposition for the tax payer can become a sound business proposition for the NHS trust.
e.g. (plucking random numbers out of the air for illustrative purposes)
If I'm a trust and I have a developer willing to pay £100million for my hospital building, but it costs £180million to build a new one, as it stands I'd be crazy.
Under these proposals, if I sell and build again, the taxpayer gives me anther £100million, and my trust makes a profit of £20million which can be used for patient care.
From the trust's point of view that's a good piece of business, but from a taxpayer's point of view we've paid £100million for £20million worth of patient care.
It's economic madness. Unless you're a developer interested in a glut of assets coming onto the market at a reduced price of course.
4
In reply to Ciro:
It's basically asset stripping and outsourcing.
Do we want the NHS to be property managers or do we want them to be a Health Care service?
I thought the Labour Party were going to look at Land Value Tax?
It's basically asset stripping and outsourcing.
Do we want the NHS to be property managers or do we want them to be a Health Care service?
I thought the Labour Party were going to look at Land Value Tax?
Post edited at 22:42
3
In reply to elliot.baker:
It does raise the question: if it's selling off stuff that's better sold, why would the trusts need such string financial incentives and penalties to do it?
Maybe inertia and incompetence?
It does raise the question: if it's selling off stuff that's better sold, why would the trusts need such string financial incentives and penalties to do it?
Maybe inertia and incompetence?
In reply to danj1974:
Gove did something similar with schools that became academies. £bn worth of title deeds to pubicly owned school land and buildings were given to private companies, for free - not even sold on the cheap. Even the legal costs were picked up by the tax payer.
Gove did something similar with schools that became academies. £bn worth of title deeds to pubicly owned school land and buildings were given to private companies, for free - not even sold on the cheap. Even the legal costs were picked up by the tax payer.
5
In reply to Jack:
Yep. So you have millions if not billions of assests either sold off dirt cheap or the taxpayer pays to give them away. In the NHS case the new hospital will be a PFI job, designed to syphon off the maximum amount of public money in rent and contacts where the taxpayer pays £200 to have a lightbulb changed, not forgetting the contracts with firms like Banner who charge almost double the retail price for paper, printer cartridges and other stationary to the NHS and other public sector institutions.
Yet somehow this makes 'good business sense' according to some posters above?
> Gove did something similar with schools that became academies. £bn worth of title deeds to pubicly owned school land and buildings were given to private companies, for free - not even sold on the cheap. Even the legal costs were picked up by the tax payer.
Yep. So you have millions if not billions of assests either sold off dirt cheap or the taxpayer pays to give them away. In the NHS case the new hospital will be a PFI job, designed to syphon off the maximum amount of public money in rent and contacts where the taxpayer pays £200 to have a lightbulb changed, not forgetting the contracts with firms like Banner who charge almost double the retail price for paper, printer cartridges and other stationary to the NHS and other public sector institutions.
Yet somehow this makes 'good business sense' according to some posters above?
3
In reply to Ridge:
That's exactly where we're at in Scottish schools. 7 years ago we had in house IT staff. I asked ours to put an open source program on every machine in the school, took him about ten minutes and no additional cost. Now it's outsourced they want £30 per machine to do this!
> where the taxpayer pays £200 to have a lightbulb changed, not forgetting the contracts with firms like Banner who charge almost double the retail price for paper, printer cartridges and other stationary
That's exactly where we're at in Scottish schools. 7 years ago we had in house IT staff. I asked ours to put an open source program on every machine in the school, took him about ten minutes and no additional cost. Now it's outsourced they want £30 per machine to do this!
Post edited at 07:49
1
In reply to danj1974:
This is a quick reply on my phone: but there's nothing inherently wrong with selling off NHS properties: if you think about the location of most UK hospitals they're in city centres, so expanding them / sorting out the transport links to get ambulances in becomes prohibitively expensive.
There is a massive patient benefit to having all services on one site, otherwise you might end up in a situation like Sheffield: A&E out of the centre, stroke ward 30mins drive away at best (Northern General to Hallamshire). Places having outgrown their buildings and not able to expand is quite common, so we need an effective, progressive building policy to ensure we provide good care.
Trusts have repeatedly failed at managing their own buildings / when in debt you can't trust them with a capital budget, so there's an argument for property centralisation. Plus some nhs buildings are really valuable so having professionals managing the sales would be a good idea.
Problem is, I wouldn't Trust any government to sell off assets: Brown's dodgy bookkeeping and Goves playing field sell off were as bad as each other. Plus NHS PS is massively understaffed and known to not be up to it.
This is a quick reply on my phone: but there's nothing inherently wrong with selling off NHS properties: if you think about the location of most UK hospitals they're in city centres, so expanding them / sorting out the transport links to get ambulances in becomes prohibitively expensive.
There is a massive patient benefit to having all services on one site, otherwise you might end up in a situation like Sheffield: A&E out of the centre, stroke ward 30mins drive away at best (Northern General to Hallamshire). Places having outgrown their buildings and not able to expand is quite common, so we need an effective, progressive building policy to ensure we provide good care.
Trusts have repeatedly failed at managing their own buildings / when in debt you can't trust them with a capital budget, so there's an argument for property centralisation. Plus some nhs buildings are really valuable so having professionals managing the sales would be a good idea.
Problem is, I wouldn't Trust any government to sell off assets: Brown's dodgy bookkeeping and Goves playing field sell off were as bad as each other. Plus NHS PS is massively understaffed and known to not be up to it.
3
In reply to BFG:
You seem like a man in the know about this stuff. Why, if seling these things is sensible, would they need such strong incentives and penalties to get the trusts to sell?
You seem like a man in the know about this stuff. Why, if seling these things is sensible, would they need such strong incentives and penalties to get the trusts to sell?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
We could have a separate department to administer all government properties, thereby creating more jobs and more income for the government, lowering our taxes. Win win
> It's basically asset stripping and outsourcing. Do we want the NHS to be property managers or do we want them to be a Health Care service?I thought the Labour Party were going to look at Land Value Tax?
We could have a separate department to administer all government properties, thereby creating more jobs and more income for the government, lowering our taxes. Win win
In reply to edwardgrundy:
I haven't read the Naylor Review yet (it's on the list), but to just pull this out from the Independent:
"The Naylor Review says the health service faces a £10bn infrastructure funding gap and warns that without substantial investment, NHS property, such as leaking Victorian hospitals or out-of-date IT equipment, “will remain unfit for purpose and will continue to deteriorate”."
Those incentives could be bound up with increasing the Capital funding to enable hospitals to move / improve. Moving site is incredibly expensive for lots of reasons; you're looking at costs in the hundreds of millions to build a new hospital. If you partially build a site you have to pay the maintenance costs of two locations and it can take years to move people across to a new place. Plus, if you try and spread the cost, you might end up putting patients at risk.
In times of austerity, when you can't meet the operational, front-line costs of running a hospital, not everyone is going to be willing to commit to spending hundreds of millions of pounds and years of disruption. It's hard to worry about the 10 year roadmap when next week presents such a significant bump.
Also, more fundamentally, buildings go hand in hand with service provision. NHS services, at the moment, aren't brilliantly designed: we have the wrong A&Es in the wrong place, CCGs all over the place (that are being consolidated and we therefore need to sell off some of their buildings) different kinds of patients coming through etc. Redesigning services means redesigning buildings; but people tend to ignore this because it's boring.
All I'm saying is property sell off is not inherently bad or asset stripping. The Naylor Review doesn't sound like it's aiming for back door privatisation (word on the street is that NHS PS will be privatised tho). The problem is that no party has a good track record managing NHS property in the best interests of the public.
> You seem like a man in the know about this stuff. Why, if seling these things is sensible, would they need such strong incentives and penalties to get the trusts to sell?
I haven't read the Naylor Review yet (it's on the list), but to just pull this out from the Independent:
"The Naylor Review says the health service faces a £10bn infrastructure funding gap and warns that without substantial investment, NHS property, such as leaking Victorian hospitals or out-of-date IT equipment, “will remain unfit for purpose and will continue to deteriorate”."
Those incentives could be bound up with increasing the Capital funding to enable hospitals to move / improve. Moving site is incredibly expensive for lots of reasons; you're looking at costs in the hundreds of millions to build a new hospital. If you partially build a site you have to pay the maintenance costs of two locations and it can take years to move people across to a new place. Plus, if you try and spread the cost, you might end up putting patients at risk.
In times of austerity, when you can't meet the operational, front-line costs of running a hospital, not everyone is going to be willing to commit to spending hundreds of millions of pounds and years of disruption. It's hard to worry about the 10 year roadmap when next week presents such a significant bump.
Also, more fundamentally, buildings go hand in hand with service provision. NHS services, at the moment, aren't brilliantly designed: we have the wrong A&Es in the wrong place, CCGs all over the place (that are being consolidated and we therefore need to sell off some of their buildings) different kinds of patients coming through etc. Redesigning services means redesigning buildings; but people tend to ignore this because it's boring.
All I'm saying is property sell off is not inherently bad or asset stripping. The Naylor Review doesn't sound like it's aiming for back door privatisation (word on the street is that NHS PS will be privatised tho). The problem is that no party has a good track record managing NHS property in the best interests of the public.
2
In reply to danj1974:
Its a good idea for the people who would profit from it. And they are among the people who the Tories represent. And thats it.
I'm sitting here trying to work, but mostly trying and failing to stay optimistic about the future. I think the Tories will win a decent working majority today. By the time the next election is held, I strongly suspect that the NHS will have ceased to exist in all but name. It'll start with accelerated privatisation/asset-stripping, then budget reductions to reduce its capability, denigration by corporate media, and finally a manufactured confrontation with employees followed by its sale to a consortium of health corps.
Meanwhile the upcoming electoral boundary changes will lock in permanent Tory government, brexit will cripple our economy, and the current crisis in the education system will become terminal.
So a grim meathook future beckons. Anyone having a good day?
> or explain why this is a good idea?
Its a good idea for the people who would profit from it. And they are among the people who the Tories represent. And thats it.
I'm sitting here trying to work, but mostly trying and failing to stay optimistic about the future. I think the Tories will win a decent working majority today. By the time the next election is held, I strongly suspect that the NHS will have ceased to exist in all but name. It'll start with accelerated privatisation/asset-stripping, then budget reductions to reduce its capability, denigration by corporate media, and finally a manufactured confrontation with employees followed by its sale to a consortium of health corps.
Meanwhile the upcoming electoral boundary changes will lock in permanent Tory government, brexit will cripple our economy, and the current crisis in the education system will become terminal.
So a grim meathook future beckons. Anyone having a good day?
Post edited at 14:57
1
1
In reply to andyjohnson0:
A curious thing about left wing politics in the last couple of elections is that the supporters appear absolutely convinced that their guy is the right guy, that the only people who could disagree are the tiny number of moustache-twirling, cartoon villain rich people, and yet also convinced they're going to lose.
Given that we have fair, democratic elections, how do these things stack up?
A curious thing about left wing politics in the last couple of elections is that the supporters appear absolutely convinced that their guy is the right guy, that the only people who could disagree are the tiny number of moustache-twirling, cartoon villain rich people, and yet also convinced they're going to lose.
Given that we have fair, democratic elections, how do these things stack up?
1
1
In reply to mullermn:
I don't understand your question. I think Corbyn is a decent guy, but probably not "the right guy". I don't think the people with power are cartoon villains, but I do think they are serious, know what they want, and have decided that burning any opposition is a better strategy than having to fight for their interests every five years. And I don't think they are going to lose.
Elections confer legitimacy, not outcomes that benefit society as a whole. But that may not be an answer to the question you were asking.
I don't understand your question. I think Corbyn is a decent guy, but probably not "the right guy". I don't think the people with power are cartoon villains, but I do think they are serious, know what they want, and have decided that burning any opposition is a better strategy than having to fight for their interests every five years. And I don't think they are going to lose.
> Given that we have fair, democratic elections, how do these things stack up?
Elections confer legitimacy, not outcomes that benefit society as a whole. But that may not be an answer to the question you were asking.
In reply to BFG:
I agree it's not inherrently bad/asset stripping. But the incentives/penalties do seem pretty crazy. No pretty much nothing about this kind of thing, but it does seem like the kind of thing you might do if you were more worried about how your borrowing apppears now, than whether selling off is actually good move in the long run.
I agree it's not inherrently bad/asset stripping. But the incentives/penalties do seem pretty crazy. No pretty much nothing about this kind of thing, but it does seem like the kind of thing you might do if you were more worried about how your borrowing apppears now, than whether selling off is actually good move in the long run.
1
In reply to krikoman:
It's lose lose if your preference is for small government with low taxation.
Chasing businesses for rent arrears and the subsequent court cases isn't something I'd want my tax money spent on.
Sell the land and inject the cash into NHS investment.
It's lose lose if your preference is for small government with low taxation.
Chasing businesses for rent arrears and the subsequent court cases isn't something I'd want my tax money spent on.
Sell the land and inject the cash into NHS investment.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
You seem to assume businesses are not going to pay rent. Once it's gone it's gone though.
Again if it's good enough for the Duke of Westminster, how come it won't work for us?
> It's lose lose if your preference is for small government with low taxation. Chasing businesses for rent arrears and the subsequent court cases isn't something I'd want my tax money spent on. Sell the land and inject the cash into NHS investment.
You seem to assume businesses are not going to pay rent. Once it's gone it's gone though.
Again if it's good enough for the Duke of Westminster, how come it won't work for us?
In reply to krikoman:
Because he's obviously innately superior to the commoners who run the NHS?
> You seem to assume businesses are not going to pay rent. Once it's gone it's gone though.Again if it's good enough for the Duke of Westminster, how come it won't work for us?
Because he's obviously innately superior to the commoners who run the NHS?
In reply to Ridge:
Well he's dead now, so it makes little difference to him, the reason he made such a load of money though is precisely because the DIDN'T sell off his assets, for a quick cash injection!
It's a bit like Tescos WIGIG sales
> Because he's obviously innately superior to the commoners who run the NHS?
Well he's dead now, so it makes little difference to him, the reason he made such a load of money though is precisely because the DIDN'T sell off his assets, for a quick cash injection!
It's a bit like Tescos WIGIG sales
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...