| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Horam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only five minutes left in which to respond to at least four hon. Members.
Both the changes that have been made to the formula for next year--the introduction of interim needs weighting for community health services, and the refinement of the market forces adjustment--will improve the health authority's weighted-capitation position. That not only means more funds for the authority next year; it means
18 Dec 1996 : Column 927
Before I say more about funding or service planning for next year, let me say something about the health authority's position this year, and the ability of the service to cope for the remainder of the financial year. The authority's initial allocation for the current year was £337 million--£1.63 million more in real terms than in 1995-96. Its forecast at the end of the second financial quarter was that it would end the year with a £13.7 million deficit. That forecast was based on expenditure and trends up to that time; I stress that it is not the position in which the authority is likely to find itself at the end of the year. That is the whole point of forecasts: as part of a proper regime of good financial management and control, they allow action to be taken in good time to keep within the financial balance for the year as a whole.
The health authority has indeed taken action based on its analysis of local circumstances, to ensure that good-quality services continue to be available, and that a sound financial outturn is achieved. In the autumn it bid for, and has received, additional non-recurring funds of £6 million to support strategic change. That is a lump of money that is already going in this year, in addition to the money which--as the hon. Gentleman said--it has bid for next year. That £6 million, together with other measures, means that the authority's residual deficit is now estimated at £2.3 million, or just 0.7 per cent. of its allocation. It is for the authority to manage its affairs for the rest of the year to meet its financial position. The situation certainly does not suggest that local people should be in any way concerned about the continued availability of good-quality services; nor does it suggest a service close to collapse, as some commentators have tried to imply.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 928
What about next year? First, let me say that--as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge--East London and the City health authority has been very open with the local community in planning for the future. Given that health care resources can never be infinite and that health authorities must prioritise among competing demands, it is only right for them to outline some of the difficult choices that they must make as purchasers, and to involve the local community in the making of those choices.
In planning for next year, the health authority set up three task groups, which were charged with looking at acute, mental health and primary and community care services. The process began with an exercise to quantify the implications of continuing with the existing health strategy; that is where the projected deficit of £18 million for next year comes from.
Essentially, we are talking about a re-balancing process. We are looking at national and local priorities, and at the balance between, for example, acute services on the one hand and mental health services on the other. That is how the funding will be rearranged, with the aim of meeting what are regarded as priorities. In addition, the health authority is bidding against the funds that we have made available for next year for the development of services in priority areas. I cannot yet say how much will be allocated, but it will include money for community care, adult intensive care and mental health services, which are a particular problem in that part of the world. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we shall have to make a decision on that before the end of the year.
I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman said about the letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State--
Mr. Spearing:
From the 200 doctors.
Mr. Horam:
That letter was sent at the end of November, and I saw the letter in The Times. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that far from more and more being got from less and less, in East London and the City more and more is being got from more and more.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 929
1. Mr. Rathbone:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to protect young people from drugs when attending clubs and raves in Scotland. [8131]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton):
We have given councils the powers to control or close down raves for the purpose of safeguarding young people attending events in licensed premises.
Mr. Rathbone:
That is welcome news because there are great dangers for young people at these dance parties, as is proven by recent research results which show that the real danger of Ecstasy is not appreciated by many young people who are tempted to take it. Has my hon. Friend considered issuing either the guidelines that have been produced by the London drug policy forum in a document called "Dance Till Dawn Safely" or replicating such guidelines for use by clubs in Scotland?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I shall certainly consider that. My hon. Friend is correct: there is evidence of an association between the use of Ecstasy and substantial liver damage. It is a class A drug which carries penalties of up to seven years for possession, and life for trafficking. We have set up a new national drugs helpline to provide free confidential advice, support and referrals 24 hours a day to drug misusers, their families and friends, and to supply information for anybody who is concerned about drugs.
2. Mr. Jacques Arnold:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the difference between total Government expenditure in Scotland and tax revenues raised in Scotland, expressed as a proportion of Scottish gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement. [8132]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
Fourteen per cent.
Mr. Arnold:
Does not that rather generous figure emphasise the good sense of our United Kingdom Government, and would not that generosity be put in danger by Labour's devolution plans? Hypothetically, if those devolution plans were put into effect, how would I as an English Member explain to my constituents why, despite that money going to Scotland, Scottish hon. Members could take decisions on issues in my constituency such as health, education and hospitals, although I would not have a similar say over the spending of United Kingdom resources in Scotland?
Mr. Forsyth:
My hon. Friend will forgive me for not agreeing with his use of the word "generous". As I have
18 Dec 1996 : Column 930
Mr. Maxton:
On Monday, what amount of tax revenue was used to pay for the cost of an RAF aeroplane to fly the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from Inverness to London? Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House exactly how much such journeys cost the Scottish Office?
Mr. Forsyth:
The cost of the smallest RAF aeroplane, which is what we used, so we could not accommodate the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on board--although I would have been happy to strap the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to the aircraft's wing after his behaviour at the Highlands and Islands Convention--is about £700 per flying hour.
Sir Hector Monro:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high revenue level indicates the Scottish economy's success? Is not that confirmed by today's announcement of a dramatic drop in unemployment in Scotland, which shows how well the Scottish economy is going under the Government?
Mr. Forsyth:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland's economy is booming. We have record inward investment. Today, we again have excellent unemployment figures. It is a picture of an economy that has been transformed as a result of the Government's policies, which have been opposed by Opposition Members. All of it would be put at risk by a tartan-tax-raising Scottish Parliament.
Mr. George Robertson:
Will the Secretary of State confirm his already public statement that the Scottish Office budget will be reduced by £880 million in real terms in the next three years? What will that mean for public health in Scotland and our ability to control crises such as E. coli bacteria and the spread of salmonella in Scotland? What if Professor Pennington's expert group suggests, as it should, that there should be an independent food standards agency? Will that be vetoed, like his last research project, on the ground that there is not enough money for it? When will the Government stop covering up their conduct in the E. coli crisis by blaming everyone but Ministers of the Crown? Will the Secretary of State now belatedly tell the House and the country what the role of Ministers was at the beginning of the E. coli crisis in Lanarkshire?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman is pathetic. We have had two statements to the House on that matter. I wish that he would stop attacking the conduct of North Lanarkshire council, a Labour authority, which, as he well knows, has been and is responsible, under the Food Safety Act 1990, which had all-party support in the House, for environmental health services.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 931
When we win the election, Scotland's health service will benefit from our pledge to increase spending year on year in real terms throughout the whole of the next Parliament, a promise that the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to make and cannot make because he has already made promises in secret to his friends in local government.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, relative to the Scottish budget and expenditure, if we were ever to have a Parliament in Edinburgh that decided on matters such as health, Scottish Members could not raise those issues, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just done, because they would be part-time and unable to ask questions about Scottish matters--and should be paid part-time wages?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hopes to have many Labour Members coming down from Scotland, whose job would be not to represent Scotland's interests, but to impose socialism on England. That unstable position would wreck his party's proposals, as it has wrecked every previous home rule proposal, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that Scotland's budget would still be determined here at Westminster, where Scotland's voice would be diminished, as hon. Members on the Liberal Benches acknowledge, through the loss of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland in Cabinet. With a tax-raising Parliament in Edinburgh, it is difficult to see how our present advantageous position would be maintained. The hon. Member for Hamilton and his colleagues are putting their socialist interests ahead of the interests of people who depend on education, health, social work and all our other caring services in Scotland. We will expose that in the forthcoming election campaign.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |