Background and Introduction
With less than a week before the Referendum Vote in Scotland, this is a detailed personal posting about voting Yes. I’m sorry it’s lengthy.
Though the Vote on Thursday 18 September is a Vote for Scotland rather than any political party, this is mainly written for those who normally support Labour. I stopped paying my Labour Party membership during the Iraq War, but before that I had more than 40 years membership in the Party. At school and university, I was an active member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and marched from Aldermaston from 1958 till 1963. I’ve been active in politics since then, including:
- Labour Member of Parliament for Nuneaton and Bedworth in Warwickshire from 1967 to 1983 – representing Warwickshire miners and Coventry car workers.
- Under Secretary of State at the Department of Industry from 1976 to 1979 – including helping to bring Clyde shipyards under public ownership – and Opposition Front Bench Industry Spokesperson from 1979 to 1982, supporting British Leyland and other shop stewards combines.
- Member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee from 1978 till 1981, representing Socialist and Affiliated Organisations, including Cooperative Societies.
- Member of the European Parliament for Merseyside East from 1984 to 1989 – a constituency including Liverpool Garston, Wigan, St Helens and Knowsley.
- Throughout all this time I was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers’ Union, which is now Unite the Union. I’m still an active member of the Unite Edinburgh Not for Profit Branch.
Though the London Coalition Government’s Agenda under Cameron and Clegg is tailored for London and the South East and offers little for Scotland, many of us feel that New Labour fails to offer anything different. Many in the Better Together campaign sound as though they prefer working with the Tories in London rather than promoting social justice for a fairer Scotland.
The Referendum represents the greatest awakening of political thought and participation in my lifetime – a chance to vote for a fairer Scotland and against poverty and weapons of mass destruction. An independent Scotland provides an opportunity for the implementation of many principles and causes which I have supported all my active political life – especially policies and causes which the Labour Party once used to support.
Though this won’t happen overnight, it won’t happen at all as long as Scotland remains part of the UK.
Voting Yes on Thursday 18 September 2014 gives Scotland the chance to regain the Labour Party it once knew before the Blair and Miliband reforms took the Party away from its members and the trade unions. In an independent Scotland the Labour Party has the chance to start again – to reclaim the Party for its members and for people in Scotland. Already more than one third of Labour voters in Scotland have recognised this and will vote Yes. They are clearly ahead of their Party!
None of this will be easy, but, without independence and with its present policies, the Labour Party will become increasingly irrelevant in Scotland.
To Save Time reading this Detailed Posting
I’ve summarised my thoughts under the underlined headings below. If you click on any of them, you can go straight to that section.
Many policy areas not already devolved to a Scottish Government, and which will still not be devolved after May 2015 – including basic finance, austerity and welfare – are precisely those policy areas where Tory and New Labour policies hardly differ and will not change.
Those policy areas which are devolved to a Scottish Government but where a Westminster Tory or Labour Government will continue cutting public spending, will affect Scotland through reductions under the Barnett Formula, which has hardly changed since 1978.
Labour hides the McCrone Report. Scotland gets the Barnett Formula instead of an Oil Fund
The House of Commons Library Research Paper 01/108: The Barnett Formula (1) of November 30 2001 is still centrally relevant:
(p10) “Thereafter, if there are changes to the plans for English programmes that are ‘comparable’ to the Scottish and Welsh blocks, then a fixed proportion is added to – or in the case of cuts subtracted from – the block”.
In other words, further Coalition or New Labour public spending cuts may affect Scotland’s budget too, which affects those policies already devolved.
Though not in the Cabinet, I was a Minister in the Labour Government which introduced the Barnett Formula in 1978. Many of us recognised then that the Formula was Scotland’s consolation prize for not having an Oil Fund like Norway or Sovereign Wealth Fund like Middle East oil producers.
Professor Gavin McCrone’s Report to the Government on North Sea oil in 1974 (2) was concealed until 2005. Its conclusion is as relevant today as it was then:
(p16) “This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a long time into the future.
“…….”provided sensible policies are pursued, it is possible to see how this situation could be used to re-equip Scottish industry and renew outworn social capital, thereby providing the expansion necessary to absorb Scotland’s excess labour and the increase in productivity required to raise incomes.
“Thus, for the first time since the Act of Union was passed it can be credibly argued that for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic advantage lies in its repeal.
“When this situation comes to be fully appreciated in the years ahead, it is likely to have a major impact on Scottish politics, since it is on social and political grounds alone that the case for retention of the Union will in future have to be based”.
New Labour nowadays doesn’t mention the McCrone Report. It shows that whether policy is controlled in London or even when devolved to Scotland for its administration, the only way that Scotland can be sure that it controls both the policies and their financing is through complete independence. Vague last minute promises of further devolution are not the answer.
New Labour Strategy Irrelevant for Scotland
This section shows the background to New Labour’s current thinking – based on what its leadership calls “responsible capitalism”. If you reckon you know where New Labour is coming from, please read this.
New Labour, Austerity and Welfare
New Labour and the NHS
As the NHS Jarrow March to London showed last week, what is happening to NHS privatisation in England is frightening. Any further NHS public spending reductions in England mean that Scotland’s Budget is also reduced under the Barnett Formula.
New Labour, Students and Fees
New Labour introduced student fees. All current Tory policies for student fees of £9,000 a year and proposals for up to £16,000 a year have only been possible using New Labour legislation.
New Labour Strategy Irrelevant for Scotland
New Labour’s “Responsible Capitalism”
During his time as a visiting scholar at Harvard’s Center of European Studies in Autumn 2002, Ed Miliband was influenced by Peter Hall, who with David Soskice at the London School of Economics wrote Varieties of Capitalism (3) in 2001. He returned to Harvard’s Government Department in 2003 and taught on a course called “What’s Left? The Politics of Social Justice” about “policy dilemmas confronting politicians seeking social justice amidst trends like globalization, economic insecurity and multiculturalism.”
From this and other influences the theoretical basis of New Labour policy is now “responsible capitalism”. These are some of its features:
- The Bank of England remains independent of Government. (Since he comes from Canada with its history of referenda in Quebec, perhaps its current Governor, Mark Carney, needs reminding of this when he talks about an independent Scotland’s keeping the Pound Sterling?)
- Basic acceptance of globalisation, markets and neoliberalism. This is why New Labour only talks of “safeguards” for the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being negotiated between the European Commission and the US Government
- Median income growth – helping the “squeezed middle” through an economy “built from the middle out”
- Spending more on training, skills and the “supply side” of the economy
- Policies such as “predistribution” – or trying to “soften” market outcomes. This was explained in 2013 The Politics of Predistribution (4) by Jacob Hacker of Yale University:
“So predistribution provides a positive agenda, one that I think is attractive to the left right now, because it wouldn’t necessarily involve large amounts of new public spending. It is a positive agenda for trying to address both the squeeze of living standards in the middle and poverty at the bottom of society”.
“..Progressives have to think seriously about how we construct new forms of countervailing power in the twenty-first century”.
“I think that’s perhaps the most exciting conversation that could emerge out of an emphasis on predistribution. Countervailing power means both trying to empower new forms of work organisations and fostering new forms – or existing forms – of investor and consumer organisations. However, it also means trying to create new kinds of political organisations outside of the market; reinvigorating civil society.
New Labour’s Electoral Strategy for “Responsible Capitalism”
New Labour’s plan for delivering all this is sometimes known as the “35% or 40% strategy” – retaining Labour voters from 2010, and adding some LibDem defectors and others from the middle ground. This was set out in Political Strategy for a New Economy (5) by Graham Smith in Renewal in 2012:
“To succeed, an agenda for ‘responsible capitalism’ would need to be capable of forging alliances between established Labour voters and those less traditionally aligned with the party (especially voters in the South, older people and those in social class ABC1). Seeking to unite working and middle class Britain against the top one per cent is a good place to start – as well as avoiding Labour being attached exclusively to electoral enclaves, such as public sector workers, ethnic minorities, the metropolitan elite or those on benefits”
“That, in turn, means recognising that neither the state nor one political party alone has the sole ability to bring about change. In fact, steps towards a more ‘responsible capitalism’ are likely to be most effective and enduring when the broadest possible range of individuals, interests and institutions are engaged in bringing them about. That does not mean that the state – or the Labour Party – have no role to play. But any political strategy which invests all power and responsibility in these sources of agency will be unlikely to succeed”.
Readers in Scotland will see through all this for what it really is – Westminster New Labour policies and an electoral strategy for London and the South East, which are largely irrelevant to the people of Scotland.
New Labour, Austerity and Welfare
New Labour will maintain Coalition Spending Cuts
Based on the strategy outlined above, speaking to Labour’s 2013 National Policy Forum in Birmingham on March 23 2013,(6) Ed Miliband made New Labour’s position on austerity very clear:
“If we win the election, we will come to power in tougher economic circumstances than we have seen in generations and that will have to shape the way that we govern”, Miliband said in a speech to his party’s National Policy Forum.
“Our starting point for 2015-16 will be that we cannot reverse any cut in day to day, current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue – not from more borrowing.”
“It’s a hard reality. But people will only put their trust in us if we show we are credible”
“Miliband’s speech echoed comments of finance spokesman Ed Balls said earlier this month that he would have “iron discipline” on spending”.
Ann Black’s Report on the July 2014 Milton Keynes Policy Forum (7) showed that nothing had changed at Labour’s Policy Forum since 2013. In fact, things had got worse! George McManus bravely put forward this amendment on reversing austerity:
“We recognise that the cost of living crisis is inextricably linked to government’s self-deflating austerity agenda. That is why we will introduce an emergency budget in 2015 to reject Tory spending plans for 2015/16 and beyond and set out how we will pursue a policy of investment for jobs and growth.”
Other similar amendments had been withdrawn. The amendment was lost with only 14 votes in favour and 125 against. Labour’s Policy Forum, like its Annual Conference, has become a closed process – which is why Scotland needs to be independent to reclaim its own Labour Party so that members can once more voice their opinions on policy.
So no one in Scotland, especially Labour supporters, should be under any illusions that the election of a Labour Government at the next General Election in May 2015 means changing policies on spending and austerity. Coupled with Rachel Reeves’ proposals to deprive young job seekers of their benefits, they could be even worse.
Rachel Reeves: Labour will be tougher than Tories
Rachel Reeves, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary (8), speaking in October 2013, was even more succinct:
“Nobody should be under any illusions that they are going to be able to live a life on benefits under a Labour government,” she said. “If you can work you should be working, and under our compulsory jobs guarantee if you refuse that job you forgo your benefits, and that is really important”.
“It is not an either/or question. We would be tougher [than the Conservatives]. If they don’t take it [the offer of a job] they will forfeit their benefit. But there will also be the opportunities there under a Labour government”.
New Labour, the Work Programme and Universal Credit
But Rachel Reeves was simply building on foundations previously laid under the last Labour Government.
In December 2006, James Parnell, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, asked Lord David Freud (now the Coalition Government’s Under Secretary in the same Department) to “review progress on the Welfare to Work programme since 1997”. In February 2007, Freud produced “Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare to Work: An Independent Report to the Department for Work and Pensions (9), which recommended the basis for the current Work Programme:
(p61)“The private and voluntary sector would, then, compete for long-term contracts to provide support to disadvantaged people, with payments based on successful individual outcomes over an extended period. Correctly contracted on output based criteria, pro-viders will be incentivised to experiment and innovate to find effective solutions”
(p63) “This paper recommends that in principle the Department lets out prime contracts in each of the 9 regions and 2 countries in Great Britain. This should allow an adequate number of prime contractors for a competitive market to develop. It also offers the scale appropriate to attract major players from around the world”.
Freud Recommendations for Universal Credit
David Freud’s Report (9) also proposed moves towards the Coalition Government’s Universal Credit programme:
(p105) “The proposals in this chapter are mainly about reforming out of work benefits. But there is also a case for much closer integration of the tax and benefits system as a whole and in particular for simplifying the way that benefits paid by Jobcentre Plus and those paid by local authorities (Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) work together”.
Referring to a pilot “Service integration across benefit and transfer payment: the North Tyneside trial” the Freud Report (9) continued:
(p110) “DWP, HMRC and North Tyneside District Council have over recent months been developing and testing possible service improvements in a trial in the North Tyneside Local Authority district in the North East of England. This has focused on delivering improvements in the client experience during the transition into and out of work through closer working and service integration”.
The Report described the coordination of Job Seekers Allowance, HMRC Tax Credits, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. These proposals went even further than those currently pursued by Ian Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Though New Labour postponed Freud’s Universal Credit recommendations based on the North Tyneside pilot, in December 2008, Secretary of State James Parnell’s White Paper “Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future (10) laid the foundations for the Work Programme:
(p46) “In February 2008, the Department for Work and Pensions published its Commissioning Strategy, which set out our vision for modernising and strengthening the welfare-to-work market. It opens the way for larger, longer contracts with providers re-warded for their success in helping more people into sustained work; where customers receive a more personalised and flexible service; and where delivery of employment support is integrated into local services”.
From October 2009 this would “offer choice with more than one provider in particular area – so that competition could be offered between local providers”. New Labour had opened the door to large private sector providers and current Coalition Government policies.
These remain Westminster policies and powers and will not be devolved to Scotland in the event of a No Vote. So Rachel Reeves isn’t suddenly being tougher on welfare. Much of this was already in place by 2009, when New Labour had already ushered in what is now the Work Programme.Back to Top
New Labour and the NHS
Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Act 2012 used foundations laid by New Labour almost 10 years earlier. As shown below, New Labour’s 2006 Health and Social Care White Paper, its “Right to Right to Request” and “Transforming Communities” programmes, closely followed by the Coalition’s “Right to Provide” and Public Service Mutuals, chart an unbroken chain of stepping stones towards out-sourcing public service delivery to the private sector.
Though Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham MP has now promised to repeal the Coalition’s 2012 Health and Social Care Act, this won’t mean much by the next UK General Election in May 2015 for those areas where a majority of non acute NHS delivery may be delivered by private contractors. New Labour in England is not committed to restoring delivery of these services to the NHS.
All this demonstrates that New Labour plans nearly 10 years ago to shift healthcare delivery away from the NHS are nearing completion under the UK Coalition Government.
New Labour Begins Dismantling the NHS
Sir Nigel Crisp’s 2005 Report Creating a Patient Led NHS: Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan (11) recommended that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) should move away from NHS direct delivery. Crisp was both Chief Executive of the NHS and the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health.
(p21)“Ultimately patients will be able to choose any provider that can meet NHS standards at the NHS tariff. This will include providers who are currently part of the NHS; established independent suppliers such as GPs and their teams, pharmacies and independent hospitals; other parts of the statutory sector; the voluntary sector; and new entrants from the independent, statutory or voluntary sectors”.
Secretary of State Patricia Hewitt’s January 2006 White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new Direction for Community Services (12) echoed this theme, expanded NHS outsourcing and extended NHS delivery based on payment by results.
Many were slow to recognise New Labour’s real motives. In April 2006, the Kings Fund in Social Enterprise and Community Based Care: Is there a future for mutually owned organisations in community and primary care? (13) warned:
(p21) “Meanwhile, the for-profit sector is ready and able to act quickly, and there is a distinct danger that for-profit providers will sweep into primary and community care unchallenged. If too much time passes before staff-led and patient-led organisations take shape, when they finally do enter the marketplace there may be little left for them”.
An Amicus Union briefing in 2008 on Social Enterprises and the NHS (14) summarised New Labour’s intended competition:
“between providers to win contracts patient choice between providers payment by results – payment only when services performed”
“This is a fundamental change in the delivery of healthcare, with the NHS becoming a brand rather than a national, public service”.
New Labour introduced the “Right to Request” in June 2008 and “Transforming Community Services” in July 2008. The National Audit Office June 2011 Report summarised these developments in Establishing Social Enterprises under the Right to Request Programme (15):
(p5)“It (Transforming Communities) required that PCTs should no longer deliver services and should separate their delivery arm from their commissioning function with delivery being provided under contract to the PCT by other bodies such as Social Enterprises or Foundation Trusts”
(p27)“… for the ﬁrst time, that the health sector will be subject to competition law under planned changes in the legislation. The role of Monitor, which currently regulates Foundation Trusts, will change and it will become the regulator of the NHS, including having responsibility for applying competition law and acting against anti-competitive behaviour by providers or commissioners”.
With the abolition of Primary Care Trusts under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, these commissioning powers are now transferred to GPs’ Clinical Commissioning Groups. All this means that in England the NHS is becoming simply a brand name and a commissioning mechanism – as shown in this example below.
NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group
In Birmingham, NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group is seeking tenders for setting up a Social Impact Bond for End of Life Care Coordination Hub (16), whereby interest and dividend payment to investors and the external contractor will be measured against an increase in the number of patients dying in their usual place of residence, rather than in hospital. In other words, there is a financial incentive and possible dividend to investors from people dying at home. This is from the initial tender notice:
“Outcomes and payment metrics:
The key outcomes that the services will be measured against are:
a) an increase in the number of patient dying in usual place of residence;
b) fewer emergency hospital admissions.
Payments to the investor will be determined by performance against these outcomes”.
This is privatisation gone mad! Using public money to encourage private investors to profit from people dying at home goes far beyond what we’ve seen in NHS privatisation so far.
NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham’s proposal is typical of dozens of new structures like NHS ‘Mutuals’ and ‘Social Enterprises’ which are being set up – many without staff consultation – as an interim step to full blown NHS privatisation. Usually headed by hand picked cronies, this is the emerging shape of the NHS in England.
Scotland suffers too. Though the Scottish Government controls administration of the NHS, it doesn’t control the finances. As Sandwell and West Birmingham’s approach is followed by many others, all this reduces public spending on the NHS. This means that, under the Barnett Formula, public money for Scotland is also reduced
New Labour, Students and Fees
New Labour introduces Student Fees
One of the first actions of the first Blair Government in 1998 in the Teaching and Higher Education Act (17) was the introduction of student tuition fees of £1,000 to start in the 1998-1999 academic year.
Worse was to come. On Wednesday 28 January 2004, under the Higher Education Act,(18) the second Blair Government voted to increase tuition fees from £1,000 to £3,000 with a majority of 5 in the House of Commons. Actual payment of HE fees by students was introduced in 2006, with a fees cap of £3,000 annually. By academic year 2005-2006, the Student Loan Company was already providing £2.79bn in loans. Most providers charged the full amount.
The 2004 Act also introduced the Office for Fair Access and other apparatus now used by the Coalition Government to justify fees of £9,000 in England.
In November 2009 the New Labour Government asked Lord Browne, formerly Chief Executive of British Petroleum, to conduct a further review. In October 2010, his Report “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education (19) concluded that students should freely exercise their choice of university with an uncapped free market in fees.
Following the Browne Report, in November 2010, though its overall approach to HE competition was more cautious than Browne, the Coalition Government introduced proposals for universities to charge up to £9,000 annually. Accompanied by student demonstrations across London, approval for this was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 09 December 2010, with a Coalition majority of 21.
To implement this decision, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills published its White Paper Students at the Heart of the System (20) on Tuesday 28 June 2011. The White Paper began the transition from a centrally planned delivery model, where each university had a quota of student places, towards an open market where student choice and fee levels will ultimately determine supply and demand for places.
All this now includes private for profit universities, where following significant increases in their access to the Student Loan Company, the Public Accounts Committee has asked for investigation by the National Audit Office (21).
There is now widespread talk in England of fees of £16,000 by Oxford, Cambridge and other universities (22).
For all its Higher Education reforms in England, including increased student fees and giving private colleges and universities access to the Student Loan Company, the Coalition Government has used New Labour’s Higher Education Act 2004 and previous New Labour legislation. Though the former Higher Education Minister, David Willetts MP, would have preferred a new Higher Education Bill, this was not necessary.
Because of the way in which repayments under the Student Loan system are structured, New Labour’s current pledge in England to reduce the cap on Student Fees to £6,000 will make little difference to many students.
Once again, further Westminster public spending reductions, through increasing fees and shifting Higher Education spending from the taxpayer to students, may be passed on to Scotland through the Barnett formula.
Conclusion – Scotland Deserves Better than This
Finally, this has been a long read and I apologise for its length.
I hope that all this has enlightened readers on the origins of recent Better Together pronouncements and showed where New Labour comes from and is heading. Above all, it shows that New Labour’s record and policies on overall economic policy, austerity and welfare, the NHS and Student Fees – and there are many more policy areas – really do not offer much for Scotland.
Above all, these New Labour policy areas show beyond doubt that Scotland not only deserves better but can do better with its own Government.
After a Yes Vote and independence, not only does an independent Scotland have an opportunity to reclaim and refashion a Labour Party which 20 or 30 years ago might still have represented its hope and aspirations, but it also offers the chance to align with socialists in Scandinavia and throughout the rest of Europe.
The European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group (23) in the European Parliament includes parties which have secured large votes in recent European elections – Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Die Linke in Germany. They are all anti-austerity and this is part of their platform:
“The European Union is not the victim of the current economic, financial, environmental and global food crisis but one of its motors.
“We are fighting for more and better jobs and educational opportunities, for social security and social solidarity, for a respectful way to deal with our earth and its resources, for cultural exchange and diversity, for sustainable economic development and for a consistent and strong peace policy.
“We want more direct democracy and active participation by citizens. The European Union must become a project of its people and cannot remain a project of the elites. We want equal rights for women and men, civil rights and liberties and the enforcement of human rights.”
That seems a manifesto more attuned to the needs of Scotland than the one offered by Better Together and New Labour’s “responsible capitalism” in London.
So reclaiming the Labour Party for Scotland is only the beginning
(1)Edwards,Timothy Edmonds; 2001; The Barnett Formula; Research Paper 01/108 House of Commons Library Research Section, House of Commons, London
(2)McCrone, Gavin; 1974; “The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined”. Report to HM Government – not published.
(3)Hall,Peter A; Soskice,David 2001: “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism”: Harvard University. http://www.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/HALL-_A_Peter_and_SOSKICE_David-_An_introduction_to_varieties_of_capitalism-2.pdf
(4)Hacker,Jacob;Jackson,Ben;O’Neill,Martin: 2013 “Interview: the Politics of Predistribution” Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy Vol 21 No2/3 2013; Renewal Limited in association with Lawrence and Wishart
(5)Cooke, Graham: 2012: “Political Strategy for a New Economy”: Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy Vol 20 No 1 2012 Renewal Limited in association with Lawrence and Wishart
(6)Noble,Phil June 22 2013 “Labour says would not borrow to reverse cuts”. Reuters, London. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/22/uk-britain-labour-spending-idUKBRE95L06X20130622
(7)Black,Ann “Ann Black Reports on Labour’s National Policy Forum” Left Futures. Labour Left Network, London. http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/ann-black-reports-on-labours-national-policy-forum/
(8)Helm,Toby “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief” Guardian October 12 2013. Guardian Media, London http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
(9)Freud,David; 2007; “Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity: Options for the Future of Welfare to Work. An Independent Report to the Department for Work and Pensions”; Department of Work and Pensions, London
(10)Parnell,James 2008 “Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future”. Department of Work and Pensions, London
(11)Crisp,Nigel 2005; “Creating a Patient-led NHS. Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan”. Gateway Reference: 4699, Department of Health, London
(12)Department of Health 2006 “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a New Direction for Community Services, Practice Based Commissioning”, Department of Health, London
(13)Lewis,Richard;Hunt,Peter;Carson,David. 2006 “Social Enterprise and Community Based Care: Is there a Future for Mutually Owned Organisations in Community and Primary Care?” Kings Fund, London.
(14)Amicus the Union; 2008. Social Enterprises and the NHS”. London: Amicus the Union.
(15) National Audit Office: “Department of Health: Establishing Social Enterprises under the Right to Request Programme” HC 1088. Session 2010-2012;National Audit Office, London, June 24 2011
(16)Sandwell and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group: “End of Life Care Coordination Hub and Urgent Response Team services through Social Investment” June 30 2014. https://www.oppex.com/notice/SELL2WALES_bc74f95b27dd942e620ecb3005f4ec94
(17)Department of Education and Employment 1998. Teaching and Higher Education Act, London
(18)Department of Education and Skills 2004. Higher Education Act, London
(19)Browne,Lord John; October 2010 “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: An Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance”;Lord Browne of Madingley, London
(20)Department for Business, Innovation and Skills “Students at the Heart of the System” June 2011, London
(21)Morgan, John. May 22 2014. Watchdog called in on private college use of student loans. Times Higher Education, London.http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/watchdog-called-in-on-private-college-use-of-student-loans/2013526.article
(22)Nicholl,Richard; August 04 2014. “Oxbridge tuition fees could rise to £16,000”. Varsity, Cambridge.http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/7394
(23)GUE/NGL European United Left/Nordic Green Left European Parliament Group “Another Europe is Possible” Accessed September 07 2014.http://www.guengl.eu/group/about