In Britain, we pride ourselves on our National Health Service, but is it in danger of collapse?
YouGov Survey
YouGov recently released a survey regarding the British public’s opinions on the state of the NHS.
Only 12% of those surveyed said they thought the NHS was being handled ‘well’, with 82% saying it is handled ‘badly’
69% believe the national state of NHS services is bad
28% consider the NHS worse than European healthcare systems, in comparison to 20% thinking it is better
56% believe the state of the NHS will worsen over the next few years, compared to 14% who think it will get better, and 22% who think it will remain in a similar state
39% of those surveyed believe Labour would handle the NHS best, with 11% of respondents saying the Conservatives would
From these findings, it is clear that the majority of Brits are more likely to view the NHS as being in a negative situation than a positive one.
YouGov’s findings also indicate that the NHS has become a political issue, wherein many voters are considering the impact of their vote on our health service.
Why is the NHS in Danger?
“the N.H.S., a proud symbol of Britain’s welfare state, is in the deepest crisis of its history: flooded by aging, enfeebled patients; starved of investment in equipment and facilities; and understaffed by doctors and nurses, many of whom are so burned out that they are either joining strikes or leaving for jobs abroad”–Andrew Testa, The New York Times
As summed up by Testa, the NHS is facing a bombardment of issues. One of these issues is staff shortages, due to many NHS workers leaving their professions. We only have to look at the amount of strikes over the past few years to see just how unhappy many NHS staff are. There is a huge issue wherein many feel undervalued, underpaid, and massively overworked, so it’s no wonder we are experiencing these staff vacancies.
Another issue the NHS is facing is our ever-ageing population. Most people develop more health issues as they get older, which leads to an enormous demand for NHS services. If we then combine our ageing population with the already long waiting lists that developed during the pandemic, it is clear to see how demand is outstripping supply. Simply, we do not have enough doctors, nurses, and facilities to treat all of our patients.
Additionally, due to the NHS being free at the point of use, some people use NHS services unnecessarily, going to the GP for things like common colds which are easily treated at home.
Over the years, there has also been a rising demand for mental health services. In 2000, it was estimated that 17.5% of adults aged 16-64 had common mental health disorders (such as anxiety and depression). This number rose to 18.9% in 2014. Alongside this trend, more people with mental health disorders are now seeking NHS treatment for them. The percentage of adults aged 16-74 with a common mental disorder who were accessing mental health treatment was 23.1% in 2000, rising to 39.4% in 2014. The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey is due in 2023/4 so we will have a more established idea of how this trend has continued since 2014 when that is released.
Overall, the NHS is facing enormous demand that it simply cannot meet. Waiting times are through the roof and more and more NHS professionals are changing careers by the day. If we want to keep our health service, changes must be made. Just what those changes are, I guess we will have to wait and see…
by Red Star Wealth
Jeremy Hunt’s decision to scrap the pensions lifetime allowance, announced on Wednesday 15th March during his Spring Budget, has been met with controversy.
What was the Lifetime Allowance?
The lifetime allowance previously capped the amount that individuals could save into their private pension before incurring a tax charge. Previous to the Spring Budget, the lifetime allowance was set at £1,073,100, with expectations that Hunt would increase this figure to £1.8 million. However, in a surprise move he instead decided to abolish the lifetime allowance completely.
For most lower and middle earners, the scrapping of the lifetime allowance will not affect them. This decision will mainly affect higher earners as these tend to be the people who can afford to build bigger pension pots.
“It is a pension tax reform that will stop over 80% of NHS doctors from receiving a tax charge and incentivise our most experienced and productive workers to stay in work for longer”
“I have listened to the concerns of many senior NHS clinicians who say unpredictable pension tax charges are making them leave the NHS just when they are needed most”
The decision to scrap the lifetime allowance is aimed to keep people close to retirement in the workforce for longer, as well as encouraging those who have already retired to return to work. This is because there is more incentive for employees to stay in work to continue building their pension as they won’t face tax penalties for doing so. The idea is that this will help stimulate economic activity and produce economic growth.
Criticism
However, this decision has been met with controversy, with some arguing that whilst these changes would indeed combat the issue of 55% tax penalties faced by doctors, they would also give a big boost to many wealthy people.
David Brooks, head of policy at Broadstone, has argued that scrapping the lifetime allowance and increasing the annual pensions contributions has acted as a “huge tax giveaway to the wealthiest people in the country”
The following images is taken from the director of the Social Market Foundation, James Kirkup’s, twitter:
Perhaps the government should be focussing on getting more people to start building pensions, rather than helping those with large pensions make them even bigger.
Shadow Chancellor and Labour MP, Rachel Reeves stated:
“The only surprise in the budget was a huge handout to the richest one percent of pension savers […] Labour believes that the tax burden should be shared fairly. That is why I’ve announced today that Labour will reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances. It is the wrong priority at the wrong time”
Given that Labour is favoured to win the next general election, it is a real possibility that Hunt’s scheme may not be in place for very long…
To read more about other changes announced in the Spring Budget, check out our previous blog.
by Red Star Wealth
The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill 2022-23, introduced by Labour MP, Dan Jarvis, has passed through the House of Commons and is now progressing through the House of Lords.
Current Regulation
Under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternity Leave Regulations 1999, a woman on maternity leave whose job is being made redundant is entitled to the offer of alternative employment before the end of her current role, with her employer or an associated employer under terms not substantially worse than in the previous job.
Pregnancy and Family Leave Bill
The new bill would grant the Secretary of State power to extend these protections against redundancy for those on maternity leave to cover a longer time period. The period of protection from redundancy would extend to protect pregnant employees from the point of them telling their employer about their pregnancy, until 18 months after the birth.
Parents taking adoption leave or shared parental leave would also be protected from redundancy while on leave and for an 18 month period after their return.
It is currently unclear when these new rights will come into force, and we are unlikely to see changes until 2024 or 2025.
Why is this Protection Necessary?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that “around 54,000 new mothers may be forced out of their jobs in Britain each year.” 11% of the 3200 women they interviewed reported being dismissed where others in their workplace weren’t or treated so poorly that they had to leave their jobs themselves.
Dan Jarvis stated, “At the heart of this bill are tens of thousands of women pushed out of the workforce each year simply for being pregnant. I’m proud this new legislation will go some way to providing pregnant women and new mums greater protections in the workplace.”
They continued to argue that in practice, employers can quite easily ignore Regulation 10, “safe in the knowledge that, having just given birth or been away from the workplace for up to a year, a woman is most unlikely to bring a prohibitively expensive Employment Tribunal claim – the only means of challenging an unfair redundancy” and that “simply extending the period covered by Regulation 10 […] would not address this fundamental flaw.”
Instead, Maternity Action has called for a comprehensive legal ban on making pregnant women or new mothers redundant.
by Red Star Wealth
The Government’s new statutory code on ‘fire and rehire’ practices falls short of properly protecting workers.
What is Fire and Rehire?
Fire and rehire is a practice wherein an employer dismisses an employee and rehires them on new terms, which are usually less favourable.
The New Statutory Code
On 24th January, the government announced that they were cracking down on employers using fire and rehire practices.
This new statutory code is intended to make it clear to employers that they aren’t allowed to threaten their staff with dismissal to pressure them into accepting less favourable terms. The code would also apply when employers attempt to replace their workers with new staff on worse terms.
Once this code is implemented, Courts and Employment Tribunals will be able to take it into account when considering relevant cases, including those regarding wrongful dismissal. If an employer is found to flout this code, they will have the power to increase the relevant employee’s compensation by 25% in certain cases.
P&O Ferries Scandal
Last year, P&O Ferries sacked 786 seafarers without prior consultation, with a plan of replacing them with cheaper agency workers.
Chief executive, Peter Hebblethwaite, admitted the company had broken the law with their actions due to their failure to consult trade unions in good time before the sackings, instead choosing to make the workers redundant with immediate effect.
Criticism
This code falls short of the outright ban on fire and rehire practices that many unions have called for. The Trade Union Congress general secretary said “A general code of practice is not going to stop another P&O-style scandal from happening, and it won’t deter bad bosses from treating staff like disposable labour”
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, commented, “This code isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. It’s shameful that nearly a year after the P&O Ferries scandal the Conservatives can only offer this weak half-measure, which they admit will allow fire-and-rehire tactics to continue”
Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite the Union described it as “an insult to workers and their families” and called on the government to ban fire and rehire practices for good.
This isn’t a New Issue…
The P&O Ferries scandal is certainly not the first of its kind. In April 2021, hundreds of British Gas engineers were sacked after refusing to sign up to new terms and conditions which would have seen them working longer hours and facing a pay cut.
Following this issue, a Survation poll was conducted on behalf of GMB, which found that 76% of those who answered believed that the practice of fire and rehire should be illegal. This included 71% of Conservative voters. Therefore, it is certainly not just criticisers of the Tory party who want workers to have protection from what is, quite frankly, an exploitative labour practice.
A Consultation is taking place over the 12 weeks following this announcement on 24th January. Here, the public and interested groups can share their views on a new statutory code for employers. You can take part by clicking here.
