Water Industry

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Ensuring that we have investment in the infrastructure that the country needs is really important.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

In view of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the issue, I hope that he will confirm that the only time there have been reductions in water charges was under the previous Labour Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

My understanding is that the party’s policy—no doubt it will be enunciated in due course from the Front Bench—is that the current situation is unsatisfactory, and that we need a dramatic change in the powers and functions of the regulator. No Government Member would think there is anything wrong with that proposal.

Where is all that customers’ money going? In the case of Thames Water, it is being paid out to shareholders in Australia and China. Prior to that, it was paid out to shareholders in Germany. People talk about the wonders of the City of London as a financial centre, but I wonder why, in such a great financial centre, one or two of the people with all the money have not thought of getting together to own the water supply for their own city. Apparently, that has not occurred to them.

Thirty per cent. of the average water bill goes to profits. Even the energy industry uses only 9% of charges as profit, but the water industry uses 30%—30% of every penny and pound that people pay goes off in profits, which is, to say the least, a remarkable return on investment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The percentage is not that high. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government allowed an inappropriate settlement that should not have been agreed?

Finance Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

The private sector creams off the straightforward, relatively simple and less risky operations for people who are otherwise healthy, leaving the national health service to provide similar operations for people who are unhealthy, which can be much more complex. For instance, if someone needs their hip joint replaced, and they are okay apart from their bad hip, that is fairly straightforward, but, if they have a dickey heart or something wrong with a kidney, it is altogether more complex, and you can bet your boots that that operation will take place in an NHS hospital. Similarly, an NHS hospital will provide intensive care, accident and emergency care and emergency beds, and it will carry out the training that by and large the private sector does not.

All those burdens stay with the NHS, none of it transfers to the private sector, and we are being asked to provide a tax incentive for people to do something that they do already. There was no evidence in the 1990s of any increase in the use of private health insurance as a result of the Government’s tax benefit.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions, and he has a long-held principled position on the national health service. On the private sector creaming off, as he would say, the easy cases, does he agree that, first, he would not have acceded to the independent sector treatment centres programme and, secondly, that it was wrong for the private sector in that case to charge for operations which were not carried out?

[Frank Dobson]

When I was Health Secretary, I agreed to the establishment of national health service units that undertook diagnostic and straightforward treatment on straightforward conditions. I thought that it was a sensible idea, but unfortunately my successors decided to privatise it, and it has to be said that then, John, now Lord, Hutton was not good at getting bargains for the taxpayer. He agreed a scheme whereby on average the private sector was paid 11% more per operation than the national health service, and the private providers were also paid when they did not do all the operations that they were contracted to do. Some got 11% more for operations that were not actually carried out, so I am no fan of such arrangements, but, having opposed them right from the start, I do not recall any cries of “Hosanna!” from the Tory party when I attacked the proposition. My memory may be false, but the Tories seemed to be wild enthusiasts for that ridiculous scheme.

Noticeably, however, unlike putting money into the private sector or, in the case before us, a bit more money into the hands of pensioners who have quite a bit to start off with, investing in the national health service had a dramatic effect. When we took office, national health service hospitals performed 5.7 million operations a year; in the most recent year for which figures are available, they performed 9.6 million. If we want to look after the interests of people who get sick, we will find that the way to do so is to ensure that everyone has access to a massive increase in the number and quality of operations, and there has been a massive increase in both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will draw this proposition to the attention of the electors of Tameside, who are facing valuable staff being got rid of and reductions in the number of operations being carried out. I hope that he will also point out, as I did at the beginning of my short contribution, that apparently the first priority of a lot of Back-Bench Tories, who seem to represent the true core of Tory opinion, is to bung £200 million into the hands of the best-off pensioners, some of whom will not agree with it either.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that our priority is not to bung £200 million at people, as he describes it, but to see real increases in NHS spending as against the cuts that were in the last Budget of the Government whom he long supported.