Future of the NHS

Debate between John McDonnell and Rob Roberts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to get back to some statistics; I am sorry if I am going to bore the House, but I want to get back to some of the harsh reality. I know that subjective judgments have been made, but we cannot get away from some of the stats. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech, particularly in light of the fact that it was the Durham miners’ gala fundraising dinner last night.

I come back to the some of the harsh stats because I want to deal with why we need to address the funding crisis more effectively than we are at the moment. Some of these stats have been used already but I am still shocked by this: we have 7.1 million patients on waiting lists, which is almost double the level in 2010; and the average ambulance response time for patients in category 2 is now 48 minutes, which is half an hour more than it was a short while back, with the target of 18 minutes. I have met our local ambulance drivers and paramedics, and I know that category 2 is the heart attacks and strokes. I had a heart attack about 10 years ago and I do not want to be waiting for 45 minutes, as we are talking about the difference between life and death for some of us.

On A&E waiting times, the NHS target is 95% of people being seen within four hours, but the current level is 40%. Most Members will have visited the A&E departments in their local hospitals. One of our local people described them as being like a warzone at times, given the number of injuries and scale of suffering. Members have mentioned the public satisfaction issue, but on the GP front—again, this comes just from working with local doctors—1 million people are waiting for more than a month. There are currently 4,500 fewer GPs than there were a decade ago. I understand what the Government and ex-Ministers are saying about the recruitment of more GPs, and I understand what my hon. Friends have said about a lot of that investment being from some time when the Conservative party was not in government.

I have been trying to look at the repairs backlog as well, because we have been promised a new hospital at Hillingdon. I am really pleased about that because I have been campaigning for one for years. We will be getting a new hospital, eventually, but that is largely because our existing one is in such a dangerous state; we are worried about the main structure collapsing at any stage and we have had to do temporary repairs. The repairs backlog has grown by 11%, to £10.2 billion-worth of backlog.

There is another figure that I have been worried about. Let me make it clear that I have been on the picket lines with nurses and in the campaigns. When talking to them on the picket lines, we get the true reality of what people are having to deal with, but I wanted to get behind the anecdotes and get to the stats. They show that one in five NHS trusts and health boards is providing food banks for staff, with a further third looking to provide them in the future. It must surely be shocking to everyone that NHS staff are having to rely on food banks —these are professionals.

If we look at the underlying causes of that, we see that this is about pay. I looked at the pay of the paramedics I was talking to and I found that it has gone down by £2,400 in real terms in the past year—that comes from some TUC analysis. There are now 3,000 ambulance staff vacancies in England. I went on to look at issues associated with nurses’ pay. The average nurse’s take-home pay is more than £5,000 less in real terms than it was in 2010—again, that comes from number crunching by the TUC, but all of this is verified elsewhere as well. There are nurse shortages, with 47,000 vacancies. The most worrying thing, which has been touched on to a certain extent by others, is that one in nine nurses left the profession in the past year, which is the highest level in a year in the recorded history of the NHS. That says something about morale. We have heard that the talks are scheduled for 1 and 3 March, and I am hoping that they will resolve the current dispute. However, it is difficult to see how it can be resolved unless all the unions are engaged in those discussions.

A few years ago, there was a junior doctors pay dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I were on the picket lines and at the demonstrations for that as well. So I was looking at what has happened with the junior doctors, who are represented by the BMA. As someone has said, 98% have voted for strike action, on a turnout of 77%. I do not think we have seen those levels of turnout in recent history in these ballots for industrial action. Again, I have been trying to get behind the reason for that. BMA analysis shows that the pay of junior doctors has been cut by more than a quarter since 2008. It looks as though we are going to have a walkout for 72 hours in March, which, obviously, will have an impact on the service. When I talk to junior doctors, they tell me that they do not know what else they can do. They are beginning to struggle to survive on the wages they are getting. In constituencies such as mine, a west London, working-class, multicultural community, most of them will never be able to get onto the housing ladder to buy a property; in fact, because of the level of rents, many will struggle even to fund the rents there. Trying to come at this question as objectively as possible, it must come back to underfunding. There is no other reason that I can see.

[Rob Roberts]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman giving way and the tone in which he approaches the debate. He talks about funding, but Labour left office in 2010 and there was no argument about the fact that funding was not sufficient at the time of the last Labour Government. The King’s Fund says that statistics show that funding has increased or at least kept pace in real terms since then, so how is it not sufficient now?

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely valid point that must be addressed. When some of us were doing health economics in the 1980s and onwards, we were always told that the level of funding required just to maintain a standstill operation for the growing ageing population was at least 4%. What happened under Labour was a 6% annual rate of funding.

I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: when I was on the Government Benches and Labour was in government, I was asking for more. Gordon Brown, to give him his due, had a sense of humour; I always used to produce an alternative Budget, so he described me as the shadow Chancellor even when I was not. I did that on the basis that I thought 4% was not enough and, while 6% was right, we needed to go further, because it was about not just the ageing population but the increased levels of morbidity we were experiencing. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, new treatments come on board and are more expensive.

Even though I was looking for increased investment, beyond what Labour was doing then, Labour was not just keeping pace with the 4%, but was going beyond it at 6%. To be frank, although the hon. Gentleman swore in the Chamber earlier, he should have heard some of the language I used in 2010, because I was quite angry as well. Those of us who were there will remember that in 2010, investment dropped to 1%. We were saying to George Osborne, who was the Chancellor at the time, “You are going to reap the whirlwind here for dropping the level down to 1%, because it means an erosion of the services that are provided.”

In addition, that investment did not recognise our ageing population or the other emerging issues with morbidity. I understand that the covid inquiry will include analysis of the resilience of the health service to cope with the covid pandemic. I believe that a number of those representatives are seeking to have George Osborne appear before that inquiry, because he bears responsibility for that under-investment.

Other hon. Friends have mentioned mental health, and I agree that it has been the Cinderella service. When I looked at mental health funding, I found that it has increased at a faster rate than overall NHS funding—at times nearly 3% as against 1%. However, that follows years of small increases or real-terms funding cuts, and the number of NHS mental health beds is down by 25% since 2010.

Curiously enough, I was on a bus in my constituency yesterday with a former mental health nurse, who described to me the implications of that and the consequences for the individuals concerned. Community mental health nurse numbers were also impacted upon. Some of us will have dealt with the results of that in our constituencies; in my constituency, I have to say, it has meant dealing with suicides as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That’s right.

The social care figures are startling. Some 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have some form of unmet care need. There are 165,000 vacancies in the social care sector across England and Wales—a 52% increase in the last year. The Health Foundation estimates that an extra £6.1 billion to £14.4 billion will be required by 2030-31 to meet the demand. As others have said, that has meant delayed discharges from the NHS, and—as I mentioned on Tuesday—it places a huge burden on unpaid carers, who are living on the pittance of the £70-a-week carer’s allowance.

The Institute for Government published a report today in which it basically argues for social care overhaul. It describes how social care has been overwhelmed in recent years and states that 50,000 fewer posts are filled than a year ago—the highest vacancy rate ever in social care. Then, there are the stats on what has happened as a result of under-funding—and I am afraid that it is because of under-funding; we cannot get away from that fact. I would be saying the same thing on these statistics no matter which party was in power. We need to go further in the coming month’s Budget.

[Rob Roberts]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He will know, having been shadow Chancellor, that in the devolved Administrations, there is £1.20 in Wales for every £1 in England, and slightly more in Scotland. The results—I could say they are worse, but I will not—are measurably the same. Is it a problem only of funding, or is it one of structure?

[John McDonnell]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I looked at the Nuffield Foundation report on Wales a couple of years back. I do not think that Wales has had a good deal out of the Barnett formula over the years, and although the Government have addressed some of that over the past year, they have not done enough. The Nuffield Foundation said that Wales has not only an ageing population, but higher levels of morbidity, so the funding does not match the need. A whole debate needs to take place about moving forward. When I was shadow Chancellor, I talked about a review of the Barnett formula. That frightened a number of people, but it is needed. In fact, I think there is a need for a Barnett formula for the north of England as well. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear!”] I thought that might raise a response.

There is a long-term funding crisis that we have to address. I look forward to next month’s Budget for some resolution of this matter. Where can the money come from? I know that a lot of people say we should never make unfunded commitments. To be honest, I was the first shadow Chancellor who produced a Budget and a manifesto that was fully funded and costed, in the “Grey Book”, so I want to look at some ideas and just throw them out there.

On Tuesday, we heard that, as a result of the higher level of tax receipts received than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted, the Chancellor now has £30 billion of headroom that he did not have previously. Some of that £30 billion needs to be invested in the NHS, and particularly social care. I would also like to see some of that money invested in relieving poverty, which is one of the major causes of ill health in this society.

We need to do something on capital gains tax. If we taxed capital gains at the same rate as earned income and charged national insurance on it, we would get £25 billion extra. Let me throw in a few others. If we lifted the higher national insurance rate, so that instead of 3.25% above £50,000, it was paid at what everyone else below that level pays—13%—that could raise us £15 billion. I cannot for the life of me see why dividends are not taxed at the same level as earned income. If we did that, we could raise £8 billion. Those on the Labour Front Bench have put forward the idea of scrapping non-dom status. Again, I claim copyright on that one. That would raise between £1 billion and £3 billion.

The Government have implemented a windfall tax on the excess profits of energy companies, and they should extend that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have advocated. Some Members may have read the recent reports on bank profits and the return of extremely excessive bank bonuses. There is an argument for a windfall tax on bank profits during this extremely difficult period. This is a time when we should all bear the burden of the challenges that we face. Taxing the bankers’ bonuses needs to come back on the agenda, and I deeply regret that the Government removed the cap on bankers’ bonuses, which we supported.

With regard to the City, I have been an advocate of the financial transaction tax for a number of years. All it does is close some of the loopholes in terms of stamp duty. If we look at the work on this recently by Advani and others, we see the potential. With limited changes, we could raise £8 billion to £10 billion.

It is time to start looking at how we tax wealth in this country more effectively. If we look at the proposals that have been produced by various think-tanks over the last year or so, a 1% tax on people who have assets over £10 million could raise an additional £10 billion. This is not revolutionary stuff. It is straightforward and pragmatic, making sure that we have a fair taxation system.

Those on the Labour Front Bench have argued strongly that we have to go for growth, as have the Government. I fully agree, but that needs a rapid programme of investment in the public sector, with matching private sector investment. If we can increase growth by just 1%, we usually match Governments receipts at the same time by 1%, which would mean about £7.7 billion, and for 2% it would mean £15.4 billion. In addition to the short-term taxation measures, redressing the imbalances in our taxation system at the moment, that would enable us to achieve the growth that will give us a stable form of income to meet the needs of our NHS and social care system.

We cannot continue with an NHS and a social care service that is paid for on the backs of people we are exploiting in long hours, undermining their morale by not paying them properly, and at the same time making them face challenges that are both heartrending and certainly not what many of them signed up for. The NHS workers I have met just want to provide a decent service in a caring environment that is fully funded, where their profession is respected by being properly paid. I hope that we can achieve that sooner, rather than later.