Alan Milburn's Plan: Further Retreat from Society Guaranteeing the Right to Health Care

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Alan Milburn's Plan: Further Retreat from Society Guaranteeing the Right to Health Care

Signing of New Delhi Declaration by British and Indian Governments

Iran:
US Threats Over "Harbouring Terrorists" Rejected

On Tuesday, Health Secretary Alan Milburn announced plans that 35 three star trusts could become autonomous, self-governing "foundation hospitals" with the ability to spend their money as they see fit. Under these proposals they will have the option of establishing themselves as not-for-profit companies. At the same time he also announced plans to bring in privately franchised management teams to manage "failing NHS trusts".

He said, in what he called his most important speech since he took office as Health Secretary, "We now have a clear set of frameworks and standards in place, it is time to let go." Once again criticising the NHS as an "old-fashioned top, down nationalised industry", he said that the government's alternative was "greater community ownership and less state ownership, leading to greater diversity in local services". These latest statements of Alan Milburn come only a month after he announced dramatically increasing the number of operations carried out by the private sector to 100,000 this year under the Concordat signed last year.

It is reported that in the House of Commons, former Health Secretary Frank Dobson expressed his reservations about the need to franchise the control of NHS hospitals to the private sector. He called on Alan Milburn to "give at least some thought to the fact that the public service ethic managed to maintain the NHS through all the Tory years of under-investment and malignant policies? Wouldn't it be right to give the public service ethic the opportunity to flourish with the extra resources that are now available?"

John Edmonds, General Secretary of the GMB, said in a BBC report, "It is staggering that at a time when the failure of rail privatisation is there for all to see the government is intent on making the same mistake with our hospitals."

Alan Milburn's statement is intent on signalling to all who work in the health service that that whether hospitals achieve "success" or "failure" New Labour's plan to deliver the health care system in Britain as a resource to private capital is to be carried through, whether it be in the form of private hospitals, hospitals financed by the Private Finance Initiative, privately managed hospitals or former Trusts operating as "not-for-profit companies". This of course, will be in addition to the many franchised and contracted out support services which form part of what has been one of the largest organisations in the world. As the crisis deepens the main concern is to use it as a vehicle to guarantee maximum profits to big business. This is what is behind the statement of Alan Milburn in advocating that the alternative to the NHS as an "old-fashioned top, down nationalised industry" to be one of "greater community ownership and less state ownership, leading to greater diversity in local services". This is why people find so hollow the assertions of the government that in this new "modernised" NHS, provision of health care will not reflect people’s ability to pay.

The concerns of both staff and patients must not be ignored. Instead, the health workers, professionals and everyone in society, whose claim to health care should be met as of right, should work to ensure that the future of the NHS is safeguarded so as to meet the health care needs of all members of society at the highest level available, equally to all, regardless of their circumstances. They should strive to empower themselves by putting forward their best representatives to build the Workers’ Opposition and so be in a position to choose on their own behalf the direction of society so that the health service is safeguarded and strengthened.

On January 6, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, signed what has been called the New Delhi Declaration, an agreement between the two countries entitled India and United Kingdom: Partnership For a Better and Safer World.

The New Delhi Declaration reflected the character of the relationship that has been established between the two countries following the events of September 11. The two governments have now agreed to "enhance significantly" their joint co-operation in what the Declaration referred to as "counter-terrorism", including strengthening the work of the UK/India Joint Working Group on Terrorism. The two governments also "looked forward to further co-operation" between their respective armed forces and agreed to work together more closely on such matters as international arms control and with regard to Afghanistan. In short they agreed to work together in defence of what they referred to as "democratic values". India pledged its full support for the Anglo-American "war against terrorism", while the British government pledged to support India’s aim to gain permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

But the New Delhi Declaration also signalled the strengthening of Britain’s economic penetration of India’s economy, since it was announced that the British government would triple its "development assistance" to India, already the largest in the world, to approximately £300 million by 2004. The British government, on behalf of the monopolies, is especially keen to draw on India’s expertise in the IT field and enthusiastic about encouraging Indian investment and joint ventures in Britain, as well as utilising the expertise of India’s most highly educated population in the interests of big business in Britain.

The Declaration also announced measures to increase trade between the two countries. The value of such trade currently stands at £5 billion per year, with Britain currently India’s second largest international trading partner and the largest single importer. Successive British governments have encouraged the liberalisation of the Indian economy and in 1993 the British and Indian governments established the Indo-British Partnership Initiative, now the Indo-British Partnership, to strengthen trade and investment between the two countries in the interests of the monopolies. Since that time, according to official figures, bilateral trade has grown by 68%, with British exports to India growing by 41%.

The New Delhi Declaration was presented as a new and dynamic phase in the "partnership" between India and Britain "for a better and safer world". No mention was made of the fact that this "partnership" originated in the colonial exploitation of India and its resources and the oppression of its peoples by British imperialism, nor the fact that the peoples of India and the entire region are still struggling to overcome the legacy of colonialism and the continual interference of Britain and the other big powers in their affairs. This situation has led to increasing instability and the possibility of new military conflicts in the region.

The New Delhi Declaration represents a further attempt by the British government to continue the exploitation of India’s material and human resources and to strengthen its reactionary alliance with the Indian government, as a means to facilitate greater economic, political and military influence in the South Asian sub-continent.

On January 10, Iran rejected as "baseless" a warning by US President George W. Bush about harbouring terrorists and destabilising the interim Afghan government. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said that Bush's comments are based on "undocumented information", Radio Payam reported.

Earlier in the day, Bush warned Iran against harbouring al-Qaida members seeking refuge in Iran and threatened it with "dire consequences" if it destabilised the interim Afghan government. "If they in any way shape or form try to destabilise the government, the coalition will deal with them, in diplomatic ways initially," Bush told reporters. US officials insinuated that Iran was using arms shipments and cash "to limit neighbouring Afghanistan's pro-Western tilt" and "is enlisting members of Bin Laden's al-Qaida network in the effort", news reports said. Bush responded to his own government's insinuations by saying that such acts by Iran "would be unacceptable" and renewed the threat: "Either you're with us or against us, and any nation that thwarts our ability to root terror out where it exists will be held to account one way or the other."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a radio address, "Since the start of the Afghan crisis, the fundamental policy of Iran has been to prevent members of al-Qaida from entering Iran." He said that Iran is against foreign military presence in Afghanistan, which he said "would block the way to permanent peace and stability in Afghanistan". He said Iran's principal policy on Afghanistan is based on maintaining Afghanistan's independence, expressing hope that the Afghani people would decide on their own fate independently.

The spokesman also said that Iran had been fighting terrorism before the international community expressed concerns over it. Furthermore, Iran, including leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, condemned the September 11 attacks shortly after they occurred. However, Iran did not openly allow US forces heading to Afghanistan to use its airspace. It is reported that Iran had privately promised to rescue any US pilot whose aircraft crashed on the country’s soil.