Social Insurance in Danger In Monday's debate on the National
Health Service the Labour Party did not run quite true to form. Its usual approach has been to ignore economic realities and concentrate on the political aspect of the service, so making easy capital out of every attempt by the Government to improve the service's efficiency and keep its already enormous cost within bounds. But on Monday the Opposition adopted a milder tone (antici- pating, perhaps, some unpleasant home truths which may well be contained in the Guillebaud Committee's report on the finan- cial position'of the service) and contented itself with the paradox that true economy demands increased expenditure. Mr. Blenkinsop also described as " miserable " the increase in the capital allocation to hospitals. And that was that. But where is the money to come from for " increased expenditure ?" And if the hospitals got more some other part of the service would get less—and would not that be " miserable " in the eyes of the Opposition ? The first fact to keep in mind is that the gross Cost of the service will this year be £505,000,000. The second is that the whole social insurance scheme is running this year into a crisis which will worsen steadily. If nothing drastic is done the National Insurance Fund will, as Lord Beveridge has 8,,hown, run wild into the red. He estimates a deficit of over 1100,000,000 in 1958, almost three times that in 1968, and £417,000,000 in 1978. In the light of this grim forecast, which will no doubt be supported by the quinquennial report by the Government Actuary (due this year), all mere political con- siderations dwindle away into unreality. The Opposition has presumably had wit enough to sense this. The question is not : can we afford the Welfare State ? but rather : how can we con- trive to afford it ? It is bound to involve some unpleasant readjustments. and the Labour Party will fool nobody if it tries to interpret these as Tory attacks on the " people."
Previous page
