Who Has the Interests of the Health Service at Heart?
An Injury to One Is an Injury to All!

In the context of the government’s increasing attempts to ensure that the health service serves the monopolies and not the people’s right to health care, organised opposition within the health service to this agenda is being targeted and ruled inadmissible.

Nurses and other health workers are being declared to be uncaring as the root of the problem in the health service. If professional bodies take up the cause of the conditions of their members, there is said to be a conflict of interest, whereas in fact to ensure that the rights of health workers are respected is to ensure that the conditions for the well-being of patients are safeguarded. Opposition to the direction that the government is taking the NHS is itself declared by Jeremy Hunt and the Coalition to be standing in the way of progress and hence reprehensible.

Far from health workers and professionals having a decisive say in safeguarding patient care, they are being systematically excluded from decision-making. The health unions are facing a serious challenge in this respect as to how to respond, taking up social responsibility for the public good. The government and NHS Trust boards and management would like to make it a matter of some individuals, or whether unions work within the system or flout it.

That it has become not uncommon for individuals to be sacked for “whistleblowing” can be seen from such websites as “A Better NHS” (www.ajustnhs.com) or “Cause” (www.suspension-nhs.org). This, however, is a symptom of the disempowerment of health workers and professionals. How to bring into play the cohesion of the organised workers’ movement and the people’s movement against the anti-social offensive in health, as in education and other public services, is at the heart of the issue.

A case in point is the recent sacking of the chairperson of the Unison Waltham Forest Health Branch, Charlotte Monro, after a disciplinary hearing. This has happened at a time when Barts Health NHS Trust is threatening the jobs of health workers on the basis of its “financial problems”, and even threatening the future of Whipps Cross Hospital, recently merged as part of Barts Trust, where Charlotte worked. It represents an attack on the right of the trade unions to not only represent their members effectively, but to organise in defence of the future of the NHS. The sacking represents an attack on all health workers. It is part and parcel of the offensive against a pro-social NHS, which respects not only patient care but the right of health workers and professionals to defend that care, speak out in its defence and take action where necessary.

A vigorous campaign to reinstate Charlotte Monro and in defence of the right to health care has taken shape. Below we post a report of a demonstration organised by the campaign.

An Injury to One Is an Injury to All!
Health Care Is a Right!

On December 5, over 100 people took part in a spirited militant protest outside the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel. They were demanding the reinstatement of Charlotte Monro who has been unjustly sacked by the Barts Health NHS Trust. Charlotte Monro has been organising against the downgrading of health staff and the cutting of health services across East London. Those taking part included work colleagues from the Trust, other hospital workers, trade union reps and friends and supporters from many campaigns, including the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign. At one point, the protesters actually stopped the traffic in the busy main road with many vehicles hooting in support.

Work colleagues, friends and supporters all spoke of the fight, putting it in the context of the systematic and vicious attack on the NHS throughout the whole country. The secretary of Tower Hamlets “Keep Our NHS Public” spelt out the devastation caused by these cuts pointing out that she was “ horrified but unsurprised” at Charlotte Monro’s sacking. She said the government had told the health trusts throughout the country, including East London, to cut, and at the same time maintaining the lie that the health service is getting better and better. However, the harsh reality is that health services are getting worse and worse, that money is being cut, that staff conditions are worse, that staff are getting increasingly de-moralised, that patients are complaining there is no-one to look after them on the wards. She said that Charlotte, who has spoken up for Whipps Cross for decades, spoken up for Unison and for the needs of the staff that provide health care, is the first to get the axe. She finished by saying, “We need to stick together in our communities and our unions to save the NHS – Whose NHS? Our NHS!”

A colleague of Charlotte’s from the Waltham Forest Community Campaign to Save the NHS pointed out that “when our services are cut it affects us all”. Another speaker explained that although re-instating Charlotte Monro is an important issue in itself it is also a national issue. Pat Sikorski from the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign spoke of the potentially devastating effects on health care throughout the country that would be caused by the government’s plans to cut the NHS budget by £50 billion by 2020. He pointed out that Charlotte had been telling the truth about the impact of the health cuts in East London.

Charlotte Monro herself gave a powerful speech. After referring to the support of her colleagues who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with her, of fellow trade unionists, of people in the community, of people from far and wide, including from Lewisham, from Hertfordshire and from across the country, Charlotte Monro said that if anything is most important to everyone in society it is the right to health care. She emphasised, “We are in a situation now where our NHS, which is one of the most precious things in our society, is under very serious threat. It is under threat because it is being starved of resources systematically; it is under threat because of an agenda to take over much of the NHS for the private sector; it is under threat because of schemes like the PFI that have used loans from the private sector to build these big hospitals, schemes which are robbing local services of resources in extortionate financial arrangements.”

Charlotte referred to the threat carried by the presently prevailing culture within the NHS that has become so evident with the merging of NHS Trusts. “I’ve worked in Whipps Cross for twenty-six years,” she said. “I have fought many battles, been out on public demonstrations, spoken in scrutiny committees, spoken to public meetings of six hundred people and criticised the Trust in no uncertain terms and fought for our future as a hospital, but never have I had this treatment before. There has always been a basic respect for the role of the unions and a basic respect that we have our points of view and we are all speaking and contributing to the future of our health service.”

Charlotte emphasised: “What is happening within this Trust is very clear: they want to crush and suppress the voice of the staff and the ability of the unions and the staff to organise themselves in order to have an impact on our health services. Whipps Cross, Newham, London and Barts are in a situation where their future is being jeopardised through financial cuts. Now, when you are looking at the future of our health services – and locally here we are awaiting the Trust to put forward their strategy as to what services will be in the different hospitals and how they will be used – it is absolutely crucial that the voice of those who work in the health service, who experience it, who commit their lives to delivering healthcare to the people, to improving the healthcare of their community, is heard, that it is an independent voice and that people can speak without fear.”

Charlotte said that the action that has been taken against her appears to be aimed at giving staff a very clear message: “At your peril do you communicate and work with the community, at your peril do you raise those issues and give your view.” These people have said, “Oh we’re not disciplining Charlotte because she spoke at scrutiny committees, but because she gave inaccurate information and thereby brought the Trust into disrepute.” Now what was that inaccurate information I was supposed to have given? It was the views of staff that differed from the views of the Trust – I gave no “inaccurate information”.

“The other critical thing that they’ve attacked me for,” she said, “is going to union members and telling them about a consultation that was going to affect them which they said was before the management had told them. But everything that I have done was in my union role. If they can just switch and decide at will that they don’t like something that a union rep is doing so therefore they will call it ‘personal conduct’, then our protection that we are entitled to in law as union reps is completely disregarded – that is a threat to everyone.” Charlotte Monro referred to the way the rights supposedly guaranteed under successive Trade Union Acts for trade union representatives to act for their members and not suffer detriment as individuals were being trampled on. She emphasised: “We have to fight this Trust to make them respect that right, and to make them respect the right of staff to organise in their unions independently of influence from their employers, and we have to get them to respect the right of people to speak out whether that be in a ward meeting, whether it be in a public debate. It is equally important that health staff can speak and tell it as it is and raise their concerns and give their perspective. This battle needs to continue. I really hope that they see sense and are reasonable, and that I am reinstated. But if that doesn’t happen, then it is because there are big agendas here,” Charlotte concluded. “And that is why we have to have an even bigger agenda. Our agenda is about our society, the health of our population and our rights!”

Opposition is mounting to the clause 118 of the Care Bill, "the hospital closure clause". This late clause has been smuggled into the Care Bill legislation in order to widen the powers of Trust Special Administrators to unilaterally recommend the closing down of any hospital. This comes after the government suffered a humiliating double defeat in the Law Courts ruling that the Trust Special Administrator for the South London Hospital Trust exceeded his powers in the recommendation to close down Lewisham Hospital’s Accident Emergency unit. If the legislation goes through, the implication is that without any local warning or discussion, the Health Secretary could simply axe hospital services anywhere in England.

Save Lewisham Hospital campaigners led a protest at the Department of Health in Whitehall on December 16 against clause 118. It was a good gathering with Charing Cross, Ealing, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Bath Bristol, Birmingham and Mid Staffs also represented. The campaigners handed in a petition – over 140,000 signatures – on the day of the second reading of the Care Bill in the House of Commons. The number of people who have signed the 38 Degrees online petition set up by Louise Irvine, Chair of the Lewisham Campaign, continues to rise. Campaigners also continue to collect signatures for the petition and are aiming for quarter of a million signatures – so please forward it to friends and colleagues. See:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/jeremy-hunt-should-resign-and-take-his-hospital-closure-clause-with-him

An early opposition motion was defeated. But this is just the start of the campaign which will gather momentum in the New Year. The Care Bill now goes to committee stage where it could be amended and then goes back to the Commons where further amendments can be voted on, before the final vote in February.

Speaking in the Commons debate, shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham said that the hospital closure clause was an “affront to democracy” which “paves the way for a new round of financially driven hospital closures” which “should send a shiver through every community”.

Campaigners plan to step up the campaign in January with intensive lobbying of MPs, letter writing and public events to highlight the dangers of this clause. Anyone can submit evidence to the committee examining the bill – see details here:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/care.html

(Save Our NHS – East London; Our NHS)

University staff continued their campaign over pay and conditions, resulting from the derisory well-below inflation offer of a 1% annual rise, with a second national strike jointly organised by the unions University and College Union, Unison and Unite, and this time including the Educational Institute of Scotland.

They were joined by Further Education college staff who have been offered an even worse 0.7%, amounting to a 15% real-terms cut over the past four years.

The University of the West of Scotland was closed completely, while only two sites of the City of Liverpool College remained open. Lectures and tutorials were cancelled and libraries, laboratories and other facilities were closed.

Support workers at Liverpool University also struck on both December 3 and 4 over separate cuts that will subtract over 10% from the income of some staff.

At the same time, students have been occupying key buildings. London, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Ulster, Sheffield, Sussex and Exeter Universities saw buildings taken over, and more than 100 students of Goldsmiths College in London occupied Deptford Town Hall.

These occupations were both held in support of striking staff and against wider aspects of privatisation and the direction of education in the universities.

Furthermore, the government recently announced a new wave of student debt privatisation in the wake of the tripling of fees that began last year, reportedly selling £900m-worth for a fraction of its price. Leaks that the government expects interest rates to rise are being officially denied.

The student actions brought together these various strands of resistance to austerity and privatisation and for the future of higher education. This was particularly true of the 100-strong occupation of the University of London’s Senate House on December 4.

In May this year, management of the University of London took the scandalous unilateral decision that the University of London Union (ULU), a traditional focus of student organising and resistance, would cease to operate as a student union and be run as a centre of for-profit commercial student services from next summer. As ULU President Michael Chessum warned, this would “set a dangerous precedent for university managements to move in with no mandate and shut down democratically-run unions”.

University management presented occupying students with an ultimatum to leave at 18:00 that same day. When students remained in the building, university security together with police forcibly evicted the students. Students claim that police and security used violence, backed up by video footage that has emerged showing police punching students and dragging them to the ground by their hair. There are reports also of laptops and other personal items being confiscated by security.

This follows an earlier occupation in Birmingham University on November 28, which was also broken up by police.

The Sussex occupation led to suspension of five students, in a move to try to prevent further such student action which has been held three times at that university since February.

This is reflective of a shift in the approach of university management, which is turning towards a more openly autocratic style, and goes hand-in-hand with the brazen anti-social programme of the current government.

London University Secretary Chris Cobb declared that the university would not “enter into a dialogue” with students who adopt occupations. The university has now taken an injunction to ban such “violent and intimidating” protests.

This is combined with a switch in police tactics to one of making mass arrests of students under pretext of “breach of the peace”. In total, there have been 41 arrests over the two days, according to reports. Police intervention on campus has been increasing over recent months in the lead-up to the present actions, especially at ULU, with arrests over such crimes as chalking slogans on pavements.

Students have responded, for example by organising the subsequent #copsoffcampus protest, which marched outside of Senate House. This was met with police riot tactics such as “kettling” and further arrests.

The shift has been so overt that it has been raised in parliament. John McDonnell MP tabled an early-day motion on the indefinite suspension of the five Sussex students, which states:

“That this House calls on Professor Michael Farthing, Vice-Chancellor of Sussex University, to retract the suspension of five Sussex students which began on 4 December 2013 following protests against the outsourcing of the university’s services to private companies and in support of striking staff campaigning for fair and equal pay; notes that the protest by the students was targeted at the private company involved in the outsourcing and did not disrupt the work of students or university staff; and urges the university’s management to respond positively to the requests by students and staff for a meaningful dialogue rather than continue to intimidate and penalise those students who speak out against the university’s current outsourcing and staffing policies.”

Eight Labour MPs along with George Galloway MP, Respect and Caroline Lucas MP, Green Party signed the motion.

Suspended Sussex student Michael Segalov said: “This is an attempt to de-legitimise protests on campus and dissent on universities. It is scaremongering so that students are afraid to have their voices heard.”

These developments mark a sharpening of all the trends that began with the phase change in the student movement in 2010, when riot tactics were first unleashed on the student marches that represented a new determination and consciousness around the principle that education is a right, not a privilege. Once thing is certain: attempts to divide students from workers, suppress the voice of youth and students, and impose non-negotiable decisions worked out in management boardrooms will fail.