BUDGET 2000 DEBATE
22nd March 2000
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I give full marks to the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) for coming up with every new Labour cliché in the book. It is pretty clear that both boys will go far. The hon. Member for Bury, South talked about social exclusion, but I remind him that the Rowntree Trust has said that the past two and a half years have seen a greater divide between rich and poor in Britain than ever occurred in the 18 years of Conservative Government. What price that social exclusion?
The Government have at least admitted, or some in the Government have admitted, that taxes have gone up during the past three years, and that is confirmed by the BBC website. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not know this, but the BBC has a website where one can fill in one's personal details and be told in a flash how much one's tax has increased or decreased. I filled it in, lying only about my name, which I said was Mr. Jones, and I was told that my personal tax would rise by £10 a week as a result of the Budget--and I can believe it.
What does the Budget offer? The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that in rural areas its effect would be extensive, but I think not. It offers agriculture nothing. Dairy farmers receive 10p a pint for milk at the farm gate, but it costs them 11p a pint to produce. Pig farmers get nothing either. We all know that people in rural areas depend on their cars. A gallon of petrol now costs £3.64 in Britain, compared with just £2.82 in Germany. Motorists will have to pay £274 more for their petrol this year than they did three years ago. That is not even counting workplace parking taxes and congestion charges. Those costs have gone up in rural areas, just as in urban areas.
We have already heard about the tax on e-commerce, in the form of IR35, so given the lack of time I shall not go into that. However, I do have a question regarding profit-related share schemes, which I would ask the Minister to address when she replies; but if she cannot do so, perhaps she will write to me. The Chancellor claimed that the profit-related share schemes would be extended. What will the position be regarding genuine, bona fide schemes such as that offered by the John Lewis partnership, which has 40,000 employees who, owing to the nature of the partnership, cannot buy shares? The Minister will know, however, that the partners have a fair system of sharing in the company's profits.
Hon. Members have talked about private health care, but whether services are provided by the NHS or by private organisations is irrelevant as long as they are free at the point of delivery. That is the acid test. I simply make the point that private health care organisations have done particularly well in the past two or three years. We have seen a fourfold increase in the number of private operations during the past year compared with 1997, because people are just not prepared to wait as they have to at present under this Labour Administration.
What about the great announcement on health? In the past few hours the NHS Confederation has warned that Ministers should not try to browbeat NHS workers. In answer to the Prime Minister's so-called statement this afternoon, Stephen Thornton, its chief executive, said:
Each of the Prime Minister's five challenges relies on changing clinical practice, which will need a style of working which wins hearts and minds, not naming and shaming--
which is precisely what the Government have tried to do.
What of the marvellous £2 billion that the Government have announced? Of that, £200 million will have to pay for the unfunded pay award and £300 million will come from tobacco tax. That leaves just £600 million to£650 million out of the £2 billion to be released to NHS trusts and primary care practices.
Where does that leave authorities such as the South Staffordshire health authority, which are badly in debt? Throughout the United Kingdom, area health authorities owe approximately £1 billion. That figure has accumulated in the past two and a half years; it will not be paid off.
How are those problems reflected in the microcosm--south Staffordshire--that I represent? At Prime Minister's questions, I made the point that South Staffordshire health authority has announced that Hammerwich hospital and Barton hospital are to close and that services at the Lichfield Victoria hospital will be severely curtailed. The maternity wing and the dialysis unit at that hospital will close, while the services provided by the minor injuries unit will be greatly reduced.
We also experience postcode differentiation in my area. Why do people in Lichfield have to wait three times as long as people in Birmingham for an operation at the Good Hope hospital? I wrote to a Health Minister about that more than a year ago. The Minister replied swiftly and said that it was unacceptable. I was pleased with that reply. The Minister promised to direct full attention to the matter. It now appears that nothing can be done. These dilemmas have occurred since the Labour Government were elected.
The public have been unable to trust past spending announcements by the Government. We find that the £2 billion has been reduced to £650 million. The money will not reach patients; it will be swallowed up by ever- increasing NHS costs. In Staffordshire, we have 83 more police officers, but we have already lost 250. It has been claimed that the NHS will receive an extra £2 billion, but we will lose two and a half hospitals in Lichfield. Tax is down by 1p but has risen by 9p. The Budget is entirely characteristic of the Government's performance: they have taken three steps backward and only one step forward.
