Why I’ve changed my stance on raising National Insurance
POLITICS
by Simon Hoare MP I’d guess that there are not many people in North Dorset who do not know at least one person, a friend or family member perhaps, who is not waiting currently for an operation, scan or some other medical intervention. I know from my inbox that the waiting lists are growing, and that people are worried. When will they get help? When will their pain be eradicated etc? It is for that reason that the Government had to act to inject extra resource into the NHS to cope with the Covid-generated backlog. I was concerned that we were breaking a manifesto commitment not to increase National Insurance contributions. But it was written in a different, pre-pandemic age. An analogue document for a digital age. Covid has changed so much. Those who know me know I am no ideological purist. Rather, I plant my flag as a confirmed and proud centre-ground pragmatist. Following the decades old Tory tradition of finding practical solutions to problems; not hogtied to dogma or ‘little red books’. So, the new money will go to the NHS and hopefully that will help tackle the mountain range like waiting list problem. ‘Flush with money’ But, as a Tory I also know that injecting money into anything, let alone such a vast public service as the NHS, can never be the end in itself. Listening to health commentators it is clear that outputs and productivity go up when money is at its tightest as every ounce of health benefit is squeezed from every pound. When an organisation
is ‘flush with money’ it can often occurs when patients no longer mean that financial rectitude need acute care but are not and prudent management go able to return home without out of the window at worst or an integrated care package. take second place at best. We As a result, they cannot be must therefore look to those discharged. This often leads to who control the thousands of beds “I plant my flag nationally being purse strings to as a confirmed used for nonensure that the maximum benefit medical care. That and proud can be derived is why we are trying centre-ground from this windfall to defuse the Social pragmatist” cash injection. Care time-bomb 150% of our entire before it detonates. GDP could go to health provision Health and Social Care are two and it would still not be enough. sides of the same coin. A major Medical science is outpacing contributor to the problems of public financing. We must focus social care provision has been on productivity and outputs. It is the disproportionate reductions in the patient’s interest to do so. in Government-provided funding to local government. It is A skill shortage local councils who know their Doctors and nurses do not grow communities and its needs on trees. It is not just a question better than Whitehall. I shall of the money but also having the continue my advocacy for Local medical staff to deploy to use Government funding within it. There is of course a moral Westminster to make that case. dimension to skill-raiding from overseas, often depleting other Future of care countries of medical expertise. Two final points if I may? First, That said, and while there is a we now need to sculpt what we huge need for front line staff want adult social care to do and (let us not forget many of them look like for the next 30-40 years. are physically and mentally on The model needs a radical their knees as a result of Covid), overhaul to reflect the change in we will need to ensure there is a demographic demand. timely flexible response from the Second, we will at our peril Home Office regarding visas and forget that ‘social care’ is not processing applications. ‘elderly care’. There is a huge and growing demand among The Social Care timebomb children and young people for A big part of the NHS capacity social care and they cannot be crisis is the bedblocking that overlooked.
21
