The Guillebaud Report
| Author | T. E. CHESTER |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1956.tb01489.x |
| Date | 01 June 1956 |
| Published date | 01 June 1956 |
The
Guillebaud
Report
By
T.
E.
CHESTER
The Professor
of
Social
Administration, Manchester Unie.ersi?y, and
former Director
of
the Acton Society
Trust,
reviews the Report
of
the
Committee
of
Enquiry
into
rhe
Cost
of
the
National
Hedih
Service,
published
in
January,
1956,
as
Cmd.
9663
(Price
9s.).
N
1st April, 1953, Mr. McLeod, then Minister of Health, announced,
0
also
on
behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the appointment
of an independent Committee of Enquiry into the working of the National
Health Service and the acceptance by Mr. C. W. Guillebaud, the Cambridge
economist, of an invitation to be its Chairman. The Departments concerned
had already initiated a number of administrative and other measures designed
to
alleviate the considerable cost to the taxpayer, but these were inevitably
concerned with a question of detail, and it would be the task
of
the Committee
to help in solving the general long-term and complex issues involved. The
terms of reference were to be
:
‘‘
To review the present and prospective cost of the National Health
Service
;
to suggest means, whether by modifications in organisation or
otherwise,
of
ensuring the most effective control and efficient use
of
such
Exchequer funds
as
may be made available
;
to advise how, in view
of
the burdens
on
the Exchequer, a rising charge upon it
can
be avoided
while providing for the maintenance of an adequate Service; and to
make recommendations.”
On
30th April, 1953, Mr. McLeod was able to make public the names of
the other members of the Committee. They were Professor
J.
W.
Cook,
Professor of Chemistry at Glasgow University
;
Sir Geoffrey Vickers, then
a
member of the National Coal Board
;
Sir
John
Maude, Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry
of
Health from 1940 to 1945
;
Miss
A.
Godwin, a member
of the General Council of the T.U.C. and Assistant General Secretary of
the Clerical and Administrative Workers’ Union, nominated by the T.U.C.
at the invitation of the Minister.
The appointment of the Committee and especially its terms of reference
were criticised by the Opposition because they feared that
it
could become-
like the May Committee in 1931-an alibi for the Government in cutting
the social services
;
that in fact the Government wanted to hand over political
decisions
on
social priorities to an outside Committee, and that finally there
was
no
need to appoint a special committee as the Central Health Services
Council was the very body for such an enquiry whereas the members appointed
by the Minister lacked the necessary expertise. The Minister was firm in
his reply that there was
no
intention to provide the Government with another
Geddes Axe,
this
was to be a genuine long-term enquiry concerned with the
functions, the structure and the policy of the Service, with the task of helping
to improve a great social experiment. The Central Health Services Council
with 41 members was unwieldy and, as representative of the major professions
and interests within the Service, not the proper organisation for an independent
199
To continue reading
Request your trial