The NHS needs consensus, not weaponry

Along with the economy, the NHS is rightly seen as a top priority by the population of Britain. Simon Jenkins notes in Thatcher and Sons that even the Queen of privatisation, Mrs Thatcher, was “terrified” of touching the NHS. It’s a behemoth that politicians must pay lip service to, and any slight tampering is met with outcries. The controversial Health and Social Care Act of 2012 had to be “paused” after significant opposition, and is still viewed with suspicion today. Nevertheless, I am encouraged that, despite the tough economic decisions that have been made in this Parliament (and will continue to be made after 2015), the major parties have already pledged significant sums of money for the NHS post-2015. The Autumn Statement secured an extra £2bn of funding, and the Conservatives, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats all appear eager to meet the extra £8bn per year target by 2020, as set out in Simon Stevens’ Report (NHS Chief Executive). What is less encouraging is the political posturing that has taken place.

The recent A&E crisis is a serious concern, and it further underlines how vital extra cash is to the health service. However, Jane Merrick was right to point out in The Independent that “trying to profit from NHS misery” is cynical and unhelpful. She points out that Jeremy Hunt plays down problems in the NHS, whilst friends of Ed Miliband have noted that he wants to “weaponise” the NHS as an election issue. Each political party no doubt will argue in the coming months that it is best placed to handle the NHS, but as the health service is stretched and the A&E crisis escalates, patients and families who are affected do not need politicians utilising the crisis as an election tool, nor do they need triumphalism when the NHS enters calmer waters.

As crazy as this may sound to some voters, it’s also tricky to see the NHS argument as black and white. I have had many emails from constituents in the Derbyshire Dales asking whether I’d support a proposed ‘NHS Reinstatement Bill’, which would “reverse 25 years of marketisation in the National Health Service, abolish the purchaser-provider split, re-establish District Health Authorities and other public bodies and fully restore the NHS in England as an accountable public service”. I am sympathetic to this, and I do not like the idea of market principles creeping further into the NHS. I was very sceptical of the aforementioned Act of 2012, but I am pleased that the distinction of the NHS remaining “free at the point of use” has remained, and that the mandate is still there for the Health Secretary to provide such a service. I have offered broad support for the NHS Reinstatement Bill on the condition that other distinctions are clarified. I admit that this is not an unequivocal stance, but private involvement that is controlled and that can reduce waiting times and benefit patients is a good thing. Furthermore, as a Liberal Democrat I know the lesson of this Parliament of not making pledges that you can’t guarantee in the future.

I am set to take part in an NHS debate in March with my political opponents, and I very much hope that we attempt to reach a consensus on what is best for the NHS in the Derbyshire Dales, rather than having a slanging match which will benefit no one. The NHS should always remain free at the point of use, and as Jane Merrick puts it, “ministers and opposition politicians need to acknowledge that this crisis is a national emergency and try to reach consensus”.