BECAUSE of the oil crisis, the rich, such as Saudi Arabia, are getting richer and the poor, like one in four British families, are getting poorer. But have no fear, help is at hand.

Our much respected Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has helped "shame" the oil rich Saudis into donating £1bn – loose change – to help poor countries affected by high oil prices.

He has also helped persuade them to increase oil production. The problem here however, is that the world doesn't have the refining capability to turn crude into fuel fast enough to affect a fall in prices at the pump.

Also, he has asked the wealthy Saudis to invest some of their trillions in British nuclear fuel production and other alternative energies.

So what else can Gordon Brown do to help the poor motorist, the poor wagon driver and ultimately the poor consumer?

If prices at the pump increase by 50 per cent – from 80 pence not that long ago, to a present price of £1.20 (in places) –
does this mean that the Government gets 50 per cent more duty/tax?

How much duty/tax have they actually gained from increased fuel prices, this last 12 months?

If this "profiteering" were to benefit the poor, that might be okay. But if it were to benefit the rich, say a 12 per cent pay rise for £90,000 a year MPs and £40,000 expenses to cover the cost of an extravagant lifestyle, then it would have to be totally unacceptable.

If the Saudis can help the world's poor and be asked to invest in Britain's energy production, then surely Gordon Brown can reduce
fuel duty/tax to help his poor. If he won't, instead of relying
on the truckers' threats of go-slows and blockades, then vehicle owners – all 30 million of us – could threaten to return our road tax licence for a rebate.

It might be against the law to drive without road tax, but isn't it also against the law – humanitarian that is – to profit from the abject misery and hardship of the poor?

From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington.

HOW much fuel did Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his entourage and Press
following, use up on his fruitless flight to the Middle East now that Opec is telling us there is no likelihood of a reduction in oil prices?


Warning sign over NHS cash priorities

From: Chris Hollands, Clarborough, Retford.

I READ with some astonishment (Yorkshire
Post, June 17) your report that the NHS is
spending some £1m on purchasing "infection resistant" keyboards for use in hospitals across England.

The article indicates that the keyboards will "flash" a warning when the keyboard is in need of cleaning.

Surely the subject of hygiene and hand washing is a matter of general education and discipline.

There is no indication that the infection resistant keyboards will lock out and prevent use, merely give an illuminated warning.

Although £1m is a small sum in relation to the whole NHS budget, I find it an anathema that money is spent in this way when other reports in the media indicate that cancer patients in particular are being denied treatments on the grounds of cost that will extend or improve their quality of life.

Does this sort of allocation of resource not epitomise what is wrong with the NHS today?

From: C. Horsman, Coppergate, Nafferton, East Yorkshire.

I HEAR no fanfares or celebrations for the launch of the NHS, so I looked back at the Beveridge Report of 1942, then the Act of 1946, and finally the commencement, in July 1948.

I couldn't recognise the modern centralised partially privatised service nowadays with its prescription charges, expensive glasses, teeth and wigs – and that overpaid massive bureaucracy which outweighs the medical side.

In the large county of East Yorkshire, we do not possess one single A&E hospital, and many former cottage hospitals have disappeared. Recently, I learnt that at Hull Royal, a young woman with cancer has to pay £5 a day to park at the hospital for regular treatment. Now that is sad and sheer profiteering.

Aneurin Bevan must be turning in his grave.


Coal could be the answer

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Littlefield Lane, Grimsby.

IT is clear that in the future Britain may face an energy shortage if she doesn't look for new supplies. Personally I'm all for encouraging the likes of wind farms and wave barriers as an alternative to the dangers of nuclear power. However, unlike many environmentalists, I would not rule out using our coal supplies.

For there are millions of tons underneath British soil, which would more economical to produce than in the days when oil was cheap and plentiful. What's more, I remember when the mines were shut by the Tories and the damage it did to many communities.

I would love to see their pits re-open, providing not only energy, but a source of well-paid employment in towns that still struggle today.

Perhaps Gordon Brown would bear this in mind when looking at future strategies.

Small choice

From: Bill Tetlow, Exelby, Bedale.

I AM writing in support of Denis McShane (Yorkshire Post, June 21). He was quite correct when he stated in his article that Gordon Brown was the best finance and economic minister this century. The only other one we have had is Alistair Darling, and he looks as if he is going to be an even bigger disaster.

Odd verdict

From: Peter A Rushforth, Sutton Drive, Cullingworth.

IT is difficult to understand why the Law Lords have given their verdict about not admitting evidence from witnesses whose identity has not been been disclosed (Yorkshire Post, June 25). Charles Dickens wrote "the law is an ass". If he were here today, he would no doubt write "the law lords is an ass".