Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Daniel Kawczynski (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

Leo Blair is one of my constituents, but I did not discuss that matter with him. It now transpires that the £200 grant will be taken away. In Shrewsbury, council tax is due to rise by about 4 per cent. this year, which will add £50 to the bill for an average band D property, so senior citizens in Shrewsbury will have to find an extra £250 towards their council tax bills compared to last year. That is a disgrace. How does the Chancellor expect senior citizens in Shrewsbury miraculously to find an extra £250? The Chancellor said a great deal about how he will help with concessionary travel, but Shrewsbury council officers say that the Government are not giving them enough money to provide it—there will be a shortfall of at least £200,000. That will have to come from the local council, which will have to raise taxes to meet it. On the one hand the Government take great credit for providing incentives, yet on the other, they shove the responsibility and cost of providing the services on to local authorities. I feel passionately about the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which I have described in the past as my beloved hospital. It is £30 million in debt, with a strong possibility of 300 job cuts there and at neighbouring Telford hospital in the coming year. I find that absolutely petrifying, as do my constituents. There are also threats to services. There was nothing about health in the Budget and the Chancellor has let the problem of NHS deficits go to the wall. He does not seem to want to take responsibility for them. In March 2005, when I was a Conservative parliamentary candidate, a delegation from the hospital visited me. It included senior consultants, doctors and medical practitioners, who told me, ““We are extremely concerned about the forthcoming financial deficits, but we are not allowed to raise our concerns publicly. We have been told that in the run-up to a general election we are to keep our mouths shut.””


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c747-8 
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