Proceeding contribution from Edward Leigh (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 28 March 2006. It occurred during Budget debate on Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
I am afraid that I cannot because I have had my two strikes. It is a ridiculous way to run such debates but I cannot give way now. Middle class families pay a ridiculous amount for care homes. The amount of public money spent in Scotland is far more generous. We subsidise that. The average cost of a care home for an elderly relative is approximately £800 a week. People are forced to sell their homes to pay for that and we should examine the matter because it increasingly causes resentment, especially when people realise that there are more generous arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is, therefore, a sea change in public opinion. I welcome aspects of the Education and Inspections Bill and some parts of the Prime Minister’s objectives as he shepherds a reluctant party into the 21st century, because the only way forward should be based on choice and competition. One cannot achieve one’s aims simply by setting new targets and more central direction. In 1999, there were 24,000 managers in the NHS. In 2004, there were 37,000—an increase of 55 per cent. We have reached the limit of what we can achieve through central targeting and Government diktat. In health, funding, directed by the GP, should follow the patient into any hospital in the private and public sector. In education, funding should follow the pupil into any school in the public and private sector. That is my personal view and not yet the view of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench but I seek to persuade them and I will not waver from that. In the next 12 months, as my party conducts its policy review, it must provide a careful and rigorous explanation of how it will achieve efficiency savings. It must identify one or two matters, such as inheritance tax, about which there are obvious anomalies. It must base its approach on what the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) described as an asset-owning democracy. He has left his place, but that aspect of his speech was wonderful. Why do we believe in an asset-owning and property-owning democracy—the great crusade of the 1950s—if we do not apply that to health, education and pensions? The challenge that faces my party is devising realistic policies to achieve that asset-owning democracy.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 444 c730-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Decommissioning Business Corporation tax Climate change Equality ICT Education Income tax Energy supply Industry Fiscal policy Economic situation NHS Nuclear power Regulation Regional planning and development Research Science Productivity Budget March 2006
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:51:40 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312796
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312796
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312796