National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

Debate between Karin Smyth and Clive Betts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

As I have said, we have made a commitment to general practice and primary care by releasing extra GPs into the system. We recognise the situation in which GPs find themselves. I know this because I worked with GP practices in my previous career. We need those practices to be the foundation of our neighbourhood services, which is why we will talk in the normal process about the allocations over the next few months as part of the contract.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

If we are to reform the NHS, we need to move resources over time into primary care. The reality is that GPs see at first instance 90% of patients, but receive only 8% of NHS funding. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the settlement that is agreed with NHS providers, particular attention is given to supporting GPs?

On the social care sector, when we help the hospices and social care providers, which are charities and small organisations in particular, can perhaps do so without subsidising some of the hedge funds that are now investing heavily in social care? We do not want to add to their profits while supporting the small charities involved.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend has led fantastic work in previous Parliaments on the health and social care system, which he understands very well. He makes an excellent point about ensuring that additional funding goes where we want it to, which is towards supporting our constituents, particularly with social care. We have all seen the situation over the last decade over so. Improving that is critical to the urgent and emergency care system, and to the dignity of those people who need the service. We will continue to talk to them, and to local systems, about the impact of any changes.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Karin Smyth and Clive Betts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

It is completely pot luck, as my hon. Friend says. The Chancellor should not rule out a more appropriate approach to assessing people’s estates when they die, and to determining what contribution should be made towards social care costs.

[Karin Smyth]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunity has been missed to give us an understanding of what postponing part 2 of the Care Act will mean, and of the Conservative party manifesto commitment that people would not have to sell their house to fund their care, once their spending on care had gone above a certain level?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. That is clearly a major problem with the system, and it needs to be addressed. I think my hon. Friend is referring to the Dilnot recommendation that people should pay no more than £72,000 in total for their care. When the Minister with responsibility for social care came to the Select Committee, he said that Dilnot would be implemented, but I am not sure how that fits in with this long-term review. I hope that the Government can explain that better in their Green Paper.

There has been no commitment to a cross-party look at this issue. The Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), have requested a cross-party review before the publication of the Green Paper, or at least an element of cross-party scrutiny of its proposals. At some point, we have to look at this issue for the long term, assuming that the Conservatives will not be in office for ever.

I also want to address the issue of business rates. The Government have brought this problem on themselves by extending the period between revaluations from five to seven years. That has made the problem worse, because the difference between what businesses were paying before the revaluation and the new rates is wider as a result of the period being longer. We need a commitment to more frequent revaluations. The Government mentioned that in 2015, but it seems to have fallen off the radar. The Select Committee agreed with the Government at the time, so let us have a commitment to more regular and more frequent revaluations.

Will the Government give an absolute commitment that the extra money that they have brought in to help with the revaluation, which I welcome, will not cost local government a single penny, either next year or thereafter? The Treasury should pay for it all. I also agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) that we need to know how the extra money that will be given to local government for discretionary reliefs is to be allocated between councils. Will it be allocated on a fair and transparent basis? When will we be given that information?

I have said to the Communities and Local Government Secretary that if the Government are looking for a fairer way of conducting valuations for business rates—to ensure that the digital services and online shopping sectors pay more, for example—we in the Select Committee will help with that review. It is also clear that there is something wrong with the proportion of payments being made by shops on the high street and by shops in out-of-town centres, and we need to look at that as well.

In 2010, the Conservative Chancellor at the time said that after five years of austerity he would have balanced the budget. Seven years later, after an awful lot more austerity than most of us could possibly have imagined, another Conservative Chancellor is saying that there will be five more years of austerity, after which he will still not have balanced the budget. That is an awful lot of pain for my constituents for very little gain, and there is no sign at all that austerity will end while this Government are in power.