The health service and the welfare state

,L

Socialist Medical Association

The health service and
the welfare state

THE HEALTH SERVICE

AND THE

WELFARE STATE

AN S.M.A. PUBLICATION Price 9d.

Written by a medical practitioner who is an active Labour
Party member, this pamphlet will greatly assist those who
wish to defend and extend the National Health Service.
Additional copies available: single copies IHd. including
postage; one dozen or more 7s. 6d. a dozen post free; from
our distributors, T.T.P. Ltd., 13 Prince of Wales Terrace,
London. W.8.

Other recent titles include:

THOMAS WAKLEY, by Charles Brook, c.b.e.

IS OLD AGE A PROBLEM? . .
CHILD EYE CARE . .

964 4 08

2s. Od.
6d.
6d.

THE HEALTH SERVICE AND THE
WELFARE STATE

THERE COMES A TIME when it is expedient to stand back and
survey social policies in action, to reconsider the past, or to weigh
up the present, or to try to look ahead to the future. At this stage,
half-way in the present life of the Conservative Government, it may
be worth while to consider the outlook and actions of this Govern-
ment in these social fields, and to compare them with the avowed
intentions of the Opposition, for it is not unlikely that the Labour
Party may form the next Government.

To look at Labour's Social Policy means studying Signposts for
the Sixties, its precursor Labour in the Sixties, and also Labour's
Policy for Health. The objective of this study is the winning of this
next election, and although these documents are not Election
Manifestos, yet, their function is related to it.

This sort of survey or study does not mean going into details of
these papers, but concerns itself with the basic philosophy of a
socialist ethic.

To evaluate the document Signposts for the Sixties we could try to
determine it as an Absolute. This is not really practical, and would
probably amount to chasing after an illusion. Instead one can
attempt to measure it against age-old socialist doctrines and dreams
and visions. Or, finally one can treat it relatively, that is to say,
one can compare it with any alternative social policies, which means,
in practice, a Conservative Social Policy.

If we look at modern Labour's Policy and also consider the last
Conference at Blackpool, many of us may look back, with some
nostalgia, to the " Good Old Days "... when the author of this
pamphlet was young. The " Good Old Days," when social condi-
tions were so bad ! Yes, for they were also the days when hearts
were filled with a certain hope and glory and joy, when those who
worked for the Movement believed passionately and sincerely that,
in their lifetime, they were going to end all the poverty and miseries
and insecurities.

Yes, these pioneers thought they were going to build a socialist
and democratic state, to create almost a Utopia. Furthermore, they
believed that, by constitutional means, they would achieve a govern-
ment of socialist-minded politicians (all idealists) who would intro-
duce legislation and this would, somehow, result in a different and
better way of life — more noble, more moral, more satisfying in all
ways. All that was needed was a majority in Parliament — the rest
would follow. The rest would be easy.

1

For example, The Health Service. A very long time ago, now,
H. G. Wells wrote about a Society motivated by altruism and selfless-
ness and idealism. The first practical step, he asserted, would be a
National Health Service in which Medicine would be taken out of
the Market-Place. Even in those days, this was the facet of life in
which a sense of dedication and service was more manifest than in
any other.

Well, to-day, one might be excused for being cynical and saying,
" How naive can one be ! "

In 1946 Nye Bevan introduced a Bill, and the appointed day for
the inception of The Act was in 1948. In 1950 the Labour Majority
in the House was almost ended, and in 1951 a Tory Government
came into oflice and has been in power ever since. In other words,
this new health service, while still in its infancy was under Labour
administration for less than forty months. It has been under the
Tories for ten years. It is important to remember this.

For some time now, there has been an interesting manoeuvre
going on . . . the Tories boast about the National Health Service as
though they created it. At the same time, they undermine it wherever
and whenever possible. When certain aspects of the service are
criticised, they try to point out that these defects are all part of some-
tliing they call socialism. Then they add they are doing their best
to put these defects right. Finally, they add for good measure that
they were never really in favour of it, and would be glad to get rid
of it . . . for your sake, of course !

More than half the nation already believe this claptrap. Maybe
more will do so, if the plugging goes on as at present. Now, there
is no doubt that the introduction of a comprehensive health service
was, in terms of legislation, the greatest socialist measure in our
political history. Yet articles in the press, and propaganda in
general convey the impression that the many defects are part and
parcel of the new service, whereas innumerable wrong things before
the introduction of the service still flourish, and the service is accused
of having produced these defects ! It is true that one of the weak-
nesses of the National Health Service is that it failed to eradicate
these evils of the old ways.

One criticism, however, is unjustified. " The service should not
have been introduced in the immediate post-war period, when there
were so many difficuhies." This is totally a bad attack. It was in
accordance with socialist ethic to do what was done. As Nye
Bevan himself said, " If there are shortages of the facilities to
provide a first-class health service for all, all the more reason was
there to introduce it, so as to see that, of what there was, there was a
reasonable and fair distribution for all the people."

If we look at the pamphlet Labour's Policy on Health, we find . . .
'' Britain's NHS is a practical expression of the ethic which has
inspired the Labour Party since its earliest days."

2

" High ideals must be translated into practical action."

" Ten years later, the Lancet described the service as one of the

biggest improvements in the life of the country since the war."

" The Times states . . . ' as judged by the health of the nation since its

introduction, the service has been an unquahfied success.' "

The pamphlet then deals with hopes, plans and programmes
when returned to office and power. This everyone should read,
discuss and advertise everywhere.

Nevertheless, the service is in a poor way in many respects to-day.
The pamphlet adds that under Tory rule . . .
" Nearly half a million are waiting for hospital beds."
" Too many doctors' surgeries are grim and gloomy."
" Too many hospitals are still out-of-date and makeshift."
" Mental hospitals are overcrowded and dilapidated."
" Committees and staff frustrated by endless administrative delays."
"THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES ACCEPTED
THE SERVICE AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY RATHER
THAN WELCOMING IT AS A HIGH IDEAL."

Nowadays we are told that things have changed and are changing.
A commonplace observation is that there is no real difference
between "right-wing labour" and "progressive Toryism." There
are, indeed, many supporters of the Tory party to-day who sincerely
believe they are supporting progressive policies in the light of present
realities. But there are others in the Tory party, which has its
fellow-travellers also. For example, Tom Driberg has pointed out
in Reynolds News a pamphlet called Health Through Choice. Its
main theme ..." medical services are not essentially different from
any other consumer goods or services; hence, if people can choose
between different brands of detergents or margarine there is no
reason why people should not be free to buy health services from
competing suppliers by paying for them directly or with the aid of
private insurance."

For those who cannot afford to pay for good health ? Well,
there is National Assistance !

" Major medical expenses," said the pamphlet, " are ideally
suited for insurance, because the cost per family, which is so high
for the victims, is small, if spread over the whole population." But
this, adds Driberg, is precisely what was done when the cost of the
NHS was met almost entirely out of general taxation !

Between this sort of disguised attack on the Health Service as such,
made by organisations more or less associated with the Tory Party,
and the views of some Tory members of a more enlightened outlook,
where can we find the official Tory party line ? What is the real
present-day underlying ethos or philosophy ?

3

At the last Tory party conference in Brighton, there took place a
lecture, away from the hurly-burly of the conference itself. The
address, usually accepted as a more profound dissertation on
current social matters, was given by Mr. Enoch Powell, the Minister
of Health, and this was published as a pamphlet called The Welfare
State.

In assuming this might be regarded as an expression of the prin-
ciples underlying up-to-date policy, we immediately are faced with
two dynamic utterances.

One. " Acceptance of a proposition in principle and rejection of it
in practice is a perfectly normal human attitude, as common outside
politics as inside."

Two. Pericles said, "' It is not the lack of what we never experienced
but the depri\ ation of what we are accustomed to, that we feel and
regret."

If the Minister agrees in principle about certain social rights and
wrongs, one must not expect too much from him in practice, for he
may decide, on any issue, to act as a perfectly normal human being !
And. those who have always been poor and deprived should never
compare their lot with those who have been well-off and then come
down economically, for, after all, they have never known any better !

Again we quote from his address : " The NHS was created by
nationaUsing the hospitals and placing comprehensive state con-
tracts for medical and dental and ophthalmic services. The new-
structure replaced the previously existing variety of organisations
through which medical care had been financed; national health
insurance, a multiplicity of forms of private insurance, local govern-
ment finance. pri\ ate contracts and payments, charity and endow-
ments in all manner of guises. Comparison with other advanced
countries where medical care is financed in different ways, and with
the trends of this country before the National Health Service, sug-
gests that if the forms of the organisations which the NHS replaced
had continued and developed, the quantity, quality and distribution
of medical care here to-day would not be very substantially different
from what it is under the National Health Service."

Not a very enthusiastic supporter of the Service, you might say !
But one must be fair, and read on . . .

" This does not mean, however, that it is practicable to switch out
of the system again. The old channels through which the relevant
resources flowed have dried up or been dug up. Without under-
estimating the possibility that we may still witness some increase of
private medical insurance, it would not be reahstic to pretend that
one can see an alternative system could now grow up beside, or be
substituted for. the channelling of the £1.000 millions of the national
income through government agencies."

" Indeed, this institution is self-perpetuating not only through
inertia but actively. When the responsibihty for providing medical
care is focussed and vested in a department of government, all the
aspirations to improvement are bound to strengthen the institution.
In the hospitals, a Minister of Health who is trying to do his duty
must aim at increasing the corporate sense, morale and public
esteem of the service, because he knows this is one of the ways of
raising standards. In proportion as he succeeds, the institution
itself will be that much more deeply rooted."

Mr. Powell's analysis of human beings and human institutions is
quite correct so far as they go . . . that is to say, if you judge every-
thing by capitalistic yardsticks and your basic faith is in Mammon
and human greed and selfishness as irremediable and permanent.
If the reader will get a copy of the Tory official document and the
official Labour documents and read them carefully, he can then
compare the real attitudes to Social Policy ... of the two major
political parties.

It is true that the Government has made a great flourish in its
announcement of a lot of money to be spent on the hospitals of the
future . . . just as it did some time ago about the road developments,
until financial stringencies had to cancel, or abandon or postpone
this part or that part. It should also be remembered that Dr.
Charles Hill announced soon after his return to Parliament, that we
needed over two hundred million pounds to bring the hospitals of
the nation up to a decent standard of efficiency and well-being . . .
and from that time practically nothing has been done at all in terms
of new hospitals. So the promise for the future is merely a making-
up for the neglect of the past ten years, on top of the deficiencies
which had already existed before then.

What is the position of the NHS to-day ? The SMA slogan is
" Defend and Extend the NHS." At present, even while there is
some politicians" talk about extension, it would appear that a great
effort is needed to defend it. Let us look at the people who do the
actual work, and forget for a moment the high-powered polemics
of the professional politicians.

Doctors

How many doctors are to-day really satisfied with the service ?
How many would like to see it abolished to-morrow ? No one
knows. One cynic asserts that most doctors declare they want it
ended, but do so with their fingers crossed behind their backs !
They are glad to have the security and assurance of the regular
payments guaranteed by the state ! In other words they are full
of grievances which they express by saying, " To hell with the NHS "
but they do not really want to see it ended.

There are quite a few who would like to see it abolished to-morrow
. . . out of general political prejudice (it's a blooming Socialist thing
anyway !).

There are many who want it ended because they have been
bewitched, bothered and bedevilled by bureaucratic ineptitude and
stupidity.

There are some who interpret every administrative act as bureau-
cratic interference, because they have the kind of personahty to
resent the slightest attempt to control or direct them.

There are some who, although generally quite humane and decent
in dealing with patients, do regard their calling as merely a way of
making a living, and who feel they could make a bigger and better
living under some other scheme.

These above, and others, tend continually to point out all the
weaknesses and defects of the service, all the more so if they have
not been able to contract out of it !

There is another large group who were originally doubtful about
the service, and who have now expressed themselves in favour now
of a fully salaried service, as originally visualised by the SMA. But
this is not because of a political change of heart. Although many of
them have stated they like being able to deal with patients without
the question of money being raised on each occasion, this is not the
reason for their new outlook. This group maintain their only way
to get some peace of mind, when coping with the bureaucratic
administrators, is to cease being so-called free non-civil servants,
and just to become another group of civil servants and be done
with it. Then they could be organised and fight back . . . e.g.
about fitting-up and maintaining surgeries, holidays with pay,
provision of a locum tenens and so on ... in other words, have
rights and privileges granted to them instead of merely duties and
regulations to be fulfilled !

There have always been a few doctors who, to put it bluntly were
never up to standard. They are still no different, but now they
attribute their own shortcomings to the N.H.S

There, are, in addition, a number of doctors, mostly first-class men
professionally, who hold strong convictions against the service, and
did not join in it — and who campaign as hard as they can against it.

Then there is a group like Dr. "A." A man dedicated to his
profession, a little sceptical about the service at its inception, but
willing to do his best in it for the sake of his patients. In a recent
influenza epidemic with many cases of broncho-pneumonia among
the elderly, he visited these patients in their homes, daily or even
oftener, giving them injections of expensive but necessary drugs.
Only one of his patients was admitted to hospital, while neigh-
bouring doctors sent all such cases into hospital to save themselves
a lot of trouble and worry and work.

Dr. " A " did not expect any medals or praise for his efforts. Nor
did he expect a visit from a charming old gentleman, who admitted
he had never been in practice, but had come on behalf of the Ministry

... to inquire why Dr. " A " had a higher prescribing cost than the
average for the district ! When it was pointed out that the average
cost of his so-called expensive treatment was about one-fifth of
what it would have cost to treat them in hospital, his visitor said he
had never thought of that !

It has, of course, been difficult, to convince Dr. " A " that this
NHS is a good idea !

It may be thought that the older doctors, brought up in a different
system, are now dying or retiring and that things will be different in
time, as the younger men, entering the profession, take their places.
What is happening ? The number of young doctors leaving the
country to take up appointments overseas is now five times as great
as pre-war. The junior appointments in our hospitals are being
more and more filled with doctors from the Dominions and the
Colonies . . . who, in due course, will return to their own countries.

The number of doctors qualified each year, and the number leav-
ing our shores, and the probability that things are going to get
worse in this respect makes the future bleak indeed.

Nurses

There is a shortage.

Not of beds but of nurses.

In the old days there were only two acceptable occupations for a
young lady. Governess or Nurse. Nowadays, practically every
occupation and career is open to them, while their main occupation
and pre-occupation still remains . . . marriage. The hospitals have
to compete. Pay has improved a little, some conditions bettered,
discipline less harsh, but still this career compares badly with the
other fields of opportunity which now exist.

Well, what about altruism, dedication, service ? There never
was a sufficient number of noble minded idealists. To-day, modern
medicine with its complications and organisations enables a much
higher standard of diagnosis and treatment, but in order to achieve
and maintain this, there is need for a much larger number of nursing
personnel, both relatively and absolutely.

So there is a shortage of beds in actual use, and one hears now
and again, outcries against coloured immigrants taking up " our
beds." In fact, the boot is on the other foot. If certain govern-
ments were to prohibit their girls working in our hospitals, and
arrange for intensive courses of study for them in their own coun-
tries, we should have even more empty and useless beds in our
hospitals.

Then of course the Government, which is still involved in denying
reasonable increases of pay to nurses, would issue a "patriotic
appeal " for English girls to come forward in the national interest
to save " the Empire Ward " from closure. Or maybe some people

would welcome this as the beginning of the end of the NHS Hospital
service. Then we might, in modern practice, have take-over bids
by private firms to run them. HOW ARE YOUR HOSPITAL
SHARES THIS MORNING?

Of course this could not happen for we would carry on with the
trained sisters and nurses already working in these wards. Or
\\ ould we ? It must be noted that every month one hundred
trained sisters and nurses leave our shores to go to the USA and
elsewhere for better jobs.

The truth is that we, who dreamed long ago about idealism and
service and suchlike have nothing to smile about. We have not
developed a nation of idealists at all. It is true we have a govern-
ment which for the past ten years has been dedicated to the principle
of FM ALL RIGHT. JACK ! It is true that the spurious prosperity,
the advertising, the gimmicks and all the rest have made a nation
ever more selfish and more materialistic than ever before.

Administration

In proportion to the size of the organisation, the money spent and
the work done, the percentage of administrative staff is smaller than
in any comparable organisation, public or private. The public
image of a swollen bureaucracy costing unnecessary millions is
rubbish.

Yet there is much wrong here. This is due to a feature of British
way of life which applies to a wider field also. It has been and still
is a characteristic of administration to regard the administrators as
superior, as higher, and more educated, as more worthy of high
pay than the scientists, the technicians, the professors, the people
trained and qualified to carry out the skilled duties involved. In
the past, medicine was less caught-up in tliis attitude. The doctors,
through their different committees, ran the hospitals to a very
great extent. In a few places, a strong-minded chairman, usually
with a huge fortune behind him, did dominate the scene.

To-day the administrators say, " At last, in hospitals, we have
caught up with the general national atmosphere. Now we, the
administrators, can look the senior consultants and the speciaUsts
in the face — for now we are all equal — and some of us are more
equal than others I

And all power corrupts. More so and more rapidly and more
markedly among little people. The trouble with the bureaucrat is
that he beheves people exist for paperwork, while others work on
the assumption that paper is merely an instrument to be used in the
dealing with people.

And patients are people, and so are the doctors and the nurses,
and the others who collaborate in treatment.

A deeper analysis of the problems and troubles of the NHS
indicates . . . MONEY. Even those who have a philosophy which
hates the power of money in a society must admit its importance.
Nye Bevan long ago pointed out the absurdity of what he called the
pastoral psychology of our accountancy. God made four seasons.
These make a year. God is identified with sacred Mammon, hence
all book-keeping must be fitted into a calendar year. At the end,
you draw a double line and then begin again. Perhaps if you have
a pagan hogmanay orgy, you can start the new year with a magical
belief that all will be well.

Or you can simply pray that it will be so.

It is true that recently we have begun to grow out of this concept.
We are now getting some monetary plans based on five or even ten
years periods. Unfortunately, some experiences in this field lend
colour to the suggestion that some people promise the electors
things which, they hope, will be forgotten by the time of subsequent
elections.

But sacred departmentalisation still goes on. A saving in one
department in the books is a thing for jubilation, and an OBE or
even a CBE for some official, even although everyone knows the
result is an overall increase in outlay, due to increased expenses for
some other departments . . . plus some added delays and ineffi-
ciencies !

How much should a good health service cost ? To state a certain
fixed amount in coinage is absurd . . . except to the economists. At
present it is less than five per cent, of the national income. Is that
too much or too little ? How do you measure it ? How can you
measure it ?

( We omit any detailed references to Mental Health and to the Prob-
lems of Old Age because they will be the subjects of later pamphlets).

We have to consider the question of the inter-relationships of
NHS with other social policies.

The NHS cannot be considered in a vacuum. One must relate it
to other matters, which may be standing still, moving backwards, or
forwards in differing rates and directions. As Signposts for the
Sixties says: " One of the characteristics of the ever more complex
civilisation in which we live is the need it imposes on the State to
allocate more and more of the national resources to community
services — health, education, social security and transport for ex-
ample, not to mention defence."

If a few millions more had been spent in the last five years on the
roads, how many millions would have been saved by the NHS ?
For the Government to take, say, £300 millions by Road Tax and
spend £100 millions of it on the roads, well that is good business and
good book-keeping. For the Government to encourage motor
manufacturers to produce two new cars for every six inches of roads

they make, that can be called good business and good book-keeping.
What matter if they lose sight not only of the true book-keeping,
but also of stagnation, impaired productivity, human suffering,
physical and mental ?

Again, if sufficient factory inspectors had been trained and ap-
pointed, how many pounds would be saved on the budgeting of the
i>JHS ? The author of this pamphlet used to hawk around Labour
Conferences some data, which was believed to be relevant. In-
dustrial injuries and diseases caused nine months loss of productivity
for every day lost by strikes.

The Labour Party plans for the future now include an Occupa-
tional Health Service, and there is no doubt that it will repay its
cost many times over ... in real bookkeeping nationally. Equally
there is no doubt that economists will produce a statement showing
how extra\'agant these sociaUsts are.

The truth is that you cannot measure socialist policies by purely
capitalistic yardsticks.

We are now told that medicine is too big and important to be left
in the hands of the doctors. That is true. In fact it never was
entirely left in their hands. Equally one might argue that Econo-
mics is far too serious matter to be left in the hands of the econo-
mists ! It would probably be more realistically dealt with in the
hands of the doctors . . . preferably psychiatrists !

The policy of the Labour Party is based upon the acceptance of
the NHS, as a fine concept, and that although a Tory Government
has messed it about, while paying lip-service to it. a future Labour
Government will go ahead and improve it — if this means paying out
more money, it will do so. A great part of this extra expenditure
will be recouped within the service, and there will be additional
gains from other sources, e.g. increased productivity from a larger
force of healthy people.

What does it all add up to ? There is a climate of opinion at
present, critical of and hostile to the National Health Service, both
within and without, and, if the present trends continue, there is a
real and grave danger of its complete collapse, despite its great
benefits to so many people.

Broadly speaking, this applies to all the social services — to the
Welfare State. There is a disguised attack all the time implying
that any weaknesses and defects in our present society, its moral
standards, its characters, its endeavours are to be attributed to the
inception of this system of the Welfare State. No wonder Signposts
for the Sixties feels it necessary to proclaim its belief — " The failure
of our economy to keep pace with its main competitors is not due
to the mollycoddling of the Welfare State or to the lack of effort by
British Labour."

On the other hand, if we turn to Mr. Powell's address, we find at
the outset an extract from the Plowden Report, viz : " The social
changes of the last fifteen years have altered the incidence of hard-
ship so that there now may well be excessive social services for some
purposes and inadequate for others."

One may ask what his party in office for the past ten years have
done about the inadequate services ?

He begins with what he calls the " Queerest of the Social Services "
— subsidised housing.

" This social service happened by accident. At the end of the
First World War it was assumed that after a short time money would
be back to its pre-war value and market rents to their pre-war level.
As a temporary measure, wartime rent restriction was retained, and
as an equal temporary measure a subsidy was introduced to bridge
the gap between pre-war and post-war rents."

" Pre-war values never did come back, rent restriction never did
cease to be considered necessary, and even after the building of
three or four million houses, subsidies never were discontinued. So
it began to be asserted that this was a social service."

After some interesting criticism of this development, the Minister
went on to say, " The system grew stronger and more complex, so
that the wonder is not that it lived so long, but that two men were
found, at last, in Duncan Sandys and Henry Brooke, of sufficient
courage and determination to lay the axe to the roots and start
hewing back to sanity."

What an accident ! What an admission ! Who were the people
who assumed that the pre-war values would return ? The econo-
mists ? The clever business men in Government, the gentlemen
who call themselves " Something in the City," the Landlords ?
Who ? Yes, indeed social economics is far too serious a business
to be left in the hands of the economists

There are many people now who would not classify the actions
of Sandys and Brooke as being courageous, but would find other
and more appropriate terms for their actions.

It is interesting and important to compare this attitude to the
Social-Service-angle of Housing with the Housing section in Sign-
posts for the Sixties. This deals with the Price and the Use of the
Land — in terms which show some real concern with people who
require homes in which to live.

Mr. Powell goes on to deal with another achievement of the
Tories of a similar nature ... in a similar boasting manner. Food
subsidies. " If the incoming Tory Government had not swept
them away at once, it would to-day seem no less difficult to abolish
the ' social service of subsidised food ' than the 'social service of
subsidised housing.' Luckily we killed it before it became a fuU-

11

blown institution and to-day no one seriously expects that food,
clothing, or even a T.V. set should be subsidised."

It would appear that Mr. Powell is not quite sure whether he is
lecturing as the wise philosopher or merely trying to make a cheap
party point as a politician. In the one case he boasts about the
Tories finally having courage to do something, in the other boasting
because they did not wait and acted immediately, thus showing
courage. But one is not really concerned with " political courage "
—one is concerned with facts and their meaning in terms of an atti-
tude towards Social Services.

The Tories abohshed food subsidies ! What a great claim !
Again, it must be pointed out that this was only done in one form
of departmental accountancy. Has the Minister never met the
Minister for Agriculture ? Has the latter never told him the facts
of political life ?

For a Minister of the Crown, in a country in which in the past ten
years a Tory Government have given about £3,000 millions in sub-
sidies to the farmers, to claim they have abolished food subsidies is
to make nonsense of the meaning of words !

Why this subsidy ? To raise the price of food for the people
generally ? Even the Tories would not dare to spread such propa-
ganda. To keep prices as stable and at as low a level as possible ?
They would probably claim this to be so, and, indeed, that would
be the justification for this course. Surely it is not merely a bribe
to retain the goodwill of the farmers ? Or may be it is merely a
device to maintain a standard of living for farmers ? In that case,
why not openly and honestly call it a special and respectable Tory
form of National Assistance for a favoured section of the com-
munity ?

If this enormous subsidy over the Tory years of government is a
device to help British agriculture while keeping down prices of
food for the people generally, what becomes of the boast of abolish-
ing Food Subsidies ?

The truth would appear to be that the old idea of the " Two
Nations " still obtains in Tory thinking. Any help for the " Haves "
is right and justified and given some suitable name, any help for the
" Have-Nots " is a Social Service and somehow this carried with it a
suggestion of something socialist, or even dirty !

What of other social services ? We leave Education and Pensions
to later pamphlets by other students in these fields. We merely
make a simple statement. The Labour Government came into
ofiice immediately after the war, when the country was bankrupt.
The austerity and stringencies were inevitable. The Tory Govern-
ment could build upon the benefits derived from this. They have
been in office for ten years. International terms of trade were in
their favour for most of that time.

12

Yet to-day, the situation as to Education and Pensions is dis-
graceful and deplorable.

What of other social services ? Here, as in so many fields, there
is a question of priorities.

Before the war the greatest social problem was unemployment.
Since the war, the greatest problems have been Mental and Nervous
Health, and the Old People, Care of the Aged and Infirm and
chronic Sick.

As regards Mental Health, the SMA published a pamphlet many
years ago, and it took some time for its policies and programmes to
begin to be implemented. A Royal Commission, a debate in
Parliament (when the pamphlet was extensively quoted) and a new
act, which shows many advances . . . but a situation to-day which
calls for much to be done.

Mr. Powell does mention that he used to consider mental hospitals
as the most staggering bhnd spot of our times, but he indicates that
he feels fairly happy about this field now.

When, after a period in office, just after the war, the Labour
Government claimed with pride the improvement in health gener-
ally, it was Dr. Charles Hill, in a " famous " broadcast who tried to
denigrate this claim, and to attribute all progress to Penicillin and
suchhke medical developments. The progress in recent years in
dealing with mental illness is much more due to similar medical
progress than to any positive action by the Government. The new
facilities are still on blue-prints, the increased and necessary medical
and nursing staff are still a theory, but it is in spite of the handicaps
that progress has been made by new drugs, and new studies and the
eff"orts of the people actually engaged in this work.

As far as the problems of the Aged and the Infirm are concerned,
again ten years of Tory rule show a great deal of talk but little
positive progress in their solution.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, judging by their official
pronouncements, these two problems are still the major ones yet
to be resolved. As far as the Tory Party is concerned, what ?
" What social services are inadequate ? I offer two guesses. Crime
and age ? " So says Mr. Powell. '' Treatment of delinquents
claims to-day the place which treatment of the lunatic but lately
occupied, as a gross example of society's inadequacy to cope with
its members."

He then goes on to say, " It may not be a popular view but I
would dare to say that prisons are our most important and also our
most deficient social service."

He then adds his view, " that, in time, things will get better, but
we cannot even claim to be using existing methods when 7,500
prisoners are sleeping three in a cell, and when policies which, but

13

for the war, would have been on the statute book in 1939, and
policies already on the statute book for half a generation, have
hardly begun to be carried into effect for lack of premises."

One cannot deny his right to determine the greatest social prob-
lems as he sees fit, but one can disagree with his judgment. One
can also ask pertinent questions about this. For example, how
much would it cost to keep all these delinquents in prison, to arrange
to receive them back again for lack of the procedures and facilities
likely to prevent this. How much would it have cost to build the
suitable premises ? How much, years ago, when the unemployed
cried out for work ? And since Labour was in of^ce and power
for about six years in the past fifty, whose responsibility is it that the
statutes have not been translated into realities ?

Let us emphasise the comment ..." Our most important deficient
social service."

One may wonder about the obsession of Tories about Crimes
and Punishment. Nevertheless, in terms both of quantity and
quality, there can be no doubt that to most sociological students,
the problems in this country associated with Old Age are infinitely
greater than those associated with Crime. And, those who work
in the field of Mental Health, will probably agree that this is still a
much greater problem also, (for much of what passes for Delin-
quency is but a part of the Mental Health problem).

Still let the Minister have his opinion. We can be thankful that
at the last Tory Conference at Brighton there was less of the " flog
them all " stuff — even if their latent aggressions were deflected
against the majority of the Queen's subjects on account of their
colour, under the guise of a non-colour Bill about Immigration.

Both parties, judging by the Tory document which has been refer-
red to throughout this pamphlet and by the Labour documents to
which reference has also been made, are agreed that the Problems
associated with Old Age is a major matter. But the implication of
Mr. Powell's remarks that it will take thirty years to solve, is both
depressing, doubtful and one which the Tories have not broadcast.
His further approach to the heart of the matter is interesting and
deserves full consideration. " At the same time, I doubt whether
the State can solve it. It can be stated in economic terms ; in terms
of questions of accommodation; in service; in attention; but money
benefits and subsidies are not the heart of the matter. As more and
more survive and are kept alive beyond the utmost limit of working
life, the economic and social function of the individual provides less
and less of a motive or framework for his survival and when we ask
" u7;r ? " we find ourselves thrown back upon purpose in a sense
which neither is economic or social nor even secular. We are
brought face to face with the question, " What is the purpose of
human life itself ? "

14

If one reads this address again and carefully, and then studies the
Labour pamphlets again and carefully, one may ask which is seeking
to provide a better answer. The underlying difference between the
two basic political philosophies then becomes very apparent.

Insurance against the vicissitudes of life is a good thing. Every-
body says so. The Insurance Societies and Companies tell us it is
so. It should follow that a system of society which provides full
insurance cover against disasters for everyone is better than one
which makes differences and distinctions. A system designed to
carry out this high ideal should not be left in the hands of small
groups of people, dedicated to the principle that the success of any-
thing is measured by the amount of its profits, and what its shares
are standing at ! A system which uses economics as its moral
basis has no moral basis. Furthermore, a system which tries to
deal with social problems on a moral basis, and then tries to fit its
methods into some economic pattern is not only more moral, but
is more likely to be economically viable.

A society which is so afraid of attacks upon it by a small number
of anti-social elements (called criminal) and then talks smugly in the
name of conscience about doing for them now or in the future, what
it should have done years ago, is responsible for economic wastage
as well as, morally speaking, for human wastage.

For instance, we spend much money to ensure that people will
not steal or cheat the National Health Act, the National Assistance
Act and so on. It is, of course, important to try to avoid and pre-
vent roguery anywhere, but must we blazon abroad every little
offence ? To high-power every little misdemeanour in these fields
and then try to attribute it all to something deleterious to the
human character called the Welfare State — this is monstrous.

If someone asserts that the increase in delinquency is due to the
Welfare State, ask him to explain the much greater increase in
quantity and degree of viciousness in the USA.

It is one of the glories of this country, that the Law, despite so
many defects, is respected by all because it has maintained such a
high standard. The attitude — better for ten guilty to go unpunished
rather than one innocent should suffer unjustly — underlies and
fortifies its greatness. In the field of the Social Services, although
all agree that abuse is to be avoided, the same principle should apply
as in Law . . . better that ten of the undeserving poor should get a
little more than the economic and statistical quota, than one of the
deserving poor should go without.

If the economists tear their hair at such heresy, let us remind them
of Mr. Powell's vital question: " What is national productivity for ?
What is it about ? " Or, if you like, in his own words, " what is the
purpose of human life itself? "

15

Of course, one will be told to be realistic. That means being
subservient to pastoral and departmental bookkeeping and account-
ancy. We have recently been informed that the national productivity
will increase annually by two and a half per cent.; hence the total
available for social services must not go above this increase. This
is simple and clear. But what does it mean ?

The present financial arrangements suddenly acquire a mystical
value as right and proper and sacred and inviolable. This is the
standard. It can only be increased when productivity itself is
increased, and the national income has increased (unless some of it
is drained off by a reduction in Super Tax !). Unfortunately, at the
same time, other Government departments take steps which restrict
and hold back productivity. Indeed, economics is far too serious a
matter to be left in the hands of economists ! Already this plan
has fallen flat and the Chancellor has had to admit his inability to
deal with percentages is as great as a predecessor's was to cope with
the " damned dots " of the decimal system !

A study of Labour's policies and programmes for their next
period in Ofiice shows much attention to practical realities, so much
so that some sociahsts may feel it lacks the crusading fire of the
past. It does, however, show clearly to the objective student a
wide gulf between its approach and that of the nearest equivalent at
present available, namely the printed address of the present Minister
of Health. Contrary to a commonly expressed view that there is no
difference between modern Labour and modern Tory, in the field of
Social Services, they are poles apart.

In the Labour Party, the spirit of socialism still is alive and
dynamic, although expressed in modern terminology.

In the Tory party there is a considerable move forward from the
days of the first decade of the century — but . . .

In ten years of Tory Government there have been many Ministers
of Health, and the author of this pamphlet is of the opinion that the
present Minister is the best of that lot. One does not question his
honesty, sincerity or integrity. But it does not seem unfair to para-
phrase his outlook in this way ..." While I am Minister of Health,
of course, I shall do my duty, and look after this business to the best
of my ability. But, really, you know there is not much point in it
all. If there hadn't been this show, things would have roughly been
the same. Still, we can't go back. It's too much trouble, you
know. I know what you, in this audience listening to me, are
thinking. But there it is. We're stuck with it."

The SMA was born to create a National Health Service. It
achieved its first objective through the Labour Government and Nye
Bevan. Now its objective is to " Defend and Extend the Service."
Anyone who reads this pamphlet will realise that the need to defend
it is paramount. Of course, it has its defects, and one of the

16

functions of the SM A is to highlight them and try to have them put
right in the hght of experience. But what if it crashes, collapses and
disintegrates all together ?

Mr. Powell has stated his opinion that it has become a self-
perpetuating organisation and organism. Also that he will do all
he can to improve it. The SMA begs leave to doubt his ability to
achieve his laudable aims if things go on as at present. In a few
years with too few doctors, too few nurses, and hospitals perhaps still
archaic, and new ones still on the drawing-boards, it just will not be
possible. No organisation, whether called self-perpetuating or not,
is necessarily, by divine decrees, guaranteed to be self-perpetuating
and permanent.

What is needed, and what alone may yet save the NHS is a Labour
Government with a Labour Minister of Health, really and truly
dedicated to its defence and extension. There is a hard fight ahead,
and the best soldiers are still those who know what they are fighting
for and who love what they know.

Published by today and tomorrow publications ltd. /or the socialist medical
ASSOCIATION, 13 Prince of Wales Terrace, London, W.8.

Printed by Leicester printers ltd.. Church Gate, Leicester

■ RA
I 485

^1 Biological

{ & Medial

Socialist Medical Association

The health service and
the welfare state

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

\