Leading Article: Healing wounds in the NHS battle

Friday 11 February 1994 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

FOR THE first time since 1987 the Conservative and Labour parties have begun to agree on the limited question of how the National Health Service should be run. There is not yet a consensus: fiery language still suggests deep division. But the technical demands involved in modernising the NHS are prompting politicians to offer surprisingly similar prescriptions.

Yesterday, Labour effectively conceded to the Conservatives that competition between hospitals for public funds is the best way to improve efficiency. The party's main health policy statement since the last general election accepts self- governing hospitals and a split between the purchase and provision of health care.

On the same day, Virginia Bottomley - whose party once threatened to let free enterprise loose in the NHS - announced her rationalisation programme for London hospitals. True, it acknowledged the signals from the market. But it avoided potential disruption by detailing a grand plan for gradual, managed change that any government over the past 30 years might have laid out.

No shortage of disagreement on detail remains. Labour is fiercely opposed to GP fund-holding because of the inequity and disruption that may result. Ministers want the entrepreneurship of family doctors to continue stirring up the NHS bureaucracy. The Opposition would also clamp down on private medicine in the NHS.

Labour would make health authorities and hospitals more accountable and end Tory nepotism. The Government, having secured the reforms and won much of the argument, would be wise to open up these institutions to greater public scrutiny.

These differences are, however, relatively minor given the important principles that the two parties now agree upon. It is to Labour's credit that, rather than threatening the NHS with another traumatic upheaval, it is acknowledging the best aspects of the changes.

Now that Labour and the Conservatives are only quibbling about the mechanics of the NHS, political debate should move on to the size of the health service's role in British life. The key question must be whether the NHS should continue to provide comprehensive health care and be funded almost entirely from taxation.

The right will argue for shrinking the NHS and introducing means-testing to save on taxation. The left will defend the status quo as value for money. This debate will represent a true ideological battle after the pseudo-war over how to run the NHS that now mercifully seems to be moving towards an armistice.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in