National Health Service Funding (Hansard, 21 January 1997)

§ 2. Mr. Loyden
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Centre for Policy Studies concerning the future funding of the national health service. [10357]

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell)
I have received no such representations.

§ Mr. Loyden
Will the Minister confirm that a pamphlet recently issued by the Centre for Policy Studies, the author of which was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Health, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that future policy on the NHS should involve the introduction of top-up fees and vouchers? Does not that show that it is now undeniable that a Conservative Government serving their fifth term would abolish the national health service as we know it and as its founders intended it to be?

§ Mr. Dorrell
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the future funding of the national health service. The Government's policy on that is set out not by the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, but by the Prime Minister. He set it out clearly at the Conservative party conference, when he laid down a challenge, which the Labour Front Bench has so far refused to take up. A re-elected Conservative Government will increase real-terms funding for the health service through the life of the next Parliament, year by year by year by year by year. When will we hear from Labour Front Benchers how they will match that pledge?

§ Mrs. Roe
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Centre for Policy Studies document "A Conservative Agenda" congratulated the Government on their record of increasing NHS funding since 1979? Does he agree that it is only against a background of guaranteed financial growth throughout the next Parliament that the NHS can continue to thrive?

§ Mr. Dorrell
My hon. Friend is precisely right. The CPS made another suggestion—that we should abolish the regional health authorities. The Government have already done so and delivered as a result £100 million of administrative savings. That was done over the opposition of Labour's Front Benchers, who would be taken a great 725 deal more seriously on the question of administrative savings if they ever voted for one, instead of voting against them.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
The Secretary of State and I probably agree that the health service needs more money, although we would disagree about how much. I would argue for more than he would and both he and I would argue for more than the Labour party would.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Where did the hon. Gentleman get that line from?

§ Mr. Hughes
From Labour's figures.
Laying that argument to one side for the moment, will the Secretary of State accept that there is one area on which we can agree immediately—that, for one year, we could halt all closures while an independent body such as the King's Fund assessed demand and supply in the health service, so that we could at least agree on the facts before returning to the debate about money?

§ Mr. Dorrell
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the health service or, most important, its patients to freeze the development of the health service. We need to have a service that uses a growing budget, year by year, to deliver improving service to patients. That is the commitment that the present Government give. The commitment given by the Opposition is that they invite patients and the health service to rely on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who told Pulse, I'll fight my corner for NHS funding. We know what that means—he will lose his corner, as the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made clear yesterday.

§ Mr. Congdon
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in real-terms funding for the NHS—of more than 70 per cent. since 1979—demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the NHS? Does he also agree that the record number of patients being treated, including the increase in the number of people having hip replacements and heart bypasses, also demonstrates that firm commitment to the NHS?

§ Mr. Dorrell
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The figures for the past seven years are: an increase of a quarter in the real funding for the NHS and an increase of a third in the number of patients treated. That is the Government's record—extra funding, used efficiently to treat patients. It is a record that the Labour party cannot match in office and would not and cannot match now, ahead of a general election.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
Is it not the case that the so-called promise made by the Prime Minister about year-on-year increases in real-terms funding for the health service was disavowed two months later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he published the figures in the Red Book? Will the Secretary of State admit that page 142 of the Red Book shows clearly that, in the second year, the Government expect a fall in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health and that, in year three, they expect 726 a standstill in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health? Does not that show, first, that the Government have already broken the promise that they made at their party conference and, secondly, that they are not to be trusted with the health service or with the government of this country?

§ Mr. Dorrell
Page 142 of the Red Book deals with excise duties, tobacco, fuel, air quality package, and alcohol. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get his page references right. He is probably referring to table 5A.1—

§ Mr. Smith
No.

§ Mr. Dorrell
I am looking at the 1997–98 Red Book, published in November 1996. The hon. Gentleman has the wrong reference.
The substance of the hon. Gentleman's point, as he knows very well—we dealt with it repeatedly around Budget time—concerns the commitment set out in the Red Book to real-terms increases in NHS funding, provided at 3 per cent. growth in current funding for year one, and provided at more modest levels in years two and three. That still represents real growth, which the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not allow the hon. Gentleman to match.

§ Mr. John Marshall
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not increase health service spending but will burden the health service with the costs of a national minimum wage, which will mean extra pay for manual workers in the health service and less money for patient care?

§ Mr. Dorrell
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is so unconfident of his ability to deliver a growing economy that he knows he cannot match our commitment to the national health service. What is more, even the paltry budget that the slow-growing British economy under Labour would allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury includes a prior commitment to abolishing compulsory competitive tendering. That will cost him £90 million. There is also a prior commitment to introducing a national minimum wage, which the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was the last Labour spokesman to cost—at £500 million. That makes £590 million that will come out of patient care before the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury can even begin to think about a growing health service.