03 October 2003
Public service unions are to harden their opposition to foundation hospitals, after the government gave notice it would ignore a motion condemning the policy passed by a clear majority at the Labour Party Conference.
The pressure on ministers to water down radical plans to transform public services has been ratcheted up after the debate on the subject dominated proceedings this year in Bournemouth.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's failure to announce a roll-out of the local government two-tier workforce deal to the rest of the public sector did nothing to calm tensions.
Speaking immediately after the vote on foundation trusts on October 1, Bill Morris, outgoing general secretary of the T&G, accused the government of trying to force through a policy that 'lacked legitimacy' without consultation.
He vowed that trade unionists would continue their struggle, telling Public Finance: 'We'll take our campaign wherever it is necessary. The government is proposing for the first time in its history to legislate for inequality. We believe the objectives set out for foundation hospitals can be achieved within the NHS.'
He went on: 'I would ask the government to think carefully before ignoring this vote, because there is an electoral price to be paid.'
The motion was proposed by Unison but had the full backing of the other public service unions. It called on the government to recognise that 'marketisation and competition-based reforms are not models which will improve services on the ground'.
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis told PF his members had grave concerns about foundation hospitals and the government was not listening to them. 'We never wanted confrontation,' he said. 'We never wanted to be in the oppositionist camp. We want to work with the government on reform, but reform that leads to improvement.'
Prentis also suggested that foundation hospitals were at the root of Blair's failure to announce the extension of the two-tier workforce agreement throughout the public sector. It was widely expected to be included in his set-piece speech to the conference on September 30.
The Unison leader claimed that the health secretary's surrender of his powers over foundation trusts meant that they could not be compelled to honour the terms of any such deal. 'How can he tell them to act in a fair manner?' Prentis said.
'I think the department realised at a very late stage that the foundation hospital Bill does prevent the commitment made by the prime minister two years ago being rolled out in the NHS.'
He said Unison would be seeking talks with the government to establish exactly what had scuppered the deal. But his organisation was determined to see policy on foundation trusts reversed.
After the vote, ministers were in combative mood. Chief whip Hilary Armstrong, who earlier this year had to persuade sceptical backbench MPs to back the policy, immediately attacked the unions for 'playing macho politics'.
She told PF: 'The government has to take its decisions in the interests of 60 million people, not 200.'
Armstrong accused the unions of stubbornly blocking progress in reforming public services, but made clear ministers were determined to implement the policy whatever the opposition. 'What would the public think if the government just put their hands up and said, "OK, we've got to have another five years of consultation"?' she asked.
During the debate, Health Secretary John Reid made an impassioned plea for party members' support, arguing that it would be a 'betrayal' of the NHS if Labour failed to acknowledge the need to extend choice and expand capacity. 'Don't deny the people of this country what has hitherto only been available to the rich,' he said.
Blair, speaking the day before the public services debate, also appealed to the party to back the government's reform agenda.
'In the twenty-first century you can't run a personalised service by remote control. That's the reason for change. Not to level down but to level up. Not to privatise but to revitalise a public service we all depend on.'
PFoct2003
