| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.9 pm
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I listened with care to the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I have heard him wax lyrical about the coal industry in European Standing Committee C. The way he argues the case for that industry does his constituents no disservice.
I was however intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's claim that he was sure his district would receive new investment because of the Chancellor's announcements and the subsequent remarks of the Secretary of State for Health about the amount of money available for the health service. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pressed the Secretary of State about the precise way in which the allocation mechanism would work, the Government were short on detail. The exact way in which the money will be spread around the health authorities, trusts and primary care groups in the United Kingdom is not clear.
When Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the health service, tendered his resignation, newspaper reports suggested that the Secretary of State was totally fed up with the way the health service was being run. They also commented that the Secretary of State would take over the running of the health service--that he would assemble a tightly knit group of super-advisers and run it. Perhaps today's statement is the first sign that the Secretary of State is in charge.
We are still not clear about whether the money will be genuinely upfront to tackle current pressures or whether it will have to be earned through even harder work--from existing resources--to try to get the carrots that the Secretary of State has thinly sprinkled around. Someone on the Treasury Bench is nodding---
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart)
indicated dissent.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson)
indicated dissent.
Mr. Jack:
As when one attends an auction, body language must be kept under control; otherwise, perceptive Opposition Members will assume that a signal has been given of new Government policy. I see that the Whip on duty is now giving the appropriate instructions.
Although the money is welcome, I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends who expressed the Conservative party's solid commitment to the health service. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was in charge, he pointed out at a Conservative party conference that until we started reforming the national health service, it did not know how many people it employed, it had no idea of its capital, and so on. We started the process to ensure, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, that we had proper information on which to run the health service. We were gearing our reforms to improving patient care. Waiting lists were reduced under the last Conservative Government, especially for those who had waited a year or more for treatment.
It is a travesty of the truth for the Government to claim that we are not committed to the national health service. My family has no private health care; I depend on the national health service for my family's health care needs. I therefore have a vested interest in the NHS and I shall continue to fight for it in every possible way.
Mr. Ivan Lewis:
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the credible solution to the problems in the structure of the health service is either its modernisation and progress or the massive expansion of private health care? Which of those options does the right hon. Gentleman believe constitutes the way forward for health care?
Mr. Jack:
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because a mixed economy of care exists under the health care system that the Government run. Health authorities already use public money to purchase surplus capacity in the private sector so that NHS patients may enjoy faster treatment. The Conservative party
Mr. Love:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack:
Before I give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), I should like to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who may be in danger of upsetting his Front Bench by attacking the private sector, which is being used under the current purchasing arrangements. Many companies, and indeed trade unions, have provided private health care for their employees or members. People can thus choose. There is nothing wrong with ensuring a diversity of opportunity for health care in this country while acknowledging that, for the majority of people, including me, the national health service remains the primary source of such care.
Mr. Love:
In the light of the Conservative party's commitment to its tax pledge, can the right hon. Gentleman understand why the public remain sceptical about any commitment by the Opposition to an increase in resources for the national health service?
Mr. Jack:
The public are naturally sceptical when any politician, even the current Chancellor or Secretary of State for Health, starts talking big numbers. It does not mean a great deal to them. However, they want to know whether the Chancellor's largesse means that, for example, the cardiothoracic unit at the Blackpool Victoria hospital will be safe. I receive letters from people who require triple bypass operations but have to wait a long time for them. Does the Chancellor's announcement mean that they will be treated sooner? That will be the acid test of whether the money will benefit people in a way they understand.
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on performance criteria for the health service. It is important that they deliver. I agreed with his analysis when he pointed out that there were considerable differences in performance between the best and the worst in the NHS. It is important that lean, mean machines such as the Blackpool Victoria hospital trust, whose output is high on lower funding than many other hospital trusts in the north-west enjoy, receive their just deserts. I will judge the Secretary of State's words when we receive details of the workings of the funding and allocation mechanism, and on whether good hospitals such as the Blackpool Victoria get extra money.
I want to refer to other items in the Budget. The Chancellor gave the impression that he was tackling personal tax burdens. However, if we cost the burden out in standard rate income tax terms, we realise that it has increased by 9p but decreased yesterday by 1p. That is a net increase of 8p.
Much has been said about the tax burden. Let us consider table C7, which shows total Government receipts, on page 200 of the Red Book. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly spoke in global terms. The table shows that income tax in the current financial year is 10.6 per cent. of gross domestic
product, and that, by the end of the Parliament, it will increase to 10.8 per cent. Corporation tax--the largest tax paid by business--will increase in the same period from 3.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. of GDP. Excise duties will also increase from 3.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. Current receipts, excluding the windfall tax, are set to increase from 39.6 per cent. to 39.9 per cent.
An interesting feature of the Government's approach to taxation lies behind that. They hide the fact that a parallel development with the Chancellor's activity at the centre is the increases in charges and taxes that people pay locally. In Lancashire, the council tax will increase by approximately 6.5 per cent.--approximately three times the rate of inflation. That is because the Chancellor has decided to squeeze the amount of money that goes to local authorities and he expects the council taxpayer to pay more tax locally for services.
That is not restricted to council taxpayers. One of the most interesting charts in a recent Audit Commission report on the cost of local authority social services showed the rate at which charges had increased. I continually receive letters from elderly people who complain about the rising cost of their home help services. It is a little known topic of debate, but it means that elderly people of modest means effectively have to pay an extra tax because they pay more for their home help services.
On charging, one can go right through the whole piece. On the implementation of the integrated pollution and prevention control directive, for example, industrialists and farmers in England and Wales will pay double the rate of their Scottish counterparts. Why? Because the Environment Agency here has been squeezed by the Government as they pass their costs--taxes--back to another paying unit. That is another example of stealth at work and it is a great pity--
Mr. Jack:
I should like to make a little progress, if I may. It is a great pity that the Chancellor, in his gabble, did not--
Mr. Lewis:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack:
In a moment. It is a great pity that the Chancellor did not have the courage to outline his strategy. It seems to be, "I want to appear virtuous at the centre, but I shall continue to squeeze people out there in the sticks."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |