| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
If we consider the Budget on a piecemeal basis, there is a danger that we will miss the wood and only see the trees. Taken as a whole, this Budget gives concrete expression to Labour's vision of a modernised Britain of the 21st century. It moves the process of modernisation into a higher gear. Its appeal goes beyond the self-interested analysis of gainers and losers from individual tax changes. In giving practical force to a vision of Britain in the 21st century, its appeal is to the latent idealism of Britain today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. I call Mr. Nigel Waterson.
8.18 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate, even though time is limited.
A couple of days before the Budget, I was reading the obituary of Bombardier Ferrebee. Who was he, and why did he rate an obituary in The Times? He was, of course, the bomb aimer who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
As I sat listening to the Budget, the thought came into my head that it reminded me of that famous radio broadcast that Emperor Hirohito made after the bombs were dropped. That was the first time that the Japanese public had heard the voice of their emperor. The broadcast
contained the immortal piece of understatement, "There has been a development in the war that is not necessarily to Japan's advantage."I thought of that phrase when I listened to the Chancellor's speech. The spirit of that long-dead Japanese speech writer seems to live on in the modern Treasury. Whoever wrote the Chancellor's speech was a master of the same sort of understatement--the best recent example of which was the Chancellor's comment in his 1997 Budget speech. In effect, he was staging a raid worth £5 billion on pension funds, but he said he was making other tax changes to "encourage" companies to invest profits in the future--an example of the Hirohito school of speech writing, if ever I saw one.
As time is limited, I shall touch briefly on some of the ways in which my constituents are disadvantaged by the Budget; in particular, I shall show how the Budget speech differs from reality. The best example is the national health service. Naturally, the Opposition welcome the new money for investment in the NHS, but we are concerned whether it will be put to the best use.
It is clear that the Government have panicked. A winter of pressures--problems with waiting lists and so on--has caused them to throw money at the problem rather than to think rationally about it. However, as we approach the winding up of the Budget debate, it has emerged--only a few days after the Budget speech--that the boast of 10,000 new nurses was really a repackaging of a previous announcement. That figure had been included previously. Furthermore, the boast about the percentage of gross domestic product to be devoted to health included the figure spent on private health care. That is complete hypocrisy--not only are the Government against private health care on principle, but one of their first acts was to abolish tax relief for private medical insurance for people over retirement age.
Mr. Hayes: As my hon. Friend has thoroughly studied the Red Book, he will be aware that even that inflated figure does not take the proportion spent on health to the amount that would be necessary to bring it in line with European averages. At one time, the Prime Minister said that was a pledge; then he said it was an aspiration. The Budget total is about 6.1 per cent. of GDP; but we need to spend 7.5 per cent. of GDP in order to reach that aspiration.
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
In my local hospital, Eastbourne district general, there have been many problems during recent months. We have seen the resignation of the chairman and the chief executive, and there is still a shortage of nurses. Recently, the new chief executive told me that it was not really a matter of money, but of finding nurses to recruit. About 15 Filipino nurses were due to arrive last week to try to help plug the gap.
When I visited the hospital recently, I saw the dedication and hard work of everyone there, but I also noticed that almost none of the wards had an unoccupied bed. That was after the flu epidemic that caused so many problems. I also understand that we are now about 1,000 behind the waiting list target for operations. Politicians should not make silly, simplistic election promises about waiting lists--those who do so should go down with the ship.
Another important matter is the effect on transport. We have standstill Britain; a pitiful amount of new money is to be spent on transport. In my area, there is the shambles of the Polegate bypass. That scheme was all set to go ahead when we left office in 1997; it was postponed, although it is likely to start later this year. In the meantime, the Government have paid £5 million on account to the contractors not to build the road that they were supposed to build.
Another road, the new A22, is known as the road to nowhere; although it is almost finished, it cannot be joined up because of the bypass problem. The sum of £100,000 is being spent simply to guard it from vandals and others. If that is how that relatively small amount of extra money is to be spent, we cannot expect any great changes in standstill Britain.
The Budget will have an effect on older people--especially pensioners--in my constituency and elsewhere. Of course, we welcome the increase in the savings and earnings limits and in the higher winter fuel allowance. However, why is there only to be consultation over the new credit for pensioners? Surely the Government realise that there is a growing feeling of unfairness among pensioners--those who have made the effort to provide for their retirement are seen as second-class citizens under the Government's policies. As co-chairman of the all-party group on older people, I am constantly made aware of that sense of unfairness on the part of many of our pensioners.
Pensioners have already seen the abolition of the married couples allowance, of the widows allowance, of tax relief on private health care insurance and of tax credits on dividends. They have experienced the £5 billion raid on pension funds. On top of all that, they have seen a plethora of stealth taxes, for example on petrol. Council tax is going up by 8 per cent. in my constituency--nobody's pension is increasing by 8 per cent. How are pensioners to pay that increased tax?
Furthermore, pensioners in my constituency are receiving less in services, largely because of a Liberal Democrat-controlled borough council and a Lib-Lab pact at county level. They will pay an 8 per cent. increase when inflation is about 2 per cent. That is a stealth tax. Some older people in my constituency and elsewhere may have to dip into their winter fuel allowance simply to be able to pay the extra council tax.
Some of the Budget's small print was about basic banking services; the Chancellor mentioned that about 1.5 million people do not have bank accounts. However, in my constituency, we have the absurd situation that the Meads branch of Barclays bank is to close on 7 April--with no consultation with local residents or customers--merely because of a contraction in the banking network. Our Order Papers are awash with early-day motions about similar closures; Barclays alone is closing about 170 branches throughout the country.
The Meads branch is used by older people ; they will not be able easily to go to the town centre to the remaining Barclays branch. If elderly people do not have bank accounts, they are dependent on their local post office. At the same time as bank branches are closing, the Government are introducing policies that will close many local post office throughout the country.
In conclusion, this Budget--like all the Chancellor's previous Budgets--exists on two levels. On the surface, it is all spin and good news, but when we consider the
detail--even only 24 hours after the speech--we see that it is full of hidden traps; there are stealth taxes and disadvantages for people in my constituency and elsewhere. I have described how it will affect the health service, transport and older people--especially pensioners--in my constituency and in other parts of the country. Those are the realities, which will become increasingly apparent as the months roll on, of yet another Budget from a Chancellor who taxes more but delivers less.8.28 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): There is something wonderfully implausible about listening to Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), calling for more public expenditure after all their years of talking a completely different language. It is even more implausible when the hon. Gentleman does so during the Budget debate after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement of massive increases in public expenditure--on the national health service and on education, to name but two.
This year was the first time for many years that I was unable to be in the Chamber to hear the Budget speech. When my right hon. Friend made his statement last week, I was in Stornoway in connection with my new duties as a junior Minister in the Scottish Parliament. However, my right hon. Friend might be interested to know that people in Stornoway were happy to hear reports of the cut in air passenger tax for people living in the Scottish islands. That was well received.
I welcome this opportunity to commend the Chancellor's skilful management of the economy, and to assure the House that the overwhelming majority of Scots do not subscribe to the peculiar brand of Scottish nationalist economics that we heard again from the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney). He called for more public expenditure and less taxation. That defies logic and invites ridicule. I hope he is aware that we are keeping a careful tally of nationalist spending commitments as they add up over the years. The Scottish school of economics is rather more realistic and rather less reckless. Indeed, we have had the best of Scottish economics from a Scottish Chancellor. I can say with absolute confidence that the Budget will command great respect in Scotland, not least because it provides for such substantial investment in the national health service and in education.
Unemployment in my constituency is lower than it has ever been in my 22 years as a Member of this place. Living standards are improving as both public and private investment grows. My right hon. Friend's stewardship of the economy is succeeding spectacularly to the benefit of all our constituents. However, as a Back-Bench Member here, if not in the other Parliament north of the border, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will not mind if I express a couple of mild anxieties. After all, that is our job.
First, important primary and manufacturing industries are suffering to a degree from the weakness of other currencies in relation to sterling. Obviously, that is the consequence of the Government's good management of
the economy. However, there is legitimate anxiety about advantages enjoyed by importers and the disadvantages endured by exporters from the United Kingdom.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |