Palliative Care: North Derbyshire

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Ashgate Hospice and palliative care in north Derbyshire.

In late June of this year, my fiancé Amanda and I found ourselves, along with 3,000 others, dressed in bright-pink t-shirts, wearing flashy-pink bunny ears, setting out from Chesterfield football stadium on the annual Sparkle Night Walk, a fundraiser for Ashgate hospice in north Derbyshire. Fundraisers raised over £385,000 that night—another reminder of the precious place that Ashgate hospice has in the hearts of the people of north Derbyshire.

It is often said that everyone in north Derbyshire knows someone who has been helped by the hospice. It is impossible to overstate the affection for it, or the commitment that local people demonstrate to raising funds for it. Ashgate is a charitable hospice providing specialist palliative and end-of-life care for about 2,600 people each year across north Derbyshire. In October came the devastating announcement that Ashgate was consulting on making as many as 52 posts redundant, and planning to close 60% of its in-patient beds.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I have received so many emails from really concerned constituents about this issue. There was one that stuck out: it was from a serving member of the armed forces, who wrote to me about her elderly mother who recently passed away at Ashgate. She was stationed abroad, but flew home to be with her mum, and was able to spend five days and nights with her—her mother’s last moments. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should all be extremely thankful for the high-quality care that Ashgate hospice gives to our constituents and others, and that we should all be concerned about the reduction in beds and the loss of jobs?

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why Ashgate holds a dear place in people’s hearts. It is because at the lowest ebb, Ashgate has been there to provide love, care and support when all else is lost. This is a story that we hear so many times.

While the announcement caused shockwaves across the community, it did not entirely come as a surprise to Derbyshire MPs, who had for many weeks been attempting to get clarity between the then Derbyshire integrated care board and the hospice on a number of issues.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned other Derbyshire MPs. Many of my constituents have told me how Ashgate hospice has been there for them in their darkest moments. Paula Reeve told me that what Ashgate did for her mother, Joan Dempsey,

“felt nothing short of miraculous...That time was a very precious gift and my family remain in the debt of all the staff at Ashgate”.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe it to individuals like Paula to ensure that Ashgate hospice gets the funding it needs to continue these valued and vital services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to say that a half-hour debate is primarily an opportunity for a single Member to raise something with the Minister, and to get a ministerial response, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made clear, it is an issue that is felt incredibly passionately right across the north Derbyshire community. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) would also have been here if she was not on Ministry of Defence duty in Gibraltar. It is an issue that many of us feel passionately about.

It is important to get across that, in those meetings, we wanted to establish what exactly the ICB’s current funding was paying for and how that benchmarked against the overall level of funding that hospices were receiving in other areas, and to get an agreement on an interim level of funding to enable the hospice to continue providing the current level of care while a more detailed investigation into the current cost of care was commissioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand to suggest a helpful intervention. He rightly said that fundraising is important for the hospice, but NHS funding never covers more than a fraction of the cost. There are four distinct hospices in Northern Ireland that provide instrumental support in terms of end-of-life care for those who require it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a national minimum NHS funding level for hospice care to ensure that services across this whole nation are not depleting as a result of lack of funding?

[Mr Perkins]

I absolutely agree. One of the frustrations that many of us in Derbyshire have felt is that there is no clarity on what a reasonable level of funding is and what the expectation is. There are rumours flying left, right and centre. In the middle of all this, the staff, the patients and the fundraisers are left wondering who to believe and what the situation is. I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will learn more about that.

In the summer, the ICB produced a comparison with NHS-funded care in the south of the county in an effort to show MPs that Ashgate hospice was too expensive, but has now disowned that comparison. After several months of pretty unsatisfactory discussions at which the two sides never reached a settled position even on what was currently being spent, the move from Derbyshire to a three-county ICB model saw a sudden withdrawal by the ICB of any suggestion of interim funding, forcing the hospice to go ahead with plans to make redundancies.

Our hospices receive an average of just a third of their funding from Government via the NHS and are reliant on fundraising for the rest. The Government contribution fell dramatically under the 14 years of the previous Government, leaving the gap for charitable hospices to make up even larger. Year on year, hospices such as Ashgate have expended any fat in reserve and are now faced with intolerable financial pressures. In today’s debate, I am seeking to make the case for a more equitable funding settlement for all hospices to gain greater clarity about the particular situation in Derbyshire and see whether anything can be done to stave off these terrible service closures and nurse redundancies in an institution that provides outstanding palliative care.

Let me touch on the national context. Hospice UK published research last month showing that 57% of hospices ended the last financial year in deficit, with 20% recording a deficit of over £1 million. That is actually a slight improvement on the staggering 62% of hospices that recorded a deficit a year before, thanks to the emergency £100 million of additional funding provided by this Government. A health system that relies on a sector so chronically underfunded that 57% of hospices are in deficit to provide care is simply not functioning. The Government are right to make it a priority to assist hospices such as Ashgate to get back on their feet.

Although it is true that this crisis evolved under the previous Government and sat there on the ballooning list of things to do when this Government came to power, many hospices like Ashgate had spent year after year dipping into their reserves and had no fat left to cut when the Government’s welcome increase in funding was accompanied by the rising employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage increases and the NHS pay increase, which is obviously relevant to the wider health community. Many hospices are on the brink. I join the call of many other MPs from across the country for a more generous funding settlement that recognises the crucial role that hospices play in our health system.

Turning to the local situation, it is immensely frustrating to all the Derbyshire MPs, to staff, to unions and to local fundraisers that even at this stage there seems to be a lack of clarity about the current cost of care and how that benchmarks against hospices nationally. A letter I received yesterday from the ICB repeats the suggestion that it has offered to commission an independent review and provide some financial mitigation linked to specific and agreed service mitigations, funded up to £100,000. Indeed, the ICB repeats its view that those financial investigations will be necessary if sustainable solutions are to be found to funding palliative care. Ashgate’s view is that there is no lack of clarity about what money is being spent on, and that it demonstrated that to the ICB’s director of finance at a recent visit.

The situation seems largely unchanged since late October, but many staff face the threat of redundancy, and in the run-up to Christmas some have reluctantly and heartbreakingly chosen to leave the hospice. For any member of staff in any profession, a job being under threat before Christmas would be deeply worrying, but it is important to stress that nurses in the in-patient wards at Ashgate hospice are not just any members of staff. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Derbyshire Dales, they provide support for patients and families at their very darkest hour, when all else is lost and all that remains is the comfort provided by the knowledge that a dying loved one is comfortable and cared for in a beautiful, high-quality and caring environment. The emotional strain on those nurses is huge, and the public empathy and affection for them is widely felt. Their professionalism and compassion is renowned, and the effect of the threatened job cuts on them has been devastating.

Although in-patient wards deal with far fewer patients than out-patient and at-home services, many see them as the front door of Ashgate hospice, but they face the biggest cuts: there is a plan to reduce palliative care beds from 15 to six. In response, there has been an outpouring of support for Ashgate hospice from the community. Nearly £250,000 was raised in just two weeks, including an incredible £50,000 from the owner of a Chesterfield-based business, Peter Kelsey. Those funds will allow the hospice to keep open two additional beds for another six months, and care for perhaps another 25 patients near the end of their lives.

Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me and my colleagues to voice their concerns about the situation at Ashgate hospice, and many have also written directly to the ICB to make the case. Despite the claims and counter-claims, there is now widespread distrust that urgently needs clearing up. The ICB continues to imply that Ashgate services are too expensive, although there has been no formal update following the director of finance’s visit to the hospice on 1 December. Staff and unions have been left confused and concerned about the implication that the finances are not straightforward, and remain frustrated about the process. They have questions about whether every step has been taken to reduce costs.

Staff at Ashgate have been alarmed at communications coming out of the ICB, which they believe undermine their reputation for professionalism and financial prudence. If trust in Ashgate’s ability to run its operations is diminished, it will have grave consequences for future fundraising.

What is not in question is that the care that Ashgate provides is outstanding and that, as of this new year, dozens of north Derbyshire’s most gravely ill patients, who would previously have been able to obtain a bed at Ashgate, will die either at home in less comfort, with family members put in intolerable situations, or in an acute bed in the local hospital sector, possibly at greater cost and in less comfort than was the case last year. I want all my constituents to receive the best end-of-life care possible, so it is hugely disappointing that palliative care patients in north Derbyshire will lose access to those beds, and that nurses at the hospices will be worrying about whether they still have a job.

I want to shed light on the distressing and unacceptable situation of service cuts and redundancies at Ashgate hospice, and I seek further clarity and transparency about the funding situation for palliative care in Derbyshire to see whether anything can be done to hold at bay cuts to services at Ashgate.

Although charitable income will always play a vital role in hospice care, allowing hospices to deliver holistic care that goes way beyond NHS provision, hospices need fair and consistent Government funding, which needs to be transparent and clearly linked to contracts. Crucially, it must reflect local need. Whether a person lives in Chesterfield, across wider north Derbyshire or elsewhere in the country, they and their family should have access to quality palliative care when they need it most. I would therefore appreciate hearing the Minister’s response on several points.

First, will he join me in lamenting the devastating cuts at Ashgate hospice? Does he agree that this situation, whereby in-patient palliative care services in north Derbyshire are being reduced, is unacceptable? Will he or his office intervene to ensure that Ashgate hospice and the local ICB reach a transparent and agreed position on the current funding situation, and examine how that position compares with national expectations about funding of palliative care?

More broadly, will the Minister set out the Government’s plans to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding for hospices in the future? Can he confirm whether he has any concerns about the cost of care at Ashgate hospice? If he cannot, will he get this matter on the public record, so that people across north Derbyshire can be confident that the money they have raised through fundraising—hard-earned money—is being prudently spent?

Does the Minister agree that, six months after the beginning of discussions locally, it is completely unacceptable that there is still a lack of agreement about exactly how much is being spent on care by the ICB and how much commissioned care the ICB is funding? Can he do anything to provide clarity about this situation?

Since 1988, Ashgate hospice has provided exemplary care to thousands of dying patients in north Derbyshire. It must go on. Its nurses deserve better than to lose their jobs and to worry about whether something else could have been done. I implore the Minister to ensure that the hospice sector is given the support it needs to play its crucial role, and that locally in north Derbyshire every avenue is explored to save jobs and beds at this wonderful institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Oh, okay. Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

[Mr Perkins]

I welcome tremendously what the Minister said. It is important to get on record the 55% increase since 2022 because many people contact me to say, “Why have you made cuts?”. Actually, though Ashgate has a £250,000 a month shortfall in what it is spending, there have not been any cuts—it is important that people understand that. I welcome the Minister’s intention to broker a discussion; I am keen to take him up on that offer. Neither staff nor fundraisers are sure of what they know on this issue. They would welcome someone independent coming in to provide that space between the ICB and the hospice. I welcome what the Minister said about the neighbourhood funding model and his recognition that the sector is in crisis, but right now we need, on a local basis, to address the matters that he has raised. I thank him for his commitment to do so.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have a plan for next steps and I look forward to discussing those with him further.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I carefully note the fact that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is sitting next to me, has an interest in this issue, so I will tread very carefully with my answer. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with the Minister for Secondary Care. The North East London health and care partnership integrated care board is responsible for delivery, implementation and funding decisions for local services, but the hon. Gentleman’s representations have been carefully noted today, not least by the Secretary of State for Health.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

One of the most important things we can do to support the health of the elderly is to ensure that they can get to see their local doctor. It is great to hear the Health Secretary talk about the improved access to appointments—we are seeing that in Chesterfield—but he is also right to say that it is the first step back up the mountain. The Government inherited a real crisis in GP access and the situation is particularly difficult in more deprived areas. Will my hon. Friend tell me what more we will do to ensure that people are able to see a GP, and in particular that practices that serve the most deprived communities can get access to the extra GPs they need?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend will know that when we came into Government we inherited the absurd situation where the additional roles reimbursement scheme was weighed down by red tape and it was not actually possible to recruit GPs. We changed that. We invested an extra £82 million and as a result we have well over 1,000 more GPs on the frontline, but that is just the beginning. We have contract reform and £889 million of additional investment in general practice, and we are moving forward with an online booking system, which will be obligatory by 1 October. We have much more work to do—for example, around the interface with pharmacy; we are working hard on that. There is a lot more to do, but my hon. Friend is right that the first step up the mountain has been taken.

Income Tax (Charge)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is of course for the devolved Administrations to decide how to use the Barnett consequentials that the generous uplift in funding provided by the Chancellor will provide. We make no bones about it: we had to make some difficult choices in the Budget to plug the £22 billion black hole that we inherited, to deliver on our promises and to ensure that we are fixing the foundations of our economy and our public services. We have asked businesses and some of the wealthiest to make a contribution. I say to people right across the House that they cannot welcome the investment at the same time as opposing the means to raise it. If they do, they have to explain how they would find the money.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in getting this extra money for our national health service, which is incredibly needed. He spoke about the extra GPs that he is taking on. The doctors’ surgery in Staveley in my constituency has told me that surgeries in the most deprived communities see patients two or three times a year more than those in wealthier areas. Will he say something about how we ensure that the extra GPs we get look in particular at those more deprived communities that have greater health inequalities and need more appointments?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about equity and fairness of access. The Government are determined to close the gap in healthy life expectancy and health inequalities that blight our nation. GPs and primary care are an important part of doing that. Unless we fix the front door to the NHS in primary care, we will not solve our NHS crisis. Unless we address the crisis in social care, we will not fix the NHS crisis. We will be able to do that only if we do so right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to be working once again in health and social care, although a disappointment to be doing it from the Opposition Benches. It is a privilege because, like the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care now, I had the privilege in government of working with the amazing and dedicated people who work in our NHS and in social care up and down the country. It is a pleasure to be back. It is a pleasure to be opposite the Secretary of State, as he now is. I remember our tussles back in the day, when I was sitting over there and he was sitting here.

I am sufficiently fond of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage him not to get himself fired out of a cannon, as he alluded to. Although I will say one thing for it: it would not only draw attention to his day job, but possibly even aid him in his ambitions to secure his boss’s job in due course. In respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I would only say very gently that she should probably take that as a compliment. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks someone in that way, it probably means that they are somewhat frit of her. I think he will see in the coming weeks and months why that is so.

We have already seen and heard over the previous days of debate that this is unequivocally a Budget of broken promises. Despite the pledges made over the course of the election and the commitments given to the British people, in reality those words meant nothing to the Labour party once it secured the keys to No. 10. Instead, we have seen taxes hiked on working people: the people who provide food security and food every day, our farmers, hit hard by the changes that have been made. We see living standards set to fall and mortgage rates likely to rise. We see taxes up, we see borrowing up, we see debt up, and we see that growth will be down on where it could and should be. Unfortunately, I fear, that pattern of broken promises also applies to the NHS and our social care sector.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on his new appointment. He is obviously very critical of the Government’s attempt to alleviate the appalling financial legacy that his party bequeathed to the nation. Does he support the extra investment for the health service, and is it just the ways of paying for it that he is against? Or is he actually opposed to it?

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In his allusion to the Labour party’s inheritance, he missed the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility singularly failed to back up the assertions made about the quantum of challenge the incoming Government faced.

Time and again, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), both in opposition and now as Secretary of State, has promised that any more money for the NHS has to be linked to reform. He has done that again today. The week before the Budget, he said that

“extra investment in the NHS must be linked to reform”.

In September, the Prime Minister himself said:

“No more money without reform”.

They are right on that. The Opposition support that condition, because it is only with reform that the NHS can sustainably continue to look after us for years to come. Yet I fear that this risks being another broken promise. I say to him now that where he is bold and provides genuine reform to benefit patients, he will have our support. Equally, if he bows to internal pressure and backs away from the radical reform that is needed, we will hold him to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

We increased investment significantly, not only to tackle the inevitable consequence of a global covid pandemic—which, as we all know, hit our NHS hard—but to build back better subsequently, which is the task that we began to perform. We have always said that investment in the NHS must be married to reform in order to deliver better patient outcomes and value for money, building on the reforms that we introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022 and ensuring that the NHS will be there to look after us for decades to come. The Secretary of State has worked with me before, and we will work with any party, including his.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because I am keen for others to have a chance to speak.

That offer to the Secretary of State stands. I am always happy to work constructively with him when he is willing to work constructively with me. He knows that we have done that before, not least as we emerged from the pandemic, when I was still a Minister in the Department.

Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, I fear that the Budget was a missed opportunity that will not achieve the ambitions the Government have set out. As I have said, we cannot tax our way to growth, and without growth we cannot sustainably fund public services. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be brave, to stand up to those in his party who would have him back down or water down reform, and to deliver a genuinely radical plan for the future of our NHS and for social care that works for those who work in it, but also, crucially, for all the people who rely on it. Our constituents deserve nothing less from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady can play politics if she likes; I am trying to think about the future of the country.

Dyson, who was not in any Government, is pointing out the problems being raised. Minette Batters, who was not in any Government, is pointing out the problems being raised.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

No, not just now.

The truth is that what we are seeing is a level of short-termism. That is completely clear in agriculture and industry, but the tragedy is that it is also clear in education. A great privilege of being the MP for Tonbridge is that I represent some of the finest schools in this country—others may claim that title, but I know that I speak the truth when I say that. Many of those schools are grant-maintained in different ways; others are private. They are, in many ways, a web of education that works extremely well together in our community. Some, such as Hillview School for Girls—a fantastic school at which I was privileged to be on the governing board—are state schools, while others, such as the Judd school, are grammar schools, and one, Tonbridge school, is private.

The truth is that the 20% plus business rates—I think the extra cost that will now fall on private schools comes to about 40%—means that every single kid in my constituency will have to pay for the VAT in some way. Either they will have to pay for it because fees go up, or they will pay for it because class sizes are larger. I am afraid that the schools will not be able to swallow the costs, so we will see pressure all the way through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I would like to start by saying how happy I am, after 14 years in this place, to finally be responding to a Budget from a Labour Chancellor. That that Labour Chancellor is also the first woman to hold the position is a source of tremendous pride to me, and to many of us on the Labour Benches.

This is a Budget that will begin the long task of national repair and renewal after 14 years of steady decline. If anyone was left in any doubt about whether the Conservative party might have some useful insights to offer, this debate should have ended that misconception once and for all. First, we had the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who was the Conservatives’ Minister for common sense—no wonder they lost. Then we had the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who they got rid of because he was not right-wing enough. We know that the Conservative party will not be able to help us, so we must crack on alone, and the truth is that we have a huge amount of work to do.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge did say one thing that I agreed with: that in order to get growth, we need private sector investment. Of course we do—prior to coming into this place, I ran my own business, and this whole Budget is predicated on getting growth and working with the private sector to do so. All our plans for energy development require consistency so that the private sector can invest. Nobody disputes that, but what we also need is public services that work. As someone who has employed people for most of the last 25 years or so, I know that you do not get a good workforce if your staff are living in poverty. It is not progressive politics to say that we are supporting people to be in work if they have to visit the food bank on the way home. We need an economy that works for everyone, and this Budget strikes the right tone.

We have a proud history of coalmining in Chesterfield, and its legacy can be found to this day. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has ended the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, with more than £1 billion being returned to 112,000 former coalminers—the right decision.

I am sad to say that I have the dubious honour of representing a constituency that, under the Conservative county council, was dubbed the pothole capital of the UK. We are very glad in Derbyshire that the Government will put in an extra £500 million to tackle the scourge of potholes, and I hope that Derbyshire county council will now start filling in Chesterfield’s countless potholes.

The increase in the national minimum wage, or living wage, is another policy that will support economic growth. If we give money to people who have nothing, they will spend it in our economy. If huge inheritances are passed on, as the Conservatives want, that money is not spent in the same way in the economy. There are issues for some family farms, and those need to be explored, but the vast majority of farmers will not be affected. Conservative Members mentioned James Dyson, who is a brilliant inventor, but why did he suddenly find such attraction in buying up huge amounts of farmland? They should pull the other one.

The Budget makes a start in getting our country back on the road to growth, repairing the appalling damage that has been done to our national health service, supporting the army of carers who also support our NHS and, finally, ensuring that at the very bottom of our economy we start to make work pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I rather enjoyed that! I hope the hon. Gentleman can take a breather now. May I welcome the new shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his place? From what he has said today—I should confess that I am not a clinician—I think he may have some amnesia about the performance of his party in government, but maybe the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), the former Minister for common sense, can help him find some before he next appears before the House.

May I also welcome the new shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), to his place? Madam Deputy Speaker, some Members of this House will know that you, the shadow Chief Secretary and I worked very well together for many years on the Business and Trade Committee. Clearly, some things have changed and some have not. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are now very much in control in the Chair; I am on the other side of the Table and answering the questions; and the shadow Chief Secretary will still shout at Ministers, irrespective of whether they are Conservative or Labour, for being too socialist.

Every Government come into office seeking to improve the country, but it is now clear that the last Conservative Government did not come into office to improve public services. In a recent report from the Institute for Government, two key conclusions were drawn: first, that most public services are performing substantially worse in 2024 than they were in 2010, and secondly, that public service performance has been damaged by a lack of capital investment.

After 14 years of failure from the Conservative party, this Government will begin the work of implementing a bold programme of public service reform. This Budget starts that work by choosing a different path—by choosing investment over decline. In doing so, we will make sure that every pound is spent well and that reform is baked into our approach to governing, but we have also signed up to the much greater challenge of fundamentally reforming our public services. I see no greater opportunity than modernising the very nature of the state—not to get stuck on the old debate about the size of the state, but to fundamentally rewire and improve the state of the state.

This is a generational Budget. It is a Budget that meets the scale of the challenges we face as a country. To illustrate that more clearly, it is worth the House reflecting on the story so far and on where the country found itself before this new Labour Government came into office. Our national debt was almost the same size as our GDP, our investment share was the lowest of any in the G7 and, perhaps most significantly, our growth lagged behind that of other OECD countries over the course of the last Parliament, resulting in lost opportunities and lost growth totalling £171 billion.

The impact of this is painfully clear in our fiscal picture, because the public finances we were told we had inherited from the last Government have been proven to be a fiscal fiction. Ahead of the election, we all knew that the public finances were bad. That was no secret, but nobody expected to discover the negligent, shameful hidden secret of the £22 billion black hole of in-year spending. That was hidden from this House, from the media, from the Office for Budget Responsibility and from the public—[Interruption.] I encourage Conservative Members to look at the evidence from the OBR to the Treasury Committee today, which makes just this point. These issues were a direct result of 14 years of papering over the cracks in our country’s foundations instead of fixing them.

[Mr Perkins]

My right hon. Friend is repeating a statistic that we will all be familiar with—that of the £22 billion black hole—but it is important to make the point that that £22 billion is not the extra money the Conservatives were spending compared with what they were bringing in. The deficit last year was £120 billion. This £22 billion was extra money—worse than the £120 billion deficit we already knew we were inheriting.

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These were promises made by the last Government that they knew they did not have the money to pay for. This was spending from the general reserve—the money put aside for genuine emergencies each year—that they blew three times over within the first three months of the financial year. Anyone who runs a business, anyone who runs family finances and anyone who is in charge of the country’s finances should know that that is shameful, and the Conservatives should apologise to the country for it. Nowhere is that more true than in our public services, which have suffered as a consequence of the Conservatives’ mismanagement. For example, Lord Darzi’s independent report into the state of our NHS found that the past 14 years had left the NHS in a critical condition.