NHS faces £8bn cuts 'after next election'

 

Osborne has conceded that more cuts will be needed in the first two years of the next parliament
Osborne has conceded that more cuts will be needed in the first two years of the next parliament

The National Health Service could face cuts of almost £8bn immediately after the next general election, according to the first analysis of the Government's own figures as it draws up another round of spending reductions.

In a report published today, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank reveals the stark choices facing all three main parties at the 2015 election. Although most attention has focused on George Osborne's plan for a further £10bn of welfare cuts, that would not ease the pressure on other budgets such as health, education, defence and law and order.

David Cameron has pledged to increase NHS spending by more than inflation every year but that might not be extended beyond the election. The Chancellor has already conceded that more cuts will be needed in the first two years of the next parliament because he will not clear the deficit as quickly as he originally planned after the economy went back into recession.

According to the IPPR, the Government's fiscal targets imply real terms cuts of 3.8 per cent in 2015-16 and 2016-17 – higher than the 2.3 per cent average reduction now being implemented across Whitehall departments. Unless the NHS pledge is extended – a move the Treasury may oppose – its budget would be cut by £7.8bn in 2016-17. If the cuts were spread evenly, education spending would fall by £3.8bn, defence by £1.7bn, local government by £1.6bn and the Home Office by £500m.

If the NHS were protected after the election, the cuts in other departments would be much bigger – £6bn for education, £2.7bn for defence and £900m for the Home Office.

The IPPR hopes its analysis will spark a debate about the options for cuts, whether they should be spread over a longer period and whether taxes should be raised as an alternative to cuts. It is worried that Mr Osborne's decision to float £10bn of welfare cuts as an illustrative figure has obscured the deep cuts facing other departments.

Nick Pearce, the IPPR's director, said last night: "There are no easy options for politicians in the next spending review because of the weakness of the economy and the fragility of the nation's public finances.

"The economy needs stimulus for growth now, but fiscal consolidation in the next parliament. That makes some combination of spending cuts and tax rises inevitable. Realistic and credible fiscal plans will have to go beyond small or symbolic measures that do not match the scale of the task."

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in