| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Purchase: Yes, they would. The Minister should ask the people who have worked in the service for years, probably before he started work. They have given the community their best, but he might not understand that. The way in which the Government have acted in the public services has demoralised the staff and demolished the spirit of the people who have provided those services since 1945 and the great reforms of the then Labour Government.
Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central): Unfortunately, I have not been given the up-to-date result, but I imagine that it is full time and if the score has stayed the same it will be one-all. Extra time will be played and, as the nation will be on a knife-edge, we can get on with the health debate. I am sure that if more information comes into the Chamber, we can pass it on to those assembled.
It is interesting to hear the different approaches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Most of my hon. Friends have made sensible, constructive and incisive points about health problems in their areas.
Mr. McLeish:
The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we deal with reality and we do not seek to hide within a self-constructed fantasy.
We have had excellent contributions from my hon. Friends, who have tried to bring the real concerns of the people whom they represent to the Chamber.
In sharp contrast, and despite the efforts of the Secretary of State, three Conservative contributions highlighted the differences in the approaches of the Government and the Opposition. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government are providing a safety net. We argue that the Tories are making that claim throughout the country. The second extraordinary contribution came from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who said that there were sound reasons why the Tories voted against the NHS legislation in 1946. The Conservatives have clearly continued to accept only grudgingly the unique and best public service in this country.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) crystallised the Government's approach to health when he said that trolleys should become an accepted part of NHS culture and language.
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLeish:
No, I will not give way at this stage.
Mr. Arnold:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to misquote an hon. Member and then not allow him to correct that misquote?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is responsible for his own speech.
Mr. McLeish:
In a grown-up political environment, if one makes a comment, one lives with the consequences. The hon. Gentleman suggested that trolleys were more comfortable than people think. Labour Members believe that patients should have beds and not trolleys. We believe that patients should be in wards and not in corridors and that patients should be seen by doctors and not left waiting for hours in accident and emergency wards. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is what he said. It is important that the nation understands what is happening.
Mr. Arnold:
I said in my contribution that a choice must be made. In order to make certain that beds are
Mr. McLeish:
The hon. Gentleman did not deny my comments--that is the important point. He can exaggerate and set up smokescreens but, at the end of the day, the Conservative party has advocated trolleys as an acceptable part of NHS language and culture.
It was interesting to note also the characteristic contribution by the Secretary of State. It was uninspiring, but that is nothing new. It is important to note that, while he decided to go on the attack--with their record, that is the only thing that the Government can do--he failed to tell the House about his contribution at the conference of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. The Times of Saturday 22 June summed it up by saying:
The Secretary of State said that, as a consequence of the crisis in the national health service, the Government's great initiative to reduce waiting lists has been abandoned. The Government's market-driven NHS simply cannot cope with the burgeoning bureaucracy and the fact that there is not enough investment in patient care. Bureaucratic costs in the national health service are spiralling out of control.
It is hypocritical of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and wax lyrical about their actions now that the horse has bolted. The stable door cannot be closed: health costs are spiralling out of control and Ministers do not have a clue what to do about it. Even more worrying is the fact that they simply do not care. Ministers are sitting at the centre of the market-led NHS, unconcerned about the crises throughout the health service. They know about them, but they are unwilling to address them. Today the Secretary of State confirmed our belief that, in his opportunism, he is more concerned about the future of the Conservative party after its defeat at the next election than about real patients in the national health service.
More important, the debate has been about defining points in the NHS for the debate that will take place between now and the general election. Let us be clear what those points are. First, the Government want a residual NHS. They do not want to see a one-nation health service.
Mr. McLeish:
The hon. Gentleman may shout "Rubbish!", but if the Government want to ignore the reality of public opinion, public perception and professional concern between now and the general election, that is fine by me, because, in government, we shall start to address some of the issues that they are ignoring.
Secondly, Conservatives regard the health service as a business--a view that is not shared by the Labour party or the country. The health service is a public service with a
very distinct ethos. That is what makes it work. That is why we have commitment from nurses, doctors and ancillary services throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Conservatives are in danger of squandering that most precious of resources, and that is a defining issue.
The main issue, which is what the debate is about, is the Conservatives' obsession with bureaucracy and the market. The Secretary of State and the Minister can shed crocodile tears about what they are doing, but it simply will not wash. The Conservative party has constructed a market that is destroying the heart of the NHS, but it cannot do anything about it because, despite the disappearance of the previous Prime Minister, it is still gripped with ideology when a bit more pragmatism would do well in the NHS.
In contrast to the Conservatives' market obsession, the Labour party wants to see a collaborative model. We want to see a national health service that co-operates. Look at the shambles of British Rail. We want to avoid that prospect for the NHS. We want to put the NHS back together again. That makes sense for everyone who works in it, and it makes sense for patients.
One defining point that the Conservatives simply cannot run away from is their ability to squander vast sums of taxpayers' money, not in the interest of patients or professionals but in the interest of ideology. There is something fundamentally immoral about other people's moneys being used for a political and ideological adventure. But they are guilty of that, and whatever they say about it, that is a key issue.
The most important defining issue between Labour and the Conservatives is the fact that we believe in the NHS.
Mr. McLeish:
In 50 years, the NHS has provided an excellent quality of life for people in this country. We believe in a world-class service for the next 50 years, not the residual service that the Government are working towards.
"Dorrell gives the go-ahead for longer hospital waiting lists".
If that is not a white-flag surrender job, I do not know what is. The Government have lambasted every political party about their views on the NHS. They claim that they are cutting bureaucracy and that they will invest more in patient care. That is not happening in the real world of the national health service.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |