| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Wild Salmon
8. Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of wild salmon in Scotland. [17320]
12. Mr. Garnier:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of wild salmon in Scotland. [17324]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson):
The recent excellent report produced by Lord Nickson's task force on Scotland's salmon fisheries, subject to consultation, will form the basis of future Government policy in this important sector.
Mr. Hawksley:
Has my hon. Friend any specific proposals to restrict the commercial netting of salmon, which seems to be one of the major causes of the reduction in numbers?
Mr. Robertson:
My noble Friend's task force has approached the matter head on but, as my hon. Friend will
Mr. Garnier:
Is my hon. Friend aware that, to celebrate the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Labour-controlled Glasgow city council is to spend a huge amount on red dye, which it will tip into the River Clyde? What will that do to reintroduce wild salmon into that great river? Does my hon. Friend agree that, whereas wild salmon is good to eat and is a source of much employment in Scotland, new Labour is simply slimy and pink?
Mr. Robertson:
My noble Friend's task force was not asked specifically to look at the impact of red dye on salmon in the Clyde, but I am sure that, were its members to do so, they would be appalled--as are most people in Scotland--that Glasgow city council is considering spending up to half a million pounds of council tax payers' money on a ridiculous stunt.
Mr. Galbraith:
Does the Minister agree that the laws and regulations relating to salmon are unduly influenced by unrepresentative landowning hereditary peers? Is it not right, therefore, that the next Labour Government will wipe them away, and that in future the laws on salmon will benefit everyone, not just landowning lackeys?
Mr. Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman has obviously not looked at the membership of the task force. There were no landowning hereditary peers on it. It represented all those in Scotland--and, indeed, beyond--who regularly fish for salmon and support the salmon industry.
Mr. Wilson:
May I correct the Minister's last statement? The task force certainly did not represent all interests; as usual, the interests that were not represented were those of people who live in the communities where the ownership of salmon, and other natural resources, is in the hands of a tiny minority who are absurdly over-represented--and it is absurd that they are represented at all--in the other place.
When he considers his colleagues' questions, will the Minister recognise that one of the most spiteful and irrational campaigns undertaken by the Government in defence of the riparian owners' interests has been that against the historic industry of salmon netting in Scottish rural communities? How does he defend the fact that, to wipe out salmon netting in those communities, the Government have been prepared to give charitable status to a bogus organisation so that it can buy up the netting stations? They have been prepared to destroy the excellent industry of salmon netting in many parts of Scotland to give all the benefits to riparian owners and the angling interests that sell fishing rights in Scotland's salmon rivers for huge amounts.
Does not all that need reform, and is not getting rid of the unelected interests in the other place a major stepping stone towards rational legislation on such matters?
Mr. Robertson:
"Spiteful" and "irrational" are not adjectives that I would use to describe my noble Friend's task force report, but I would use them to describe the hon. Gentleman. Once again, he has shown complete disregard for a proud industry that brings in thousands of jobs, tourists, other visitors and money to the most rural
10. Mr. Dover:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on planned funding levels for the national health service in Scotland. [17322]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
The Government have increased spending on the Scottish health service in real terms every year in this Parliament, and are pledged to continue to do so for every year in the next Parliament--a pledge that the Labour party has not matched.
Mr. Dover:
As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, 43 per cent. of general practitioners are fundholders. Does he agree that, if the Labour party implemented its doctrinaire policies, that would be bad for the national health service and for patient care throughout Scotland?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I certainly agree that GP fundholding has produced innovation and flexibility, and our White Paper builds on that. We want to introduce more electronic links to general practices to improve the information available to GPs and reduce the amount of paperwork, as well as develop the role of community hospitals and, above all, make services available as close as possible to patients' homes.
Mrs. Fyfe:
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether your eye slipped past the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Many hon. Members would like to discuss the matter. If not, may I--
Madam Speaker:
Order. If that question had been in order, I would have called it. It was unstarred. We are getting on with Question 10, on which the hon. Lady has been fortunate enough to be called.
Mrs. Fyfe:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had noticed that the hon. Member for Edgbaston was in the Chamber.
On the question tabled by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), does the Minister realise that if £1 million or more had not been paid to Mr. William Duff for ruining patients' teeth, there would have been £1 million more to spend on health care services in Greater Glasgow?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I agree that that dentist performed badly for his clients. I understand that some of them are suing him and that the matter will be properly resolved in the courts.
Mr. Nicholls:
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of reports in the west country press this weekend that suggest that, in Scotland, it is possible to get on the national health a particularly high grade of blood plasma product that is not available to English health authorities? It is further suggested that Scottish health authorities get a specific grant to enable them to buy that product. I realise that he may not been able to answer today, but
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I am delighted by that question, because all party leaders in Scotland have given blood, as I did on the occasion of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Hamilton.
Mr. George Robertson:
Blue blood?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my blood is every bit as red as his.
Giving blood is a friendly and comfortable process that performs an invaluable role in saving lives throughout Scotland. I shall follow up my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. McAvoy:
Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), stated that the private finance initiative would not be used
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly. The scope of schemes has to be determined locally. If a different model of provision of a certain service is to be explored, that exploration must be agreed by local management and clinicians. It is not for the Scottish Office to bar that from happening. In all cases, services will still be specified, monitored and funded by the Scottish health service. Clinical care would remain free at the point of delivery and would be based on clinical need.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we are getting good value for money out of NHS managers in Scotland? Have they improved waiting lists and the throughput of patients? Has he calculated how many of those people will lose their jobs if Labour comes to power and takes money away from employing those managers to do their excellent work?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I agree with my hon. Friend that managers, as well as those at the sharp end of the health service, have an important role to play. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that Labour would
Mr. George Robertson:
May I confirm that we will match the extra money to be put into the health service next year by the Government and that, on top of that, we will make sure that the Government's obsession with administration and bureaucracy, which has characterised all that they have done in the past few years, will be reversed and that priority will be given to patient care? Is the Minister aware--and is he proud of the fact--that, since the NHS reorganisation in 1991, administration costs have spiralled by almost £190 million a year, and that the Government's obsession with bureaucracy has meant that patient care has taken second place? By reducing the number of NHS trusts, we will reverse that trend. We will move away from posh foyers, big cars and highly paid accountants and put the money that is freed into patient care, which is what the public want.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
The hon. Gentleman has not given any pledge to increase funding in real terms for each year of the next Parliament. No Labour Front Bencher has done that. We have given such a commitment and it has not been matched. Every year from 1980 to 1995, the number of support staff in the Scottish health service has been reduced. It has fallen from 48,300 to 39,500. That shows that we have given top priority to patient care, and those at the sharp end. In the present year we have made certain that £14 million has been diverted from administration into patient care. Over and above that, the hon. Gentleman suggests a £30 million cut for NHS trusts. I am asking how many hundreds of jobs will be put at risk. I believe that many will be, and it is fair that the electorate should be warned about that before the threat can be put into action.
"to extend private sector responsibility"--[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 20 May 1996; c. 3.]
to the delivery of clinical services? If he is, does he remember his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose on 17 February 1997, when he refused to rule out such involvement in clinical services? Who can we believe?
"release £30 million for patient care by reducing the number of trust board members and cutting bureaucratic jobs."
We have pledged to increase health service funding by £148 million next year. That has not been matched by the Opposition. The number of whole-time equivalent staff in the health service in Scotland has increased by 21 per cent.--from 62,000 in 1980 to nearly 75,000 in 1995. If £30 million has to be removed from the trusts by mergers, how many hundreds of people will lose their jobs? Will they be psychologists, optometrists, doctors or nurses? Opposition Members cannot avoid the reality that they refuse to increase resources for the health service
in real terms--possibly because they have plans for an extremely expensive parliament in Scotland, the cost of which might approach £80 million.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |