Public Service Investment

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament am 4:14 pm ar 13 Mehefin 2024.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Michelle Thomson Michelle Thomson Scottish National Party 4:14, 13 Mehefin 2024

I am pleased to support the SNP motion, but I am also pleased to place under scrutiny the wild claims that have been made by the Tories and Labour alike. I have listened to the debate: those parties are singing from the same hymn sheet, but they also appear to be consulting the same economic witch doctor.

The Tories used to claim that conservatism brought political, social and economic stability, but over the past 10 years they have given us five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors of the Exchequer and 12 plans for growth. At the same time, their policies have caused harm to society and the economy—not least via Brexit. The chaos that was created by the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss premierships displayed a remarkable degree of incompetence, and Scotland continues to pay the price. Frankly, the Tories deserve to be dispatched to the dustbin of history.

Then, along comes Labour, claiming to be the party of change. If Labour was genuinely interested in pursuing change for the better, it would seek to reverse Brexit. Instead, the party is silent on that, which is an act of political cowardice. The fiscal package of tax rises and spending pledges that the Labour Party announced today equates to around 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product, so I will listen to no claims about what the Labour Party is going to do for public services.

In recent times, Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and David Lammy have commented about who they claim were the great change leaders of the past. Rather than Clement Attlee, who oversaw the creation of the NHS, or Harold Wilson, who introduced the Open University, they trumpet none other than Margaret Thatcher—that destroyer of communities, who did not even believe in society.

Both the Tory and Labour manifestos claim that they will raise more funds by closing tax loopholes, thereby collecting billions of pounds. However, they cannot spell out how that will be done—I am happy to take an intervention on that point—and neither are they willing to tackle the vastly overcomplicated tax system in the UK, which is full of exploitable loopholes. Similarly, the Tories and Labour claim that they will immediately save lots of money by pursuing productivity gains in, for example, the NHS. That is fantasy land stuff.

Therefore, we should not be surprised that we are in for another dose of austerity if Labour comes to power. We need only listen to Rachel Reeves’s commitment to current Tory policy. As recently as March this year, speaking at the Bayes Business School, she unveiled Labour thinking and emphasised stability of a particular sort. Most critically, she aims to keep the fiscal rule that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, is the greatest bind on policy—the need to have debt falling as a share of national income. The IFS and others have also pointed out that the rule is a completely arbitrary invention of the current Government. Not only will Labour keep the Tory rule, but it is determined to ensure that it binds the Labour Government, too. In the words of Rachel Reeves,

“debt must be falling as a share of the economy”.

She went on to say:

“I will end the practice of the Chancellor being able to scrap the rules at any time”.

She is supposed to make the rules, not follow the Tory ones.

In case there was any doubt, that is one of the main reasons why many bodies have pointed to the coming of significant cuts—a minimum of £18 billion—under Labour, which Labour has now admitted. I point out to members and to the ladies and gentlemen who are watching the debate that that is just the starting figure. Labour is not only putting on a Tory straitjacket—it is going to tighten the Labour belt.

Let us consider the practical implications. Earlier this year, Labour’s Wes Streeting, writing in The Sun , vowed to fight “middle-class lefties” who oppose expanding the NHS’s use of private healthcare. He wants to expand the invasion of privatised healthcare. Streeting has accepted around £175,000 from two donors with links to private healthcare firms, so it is perhaps not surprising that Labour has dropped its “NHS not for sale” commitment. In the past two years, private equity firms have struck 150 deals for UK healthcare companies, according to figures that have been reported by the Financial Times and cited in The Guardian . Those firms have bought up ambulance fleets, eye care clinics and diagnostics companies. As Hettie O’Brien from The Guardian rightly concluded in an article last August,

“When asked how he would deal with the NHS crisis, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting echoed his Conservative counterparts and pledged to use private companies to reduce waiting lists. For investors, it was a show of support. For patients, it’s a worrying indication that our politicians have little intention of arresting the decline of our public health service.”

The implications go beyond those that have been cited by Hettie O’Brien. If new investment in England and Wales is undertaken using that privatisation model, there will be no Barnett consequentials. That is one more example of how our public services in Scotland are just as much at risk with Labour as they are with the Tories. The only way to protect our public services in Scotland is by securing our independence as soon as possible.