NHS Funding: South-west
Debate between Richard Foord and Alison Bennett(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about rurality, which is obviously a big issue in the south-west. It is also a serious issue in Sussex where we have things in common with the south-west, such as having an older than average population and all the challenges that come with that, as hon. Members have mentioned.
Hospitals want to be able to sort those issues out, but they are left juggling priorities, barely scraping by with the current levels of funding. Things do not work if we do not look after them, and if we do not look after our health system, it will not be able to look after us or our loved ones. Although I am sure that the Minister will make the point about capital investment in the NHS, which is welcome, the future looks very uncertain and precarious for our ICBs, as a number of hon. Members have said.
Soon after ICBs were first created, they had to cut their budgets by 30%. They have now been asked to cut their budgets by 50% on average. Indeed, for Sussex, the cut is more than 50%—it is 53%. It is no surprise that Sussex and Surrey have formally proposed merging their ICBs, which, by running at the same time as local government reorganisation and the creation of a mayoralty, means we will end up with an ICB that does not have the same footprint as the new incoming mayor.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
What does my hon. Friend think about how ICB funding is weighted? I contend that the formula overemphasises the size of each ICB and the size of the registered population, but does not account sufficiently for age, given that older people require more funding spent on them.
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. It is vital that when we look at per head of population funding, we think about the different factors that actually drive up the true cost of delivering healthcare across the country, which obviously varies by region.
On ICBs, I will press the Minister on three points. First, on the timescale for cuts to be delivered by ICBs, they have to be completed by the end of 2025. The Sussex ICB had about three weeks to make that initial submission to the Department. Does the Minister think that those timescales are realistic and achievable? Secondly, what will the cost of the redundancies be for ICBs? Has that calculation been done? For Sussex, we are looking at more than half the workforce losing their jobs. Thirdly, what is the impact assessment for patients and the service that they will receive as a result of cuts to ICBs?
For too long, social care has been treated like the back door of our public services. It has been overlooked, underfunded and taken for granted. That must change. That is why we must once again ask for more urgency on social care reform. I believe that personal care should be free at the point of use, just like the NHS—