Ian Burge Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Militant, No. 401, 14 April 1978, p. 6.
Transcribed by Iain Dalton.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Ian Burge, Secretary, Joint Shop Stewards’ Committee, London Hospital, Whitechapel, exposes the Area Health Authorities
It is well worth any health worker making a visit to a meeting of their Area Health Authority – just to see for themselves how these institutions work.
Members of the District Joint Shop Stewards’ Committee and of
the ‘Save Bethnal Green Campaign’ committee thought that by
lobbying the Authority members it might be possible to influence the
voting. At stake was the future of the 300 bed Bethnal Green hospital.
The City and East London Area Health Authority meets once a month in a plush chamber within Addison House, a fairly new and air-conditioned block for health administrators, situated comfortably away from any of the ugly and decrepit ex-workhouses that pass for hospitals in the area. These monthly gatherings are for the purpose of making decisions on behalf of hundreds of thousands of health service users, and thousands of health service workers.
Big business, strangely enough, seems to be well represented on the Authority, with F.M. Cumberlege Esq., CBE, of Messrs Thomas Cumberlege and Inskipp, a firm of tea brokers, as the chairman of the Authority. Other prominent members include a J.M. Blyth Currie Esq., of Blyth Greene Jourdain & Co. Ltd., S.M. Gray Esq., of Messrs Dixon Wilson and Co., K. McAlpine Esq., DL, of the famous building firm.
Titled persons, too, are represented, with Sir Robin Brook, KBE,
CMG, OBE, and the Viscount Knutsford, Lady Riches, and Lady Sherman
(Hackney Council). Thirteen members are appointed by the Regional
Health Authorities, nine by the Local Authorities, three by the
University of London, and the chairman is appointed by the Secretary
of State. The University appointees include the Deans of St Bart’s
and the London Hospital Medical colleges.
The meetings are supposed to be open to the public, and since a request from the shop stewards to meet the members had been rejected, we decided to go along as ‘members of the public’. On arrival we were informed that there was only room for ten, other public gallery seats having already been taken up by District Management Team ‘advisors’ and the press.
Bethnal Green Hospital was the first main item on the agenda. The chairman gave an outline of management’s plan and the reasons for the changes, which briefly amounted to there being less money to go around, and a reduction in bed allocation from 1,000 to 665 acute beds. DHSS priorities required a shift of resources from acute care to geriatrics and community services.
The chairman referred to comments received during the
‘consultation’ period. His interpretation of these was that there
appeared to be widespread support for management’s scheme. He made
no attempt to explain any other point of view, although he was fully
aware that a local campaign against the plans was receiving
considerable support. He knew that a public meeting of 700 had
rejected the plans, the health workers and their unions were
completely against the plans, and that the Tower Hamlets Council were
not at all happy with the plans. The large amount of opposition
included in the written comments was completely glossed over.
Only three Authority members were willing to speak against the plans, a Labour Councillor, a Trades Council nominee, and the chairman of the City and Hackney Community Health Council. They made a number of good points of principle, and also pointed out some anomalies and deceits in Management’s arguments.
It appeared that in all the consultation ‘evidence’ presented in management’s report, only one reply gave any support to the plan; even that had conditions. The majority of replies expressed opposition. Non-committal replies had been counted by management as giving support. Included in the evidence was a petition signed by 70 community health staff objecting to the plan. Over 100 local GPs who had also signed a letter of opposition had been ignored, as had 20,000 local residents who signed a petition of protest.
Now, before proceeding, it is necessary to explain the position of two important bodies which have quite a large amount of power to oppose the plans. These are the local council and the local Community Health Council (CHC). Following a successful resolution submitted by the LPYS, Tower Hamlets Labour Party is committed to oppose cuts. The Tower Hamlets Labour-controlled council was the only body to attempt to get all interested parties together in order to hear the various arguments for and against. The Council then adopted the view that there were sufficient differences of medical and other opinion to justify holding back the plan until a proper inquiry had been held.
The Tower Hamlets CHC appeared to have acted hand in glove with management, to the great annoyance and disgust of many local labour movement activists and hospital workers.
The Authority chairman said Tower Hamlets Council had not put forward any scheme that would save money. This was obviously his main concern. He did, however, allow a motion based on the Council’s policy, basically calling for a suspension of the plans pending an inquiry (defeated: 9 against, 5 for, 7 abstentions).
Realising that a straight decision to immediately proceed with the
plan for Bethnal Green would be met by widespread opposition, the
chairman ‘invited’ a further motion which would allow until 30th
June for the Secretary of State, or Regional Health Authority, to
produce more funds: if not, the plan would go ahead. This was agreed
16 for, none against, five abstentions. District Management could
still proceed with changing the use of Bethnal Green, and take
economy measures – so long as they were not ‘irreversible’.
This is the way that decisions are taken affecting thousands of people, thousands who will need immediate treatment in the casualty department which will be closed; decisions affecting hundreds of hospital workers, some of whom will no longer be able to work at Bethnal Green, others, already working under tremendous pressure, who will have to carry the extra burden from the closed units, and many in the community services who will be pushed to breakdown point as the closure of acute beds places more work on staff only at half strength anyway.
These decisions are being taken by a small number of people who probably only briefly bother to think about the NHS just once a month. These eminent people who have no commitment to the principles embodied in the NHS and certainly no commitment to the labour and trade union movement. They think the NHS is a “luxury” we cannot really afford. They are not interested in the views either of those who have to run the services, or those who need them.
Many of us knew what to expect when these bodies were set up under the health service re-organisation in 1974. It certainly wasn’t the intention to have a democratically run NHS, more like something run on business lines.
From our point of view, the bodies which are to manage the health services should at least:
Ian Burge Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 11 February 2017