|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion, I take the opportunity to draw to your Lordships' attention the guidance on the speakers' list that speeches other than those of the mover and those who are to wind up should be limited to eight minutes.
Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to call attention, on the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service, to the need to maintain the public service values of the NHS and to the case for immediate government action to prevent a breakdown of services this winter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to open this debate commemorating as it does the 50th anniversary of the day on which the Act establishing the National Health Service received Royal Assent. As someone who has been fortunate enough to spend most of my life benefiting from the existence of the NHS, I am very grateful for this opportunity to pay a heartfelt tribute to the 1945 Labour Government who created this great service for the whole nation. It is a particular pleasure to recognise the personal contributions of those of my noble friends who sit today in your Lordships' House but who as Members of another place fought a long, hard parliamentary battle to get this Bill on the statute book. Never let us forget that it was not a cross-party initiative. There was no
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was deeply involved in the passage of the legislation as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Aneurin Bevan. I am delighted that my noble friend is speaking in today's debate. I am sure that he will recall vividly the political struggles of 50 years ago.
My generation owes a great debt to my noble friend and to all the members of the post-war parliamentary Labour Party who gave us, our children and our grandchildren the National Health Service. If we in our turn are to pass on a universal public service funded by taxation and based on need and equity, we must renew those founding values and stop the erosion that has been happening in the past few years. Above all, we must elect another Labour Government to prevent the NHS becoming simply a safety net service for those who cannot afford anything else, which sometimes seems to be the situation today.
After 17 years of policies based on the sovereignty of the market and individual self-help, it sometimes seems a little anachronistic to talk about and emphasise public service and the strength of social solidarity. But one of the most encouraging pieces of research I have read recently about this country was published earlier this year by the Public Management Foundation. Called The Glue That Binds, it demonstrates the extraordinary value which the British public in 1996 puts on public services and particularly on public healthcare.
The report shows that 94 per cent. believe that public services are essential today and 97 per cent. believe that they are there for everyone. The NHS is regarded as the most important public service by more than three-quarters of the population. In other words, people still accept the original values. They do not want their healthcare to be commercialised or privatised. They still want services free at the point of need and provided on an equitable basis. Yet, in the past few years, there has been a 35 per cent. rise in private health insurance and one in five of all non-emergency operations now takes place in the private sector. Why is that? It is because people no longer have the confidence that the NHS, as they have known it, will continue. They have been alarmed by the history of the past few years. They have seen that under the Conservative Government's 1990 National Health and Community Care Act--the so-called health service reforms--the internal market has fragmented the national structure of the service and has introduced a type of commercial competition which works against equity of access. Indeed, the very existence of the internal market has almost by definition undermined the public service values of the NHS. That is why we on these Benches are pledged to abolish it.
It is not appropriate today to reopen the detailed debates we have had often in your Lordships' House about the precise functions and organisation of the internal market. However, it is relevant to remember that it was set up to introduce business methods into the
What has happened? What has happened is that 400 small business units--the trusts--have been set up at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. The trusts have been given spurious independence to negotiate annual service contracts for health authorities and local pay deals with their staff. The internal market has cost £1.5 billion and the result has been 20,000 more accountants and administrators in the NHS, 50,000 fewer nurses and the whole package wrapped in miles of red tape.
At the same time, the Government, in the name of devolved management, seem to have abrogated responsibility both for the trusts' financial viability and for any overall strategy. That abrogation of national responsibility is perhaps one of the most recent worrying departures from the public service ethos. After all, the NHS now absorbs about £40 billion of tax revenue and employs one in 27 of this country's working population. Parliament has ultimate democratic responsibility for that vast public enterprise and yet today Members of Parliament find it more and more difficult to get Ministers to acknowledge responsibility or to provide appropriate information. "That information is not held centrally", or, "That is an issue which must be locally resolved", are answers all too frequently given to specific and legitimate questions about local health services.
In July, my honourable friend Mr. Nigel Spearing asked a Question in another place about health authority deficits during the coming winter, a subject to which I shall return. He was told that the information was "not suitable for publication". My Lords, not suitable. Given the figures that have emerged since, it was probably an appropriate response.
More seriously, general concerns about the lack of public accountability of the health service as a whole were reinforced two weeks ago by the third special report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, published on 24th October. Talking about the health service, it said:
Of course, the overall performance of the internal market has never been evaluated properly by the Government. Fortunately, for the purposes of this debate, we have the advantage of a timely independent report by two health policy academics, Anna Coote and Professor David Hunter, also published in October. I quote their judgments on the internal market:
By any standards, that is a fairly devastating critique of the present system: it is precisely that intense concern about standards and quality of care which is fuelling the growing sense of crisis in the NHS today.
The general agreement is that the financial crisis in the service this year is worse than at any time since the winter of 1987-88 and that patient services all over the country are bound to suffer. Of course, it was the 1988 experience which drove an exasperated Prime Minister Thatcher to set in train the review of the NHS which ultimately led to the 1990 Act and the internal market, which in turn was intended to sort it all out.
Instead, in November 1996 we are facing another precipice--a precipice belatedly recognised by the Government this week as the Secretary of State Mr. Dorrell has been trying to secure a better deal from the Budget. Already 36 trust hospitals have gone into the red, despite a statutory responsibility to break even. The British Medical Association has said that the health service may well be reduced to an emergency service only this winter. The chairman of its consultants' committee, to whom I spoke this morning, reports that non-emergency surgery has virtually ceased in many places and that waiting lists are growing fast.
Just this week the ENT consultants at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, reported that they were now offering patients an 86-week wait for their outpatients clinic. They have a backlog stretching to 1988. The Royal College of Nursing for its part is concerned about A&E departments--about accidents and emergencies--and believes that more people going into those departments, as is bound to happen in the next few months, will inevitably increase the number of trolley waits. The college's latest survey of A&E units shows that nearly half have patients waiting overnight for ward admissions, still on trolleys. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts has borrowed a macro-economic expression of gloomy resonance and talks of the NHS "overheating" and facing severe financial problems.
In the past few days, as I said, we have had the interesting spectacle of Mr. Dorrell conducting PESC round negotiations in public, "letting it be known", as they say, that if there is no more money the Government will face a pre-election period of embarrassing service breakdown. The rumour now is that some extra resources were agreed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting, but any agreement for next year can have little impact on this winter's crisis. When the Minister, whose integrity is respected by everyone in all parts of the House, replies to the debate, I hope very much that she will not be over-optimistic about the picture now and that she will not repeat the simple, official mantra of statistics about ever-increasing activity in the NHS and ever-increasing funding which, frankly, is becoming very threadbare.
I believe that all of your Lordships who follow these matters know that there have been additional recent cost pressures in the NHS. They have been caused by such things as improved medical technology, funding the new
However, figures published in October in the report of the Health Select Committee on Health and Social Services Expenditure show how bad the real financial situation has become. The report shows that this year's growth for hospital and community services is a minimal and measly 0.3 per cent. That 0.3 per cent. becomes even less lavish--indeed, it is reversed--when looked at in the context of the so-called "NHS inflation index" which, over the past 10 years, has increased by 1.3 per cent. per annum more than the general GDP deflator. Apply the NHS inflation index to a 0.3 per cent. growth and it becomes a 1 per cent. cut, equal in real terms to a loss to the service of £236 million. Equally, if we accept--and the Department of Health accepts it--that the increased demands of an ageing population add, on average, 1 per cent. to NHS costs every year, then, again, this year's so-called "growth" becomes a real cut of 0.7 per cent., a loss in this instance of £165 million.
In that general context it is hardly surprising that halfway through the financial year local trusts and health authorities are already running out of money. The only surprising thing is how long it seems to have taken the Government to realise the implications for patient care.
My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Spearing, has just succeeded in prising out of the Government the figures for projected health authority deficits this year--the information that was earlier deemed "unsuitable" for publication. The projections, based on the first quarter's figures, show that 63 out of 99 health authorities are expected to be in deficit and that several will be substantially in the red. Birmingham shows an £8 million deficit, Merton and Sutton, £11 million, and East London and the City, £16 million. Perhaps, on the basis of those figures, which have now been published, the Minister may reconsider her answer to my noble friend Lady Hayman on 16th October (col. 1681 of Hansard) when she said that she understood that only one health authority was in trouble.
Many of the health authorities and trusts in the worst position are in inner cities where population health needs are often greatest. The London region is particularly badly hit. Many noble Lords will have read recent letters to The Times from London medical and nursing directors expressing trepidation about the next few months. These senior doctors and nurses finished one letter by saying:
Over 50 years our health service system has often come through political controversy and financial crisis because of the public service--the extraordinary commitment of the people who work in it. Today, sadly, that ethos is threatened. It is threatened by the bureaucratic methods and the often unsympathetic management of the internal market. Many of those who have been trained in the caring professions feel that they have a vocation to work in the NHS and have been very uneasy about the creeping commercialism of the past few years.
So today the historically excellent standards of the NHS are threatened by staff shortages. Professional enthusiasm is waning. All over the country hospitals have problems recruiting consultants in every specialty. There are vacancies for anaesthetists. There are widespread vacancies for specialists in paediatrics, psychiatry and orthopaedics, as well as for GPs. Sixty chairs of clinical medicine are vacant, with the obvious long-term implications for the next generation of medical students. In nursing, there will be only 9,000 newly qualified nurses starting work next year compared with 37,000 in 1983. Among those practising now, one in five expects to have left the NHS in two years' time.
Those are bleak figures. They represent a loss of confidence in the future. The people who work in the health service seem to feel as insecure as the patients taking out private insurance about where the health service is going and where the service they have grown up with will end up. Will it be privatised? Will treatment be limited by age or by illness? How far will the private finance initiative develop?
No one on these Benches wants to preserve the NHS in aspic. Healthcare and people's expectations of it have been revolutionised since the 1940s. Systems must change and the health service is no use to anyone if it simply becomes a treasured, national monument. But, despite 17 years of Conservative Government, the old values of social solidarity and collective responsibility on which the post-war Labour Party founded the NHS do still exist. We must hope that the health service will survive this winter's freeze and that, next spring, a new Labour Government will restore it to its public service vigour. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Fifty years is a real landmark and a time for celebration, particularly for a service which has served us well and which received the Royal Assent in 1946. It is a time to reflect on the past and to look to the future. I am sure that we can all celebrate the achievements of our NHS. I say "our" deliberately as I feel it is a service which everyone in this Chamber reveres and applauds. Our personal experience of the care that members of our families, close friends and indeed all patients receive in time of need is so much appreciated. In a service employing nearly 1 million people the love and professional care dispensed to sick people at a time of crisis is respected and envied throughout the world.
We all adhere to the basic belief in an NHS free at the point of use and available to all on the basis of medical need and not ability to pay. Much has changed since the birth of the NHS in 1946. It was thought at that time that if all those who needed treatment received it our medical problems would be more or less solved. But the rapid development of scientific knowledge and the medical procedures flowing from such research were not even dreamed about. Who would have thought that such human repairs as hip replacements and even heart and lung transplants would take place? Today one hears quite frequently of elderly people who have had a cataract operation, two new hips, and now knee replacements. These operations bring great relief and pleasure to patients and enhance their quality of life in their latter years. I marvel at it and can only be grateful to those who make it happen. It is a far cry from the early days when pain, immobility and loss of sight were often part of a pensioner's life.
The big problem is, however, that all these sophisticated and complicated operations are extremely costly. Our expectations have changed completely and we look to government to provide the very best of care for our people. It is for that reason that since 1979 this Government have increased the real resources to the NHS every year. The increase over and above inflation now means that spending on the NHS stands currently at £724 for every man, woman and child in the UK compared with £444 in real terms in 1979. That is an impressive figure by any standards. However, the figures also indicate--and I wish to stress--that this is not a free service; it is free only at the point of delivery. The expertise and dedication of the medical professionals has been recognised. Nurses' average earnings have gone up by nearly 70 per cent. in real terms and doctors' pay has risen by a third in real terms. We should not forget that under Labour both were cut in real terms. One of my saddest memories of the NHS, during the "winter of discontent" in 1978, was the sight of hospital porters standing by their braziers ordering who could or could not be admitted to hospital. There was not much evidence of love and care there as sick people were turned away.
Of course, general standards of health are improving all the time. A child born today can expect to live two years longer than a child born in 1979. Further, the proportion of babies dying in the first year of life has fallen by almost a half. The developments that have taken place and our expectations mean that it is imperative to have a well managed service providing value for money. We believe patient care must come first. That was not always the case. It certainly seemed to me at one time that it was a service geared to those who worked in it rather than to those who used it.
It was a considerable task to undertake the reforms of 1990. It is always difficult to bring about change in an entity employing so many people, but that is even more daunting when it is a change of culture one is seeking: the prime importance of the patient, strong and effective management and value for money. The task continues and the results are bearing fruit with even more patients being treated than ever before. Now I wish to look forward to the next 50 years. There will no doubt be many unforeseen challenges but perhaps the most formidable will be that of the ageing population and the finance required to meet the demand. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say at this year's Conservative Party conference,
I am astonished to hear no such pledge of new money from the Labour Party. Its commitment to the minimum wage and social chapter can only succeed in offering less money for patient care. It seems strange that it advocates such a strong pledge to a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly with their inherent costs but nothing to the NHS. We on these Benches have tremendous pride in the NHS. It delivers a quality of care not bettered anywhere in the world. In fact those who have direct experience are full of praise for the NHS. But it is the whining of those who run it down who put fear in the hearts of the vulnerable and sick. We are proud of our achievements, making the NHS accountable to patients and taxpayers, taking decision making to local levels, allowing clinicians to become more involved in how the NHS is run, and of course treating more patients. As my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, the NHS is safe in our hands. I celebrate the past 50 years with great pleasure and I look forward to the Conservative Government piloting the NHS into the 21st century.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I am grateful for the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, has pinpointed public service values. We know that managing scarce resources is a painful business because of the difficulty of deciding priorities. I draw your Lordships' attention to an area where the allocation of resources has increased, although the value of this particular area is long term and the results cannot be quantified in terms of quick patient cure.
I refer to the way in which in the past five years trusts and authorities have noticeably increased the number of fully funded, full-time hospital chaplaincy posts. I must declare an interest as the chairman of the General Synod of the Church of England Hospital Chaplaincies Council. This increase in posts, which brings the number of Anglican full-time hospital chaplaincy posts to over 300, is an example of treating value in its deepest sense. Here we have an example of treating the patient as a whole person. Here we have an example of appreciating the role of hospital chaplains and of treating them on exactly the same footing as other members of staff. They are members of the whole hospital team. They are under the disciplines of accountability and standards of performance. They play a considerable role in maintaining the morale of staff. Much of their ministry is to the staff, as well as to the patients.
Over the past 50 years great advances in medical technology have had the result of speeding up treatment and reducing the length of patients' stays in hospital. That is welcome but it brings the need for vigilance: to respect the patient's need for quality of human care for the whole person.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the areas of psychiatry and psychotherapy. They do not involve expensive technology. They are treatments for the whole human person. Progress is often slow, but it can prevent stresses which cause physical damage, which in the long run costs the National Health Service far more. Paradoxically it is my impression--in some cases it is my information--that psychotherapy and psychiatry tend not to fare so well in fund allocation compared with the more popular, prestigious but more expensive surgical operations. I wonder why that should be so. Those are factors to be taken into account in any discussion of public service values.
In conclusion, perhaps I may reflect on the word "public". Over the past 50 years our society has become more complex. One of the reasons is greater ethnic diversity. That was reflected in a Department of Health circular a few years ago in which the key phrase in relation to chaplaincy was spiritual care. Trusts and authorities are buying into forms of spiritual care as they judge appropriate. That is now becoming apparent, especially in areas of high ethnic concentration. The hospital chaplaincy organisations recognise that fact. They are organising a national consultation next year to explore values in multicultural societies as they relate to the National Health Service. That will be an appropriate preparation for the celebrations for the 50th anniversary in 1998 of the start of the National Health Service. They are celebrations which, despite the difficult issues of resources and priorities, will have plenty of good things about which to generate pride and gratitude.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to contribute to the debate on the National Health Service, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Jay, with particular reference to the care of the elderly and especially the disabled elderly. Everyone must have
A lot of the assumptions about the cost of caring for the elderly are now turning out not to be correct. Assumptions about a "ticking time bomb" have recently been exploded by the Government's own figures. It is true that there has been a steady rise in such costs, but more recently there has been a decline. Even so, the cost of providing personal social services was only 1.3 per cent. of such expenditure; and now it has dropped to 0.4 per cent.
The majority of old people make no special calls on government support beyond their state pension. But for the minority who need to make such a call the prospects seem dire. It is the worry that they may need long-term care in the future that is a major concern for many elderly people. The state has effectively opted out of the obligation to provide such care. There have been stories about "bed blocking"--a rather nasty way of describing a situation in which elderly people who can no longer be effectively treated in hospital have to stay there because there is nowhere else for them to go. They are not fit enough to look after themselves and perhaps have no relatives who can take on this job. There are no residential homes able or willing to take them at affordable rates.
The local authorities are supposed to provide care in the community. Just how inadequate that often is I know from my own experience when several years ago my late husband became ill and disabled. When I suggested to the very nice woman who came to see me from the local authority social services department that there was an obligation to provide care in the community, she said that while that was certainly true there was a rider: it was "within available resources". In the borough resources were very stretched and it would be obliged if I would arrange to do as much as I could myself. This I was fortunately able to do. I was working and had an income. I could therefore afford to provide the many additional things required by a chronically sick and disabled person. But all those items were costly--impossible for many elderly people living on basic state benefits; and therefore they do not receive some of those necessities.
Had residential care become a necessity, which I always feared might be the case, around £20,000 a year out of taxed income would have had to have been found for anywhere reasonable in the London area--again an impossibility for most people.
The Government's response to that is to suggest that people should take out private insurance when they are young in order to cover the possibility of care being needed at a later age. But only the better off are able to afford that. People are already being told to take out private pensions if they are not in an occupational scheme--and, incidentally, a much higher level of pension than the average would be needed to meet the
But there is no reason why long-term care of the elderly should not be provided by the state. Only about one in five of the elderly population needs such care. The problem has been exaggerated by those who tend to be alarmist about the cost of the welfare state. It is a matter of political will. Neither should it be necessary for elderly people to have to sell their homes in order to pay for such care.
The Government's policies, which have been directed to moving people out of hospitals and institutions as quickly as possible, have meant a growth in the provision of private residential homes. Many, as I have said, are very expensive, and not all of them are as good as they should be. Some no doubt provide excellent service, but not all of them; and I question whether the inspection service is all that it should be. It must be remembered that elderly people are often very vulnerable and, therefore, not always willing to complain if things are not as they should be. In the meantime, that is just one of the problems that arises from underfunding.
The BMA claims that there is simply not enough money. Routine surgery and routine treatments are being cancelled, as my noble friend Lady Jay said, as a result of the cash crisis. In such a situation it is hardly surprising that elderly people rate low among priorities. Many of them know this and are often frightened, particularly those who are alone--and that is a quite common situation. The days of the extended family are over. Families now tend to be dispersed and may live some distance away from a widowed father or mother. We are failing our elderly, in particular our poor elderly, unless we take steps to deal with the situation.
Many older people face the winter with trepidation. The BMA has warned about the crisis that the NHS may face this winter because of underfunding. Our doctors and nurses do a fine job but frequently have to work under intolerable pressures. The so-called reforms to introduce a "market type philosophy" have not, in my view, contributed to improving services; on the contrary. My noble friend Lady Jay explained in some detail exactly what has happened as a result of the so-called reforms. Let us hope that the Government will pay heed to those who work in the service and who speak with authority from their own experience.
The NHS is a priceless asset. People are justifiably proud of it. But for many, particularly the elderly, the service does not seem to be there when it is needed. I urge that something should be done to bring these concerns to the attention of the Government.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and congratulate her on initiating the debate. It is a special day, being the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service. It is truly a day for celebration and one on which we should be proud.
I declare an involvement, albeit very tenuous. I feel I should mention it even though I derived no financial benefit from it. I trained and became a Red Cross nurse through the Women's National Hospital Reserve. I served for many years, which naturally involved working with the National Health Service. I therefore have a little experience, though I am sure far less than many noble Lords in this House who have a very great specialised knowledge in this field. I have only positive memories of the hospitals where I nursed, of all the staff and the doctors, even though it was many years ago.
Just this week a friend of mine came back from a visit to a hospital in Teesside. She was amazed at what she saw and experienced. Her first words to me were: "How I wish I could take Harriet Harman and Tony Blair by the hand and show them round that hospital so that they could see for themselves how impressive it was. They cannot have visited any hospitals recently when they criticise the National Health Service; or perhaps they are deliberately evading the truth, embarrassed by the encouraging results which are clear for all to see and experience". She said that the reception area was welcoming and attractive, with a friendly atmosphere, the equipment all looked new and the nurses were all cheerful and efficient. The report from the hospital showed that no one waited for more than two months for treatment and there was only a two-week gap between seeing the doctor and seeing a consultant. That is a very different picture from the one painted by the party opposite.
Spending on the National Health Service has increased by 73 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is my only statistic. I draw attention to it because it is remarkable. I shall not mention any other statistics, as I find that people become bored with them and they no longer carry the weight that they deserve. On the whole, people are uninterested in hearing good news. The statistics on record are indeed good news, and they are incredibly impressive. However, reeled out, they mean nothing to people and even less to a concerned patient.
I am afraid I beg to differ with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. The idea of the National Health Service was developed during the war and enjoyed consensus across the political spectrum. The Conservatives voted against the Second Reading of the National Health Service Act in 1946 because they disagreed with the way in which Labour was creating the National Health Service, and in particular with the nationalisation of the assets of the voluntary hospitals, not with the concept of the National Health Service itself.
If we compare the National Health Service of 50 years ago with the service today, we see a totally different world. We now live in a world where a heart by-pass or a hip replacement is as common as having your tonsils or your appendix out. Many premature
We the Conservatives have a remarkable record in relation to the National Health Service as compared with that of the past Socialist Government. But of course the taxpayer, you and I, and one might even say the Government, have not put enough money into the National Health Service. Why? The simple answer is that no matter how much money is put into the National Health Service, there will never, ever be enough. I was told never to use the word "never" in politics. In this context, however, I am totally confident in what I say: there will never be enough money. And why? Because we have made, and are making, such brilliant advances in medicine that the costs and possibilities are infinite. Prioritisation is surely one of the most difficult decisions that doctors today have to make. New treatments are very expensive and we all live so much longer.
When I first started visiting old people's homes, I remember very distinctly being taken to a hallowed room where one 100 year-old lady lay in bed. I had never seen anyone so old. (I was a great deal younger in those days.) It created a deep impression on me.
A few years ago, I was visiting once again some old people's homes in my constituency and was amazed to find that in every one there were at least six people who were 100 years of age or more. I do not think that that was unique to Essex. Very many British people are living longer and with a better quality of life. However, another funding problem confronts us as the retired population outgrows the declining working population.
There is one other area in which I should like to declare an interest; namely, as a director of the Foundation of Integrated Medicine, which combines orthodox and alternative medicine. I should like to see more preventive medicine of any kind included in the National Health Service. I believe it is right and it can also save a great deal of money.
"He that has health, has hope; and he that has hope, has everything", is an old Arabian saying. Fifty years on, the British National Health Service is still the best in the world, and is still the envy of the world. It will always need to be reviewed and reformed. This is an area where the Conservative Government are truly talented and imaginative. We are exceptionally lucky to have today as Secretary of State someone so dedicated, determined and decisive as Stephen Dorrell.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for instigating this afternoon's debate. I congratulate her on her sterling presentation of the difficulties that may face us in the short term and perhaps even the longer term, related to the huge demand for healthcare and the remarkable things that my colleagues in the medical and nursing professions can do to help people.
I have spent all but one year of my professional working life under the NHS. I was a terrific enthusiast for it when it came in. Indeed, when on occasions I went to America, I was branded there "a very rabid, socialist kind of fellow". In the United States they were not at all sure that the health service was proceeding along the right lines.
I hope that we are not to have too much party political scrapping over the health service. Wonderful things were done right back at the beginning of my time by Nye Bevan. I remember being introduced to the finer points of policy by Kenneth Robinson, a very remarkable Minister of Health. Later I was much impressed by the philosophy that I learnt from Keith Joseph when he was Secretary of State. I do not want to be drawn into putting my weight here or there. I do, however, wish to make three points which very much follow the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the need for prevention.
We shall continue to face serious problems of demand exceeding available resources in the health service. It must be sensible to pursue as best we can policies which diminish unnecessary self-inflicted illness. Many noble Lords have heard me on other occasions speaking up for health promotion. I remain unashamedly a supporter of that approach. I am interested in the approach mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, who serves on the Health Education Authority, is to speak because she does great work on those lines.
I should like to think that we could have an emergency campaign to reduce colds, upper respiratory infections, pneumonia and admissions to hospital this winter because of the severe restrictions on the number of beds in many places. I read the BMA review of hospital needs. Although I know of wonderful hospitals where morale is high, there are also hospitals where there is concern about shortages. I do not know whether I could help the Health Education Authority to mount attempts to improve the statistics for respiratory infections this winter. As an aside, I was impressed by a demonstration that I saw which showed that people finger their noses and then shake hands. If any noble Lords have to give prizes at schools, I beg them to put a barrier on their hands. If they do not, the chances are high that they will have a cold two or three days later. I agree with Jewish people that it is important that we wash our hands before we eat. Many germs are picked up on our hands from our noses and on other people's hands from their noses. There will be a lot of colds this winter and I am sure that we could do much to restrict them.
I am a strong believer in health promotion and anything we can do in that field. I am also a strong believer in research into health promotion because the results of such research freshen the arguments that we can take to people to change their health attitudes. My young colleagues in that field have recently shown that it is an advantage to eat salads during the winter. Statistics show that people who do so have fewer problems with heart disease. Another group with whom I work in the flat lands of East Anglia is fascinated that it seems to be true that red wine contains elements which may protect our hearts against coronary disease.
Another point on which I wish to touch, because it worries me and many of us who are involved with young doctors, concerns teaching. That is the problem of inflationary compensation for people employed in university departments who work in hospitals. This year they will receive increases of 1.5 per cent. because that is all the universities can offer them. Their colleagues working beside them on the wards and at the bedside will receive 3.8 per cent. I hope that the Minister might just be able to cheer some of the young men where I come from by saying that steps are being taken and that it is hoped that the perennial problem of pay for those we call the young "academic" doctors has been resolved. When I say "academic" people, I do not mean those working in laboratories but those who are carrying out a straightforward clinical job in a teaching setting.
From my notes I know that there are many points which I should have made but have forgotten. However, I end by saying that I was impressed by the tired-looking Stephen Dorrell, who appeared on television before he went into the Cabinet meeting to find out whether he could squeeze resources out of the Government. I should like to believe that he succeeded. I should also be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister could indicate whether it will be possible to put some of that money into the health service before the year is out, or before the winter is out because I suppose winter will continue to the end of the financial year. It may be impossible and, if so, my cry for health promotion and prevention of disease is all the louder. I am grateful to noble Lords for listening to me with such attention.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is agreeable to take part in a debate which has been so thoroughly introduced by my noble friend Lady Jay. I am conscious that I have but eight minutes to establish one or two of the principles which I wish to be considered, so I shall endeavour to be brief.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I wondered whether we were in the same world. She invited us to consider a picture where the Conservative Party almost invented the National Health Service. Apparently the whole legislation was agreed across the country and there was rarely a ripple of disagreement. As one who was present at the time, some half a century ago, together with my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Wallace of Coslany and also the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I assure the noble Baroness that it was not like that at all. In fact, through its representatives in the Commons at that time, the Conservative Party fought the introduction of the National Health Service thoroughly and comprehensively. They fought it at Second Reading, they fought it in Committee, they fought it clause by clause, line by line. They voted against it on Third Reading as well. Moreover, they continued their opposition past the date of Royal Assent, which took place in the Queen's Robing Room in which
Several things happened. Two of the most important were that, within three weeks of the introduction of the Act, over 90 per cent. of the doctors who had hitherto fought it signed up. Within a further three weeks, over 90 per cent. of the population signed up to the National Health Service. Thereafter, we had no trouble from the Conservatives. They behaved like cooing doves; nothing would be allowed to interfere with the legislation.
Of course, we all know that there are many individuals in the Conservative Party, some of whom are still known to me, who are fundamentally very nice people who support reasonableness when it is presented to them. I hope that I am able to number among them the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
After that we had a period of what was called "Butskellism". The National Health Service remained undisturbed, with hardly a ripple of disagreement between both parties, with the aid of the Liberal Party, until 1979. In that year a fundamental ideological change took place.
It was correctly apprehended by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who was the Prime Minister at that time, that the National Health Service was a living example of socialism in practice and that it was based on the ultimate principle "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". That is a basic tenet of socialist philosophy to which I still adhere and I am very glad that a large number of people in the country do also. But it aroused the enmity of Mrs. Thatcher, as she was at that time. Her avowed purpose was to eliminate socialism from the English language and she did it in characteristic fashion. She had not been in office for two months before she doubled the prescription charge from 20p, at which it had been for eight years, to 45p. There have been 18 changes since then--an increase of some 3,000 per cent.--to bring it to what it is today, £5.40 per prescription.
We do not need any lessons from the party opposite about the health service itself or that party's basic philosophy. It wants to turn the health service into a business. For the party opposite there is little meaning in a vocation--a job which people do because they have a sense of mission, people such as doctors, specialists and nurses. That has no commercial value at all unless it can be made to serve profit of some kind for some of their nominees or generally for the richer part of the population which it is its business to represent rather than the nation as a whole.
So now we have a health service which is two-tier. There is no question about that. If I had more time, I could give examples and quote from various sections of the medical profession and even from the health authorities themselves. Indeed, the noble Baroness is not the only one who goes to hospitals. I do and I can tell her--probably she could confirm it if she were to be frank about it--that one of the first questions that one
There is still time for the redemption of the Tory Party prior to the election. It can admit that a health service comprised--as it is--of people who have a sense of vocation rather than those searching for the accumulation of wealth is the only way in which the National Health Service can run. Let the Government admit it now and redeem themselves and I promise that I shall not harry them any more. I shall look upon them with the utmost benevolence, which becomes the attitude of one British citizen to another.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has already mentioned, as a non-executive director of the Health Education Authority. But I also speak as the mother of a nurse. I am only too aware of the monstrous problems that still face the National Health Service. Every single one of us sitting in this Chamber today cares deeply that the public service values of the National Health Service should be maintained. There are inefficiencies, cases of mismanagement and, of course, dire shortage of money. But at least over the past 17 years this Government have faced the problem and started to tackle the difficulties.
There could never--I use the word "never" advisedly--under any government be enough money to pay for the latest, sophisticated and expensive operation or treatment to be available for every single person in the population. In the words of my daughter, who is a senior sister in a very busy accident and emergency department in a large and justly famous hospital in London, "We, the people, the public, need to be less demanding and accept that we cannot, as of right, have everything. We all expect too much". It is intra-uterine surgery versus an acceptable standard of care for the elderly. For instance, this winter the A&E departments in hospitals will be particularly crowded with the elderly. Many of them--no, I mean many of us--will fall on icy roads and pavements, will slip in the wet or get blown over in the wind, fracturing hips and wrists.
Present conditions in some of our hospitals are unacceptable. They must, and I hope they will, be improved by the recently announced injection of money. My daughter told me how upset she was when she arrived just the other morning in her crowded accident and emergency department to find, I am afraid, that there were 10 people who had been there since the night before, one or two on trolleys. What would have happened if there had been an emergency? There was no space to put any ambulance load of casualties. But, to be fair, that does not happen too often.
Our doctors and nurses remain as the most valuable resource of our National Health Service. I do not know how to say that without sounding trite, but I know what I learned from my daughter and her friends and colleagues. For instance, my daughter has worked as a nurse for 20 years. Her work gives her satisfaction. She is glad that the role of a nurse has, over the years, been extended to include suturing, plastering and blood investigation procedures. But comparatively low pay awards for nurses send them a message that drastically lowers their self-esteem and destroys their morale.
Nurses are managers in a difficult and taxing environment, with huge responsibilities and enormous demands made on them. So to ensure that the hospital services maintain the services that we need throughout the coming winter and into the future, I urge those who manage the National Health Service to set a higher value on the nurses, to listen to their advice and, above all, to pay them appropriately for the professional work that they do.
I turn to the Health Education Authority. It is a special health authority within the National Health Service. As England's national health promotion agency, its task is to help people acquire and maintain good health. It is a key player in implementing the Government's Health of the Nation strategy and its work is recognised nationally and internationally. Echoing the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, I remind noble Lords that treating people when they are sick is not the only job of the National Health Service. Medical services are rightly the top priority, but preventing disease and promoting health are also a vital part of its mission. That is why the Health of the Nation White Paper published in 1992 has been so important. First, it has focused our attention on health and not just on health services; secondly, it has challenged the National Health Service to find innovative ways of improving the general health of the population by adding years to life and life to years; and, incidentally, helping the elderly to live more active lives, less prone to accidents, less likely to have to become casualties in the A&E departments. Health promotion is central to the health of the nation and is an essential public service. Individuals have a responsibility for their own health but they need information, education and encouragement if they are to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
There is good news. The latest progress report on the health of the nation entitled Fit for the Future, published in July 1995, tells us that there really has been progress for most of the targets for which monitoring information is available. It goes on to tell us that there are one or two areas in which we are not making progress. The prevalence of smoking among school children has increased since the baseline of 1988 and obesity has been increasing among men and women since the mid-1980s. Without health promotion we would not see the dramatic successes of our national immunisation programmes. For example, cases of whooping cough have dropped by 95 per cent. in the past 10 years. Because of the HEA's promotion of the Hib vaccine, which prevents a particularly dangerous form of meningitis in children, 92 per cent. of young children in the relevant age group have been immunised. According to estimates, this means
Of course, a great deal remains to be done. The recent report from the Department of Health, Variations in Health, highlighted the differences in rates of sickness and death among socio-economic groups, regions of the country, ethnic groups and between men and women. Given that one of the primary service values of the NHS is equity, improving the health of the least healthy groups to the levels attained by the most healthy groups is a priority for the Health Education Authority. We need to reach young people. I very much welcome the creation of the Young People's Health Network, which the HEA is managing on behalf of the Department of Health.
So as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS, I ask for the true value of nurses to be properly recognised and I suggest that health promotion and education have an important part to play in improving the health of the whole population, from the young to the old and from the rich to the poor, thus relieving some of the burden from the NHS.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jay for the able way in which she introduced this important debate. In the debate to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service, I want to record that it mirrors my life. I was born at the start of the National Health Service and have lived all my life with it. Like me, it has had its ups and downs. But I want to be hopeful for the future of both the National Health Service and myself.
I am the son of a doctor. I have served as a member of a community health council and as a member of a family practitioner committee. I aim to say a few words about the background, examine some current problems and also look to the future.
My father, Dr. Larry Collier, was a GP, a family doctor. For most of his working life he practised in rural Essex. He then moved to London and practised in Hackney. When he retired, he went to work as a medical officer in Falmouth, Jamaica. It was a fine record of public service in the essential elements of the National Health Service.
In Essex during the 1950s and 1960s he treated people in their homes, in his surgery and at the local cottage hospital in Halstead where he lived, although I think the matron carried out a good deal of the treatment herself. He also referred patients to the local district general hospital in Colchester, where he worked with the consultants; he also had the ability, if necessary, to refer patients to one of the big teaching hospitals in London.
One incident which I remember clearly, because it said so much about the National Health Service and my father, occurred when we drew up outside a large country house. My father used to spend a lot of time driving around the countryside doing housecalls and he sometimes took me with him. On this occasion he announced that he was going to visit a lady who was his
The situation is very different today. We have far fewer cottage hospitals and the district general hospital is in some cases virtually no different from the teaching hospital. We have more GPs in group practices in health centres and fewer single handed GPs practising from their front rooms.
Some changes in the National Health Service have been for the better; some detract from the service. Apart from the problem of charges, which in some ways has beset the National Health Service almost from its inception, probably the biggest single change for the worse has been the introduction of the internal market.
Two significant things happened when the National Health Service was set up. Because treatment was on the basis of need, family doctors were free to refer patients anywhere. They had clinical freedom. An army of bureaucrats was demobilised and the cost of service was reduced. As a result, we have been able to have a better health service than other similar countries at less cost. Now, doctors can only refer patients to the so-called "cheap hospitals" and we have been recruiting a new army of bureaucrats--the lawyers to write the contracts, the accountants to count the money, marketing men to sell the products and managers to manage the whole process. The result is a breakdown of the system.
If we measure it in terms of treatment, we can see people being discharged too early; we can see people being treated miles away from their homes, which detracts from their treatment; and this autumn, even before winter has fully set in, we can see accident and emergency services on the brink of closure and the knock-on effects of that on other parts of the service. There will almost certainly have to be an injection of cash to keep the system going this winter. The sooner the Government realise that the better.
Looking to the future, there is a better way of running the National Health Service. To start with, we need to go back to the original philosophy. Let us re-establish clinical freedom for doctors and demobilise that army of bureaucrats. Let us think of new ways of doing things. I have several suggestions. Echoing the call of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, let us look at a number of ways of disease prevention. For example, let us ban tobacco advertising. You know it makes sense. Too many of our susceptible young people are taking up smoking too early. It creates too much illness for our society to bear. Let us say to the tobacco companies, "It is not going to do you any good to keep paying the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, £600,000 a year. She will not be allowed to influence things".
We could provide good housing for all our citizens with adequate heating provision. We could promote home confinement with proper recognition of the role of midwives. We could ban the promotion of infant formula feeding.
The Labour Party has talked for years about the need for arms conversion and for arms manufacture to be converted to socially useful production. Let us convert the army of bureaucrats in the National Health Service to become socially useful workers.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, find this a welcome opportunity given by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to reiterate from this side of the House unswerving support for the principle of the National Health Service, as agreed by the coalition Government in 1944. That principle is that Britain's health service is free at the point of use and available on the basis of medical need and not the ability to pay.
I and my family benefited enormously from the health service throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. On naval pay such treatment would have been impossible without the health service because in those days the governments of both parties paid naval officers extraordinarily badly. But that is another story.
The great problem for all governments during the past 50 years has been how best to organise, manage and pay for an enormous service providing healthcare for approaching 60 million people with an ever-increasing variety of ailments--ever-increasing because new ailments seem to be discovered almost as fast as earlier ones are conquered. The problem--and I have to say this--has been complicated by the deeply held belief of the Labour Party for most of the past 80 years that the health service can only be effective if nationally owned and administered by well-meaning Ministers and their officials and employees. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this Labour Party still believes that.
It is to be hoped that the lesson learnt in recent years in all parts of the world, not least in the Soviet Union and even in China, that Adam Smith is a better philosopher to follow than, say, Rousseau, will guide governments in the next 50 years of the life of the National Health Service. It is very important that that message should get through not just to us in this Chamber but to the world at large. A great many people are learning it. In particular, all the efforts of Conservative governments in recent years to decentralise the health service management and minimise the responsibilities of central and local government must be maintained and, where practicable, increased.
Another important complication in the development of the National Health Service has been the splendid skill of doctors and scientists associated with it in developing new methods of curing and curtailing illnesses of all sorts. That is a complication, as other noble Lords have said, because of the ever-increasing costs of giving effect to those cures especially as regards
There has to be a limit to the costs of any central government undertaking, however well-meaning. On the whole, governments by their nature are not good at effecting such limitations--that applies just as much to Conservative governments as it does to Labour governments--because in the last resort governments cannot go bust. The iron discipline of balancing the books, so well-known to private industry, seems to be considered merely a useful intellectual exercise by all government departments, central and local, including the Treasury. This increasing expense complication calls for a continuation of Conservative government decentralisation and, whenever practicable, privatisation during the next 50 years. It is essential to keep this splendid service going. What was achieved in the early days occurred at a time when the problems were nothing like so great because knowledge was not so great and doctors, including the splendid GPs and hospital doctors who looked after me and my family between 1946 and 1976, were--let us admit it--more dedicated. They were people who really knew what they had to do. I am lucky because to this day I have always had the good fortune to have a first-class GP in many parts of the country. Those who say that the situation is so dreadful that the service will go wrong and that there will be a crisis this winter cannot be in touch with real life--certainly not in the Isle of Wight. Perhaps people who have the misfortune to live in big cities have their problems, but they always did. I recall going to see a doctor in Manchester who was having an appalling time with young druggies hovering on his doorstep and trying to stop patients from going through his door. However, that is another story. The point is that the health service is working very well and has to be kept that way. The less that government have to do with it the more likely it is that that will be achieved.
In conclusion, I was planning to press the Government, as I have done consistently since 1983, to stop shutting down beds in mental hospitals until there are suitable asylum care facilities for mental patients. The new 24-hour nursing homes may suit some sufferers though by no means all. However, as I was preparing this speech, I read on page 2 of today's Daily Telegraph that my right honourable friend Mr. Dorrell has anticipated me. I now await with interest his Green Paper, which, it is said, will appear after Christmas. I welcome his late conversion because, if he has been properly reported in the Daily Telegraph, he admits that the care in the community scheme has not worked. We all told him that it would not. In the meantime I trust that no more beds for the mentally ill will be shut down until the Green Paper has been fully considered and proper alternative accommodation provided. I wish the National Health Service a very happy next 50 years. I hope that the party opposite has the minimum amount of time to deal with it.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, would like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us such a fitting way of celebrating the enactment of the National Health Service 50 years' ago. I started nursing 18 months before the appointed day when the service came into being. I can remember now standing by a fountain at Bart's with a group of medical and nursing staff wondering what kind of calamity would befall us since we had had our autonomy taken away.
For 50 years that apprehension did not seem to be fulfilled. But in the light of what has happened in the past two years, I wonder whether the apprehension was not prophetic. However, I do not want to open that wound again. I wish to give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for so rightly drawing attention to the need to maintain the public service values that underpin the National Health Service. Some of us add to those public service values values from our own professions, such as the scientific values to which we operate when carrying out research that tries to add to our ability to work with evidence-based practice. More recently, we have come to recognise that we have to operate to economic values. I refer not only to value for money but to the value of making ethical choices in resource allocation and to the difficult choices associated with an ageing population and with the increasing costs of high technology medicine and research.
Although many of those values are enduring, values change from time to time. Representatives of the medical profession met in 1994 to consider what should be regarded as the core values of the profession in the next century. As I see it, the values operating in the health service have undergone considerable change since its inception 50 years ago. Some value changes have been due to changes in societal and professional values. We have heard that we are now all much more demanding. However, as Dr. Sandy Macara suggested, many of the changes are a response to government strategies and to the economic values which now drive the service. I think that it is for society to subject those changes in value to critical examination from time to time and to look at the values that we should like to see in the future.
I am one of those who subscribes to the view that many of the changes that have been made in the past 50 years in the health service have been to the public good. I was sceptical when market principles were introduced, but two years as a non-executive member of a district health authority served to impress me with the progress that we had made in being able to cost items of service far more effectively than in the past. At the same time, I regret what I perceive to be the monstrous army of accountants and managers involved in that exercise and, alongside that, the reduction in the number of trained nurses and the dilution of skilled manpower in the workforce. The values to which I give priority are those which enhance direct care for patients.
The 1946 Act, which we celebrate today, defined the principles and objectives of the NHS very broadly. The duty was laid on the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service to secure improvements in physical and mental health and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness in England and Wales. However, when in 1976 the Royal Commission on the National Health Service (of which I was a member), considered the objectives of the National Health Service--incidentally, the Royal Commission was set up at the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and as a response to yet another crisis in the National Health Service--we felt that we wanted to be more precise. We therefore suggested that the objectives should be to encourage and assist individuals to remain healthy; to provide equality of entitlement to health services; to provide a broad range of services of a high standard; to provide equality of access to those services; to provide a service free at the time of use; to satisfy the reasonable expectations of its users; and to remain a national service responsive to local needs.
I should like to consider that principle of equity. Many indices show that there is still a north-south divide in the provision and allocation of resources in the National Health Service. The North West Surveys Research Group in Manchester has shown that many of the indices, such as the standardised mortality ratios and the geographical incidence of coronary heart mortality, are adversely weighted to the north and that the allocation of resources in the north is not adequate to meet those greater needs. In July the Select Committee on Health in another place suggested that the allocation of resources should be weighted by need. I wonder whether the Government intend to implement the recommendation to redress the imbalance between north and south. There is still an inequity in general practitioner distribution in the north. We need 700 GPs to move from the south to the north if there is to be equal access to a GP. In terms of the value of equity, we should be looking at such matters.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a medical academic and as a clinical professor who practises both research and clinical medicine. Unlike most of the speakers today, I cannot say that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Jay for introducing this Motion. I had to interrupt an experiment to come here. Sadly, we have temporarily abandoned it but I hope that we shall be able to return to it. I make the point because some time ago it was suggested that I was neglecting my patients by coming
Much of my time is spent trying to get a budget for research experiments. Those of us who are trying to claw tiny sums of money from the Medical Research Council from its totally miserly budget of less than £300 million might be forgiven for observing that, in order to apply successfully for a grant for an experiment, we expect there to be some pilot data. There needs to be a fair review of the literature and other data to support an application for the work. There also needs to be a continuous audit of that research experiment. It is also customary for us to cite referees who will be called in to look at the experiment. Sometimes, we need overseas expertise also. Above all, our results are published for peer review.
Your Lordships must forgive me if I, as a medical academic, feel, together with many other medical academics, an extraordinary anger at the total failure of probably the largest experiment in the history of medicine. I am referring to the internal market. The internal market was brought in without pilot data or any attempt to see on a small scale whether it was desirable. There were no proper ongoing data or review of what was being done under the internal market. There has been a wholly inadequate audit of what has happened and huge wastage in administration. If I were applying for a research grant to the Medical Research Council that would be quite unacceptable. There is still no peer review. The Government's defence to this charge is to bring in irrelevances.
I understand that the rules of the House forbid me to quote precisely from Hansard in another place. But I may be forgiven for feeling extremely flattered that on 23rd October in a short speech the Prime Minister quoted me by name. He quoted a speech that I had made in the House of Lords which suggested that I was wholly in favour of the internal market. He quoted the one paragraph in my speech where I pointed out the advantages that the internal market had brought about: the fact that it had improved outpatient facilities, comfort for patients and waiting times for clinics. It strikes me as extraordinarily shallow of the Government to cite a wholly critical speech in the defence of the internal market.
I should like to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the plight of academic medicine. I believe that here there is a need for special pleading. It is a little odd to stand here and ask the noble Baroness for a pay rise, but I ask for some kind of commitment to clinical academic salaries. The noble Baroness will be aware that in February 1996 the review body recommended a rise of 3.8 per cent. for senior clinicians and 5.3 per cent. for junior clinicians. So far the universities have been able to offer only 1.5 per cent., for the simple reason that their financing has been cruelly cut back. Some face an effective loss of budget of up to 30 per cent. Parity in salaries is essential across the health service. Clinical academic
Currently one in 10 professorial chairs in this country is vacant. Recently my unit advertised for a clinical research fellow. Modesty forbids me to tell noble Lords the reputation that that unit enjoys. Five years ago over 80 applicants applied for that one fellowship. This year for the same post there were four British applicants, only two of whom could be seriously considered. There is a severe paucity of applicants for such posts where we try to promote the best of healthcare.
On the whole, clinical academics give about 50 per cent. of their time to the National Health Service and represent 10 per cent. of the consultant workforce. Many units in this country are run wholly by academics. For example, in the Wessex region the liver service in Southampton is wholly academic. In Oxford and Cambridge renal transplantation is largely an academic-derived service. Many pathologists in the health service are academics.
Today, many noble Lords on both sides of the House have repeated their respect for and commitment to the health service. We are proud of the health service because of its academic interface with teaching, innovation, research, which is still world class, and excellence of treatment. I promise you that that cannot continue if academic medicine is further undermined.
Finally, if one considers where this country should focus its aims, one of the areas in which it has a clear lead is biotechnology. That is an outstanding achievement which contributes very greatly to this country's wealth in all kinds of ways, not least in the pharmaceutical industry. If we undermine that aspect of the National Health Service, we will not be able to continue in the next 50 years as we have in the past 50 years.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Winston (if I may dignify the relationship by that name as a mere special trustee of the Hammersmith Hospital). There are many noble Lords of a more suitable age than I to speak in this debate on the 50th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service. As I understand it, 50 years ago two assumptions were made in good faith which did not come about. The first was that the nation would achieve an acceptable standard of health and it would then be largely a matter of care and maintenance. What was not appreciated then was that people's health expectations would similarly rise. The second matter, which was certainly not foreseen, was the huge and rapid rise in clinical technology and the huge costs that that would involve. Governments of all parties have been faced with the expenditure problem throughout the life of the service.
I am encouraged that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, says that the health service must not be preserved in aspic. There can be no disagreement about that. The question is how it moves further forward. Where we differ is that I and members of my party suggest that
About eight years ago I took a consultant friend of mine to see another of the company's operations, of which it was very proud: the doctors' deputising service in Liverpool. For reasons of principle, that gentleman did not have a private practice, and he was certainly not in sympathy with the aims of my party. He reluctantly agreed to go. Having seen it, he was generous enough to say that people ought to know more about it and that without the private sector service family practice in Liverpool would not work. I am happy to say that since then matters have moved on. We now have the 1990 Act, and there is a much healthier partnership between the public and private sectors. I was recently reminded of the private funding initiative of a major London hospital. It is regrettable that every time a private initiative in the National Health Service is announced there are cries of creeping privatisation.
I should like to refer to the Patient's Charter. It was much derided as a gimmick. However, it has served its primary purpose, which is to give patients a yardstick as to what their expectations should be. It has also provided much greater transparency of facts and performance on all aspects of the National Health Service. Surely, a league table is one of the best disciplines for getting rid of fat management in hospitals.
I believe that the greatest disservice is done to the National Health Service by the media. Politicians are not innocent of occasionally associating themselves with that. A prime example is the closing of hospital beds, which is almost always portrayed as a matter of economy or staff shortages. The fact is that beds have been reduced under every government since the inception of the National Health Service in more or less a straight line, for the basic reason that there has been an advance in technology, day surgery, microsurgery and so forth. It does no service to the patients. It discourages patients and staff.
Many compliments have been paid to this country's nurses. I should like to add my thanks to them. There can be no finer nurses in the world. Perhaps I may in passing say how much we owe to nurses from Australia and New Zealand and, happily and more recently, South Africa, all of whom come from a training tradition which derives from our own.
There are many initiatives within the NHS at the moment which encourage innovation of all kinds and experiments. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, is an example of that. The nurses, of whom there are too few, and who will never be well paid, play a large part in it. They are better educated and better trained and wholly flexible when dealing with the technical demands made upon their services.
Perhaps I may leave my noble friend the Minister with one thought. There are many centres of excellence where medical men and their staff work as a team and are thoroughly motivated. There are other places where one might say there is a two-tier service. It is not a two-tier service as usually understood. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned this. It is a two-tier service not due to social reasons or resources but because of personalities. I hope that with their current initiative for the encouragement of excellence within the service the Government will pay attention to the less successful who need so much encouragement.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my colleagues have already described the principle and the public value of the NHS. On that I have nothing useful to add, except that I have a passionate belief that a national health service is as essential today as it was 50 years ago. Everyone is a patient or a potential patient. For those of us who do not make private insurance provision a strong NHS is one of the essential foundations of a civilised life without which life would be very raw and short.
There have been many changes and crises within the NHS since its founding. However, I believe that it is widely recognised that of all the changes imposed from above on the NHS the most significant are the so-called reforms which have been taking place since 1990. We believe that they are the most significant, because, for the first time, they attempt to create an internal market within the NHS. This afternoon we have had the benefit of the informed opinion of one of our colleagues on the internal market.
I hear from doctors and nurses that competition is replacing co-operation. Competition produces losers as well as winners. My noble friend Lady Jay, in a notable speech from the Front Bench and others have described the present NHS scene. I shall not traverse that ground, except to recall that some of the trusts are now facing bankruptcy, or were at least until yesterday.
In about 1990, when the first trusts were established--thereafter there was a wave of trusts--few predicted that such a result was possible. Some of the so-called reforms are coming back to haunt the Government with a vengeance. It is an astonishing position that trusts should be facing bankruptcy.
As my noble friend Lady Jay demonstrated in her comprehensive speech, many points can be made in this debate. I have an interest in many of the issues which have been raised; for example, health promotion, the future of clinical medicine and the deeper ethical issues which arise. Keeping my eye on the clock, I propose to mention just four matters.
First, with almost 500 trusts in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, pursuing to a substantial extent their own separate ways, as they see fit, it has become clear that the NHS is in grave difficulty in seeking to embark upon a strategic plan for its future as a whole. Within the new structure, there is too little scope for strategic planning and co-operation, but too much scope for needless duplication and bureaucracy.
I come to my second point, which has been touched upon. There are now 20,000 more senior managers in the NHS than there were in 1988. Spending on management has almost doubled since then. I cannot help contrasting that with the fact that there are 50,000 fewer nurses in the NHS than there were in 1988. As we have heard, it is now becoming more difficult to recruit the nurses who are needed by the NHS. I asked the Minister how the department justifies that remarkable contrast.
My noble friend Lady Jay referred also to the improper behaviour of some senior management members. I have a question for the Minister on that point. Is there power at present to remove an incompetent trust board director who can be shown to have failed in his task, or to disqualify him from holding a senior NHS management position in future, and possibly to order him to pay towards the trust's liabilities for which it can be shown he has some responsibility? Having imposed upon the NHS a management model which is derived from industry--in my view an inappropriate management model--I do not see why the consequences that I have just mentioned should not follow where the trust board director is incompetent, as is the case with an incompetent company director.
I come to my third point. I should like to put on record one issue which has not been mentioned. Sadly, there are some signs of two different standards of service emerging within GP services--one for the patients of a fundholding practice and a different one for the patients of a non-fundholding practice. If that be true, it is unjust. It is also contrary to the general public expectation of the NHS. What we want is one class of service for all patients, and that should be of top standard. That is what a strong NHS is about.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for instigating this most important debate. When an individual or family is involved with serious illness, especially when it has long-term results which need ongoing treatment and care, there is nothing more important to them than the National Health Service, especially when they have a permanent disability.
So many things happened around the time of the start of the National Health Service which advanced the treatment of severely ill patients. Antibiotics became available to help combat many infections. As a paraplegic, I have been very grateful for them over the years.
The PHLS detects linked infections early and investigates and assists with the introduction of control measures. If the function discharged by the PHLS ceased to exist, there would be significantly higher morbidity and mortality rates due to infections. If any service needs to remain public I strongly suggest that the Public Health Laboratory Service is the one to do so. With so many complicated infections and viruses flying around the world and being brought among us, and with so many complicated farming diseases emerging, this public service is now in the front line. I mentioned to the Minister that I would be raising this matter today, so I hope that she will give the House an assurance on this important issue.
It was in 1944, before D-day, with the expected casualties from Normandy, that Dr. Ludwig Guttmann, a neurologist who had fled Germany before the war, was asked by the chief of the medical staff of the Army to open the first spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Patients who suffer spinal injuries resulting in paralysis from the lesion down lose both sensation and movement. They need specialised treatment. Dr. Guttmann, later knighted for his pioneering work in paraplegia, developed routine procedures such as turning patients every three hours in order to avoid pressure sores; management of paralysed bladder and bowels; the understanding of autonomic dysreflexia (treatment of blood pressure, unique to high lesions due to the complication of the condition of being paralysed without sensation); and rehabilitation from a physical and a psychological aspect using sport to help regain lost confidence.
That all means that the staff--medical, nursing and therapy--need special training. With the coming of the National Health Service, civilian patients were admitted to the spinal unit at Aylesbury. Prior to that it was under the Ministry of Pensions. We civilians have something to thank the war for.
There are now nine spinal units which provide the specialised treatment to our spinally injured patients. Fifty years on, the staff of the units, along with the Spinal Injuries Association, which is a user support group--and here I have to declare a non-financial interest as its president--are concerned that spinal injury has not been included as a unique specialty in the European list of specialties. It has been merged under the title "Rehabilitation". More than 50 specialties are listed, so why not spinal injuries? I ask the Minister, who I believe we all trust and admire, to look into that and to write to me. This has to do with the training of medical staff and also the GMC. If the Department of Health will commission an audit of spinal injuries treated in spinal units it will find that this specialised treatment is in the long run cost-effective and essential
The Spinal Injuries Association has many horror stories of some of its members' experiences when treated in general hospitals without expert staff and the necessary equipment. The Spinal Injuries Association can supply the Minister with case histories. Recently, one high lesion tetraplegic had to be admitted as an emergency to the Edgware Hospital with a urinary problem. His girlfriend was asked to come and evacuate his bowels as the staff did not know how to do it--or they did not want to do it!
There is concern that if general practitioners become total fundholders severely disabled people of many different specialties may have severe difficulties. Will the Minister please give assurances that these most vulnerable patients will be protected and their needs understood? With trust hospitals, ECRs, fundholding GPs and lack of money in the National Health Service, will the Minister assure the House that such patients will not become the unwanted, uncared for members of society?
There are many specialties which need to go to special units which can give the correct treatment and the necessary psychological support; for instance, cancer patients. They should not be sent to general surgeons. They need the support of experienced expert teams which can give them the best care and treatment.
I wish to conclude by congratulating Stephen Dorrell on his recent achievement with the Treasury. The National Health Service has so many people to support. Only last week an occupational therapist from the wheelchair service said to me, "I have too many people who need equipment. We do not have the money to provide what is needed". I ask the House why the second day lottery funds cannot go towards such provision.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in any debate on national health affairs. I have listened with great interest to what has been said today and I too must declare an interest. During the 50 years of the NHS, and previously, I have been involved with the health service in one way or another. I am still involved in that in your Lordships' House I am chairman of the group on ageing issues. It has dealt with many of the problems that have been aired today.
I also listened with interest and appreciation to several contributions from Members on the Government Benches. Like my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, knowing the whole history of parliamentary debates, I share the joy that there must be in Heaven at some of those conversions. I hope that they continue.
In my few minutes I wish to deal with a couple of specific issues. I have never served as an academic, although I have the greatest respect and admiration for those who have. I have the greatest respect and admiration, too, for staff at all levels who served our great National Health Service, and, as we all know, still do.
I wish to raise a couple of issues which continue to arise whenever we debate National Health Service issues. The first is in relation to the statement that more patients than ever are being treated. That worries me because I visit hospitals all the time throughout the London area and I know the situation on the ground. I know too that many of those new patients are in fact the same patients. I know one example of a lady patient who was transferred eleven times. She went from one hospital to the next, to another and back to the first one. She is registered as a new patient at every stage of her treatment. She was not 11 patients; she was one patient being treated in 11 different places for her complaint. How many other cases are there like that?
Only a couple of weeks ago a man whom I had known for many years was taken into the accident and emergency department with a suspected heart attack. Fortunately, it was not a heart attack but after about six hours--that is about the average waiting time to see a doctor in the accident and emergency departments in London--he was referred back to his own GP. He went back to his own GP, who advised him to seek another appointment at the hospital in a different department so that he could be treated for what the doctor thought was his problem. He has already become two patients in that hospital's records.
If that is the norm--that one patient becomes two patients--we can halve the number of patients being treated rather than doubling it. Therefore, I query the statement that more patients are being treated and it grieves me to think that perhaps the figures are being exaggerated slightly.
Secondly, I wish to discuss the question of age discrimination. The Hillingdon example frightened the life out of most of us, certainly most people of my age. We found out that we were virtually untreatable and certainly not admissible to some aspects of the health service. That must have worried an awful lot of people. Age Concern, along with a number of other organisations, has been campaigning for many years in relation to the problems of the elderly and age discrimination. Noble Lords may remember the late and respected Lady Phillips who piloted a Bill through your Lordships' House which dealt with the question of age discrimination at all levels, but unfortunately it was thrown out in the other place.
That argument continues but it has now moved to hospitals, where we understand that there is age discrimination. Following a recent conference set up by Age Concern it was reported that many hospitals are discriminating against elderly patients. For example, many elderly women are not being called back for breast cancer scans when they reach the age of 65. Some of them assume that because they have reached that age and have not been asked to go for a scan they have nothing more to worry about and that they cannot contract breast cancer. But the facts are different and they show that more women in fact contract the disease after the age of 65. Therefore, that is a worry.
Several women have been told by their GPs that they could not have National Health Service screening. One woman was referred to a private consultant who charged her £100 for screening to which she was entitled free of charge. I understand that practice nurses have said that for several years they have been telling older women that they could not have screening because of their age. That is happening. Those facts emerged at that conference and they are extremely worrying for us all.
Other facts which emerged from the same conference are that until the 1980s, being an older person was widely believed to be a contra-indication for renal dialysis and transplantation. But that has now changed. Although there is still a significant under-treatment of people in that area, twice as many people under the age of 50 are on dialysis as those over the age of 50, although the incidence of kidney failure rises with age.
The final and extremely important point which I wish to raise is in relation to the introduction of 17.5 per cent. VAT on incontinence equipment. That is causing grave hardship and a lot of worry for many elderly patients because it is the elderly population who are mainly affected. All the time it is the aged people who are most vulnerable when there are cuts and increases. I was at a very interesting meeting yesterday evening when that question was raised by the speaker, who said that there was great worry and a lot of fear among people that that increase would prevent some people from acquiring the necessary equipment for their incontinence problems. That is extremely worrying and I should like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about that. Is it true? I have umpteen examples of people who are directly involved. I could go on for the next 80 minutes, let alone eight, but I finish there and hope for some positive replies from the Minister.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest by telling your Lordships that I am a member of the Hillingdon Trust Board. That hospital was mentioned scathingly and written off by two Members opposite. I shall say more about that later. If their statements can be based on such ignorance about this matter, I wonder what they have based their other statements on.
My perspective also comes from being a board member. As your Lordships would imagine, I am not capable of taking a wide-sweeping view of the National Health Service but I can talk about my experiences both as a user and as a board member.
I have been in this country for a long time and I started to use the health service seriously when my two little boys were diagnosed as having astigmatisms. I had to take them to a specialist hospital to have their eyes checked every three or four months. I have waited for up to seven hours in the hospital for those two little boys to be seen. That was in the good old days of the late 1950s, early 1960s and onwards.
I have also used the National Health Service myself for two operations. I felt that everybody in those hospitals would have been more pleased had I not been there cluttering up the hospital, making a nuisance of myself and messing up the beds. The general impression that one used to be given was that patients messed up the general look of the hospital; they made it untidy and they should not have spoken unless they were spoken to.
I have recently been in hospital for another operation, this summer in fact. I found that there was a very different attitude among the staff. Everybody has vilified the market place, the internal market. But when you know that the hospital next-door is also offering the same operation, you try to do a bit better. That is achieved by giving better service to patients. Patients have now become important. I see that every day. Indeed, waiting times for appointments have been greatly reduced. The way patients are treated is totally different. One is no longer patronised and doctors explain what will happen.
Of course, it might well be said, "It's all right for you because you are a Member of the House of Lords and they would know that". Yes, they would know that, and in my hospital they would know that I was a member of the board. But it is not just that: I have seen other people being treated in the same way. I was in a ward with four people. One of the patients was a very elderly woman who had fallen down the stairs and been brought in as an emergency. She was most confused. The way the staff treated her was a marvel. I do not believe that her own family would have looked after her better. It is a question of speaking as you find. I am not making a party political point; I am not trying to say that the National Health Service is perfect. I believe that it is probably impossible for the NHS to be perfect. But it is incumbent upon all of us to try to improve and to continue to improve it.
I should like to say something about the internal market. Words like "commercialised" and "privatised" have been used, but it is neither of the two. It is a kind of social market. The purpose that it should serve--it is already apparent that it is beginning to do so--is to provide better standards. Once there is competition, people will try to see whether they are able to provide better standards of service. That is the purpose of the internal market. Its purpose is not to encourage people to compete with each other and confront one another and not to work together. I believe that the service is
If social services do not fulfil their part of the task--and I shall return to that point in relation to the closure of the A&E department and the admission of the over-75s--the system is bound to break down. Of course, if we had more money we might be able to get some more beds, but we would not be able to secure beds on the spot. Indeed, it would still take time to get those beds into operation, with staff to run them. Therefore, as has been mentioned in other connections, if the whole cycle does not work you have a clogging at one end of the system.
What other way is there to maintain standards than by making comparisons one with another? In the past we did not have such a way of checking up on standards, and I believe that they dropped considerably in many hospitals. These days it is apparent when hospitals fail to maintain standards.
It has been asked why people use private healthcare. I am a user of private health services. I use such services when I want immediate attention. We can never expect that from the National Health Service. I do not have an insurance policy but I will go for private care if I have to. I will use it if I want a luxury room with my own telephone and bathroom. I do not think that the NHS should or ever will provide that kind of service. It is a matter for me if I want it. If I want to stay in a five-star hotel I will do so. It has nothing to do with anyone else, or, indeed, with the quality of the health service.
Finally, and because I am running out of time, as indeed have other speakers, I turn to Hillingdon Hospital. The social services did not provide the placements for the elderly who were in the hospital and due to be discharged. The Mount Vernon Hospital closed its A&E department and, through a mistaken belief that that hospital was not welcoming elderly patients, they started to come to Hillingdon Hospital from the northern part of the borough quite unexpectedly. Therefore, we had an unduly large intake of patients without having the facility to move them out. What can happen in such a situation? The only consequence is that there are no more beds. We are not going to put our elderly patients on trolleys because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, knows only too well, it is very dangerous.
Hillingdon Hospital had its A&E unit (and admissions for the over-75s) closed for a very short time. However, movement has now started again. Unfortunately, without doing that, we were unable to get action from the other authorities which should have been "doing their own thing" in that connection.
Lord Howell: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this anniversary debate. I thank my noble friend both for her excellent speech and for providing us with the opportunity to speak in such a debate. I take part today as someone who has been involved in health administration from as far back as 1946 when I was elected to Birmingham City Council. I have been a
The principle of market forces has become the new theology of the health service, dividing doctors and nurses and, now I learn, setting hospital against hospital. In Birmingham we have four main general hospitals--the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak in the south; Heartlands in the east, Good Hope in the north; and the City in the west.
It seems that the chairman of the trust responsible for the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak--the University Trust--together with the chairman of the Heartlands, proposed that their two hospitals should be developed at the expense of the other two hospitals--Good Hope and the City. They represented this to the chairman of the West Midlands Area Health Authority without consulting the other two hospitals, the general practitioners or anyone representing the patients. No wonder the chairmen of the Good Hope and City hospitals reacted with anger and mobilised themselves into opposition. They realised that such a proposal would have denied them the resources to develop their own hospitals, especially as regards access to private investment funds.
Birmingham needs four hospitals. Each is already overstretched, both for funds and in workload. It appears that as a result of their protests the chairmen of the City and the Good Hope hospitals have produced a response from the West Midlands area chairman. He has set up a rationalisation exercise to see which hospital should do what in Birmingham. That is no way to conduct a vital public service. The general practitioners must have a major say as to where they send patients and the services they need close to the homes of their patients. And patients must have a big say, which they do not often have at present, about the health service because it is a service for them. If the review to which I referred does not provide for that it will be doomed. I hope that the Minister will ensure that consultation is a reality.
All over the country hospitals and general practitioners are in the red. Competition based upon financial desperation can only be damaging. The Secretary of State told Parliament a week ago that Birmingham will have an expected deficit in March next year of some £8,400,000. The so-called agreement achieved yesterday between Messrs. Clarke and Dorrell will not solve the problems, because what Mr. Dorrell received yesterday is for next year and not this year. And it is this year where the problems exist. Can the Minister tell us today how she expects Birmingham to cope with the deficit this year? The public have a right to know, and we have a duty to obtain that information and assess its consequences.
Now we have a new, totally unjust, and, I would say, immoral penalty being imposed upon Birmingham and its neighbours. It is called the market forces factor which allocates funds for growth next year. Under the formula Essex will receive £24 million for growth, Birmingham £2 million and Sandwell £0.6 million. That is a disgrace.
As far as I am aware, no one in the debate has paid tribute to general practitioners. I wish to do so because the general practitioner service is the bedrock on which the whole of the health service is built. There is concern among GPs that the proposals in the White Paper on choice and opportunities will endanger the health service at general practice level. I can see some sense in GPs doing some work in hospitals. However, there is no sense in encouraging hospital trusts to employ their own GPs, so controlling money which at present flows into the GP service and possibly ensuring priority for the patients of trust GPs over the patients of community GPs. That is what will happen in a market situation. It will produce unfair competition. That causes great concern among general practitioners. I hope that the Minister will address the point. GPs are the only independent advocates on behalf of patients in the entire health service. That is especially true as regards patients who are underprivileged and those with social problems. The independent role of GPs is paramount and Parliament has a duty to protect it.
I have a final point to make and that is the great problem of offloading onto general practitioners patients who are discharged from hospital far too early, who are ill and who ought not to be discharged. That is causing immense concern and distress. I have heard of many cases of patients having to be readmitted to hospital within a few days, becoming a double statistic--
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page