Jeremy Hunt delivers a speech during his visit with David Cameron to the Evelina London Children's Hospital on July 5, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Hunt to meet Frank Field to discuss NHS funding crisis

Health Secretary agrees to look at Labour MP's plan to raise National Insurance to fund higher spending. 

Today brings yet more evidence of the NHS funding crisis. As the Nuffield Trust's Into the Red report notes, 66 trusts are now in deficit and require hundreds of millions of emergency funding, and the service is running a total national deficit of £100m compared with a surplus of £383m last year. Of the 78 health leaders surveyed by the group, 47 per cent said it was quite (33 per cent) or very (14 per cent) unlikely that the NHS would remain free at the point of use in a decade's time. 

Without a real-terms increase in spending in the next parliament, the funding gap will stand at £30bn by 2021. Demographic pressures, the rising cost of technology and the growth in chronic conditions all mean that merely ring-fencing the service from cuts will not do. 

In my column in this week's magazine, I look at how Labour is grappling with this issue. The most notable proposal has come from Frank Field, who has argued for a 1 per cent rise in National Insurance, accompanied by the lifting of the floor on contributions and the removal of the ceiling. He told me: "It both deals with the health service and deals with the double Ed problem, which is: does anyone believe them on the fiscal side?"

The plan is partly modelled on Gordon Brown’s 1 per cent increase in NI in his 2002 Budget, a move that proved more popular than almost anyone expected. Miliband, who as a Treasury adviser helped to design the policy, later described this act of social-democratic statecraft as his proudest moment. But, as I write, there is little prospect of a sequel. Shadow cabinet ministers, including Ed Balls, believe that is untenable for the party to speak of a "cost-of-living crisis" and then to argue for a rise in taxation on low- and middle-income earners. "It would be kamikaze politics," one tells me.

If Labour is to promise a real-terms rise in NHS spending, it will need to impose further tax rises on high-earners, or cut even more deeply elsewhere. Miliband will need to speak what Nye Bevan called "the language of priorities" ("the religion of socialism"). 

Meanwhile, as Field looks elsewhere for support, I can reveal that Jeremy Hunt has agreed to meet him to discuss his funding plan. While there might be little prospect of the Tories going into the election advocating an increase in taxation (indeed, David Cameron and George Osborne are determined to make tax one of their main dividing lines with Labour), it is significant that the Health Secretary is prepared to engage with Field, one of the few in Westminster prepared to speak the hard truths about the fiscal challenges that await the next government.  

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

You may call me a monster – but I'm glad that girl's lemonade stall got shut down

What's wrong with hard-working public servants enforcing perfectly sensible regulations?

Who could fail to be moved by the widely shared tears of a five year old whose innocent lemonade stall was brutally shut down by evil bureaucrats? What sort of monster would not have their heartstrings tugged by the plaintive “I've done a bad thing” from a girl whose father tells us she “just wanted to put a smile on people's faces”?

Well me, actually.

There are half a million cases of food poisoning each year in the UK, and one of the reasons we have stringent controls on who can sell food and drink, especially in unsealed containers, is to try to cut those figures down. And street stalls in general are regulated because we have a system of taxation, rights and responsibilities in this country which underpins our functioning society. Regulation is a social and economic good.

It’s also pretty unfair to criticise the hard-working public servants who acted in this case for doing the job they are no doubt underpaid to do. For the council to say “we expect our enforcement officers to show common sense” as they cancelled the fine is all very well, but I’m willing to bet they are given precious little leeway in their training when it comes to who gets fined and who doesn’t. If the council is handing out apologies, it likely should be issuing one to its officers as well.

“But these are decent folk being persecuted by a nanny state,” I hear you cry. And I stand impervious, I’m afraid. Because I’ve heard that line a lot recently and it’s beginning to grate.

It’s the same argument used against speed cameras and parking fines. How often have you heard those caught out proclaim themselves as “law-abiding citizens” and bemoan the infringement of their freedom? I have news for you: if you break the speed limit, or park illegally, or indeed break health and safety or trading regulations, you are not a law-abiding citizen. You’re actually the one who’s in the wrong.

And rarely is ignorance an excuse. Speed limits and parking regulations are posted clearly. In the case of the now famous lemonade stand, the father in question is even quoted as saying “I thought that they would just tell us to pack up and go home.” So he knew he was breaking the rules. He just didn’t think the consequences should apply to him.

A culture of entitlement, and a belief that rules are for other people but not us, is a disease gripping middle Britain. It is demonstrated in many different ways, from the driver telling the cyclist that she has no right to be on the road because she doesn’t pay road tax (I know), to the father holding up his daughter’s tears to get out of a fine.

I know, I’m a monster. But hooray for the enforcers, I say.

Duncan Hothersall is the editor of Labour Hame