In addition to the obvious inadvisability of scrapping and restructuring the nation’s arrangements for maintaining public health in the middle of a pandemic, the creation of the new National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) opens several cans of worms.
First Public Health England (PHE) itself. It was created by David Cameron’s government as a result of the Andrew Lansley “reforms “of the NHS in 2012. These were hugely controversial, and bitterly opposed by Labour, who saw them as a means to facilitate yet more back-door privatisation of the NHS. Be that as it may, it is, or rather was, a Conservative creation, their own and no-on else’s. If they think it needs to be scrapped after less than eight years of operation, then this demonstrates that Troy ineptitude is not confined to the current amateurs.
In 2012 we Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives, and we voted for these “reforms.” The decision was not taken easily, and I understand caused great anxiety to our members in the House of Lords, who were eventually won over by the Labour Peer, Lord Warner. He was a former health minister in the Blair/Brown governments and assured our Lordships that the “reforms” were all right. It later transpired that Lord Warner had financial interests in BMI healthcare, which owned 54 private hospitals and clinics in the London area.
The problem this episode exposes is that we Liberal Democrats did not then, and do not now, have the financial resources to employ sufficient researchers and experts to give reliable and impartial advice, and often need to rely on tainted advice such as the above. Along with Proportional Representation, when we next have influence on the government we need to include the adequate and independent financing of political parties so that all parties have the resources to subject the government of the day to informed scrutiny.
The NIHP is to take over responsibility for the vital test, tack and trace functions which have so far failed lamentably. It therefore seems highly illogical to appoint as head of the new body the person in charge of the existing test, tack and trace system, Baroness Harding. The Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the Civil Service, introduced (more or less) by Gladstone in 1870, established that Civil Service posts should be allocated not to friends and protégés of the establishment, but by “competitive examination.” There is no evidence that that Lady Harding, formerly of Talk Talk and a friend David Cameron, has passed any such examination. It will be argued that the NHIP is not part of the formal Civil Service but an “executive agency.” So what are the rules for such positions? Clearly the job was not advertised. How much is she to be paid (out of public funds, of course)? We seem to be returning to the days of nepotism and patronage more typical of the 18th rather than the 21st century.
The creation of PHE may or may not have facilitated back-door privatisation but it was clearly part of an attempt to give additional supervision to, and take autonomy from, previous regional, and earlier local, arrangements for the maintenance of Public Health – another example of the urge to centralise rather than localise which is endemic in both the Conservative and Labour Parties. All the indications are that handing responsibilities to local authorities, both local government and healthcare, would have resulted in better control of the pandemic. Oh for the days of A J Cronin and the Medical Officers of Health who wielded such power in the Dr Finley novels.
Existing local bodies skilled in testing, tracking and tracing infected persons are the Sexually Transmitted Diseases units of the NHS. With their tact, discretion and experience these were the obvious people to whom to delegate the test, tack and trace functions regarding the pandemic. Where persuasion is needed to encourage contacts to self-isolate, particularly if it means losing their income for a fortnight, or maybe job for life with on uncooperative employer, they have the skills and could train others. Yet the job was given to Serco and presumably Lady Harding will continue to feather the private sector’s nests. Someone should be keeping an account of the costs of this and other uses of the private sector during the pandemic.
* Peter Wrigley is a member of Spen Valley Liberal Democrats and blogs as keynesianliberal.blogspot.com
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Chase Park fair photos
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Peter Martin
Iain Donaldson
7 Comments
Refreshing to read down to earth well informed common sense from a pillar of Liberalism in West Yorkshire – who rightly points out the naivety of 2012. Chris Wrigley is correct. The appointment of Dido Harding (of Isle of Wight ‘world beating’ test and trace fame) needs to be called in….. and Serco’s connection is equally dodgy.
What I would respectfully challenge though is the comment, “The problem this episode exposes is that we Liberal Democrats did not then, and do not now, have the financial resources to employ sufficient researchers and experts to give reliable and impartial advice”.
They could get that advice if they wanted to, Chris….. and allocated what funds they do have to get it. What happened to the Sainsbury millions in December and the furloughed savings since? Maybe joint Leader Mark Pack could tell us ?
Back in the sixties Jo Grimond went out of his way to cultivate the best brains in the Universities to research policy and I don’t see why that can’t be done now. If they don’t do it the Party will become even more of a laughing stock than it is now limited to sloganising at the “B******s to Brexit level.
Consistent well informed attacks on such as Serco would raise the quality of the Lib Dem contribution…… and gain a bit of respect in the media in the way that Vince Cable used to get pre-2010.
I do wonder if ministers are on commission to the private sector, even 0.1 percent of the recently printed 300 billion would be a nice wedge for those hard working but relatively poor (compared to the billionaires) elite? Local corruption is rife in councils etc so why not at govn level? It would have to be at such a scale that no-one would actually conceive it, I’d guess!
Health and education are big beasts to tame, with a workforce suspicious of Conservative governments having been weaned off just surviving by one Gordon Brown and had their future fiscal expectation muted by the past few govn’s. Without co-operation the govn can try to change the way it works but just keep hitting a brick wall.
Far from Labour’s fault; as I remember it…The ‘reforms’ were eagerly accepted by our leadership, met with ‘reserve’ by rank and file and finally accepted by ‘Shirley’s Bill’..
Not Baroness Williams’s finest hour.
Frank West: “Local corruption is rife in Councils”. An unsupported assertion as if were a truth known to everyone.
But it isn’t known and it isn’t true.
@ David Raw: thanks for the flattering description, David. I’m pleased to hear the party is now awash with cash, but it’s in a lump and what we need is a flow. My recollection s that, whilst in coalition the ministerial élite were awash with SPADS but the party itself lost most of its income through the ending of the Short Money. When we asked for it to continue we were mocked as being the only political party ever to hanker after the spoils of opposition.
Agreed that Grimond drummed up a good deal on support from distinguished academics, but then we had both distinctive visions of both a better politics and a better society. We need to regain both.
@ Frank West: I suspect that ministers are not taking a percentage from the contracts so much as receiving appreciation in kind (holidays at posh villas, perhaps) and making connections for lucrative directorships and other well healed positions when the deregulated post Brexit paradise is achieved
@ Gordon Lishman:there was a good deal of corruption in Local Government in the 60s and 70s (eg Poulson) but I’m sure you’re right that there’s much less if any now. Lack of opportunity for one thing, especially now that the remaining powers over planning are to be trashed.
@
@ Peter Wrigley Many apologies for calling you, Chris, Peter. Mental blip… Chris W. is a professorial acquaintance In Nottingham. His stuff is well worth a read by anyone interested in Liberal history as you probably know.
Completely agree, “then we had both distinctive visions of both a better politics and a better society. We need to regain both”.
We also had a better leader of stature who could do it…….. plus good guys like Donald Wade and Richard Wainwright who gave ideas, support and money……. and others like dear old Albert Ingham and Edward Dunford who knew what was required and got people to do it.
Don’t worry about the names mix-up, David. These senior moments are par for the course for those of us old enough to have campaigned in the glory days of the Yorkshire Liberals.
Further to the funding problem, these figures, which have appeared on another post (Steve Trevethan, 18th August) are frightening;
Donations to parties for the 2019 election:
Conservatives £19.4 millions
Labour £5.4 millions
Us: £1.3 millions
Greens £0.2 millions.
It has been argued for years that the US Presidency is “up for sale.” So now is our government and we need, along with PR, to do something about it.. Fortunately in the US things may be taking a turn for the better. There’s as yet little sign of that here.