-
Acknowledges the Government's efforts to tackle social care issues but expresses concern over the haste in implementing tax changes. Considers the levy necessary but questions its timing.
-
Argues against hypothecation and criticises the lack of clarity on spending priorities. Describes the rush to implement the levy as farcical, questioning its financial effectiveness.
-
Supports the Government's action and seeks assurance for regular updates on results achieved through the levy. Requests transparency in how funds raised are used to benefit constituents.
-
Raises concerns about the impact of the levy on businesses, especially regarding job creation at a fragile recovery stage post-pandemic. Cites FSB’s view that the levy punishes business owners for retaining staff during the pandemic.
-
Supports accountability and transparency in expenditure, urging publication of a plan detailing how funds from the levy will be used to benefit constituents. Emphasises the need for detailed planning on spending.
-
Asks for long-term sustainability analysis, particularly in light of an ageing population and shrinking pool of working-age contributors relative to increasing demand for care services.
-
Questions the long-term sustainability of targeting working-age individuals with a tax increase, considering demographic changes like an ageing population over 20 years.
-
Highlights potential issues for those seeking care between now and October 2023 under the proposed social care reforms, expressing concern over a sudden surge in demand post-October.
-
Inquired about the Treasury's approval of hiring 43 new executives at £270,000 per year to monitor expenditure.
-
Asked for specific details on how the budget increase would be divided between NHS and social care, questioning if this would adequately address backlogs and waiting lists.
-
Proposed different pay bands for frontline staff and management in the NHS to ensure that any pay rises do not benefit managers disproportionately over frontline workers.
-
Outlines concerns about the sudden introduction of a tax rise without proper scrutiny, its impact on working people and businesses, lack of a clear social care plan, and potential for creating a two-tier healthcare system. Emphasises that raising taxes on employment will disproportionately affect those who can least afford it.
-
Highlights how issues in health care began under previous Conservative governments, noting lower satisfaction rates since 2010. Suggests that this tax rise does not address underlying problems.
-
Raises concerns about government encouragement of private health insurance products, warning it could accelerate privatisation in both social care and healthcare.
-
Clarifies his comments about private insurance rebates to address concerns about a two-tier system, aiming for a more progressive solution within existing frameworks.
-
Asked the opposition how they would fund proposed health and social care measures, implying that national insurance is a better solution than alternative funding methods.
-
Argued that the proposal to increase taxes through the levy is more progressive than using plain national insurance, as it will add £12 billion annually to health and care services. He also expressed concerns about future funding requirements.
-
Asked Jeremy Hunt about previous efforts to prevent Conservative cuts to social care, implying criticism of the current proposal's impact on social care funding.
-
Critiqued the lack of detail in how money raised by the levy will be spent and expressed concerns about devolution, job impacts, and fairness towards Scotland.
-
Concerned about insufficient provision for discharging patients from hospital into social care. Supports finding ways to get more money into social care earlier but opposes raising taxes on jobs and employment at this point, especially given economic performance and tax revenue lines. Compliments Government for raising social care issue but worries about short-changing current system users. Criticises the haste in implementation of the Bill.
-
Argues that the proposals are regressive and will hit younger working people hardest, with half the revenue coming from those under 45 who face a 10% rise in NICs. Criticises the impact on families already struggling financially due to cuts like the loss of £20 weekly universal credit support.
-
Argued in favour of using independent sector capacity to address NHS backlog, focusing on minimally invasive techniques and technologies for procedures that can be done as day surgery. Emphasised the importance of investment in diagnostic capability and innovation within the NHS.
-
Critiqued the Health and Social Care Levy Bill for its regressive tax measures, predicting that it would lead to increased poverty among families in Birkenhead due to cuts in universal credit and soaring energy bills. He also warned about the negative impact on small businesses and job losses.
-
Expressed concerns over the lack of a detailed social care plan, especially for self-payers in Wokingham. Highlighted issues with hypothecated levies and their impact on modest incomes and small businesses, suggesting that it is too soon to start taxing given the economic recovery from the pandemic.
-
The amendment criticises the Prime Minister's plan for adult social care, arguing that it does not deliver necessary funding or acknowledge the importance of social care staff. The speaker provides examples from a report commissioned by Community Integrated Care, which highlights pay disparity between NHS healthcare assistants and social care workers.
-
Suggests that the proposed levy is necessary due to an ageing population with increasing demand for long-term care. Emphasises the need for a system that encourages long-term planning and public support, criticising Opposition for lack of plan.
-
Argues that the proposed levy is poorly timed and will disproportionately hit low earners. Criticises it as a job tax, highlighting its negative impact on businesses, families, and public services like healthcare.
-
Andrew Griffith supports the Government's proposal to introduce a national insurance levy for social care, arguing that it is progressive and necessary due to the high cost of social care. He notes that more than one in three people receiving social care are under 65 years old, emphasising the need for a comprehensive solution. He also pays tribute to unpaid carers and workers in care homes who have been dealing with the challenges of an underfunded system.
-
Rachael Maskell opposes the Government's proposal, arguing that it does not address the immediate issues in social care and healthcare systems. She highlights the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and impact assessment. Maskell also criticises the plan for being rushed through Parliament without proper consideration and notes that it will leave many families poorer throughout their lives due to increased costs.
-
John Baron expresses concern about the haste with which the national insurance levy is being introduced for social care funding. He questions the fairness of such a tax increase, especially since it will disproportionately affect lower-paid workers and wealthy non-working pensioners are exempted from paying. Baron also criticises the lack of time given to scrutinise the details properly.
-
The speaker believes that the Government has failed to address the social care crisis adequately. He criticises the Prime Minister for breaking his promise during the leadership contest in 2019, stating that the proposal does not fix the social care issue as promised. Tim Farron argues against raising national insurance and instead supports raising income tax on those who have the wealth to pay it, ensuring that younger working-age people are not disproportionately affected. He emphasises the need for radical reform of social care that tackles staffing shortages, ensures fair compensation for care workers, and provides support for unpaid carers and those in care at a younger age.
-
Asked Tim Farron how much he would put on income tax, suggesting that the Liberal Democrats had previously been keen to increase it by a penny. He questioned whether the speaker has costed his spending commitments.
-
Questions the need for haste in addressing social care issues and criticises the reliance on increasing national insurance contributions as a solution. He argues that raising taxes on jobs is counterproductive since employers might reduce salary increases due to higher NICs. Mackinlay also points out the significant losses caused by fraud and error within government payments, suggesting these could contribute towards solving social care problems without additional tax burdens. Furthermore, he advocates for innovative solutions like auto-enrolment pensions rather than simply raising taxes.
-
Anderson opposes the funding method proposed in the bill, citing concerns over its fairness and impact on care workers. She points out that there are 300,000 people waiting for care services and criticises the lack of integration between NHS and social care services. Anderson argues that the policy is not progressive or fair as it disproportionately affects low-income individuals while wealthier individuals remain relatively untouched.
-
Penning supports the Bill but raises concerns about how the funding will be managed and distributed. He criticises high salaries within NHS trusts and expresses worry over postcode lotteries for care provision, particularly in cases involving dementia.
-
Shannon is torn between supporting reform needed by NHS and opposing the proposed funding method. He criticises the fairness of the proposal, particularly its impact on middle-class families and small businesses. Shannon also expresses concern over potential misallocation of funds to Northern Ireland.
-
Vickers supports the Health and Social Care Levy despite his natural aversion to tax increases. He argues that public expectations for services have increased, necessitating a corresponding increase in funding. He acknowledges potential imperfections but believes it is necessary given current demands on the NHS and social care systems. Vickers emphasises the need for local scrutiny of how funds are used and challenges the government to ensure transparency.
-
Davies criticises the Health and Social Care Levy, arguing that it taxes work rather than addressing fundamental economic issues. He suggests alternative ways of funding social care and healthcare through taxation on harmful activities like air pollution and plastics, proposing an incinerator tax and a plastic levy as examples. Davies supports progressive taxation but argues against the specific implementation proposed by the Government.
-
Murrison supports the Health and Social Care Levy, arguing that it is necessary to cover costs associated with an ageing population. He emphasises the importance of a broad tax base for equitable funding. Murrison raises concerns about potential frontloading of costs by businesses in the social care sector but ultimately supports the Government's proposal.
-
Johnson criticises the Government's social care package for failing to address staff retention and vacancy issues through improved pay, terms and conditions. She emphasises the need for a wealth tax on the richest as part of a plan to tackle the crisis. Johnson argues that low-paid workers will face an increase in NI contributions while council taxes rise, food prices surge, and energy costs soar.
-
Drax believes in the Conservative philosophy of low taxes and a safety net for those who fall into it. He argues against spending billions on social care, suggesting that without reform, funds will be wasted. He highlights the need to prioritise spending rather than increasing taxes, calling for economic growth through tax reduction instead.
-
The amendment will cause significant hardship in constituencies due to cuts in universal credit, high energy bills, potential food shortages, increased council tax, and job retention issues. It argues for higher wages for care workers, proper training, and a fairer living wage.
-
Intervened to argue that the amendment is unfair on young people who are already facing high costs of living and rent prices, compared to their landlords who will not be taxed.
-
Asked about Labour's social care plans, highlighting the need for solutions addressing older citizens' needs in his constituency. Implied that Labour has not provided a clear alternative to the proposed tax rise.
-
Supports the amendment as necessary for addressing social care issues, acknowledging it is an important step despite being financially challenging. Calls for proper funding for young carers, unpaid carers' allowances, and improved status for care workers.
-
Intervened to question the fiscal responsibility of increasing tax during historically low interest rates, suggesting it would be better not to tax jobs.
-
Says she supports raising funds through a national health and social care levy to address the social care crisis. She acknowledges the need for reform alongside tax increases and highlights her personal experience caring for a family member with Alzheimer’s, advocating for better respite care and conditions for care workers.
-
Critiques the national insurance rise as unfair, saying it fails to address the social care crisis adequately. Argues that the levy will increase taxes on low-paid workers without providing sufficient funding for social care or addressing NHS waiting lists. Highlights negative impacts on employment and family stability.
-
Asked the Minister why more money is being taken from working people instead of those who have gained significantly from asset price bubbles.
-
Questioned whether taking more money from working individuals rather than targeting those profiting from real estate asset bubbles is a fair approach to funding health and social care services.
-
Reminded the House that Labour has historically opposed investment in NHS, questioning why they are now voting against billions of pounds of proposed funding.