Last weak at the request of Wokingham Borough Council I talked to the Schools Minister, Lord Nash, to encourage faster progress with approving and supplying the new primary schools Wokingham needs. The Minister said he was working on it as a priority, and had just had a successful meeting with Borough officials which he thinks will expedite approval.
Dear Jeremy,
I was pleased to read in the Sunday press that you are working on the issue of access to free health services in the UK by visitors. I have raised this matter as have other MPs for some time, and think we need to ensure we are running a National Health Service, not a World Health Service.
The rule we want and thought we had is simple. Any UK citizen is entitled to free provision of both GP and hospital services. Any foreign visitor should have to pay, by holding insurance or having sufficient money to pay for treatments needed. Anyone involved in an accident or needing emergency treatment would of course be looked after without first querying their ability to pay, but for all non urgent treatments patients from 0verseas will be asked to provide insurance or a credit card or other means of payment before any consultation or treatment is offered.
British citizens do not wish to be asked each time they go to a GP or hospital to show their ID or other credentials. The hospitals and doctors wish to devote their time to offering medical advice and treatment, not to policing a fee system. The best way to do so this is to ensure our current NHS system works as intended.
Everyone going to see a hospital consultant or seeking non emergency treatment in a hospital should be referred by his or her GP. Anyone seeking GP help should go to the practice where they are registered. Thus the policing of payment should be ensured through checking that anyone wanting to see a GP first has to register with a GP practice. When you register with a GP you should show your birth certificate or passport or some other document which establishes your entitlement to free treatment. Otherwise if you are not a UK citizen you set up the payment system when you first register.
People attending accident and emergency, when able to answer sensible enquiries about their status, should have to tell the hospital the name and address of their registered GP. Those who are not UK citizens should be asked for payment in most cases, and visitors to the UK should be advised to hold health insurance. EU visitors would need their EU health card. The UK should not deny life saving emergency treatment for lack of the means to pay or lack of clarity over future payment.
People coming from the rest of the EU have use of the health card system. GP practices and hospitals must insist on proper recording of all EU card cases – who should not be able to register with a GP without establishing their health Card status, so the UK can receive the money back it is owed.
Yours sincerely
John Redwood
My views on Mr Carney’s first day in the office are in this morning’s Times.
Advocates of being involved in Syria are out and about talking to Conservative MPs. They want us to agree that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved in the future of Syria, though they accept for the time being that arming some of the rebels may not be the right policy. The government assures us it is not about to arm the rebels.
To me it is not in the UK’s national interest to contemplate intervention in Syria for a variety of reasons. The UN does not have an agreed view about the desirability of intervention, and the Security Council is split over whether the regime or the rebels should win. It is not therefore important to the UK’s role in the UN for us to take action. There is no UN mandate to enforce.
It is true, as some point out, that other regional powers are getting involed with Syria. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are said to be “helping” various forces within Syria. Clearly Iran, Israel and other regional powers have a close interest in who governs Syria and what their foreign policy might be. To Muslims, the dispute between Sunni and Shia is an important matter, but not one which concerns a western secular state or state with an established Chistian Church.
It is also true that if Syria is in the wrong hands (and people differ on who that includes) there can be continuing violence from the state.If the regime changed the new one could change the regional balance for the better or for the worse.
However, the more I hear of the complexities and troubles, the more it seems to me the UK does not have the force or the moral and political authority to be able to make a decisive intervention for the better. I also remain to be persuaded that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved. We do not like the current Syrian regime. We might like a replacement even less, or one may take over that is better. I do not see that we are threatened or in danger from any Syrian regime, if we keep out of the conflict.
The latest gloomy review tells us that there is now too little spare capacity in our electricity generating system. The Energy Secretary tells businesses to prepare for reductions in supply, and suggests a system of offering them payments to avoid using electricity at times of stress in the system. This is not rationing, we are told. More accurately it is the acceptable face of rationing as it not compulsory and offers compensation for the inconvenience of too little supply.
The problem with this approach is it is still damaging to the UK economy and to consumers. We, the consumers, will have to pay for the payments to business to scale back their consumption. We are going to have to pay higher prices for our own power, as Mr Davey uses the price mechanism to ration energy use further.
The main reason we are in this predicament is our membership of the EU, which has driven a policy of dear energy and has now required us to close some of our power stations prematurely as the EU is against their emissions of CO2. The failure of the previous government to make alternative provision has compounded the problem. They did, of course, sign up to all this at EU level in the first place without considering how to keep the lights on.
Mr Davey now has to cut loose from his pro EU pro dear energy sympathies and show he can solve our immediate and growing problem. I have called for the retention of the power stations that we have recently closed for a period whilst we are building new conforming plant to generate power. This is an easy and cheap way of resolving the crisis. All Mr Davey has to do is to negotiate a derogation from the Enissions Directive for a limited time whilst he sorts out the underlying problems of power supply.
We are told Euro friendly Ministers have influence in Brussels. We are told by Europhiles that Brussels is there to help make us more prosperous. This is a simple way to test out these propositions. Surely Brussels can see that driving up the price of energy and finding acceptable ways to ration are the last thing the UK needs at the moment? It’s time for Mr Davey to save our recently closed power stations, and have them available to produce the power we need for the next few winters.
The EU would be well advised to grasp that of all its unpopular and costly policies which damage the UK, dear energy is one of the most unpopular.
In 2009-10 total UK government spending was £669.3bn. The latest forecast of spending for 2015-16 is £744.7bn.
Over a six year period that is a rise of £75.4bn or 12.65% in the amount of cash spent by the state.
Most commentators and many politicians claim that this represents a severe squeeze, a major cut. If challenged about how overall it can be called a cut when there has been such a big rise in cash spent, they resort to claiming it has been a real terms cut. They suggest the cash rise has not been enough to compensate for inflation.
Alternatively, they highlight those budgets and areas within the total that have been cut, to allow faster growth in the government’s priority areas of welfare, pensions, health and education which have gone up.
I have never denied that some budgets have been cut in both cash and real terms. Defence, for example, has clearly been cut. So too has the government overhead, which is a good idea. I just think that we need to start from the overall figures, and recognise these have been rising.
The 12.75% increase in total public spending over the six years is around the same as the inflation rate as measured by the GDP deflator (using official forecasts for the future years). It appears that the first half of the Coalition government period in office saw small real increases in public spending as I highlighted at the time.These are to be followed by small real declines in the second half, perhaps reaching 0.4% real decline per annum. If the government and the Bank do a better job on controlling inflation, then we could experience further small real increases in spending on these numbers. The recent declines in world commodity prices and the relative stability of sterling will help keep inflation down. Past inflation owed a lot to weak sterling and rising commodity prices.
These so called real declines could be offset by proper control of public sector costs. With the cash increases available, it should be possible to increase the total amount of public service. Government priorities for above average increases in some areas will still mean cuts in some others of course.
The use of the language of cuts is a major obstacle to a proper debate on how much we can afford to spend and how much we get for our spending. If the government does more for less, as the private sector regularly does, there are those who would see the lower cost as a “cut”.
However, some elements of public spending are treated differently. If MPs had a cash increase in their pay, this would be seen generally as an increase or rise. If MPs pointed out the increase was less than inflation and was therefore a cut, few would see it like that. They would correctly argue that MPs had had a rise. Before your blood pressure explodes, fear not. You will be relieved to know that MP pay last year after pension deductions was lower in cash terms than in 2009-10.
As most public sector spending is either the pay of public sector staff or the benefit and pension pay of people not in work, is it right to use very different language for describing public spending changes from the commonsense language we use about pay, where a cash increase is a rise? The truth is we are still spending a huge amount on government account. We need the government to do more for less in the priority areas, and to slim the overall size of government.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I fully support the Chancellor’s wish to reduce the growth rate of public spending in cash terms; it is a very necessary thing to do to get the deficit under control as economic growth picks up, as I think it is now doing. On the welfare reforms, will he look at the idea that any non-British citizen coming to our country should have to work for a period and pay taxes before being eligible for any welfare benefits?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne): I am certainly prepared to look at any ideas that my right hon. Friend puts forward on welfare. Of course, one of our challenges—one of the debates in this country and in other European countries—concerns the eligibility for benefits of people who move here. In that regard, we are hemmed in by European law, but there may be opportunities within it to make some adjustments, and we are looking closely at those.
As the Reading Road/Wokingham station link road takes shape, we learn today that the government plans to improve the M4 between junctions 3 and 12.
The transport programme for the South east includes improvements on parts of the M3, M20 and M23 as well. It also comprises the rebuilding of Reading Station (almost complete), Crossrail from Maidenhead across London, and the new Wokingham station.
The Spending Statement concentrated on spending totals for 2015-16. The government does need to plan ahead. The Coalition government will preside over the first two months of the financial year 2015-16. The new government elected in 2015 may continue with the year’s spending plans for the rest of the year, or could decide to have a summer budget to make adjustments.
The Announcement seems to have be greeted by agreement between all three main parties in the Commons that the totals are correct. Labour did not wish to propose spending and borrowing any more. Labour never suggests spending less overall. A Lib Dem Chief Secretary undertook much of the Minsisterial level work to get the Statement agreed. It was signed off by both the PM and his Deputy.
Labour’s position is to say that whilst they accept the totals of spending, they disagree with the detail and the priorities. I look forward to hearing more from them nearer the election over how they would shift the budget around within the agreed totals. It is helpful to know that they, like the Coalition, think a cash increase of 2% is as much as can be afforded.
The durability of these totals may be high from the political point of view, but it could be tested by the markets and by future economic changes. The Green Book backing the Statement centres around the reduction in the deficit. To cut the deficit the government both needs higher tax revenues from growth as well as controlled increases in spending under these plans.
If growth starts to outperform the reduced forecasts it would be good to think extra revenue will be used to cut the deficit faster, rather than triggering a hunt for ways to spend more money. If growth were to disappoint again owing to say another severe phase to the Euro crisis or from a continuing failure of banks to finance the recovery in various parts of the world the government would also have to revisit the strategy and make some more difficult decisions.
The development of the detailed thinking on the welfare cap will be important. So far we learn that they wish to strengthen job search by unemployed people and require them to attend Job centres weekly; to require all applicants to improve their spoken English; and asking all lone parents to prepare for work when their child turns three.
Living within a 2% increase in overall budgets will be much easier if the reforms and effficiency drives set out by the government work well.
This week the Chancellor will announce how much extra money it thinks the government should spend in 2015-16. Although all the talk is about cuts in public spending in certain departments, the overall total spending will continue to rise, as it has been doing all through this Parliament. Big areas like welfare, pensions, health and education are protected from cuts. In some cases, as with the new pensions uprating system, the more generous approach naturally costs more money.
It seems likely that Labour as well as the Lib Dems and Conservatives will all agree to the new totals, which will show slower growth in cash spending for day to day items, and a bit faster growth in capital spending on items like new railways and roads. The political argument will be about the amounts provided to differing programmes and departments within the agreed totals. All seem to agree that we have to accept more modest cash increases, as the country has borrowed so much already and is still increasing its borrowing at a rapid rate.
I have been working with the Council on the need for more capital spending in our area, in response to the national policy for road and rail improvements. We need to bring our public facilities up to date, as we now are with a new station. We need to improve our transport system so it is easier and safer to get to work and to the shops.
In recent days I have been lobbied by constituents in Shinfield, complaining about Reading Council’s expensive installation of two new sets of traffic lights on the A 327 into Reading. These lights have greatly increased the congestion. The roundabouts we had before worked well, and kept the traffic moving at a suitable safe slower speed across the junctions. It is a good example of how the wrong kind of public spending can make things worse, making voters doubly cross that their road system is made more difficult to use and they have to pay a large bill for the privilege.
The government is encouraging road improvements. Replacing lights with roundabouts can often make a junction flow better . I trust Wokingham will show Reading how to do it, avoiding provocative decisions like the Shinfield Road one at a time when we need to make sure every penny local or national government spends is well spent. The first rule of local and national government spending should be “Do no harm”. Spending plans should be carefully examined to see how many people they can upset, before embarking on them.