Posts Tagged ‘Child Care’

Nye Bevan and Nostalgia for the Era Before the NHS: My Response to a Critic

February 15, 2016

Last week I received a comment from Billellson criticising me for stating that Aneurin Bevan was the architect of the NHS. He also stated that we did not have a private healthcare system before the NHS, and although some charges were made, they were in his words, not so much that people would lose their house.

Here’s what he wrote.

“Nye Bevan, the architect of the NHS, was also acutely aware of the way ordinary women suffered under the private health care system that put medicine out of the reach of the poor.”
Aneurin Bevan was not the architect of the National Health Service. The NHS was a wartime coalition policy, for the end of hostilities, agreed across parties. The concept was set out in the Beveridge Report published in December 1942, endorsed by Winston Churchill in a national broadcast in 1943 and practical proposals, including those the things the public value re the NHS today, set out in a white paper by Minister of Health Conservative Henry Willink in March 1944. It would have been established whoever was Minister of Health after the war / whichever party won the 1945 general election. The UK did not have a ‘private health care system’ before the NHS. Most hospitals in England and Wales were local government owned and run, the remainder voluntary (charitable). Those who could afford to pay for treatment were required to do so, or at least make a contribution, but nobody was expected to sell their house. The poor were treated in hospitals free of charge. c11 million workers were covered for GP consultations by the National Health Insurance Scheme which had been established in 1911. In many places, particularly mining areas, there were mutual aid societies that established health facilities including dispensaries. Scotland had a greater degree of state health provision and Northern Ireland had greater faith based provision before their NHSs were established, starting on the same day as Bevan’s English and Welsh service, but always separate established under separate legislation.

So I checked this with what Pauline Gregg says about the creation of the NHS in her The Welfare State: An Economic and Social History of Great Britain from 1945 to the Present Day (London: George G. Harrap & Co 1967).

She states

In 1942, during the War, the scope of health insurance had been considerably widened by the raising of the income limit for participation to £420 a year. But it still covered only about half the population and included neither specialist nor hospital service, neither dental, optical, nor hearing aid. Mental deficiency was isolated from other forms of illness. Medical practitioners were unevenly spread over the country – they had been before the War, but now their war-time service had too often disrupted their practices and left their surgeries to run down or suffer bomb damage.

Hospitals were at all stages of development. There were more than a thousand voluntary hospitals in England and Wales, varying from large general or specialist hospitals with first-class modern equipment and with medical schools attended by distinguished consultants, down to small local cottage hospitals. There were some 2000 more which had been founded by the local authorities or had developed from the sick ward of the old workhouse, ranging again through all types and degrees of excellence. Waiting-lists were long; most hospitals came out of the War under-equipped with staff and resources of all kinds; all needed painting, repairing, reorganising; some were cleaning up after bomb damage; most needed to reorient themselves before they turned from war casualties to peace-time commitments; all needed new equipment and new buildings. Other medical services were only too clearly the result of haphazard development. There were Medical Officers of Health employed by the local authorities, sanitary inspectors concerned with environmental health, medical inspectors of factories, nearly 2000 doctors on call to industry, as well as doctors privately appointed by firms to treat their staff. A school medical service provided for regular inspection of all children in public elementary and secondary schools; local authorities provided maternity and child care, health visiting, tuberculosis treatment, and other services for the poor, which varied widely from district to district. How many people there were of all ages and classes who were needing treatment but not getting it could only be guessed at.

Since it was clear that ad hoc improvement would no longer serve, a complete reshaping of the health and medical service marked the only line of advance. The general pattern it would take was indicated by Sir William Beveridge, who laid down his Report in 1942 the axiom that a health service must be universal, that the needs of the rich and poor are alike and should be met by the same means: ” restoration of a sick person to health is a duty of the state … prior to any other,” a “comprehensive national health service will ensure that for every citizen there is available whatever medical treatment he requires, in whatever form he requires it, domiciliary or institutional, general, specialist or consultant, and will ensure also the provision of dental, ophthalmic and surgical appliances, nursing and midwifery and rehabilitation after accidents.”

The Coalition Government accepted the Health Service Proposals of the Beveridge Report and prepared a White Paper, which it presented to Parliament in February 1944, saying the same thing as Beveridge in different words: “The government .. intend to establish a comprehensive health service for everybody in this country. They want to ensure that in future every man and woman and child can rely on getting all the advice and treatment and care which they may need in matters of personal health; that what they get shall be the best medical and other facilities available; that their getting these shall not depend on whether they can pay for them, or any other factor irrelevant to the real need – the real need being to bring the country’s full resources to bear upon reducing ill-health and promoting good health in all its citizens.” The Health Service, it said, should be a water, as the highways, available to all and all should pay through rates, taxes and social insurance.

Ernest Brown, a Liberal National, Minister of Health in the Coalition Government, was responsible for a first plan for a National Health Service which subordinated the general practitioner to the Medical Officer of Health and the local authorities, It was abandoned amid a professional storm. The scheme of Henry Willink, a later Minister of Health, was modelled on the White Paper, but was set aside with the defeat of Churchill’s Government in the 1945 Election. In the Labour Government the role of Minister of Health fell to Aneurin Bevan, who produced a scheme within a few months of Labour’s victory.

Pp. 39-51.

Churchill’s own attitude to the nascent NHS and the emergence of the later welfare state was ambivalent. In March 1943, for example, he gave a speech endorsing it. Gregg again says

He was “very much attracted to the idea” of a Four Year Plan of his own which included “national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave”, a national health service, a policy for full employment in which private and public enterprise both had a part to play, the rebuilding of towns and a housing programme, and a new Education Act. He envisaged “five or six large measures of a practical character”, but did not specify them, … (p. 25).

However, two years later after the Beveridge Report had become the official policy of the Labour party, Churchill’s tone was markedly hostile.

Coming to the microphone on June 4, 1945, he said: “My friends, I must tell you that a Socialist policy is abhorrent to British ideas of freedom … Socialism is in its essence an attack not only upon British enterprise, but upon the right of an ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils. A free Parliament – look at that – a free Parliament is odious to the Socialist doctrinaire.” The Daily Express followed the next day with banner headlines: “Gestapo in Britain if Socialists Win”. (pp. 32-3)

So Mr Ellson is partly right, but only partly. There was some state and municipal healthcare provision, but it was a patchy and did not cover about half the population. It was a Coalition policy, which was sort of endorse by Churchill. However, its wholehearted embrace and execution was by the Labour party under Aneurin Bevan.

And its immense benefit and desirability was recognised by many traditionally staunch Tories at the time. One of my mother’s friends was herself a pillar of the local Conservative party, and the daughter of a pharmacist. She told my mother that at the 1945 elections her father gather his family together and told them that he had always voted Tory, but this time he was going to vote Labour, because the country needed the NHS. He explained that he served too many people, giving them their drugs on credit, because they couldn’t pay, not to vote for Labour and the NHS.

Now I think the Tories would like to roll state healthcare provision back to that of the pre-NHS level, where there is some minimal state provision, but much is carried out by private industry. The Daily Heil a few years ago was moaning about how the friendly societies were excluded from a role in the NHS. Like them, I think Mr Ellson has far too rosy a view of the situation before the NHS. I’ve blogged on here already accounts from doctors of that period on how badly much of the population were served before the NHS, especially those without health insurance.

Britain needed the NHS, and the party that was most passionately in favour of it was Labour. That some Tories were in favour of it, including Churchill on occasions, is true. But there were others in the party that were very firmly against, and it was ultimately Rab Butler in the Tories who reconciled them to the NHS. But that reconciliation is breaking down, and they are determined to privatise it anyway they can.

Advertisements

Vox Political: Labour Will Save and Expand Sure Start Children’s Centres

February 9, 2015

Mike over at Vox Political has blogged this story under the title Positive campaign announcement of the day: Labour will save Sure Start centres. Tristram Hunt has hailed the Sure Start Children’s Centres as one of the great achievements of the last Labour government in providing working people with much needed child care. The number of child care centres has fallen dramatically under the present government. Hunt has stated that Labour intends to not only to save them, but also expand them and open them up to other community groups.

Mike writes:

A Labour Government will save Sure Start and double the number of childcare places provided at them to more than 118,000.

Labour will introduce a new statutory obligation on Sure Start to provide access to child care – as well as giving them new powers to open up their doors to charities and local providers so the whole community can use them.

The aim is to make the best use of these public buildings, re-establishing them as family hubs in the community and reaching more families than ever before. Labour says the alternative under a Tory second term – in which they have already signalled that they will cut schools budgets year-on-year – is a recipe for national decline.

The Government has allowed Sure Start centres to close or effectively be mothballed. This is disastrous for local communities at a time when childcare places are falling even though demand is greater than ever. Many providers say lack of space or affordable premises is the reason why they cannot set up or expand in an area.

Hunt states that we will not succeed as a nation unless we give children a proper start, and parents can get to work on time without having to search for proper childcare.

Now Mike makes clear that he’s not a fan of Hunt. He is indeed an upper-middle class oik playing at belonging to the party of the people. Nevertheless, his support for the Sure Start Centres is a positive step, and he should be congratulated on it.

Mike’s article is at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/02/08/positive-campaign-announcement-of-the-day-labour-will-save-sure-start-centres/.

He’s right. And while the Tories continue with their drivel about supporting hard-working people, while making sure that they can hard make ends meet, and denying them welfare support if they fall on hard times, all for the benefit of wealthy donors, Labour actually is dong something for the hard-working public.

Vox Political: Oxfam Criticised by Charity Commission as ‘Political’ – BBC

December 22, 2014

Over on Vox Political, Mike reports an item by the BBC that states that a tweet by Oxfam has been criticised for being possibly misconstrued as political campaigning by the Charities Commission. The offending tweet links the growth in poverty to zero hours contracts, high prices, benefit cuts, unemployment and child care costs. Mike’s article is entitled Oxfam criticised by charities watchdog over poverty tweet – BBC News, and is at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/12/21/oxfam-criticised-by-charities-watchdog-over-poverty-tweet-bbc-news/.

This isn’t the first time the forces of the Right have been gunning for the Charity. Way back in the 1980s, according to Lobster, the Belgian intelligence services had the charity under surveillance because they thought it was a Communist organisation. At the same time over here, the Freedom Association, the extreme Right-wing organisation that campaigns for more freedom for the rich, and slavery for everyone else, also complained to the Charity Commission that Oxfam broke the rules about charity’s political neutrality.

It should be obvious that people are being forced into poverty, and frequently desperate poverty, through all the factors named in Oxfam’s tweet. However, as this fortnight’s Private Eye stated, the Tories still deny that benefit cuts is responsible for the rise in poverty. And so because it mentions the facts the government wants to hide, the Charities Commission has judged it is ‘political’.

This shows the true totalitarian nature of the government, where even charities and independent organisations must repeat the government line through pressure and a process of Gleichschaltung, ‘co-ordination’, like that exerted by the Nazis to make sure that all the private associations, corporations and even charities in Germany reflected and carried out the ideology and policies of the Nazi party.