| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) for raising the debate today. The issues that she has mentioned are an important matter of great public concern, and have been the subject of considerable media coverage recently. I am glad, therefore, of the opportunity to put the record straight.
It may be useful if I begin my response to the hon. Lady with a little background. Following the passage of the Environment Act 1995, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency was established in October that year. Labour Members supported the creation of a single pollution control body for Scotland.
On 1 April 1996, SEPA took over the responsibilities of a range of predecessor bodies. It inherited the water pollution control functions of the river purification authorities--that is, the seven mainland river purification boards and the three islands councils--and the waste regulation and certain air pollution functions previously delivered by the district and island councils. From the Scottish Office it acquired the functions of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate and the hazardous waste inspectorate.
The other necessary piece of background information is section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That section allows certain bodies to reclaim the VAT that they incur on the purchases attributable to their non-business activity, in addition to the VAT that they can recover in the normal way on their business purchases.
For Government and public bodies, including organisations such as SEPA, activities that they are required to carry out by law are generally regarded as non-business. Section 33 status therefore enables such bodies to reclaim tax associated with activities that they are required by law to carry out.
As the hon. Lady knows, SEPA's predecessor bodies had differing VAT status. The district and islands councils and the river purification boards were entitled to claim refunds of VAT, whereas the two Scottish Office inspectorates were not. The reason for this difference was that the former bodies had the right to precept on local taxation, but the others did not.
Why is the right to precept the determining factor? The answer lies in undertakings given when VAT was introduced. In 1972, the Government promised that VAT would not fall as a burden on local taxes. Section 33 of the 1994 Act is now the means by which that promise is delivered. It has been the policy of successive Governments that only bodies that have the power to precept on local taxation may be considered for new additions to section 33.
That brings us to the present day. SEPA is a non-departmental public body financed by grant in aid from central Government and by fees and charges. It has no right to precept on local taxation. It is therefore not eligible to claim refunds of VAT on its non-business activity. That is not in itself a disadvantage to SEPA,
as the Government ultimately determine the overall resources available to it to ensure that it can meet its obligations.
The hon. Lady referred to a meeting on 9 May between Scottish Office officials and SEPA. I do not recognise her account of that meeting. She claims that there has always been an assumption that VAT would be recoverable. Of course, we have inherited the previous Administration's distribution of resources, and I cannot speak for them. I understand, however, that SEPA's provision was intended to enable it fully to deliver its functions and to meet its obligations.
SEPA is facing financial constraints, but that is a fact of life for all public sector bodies, and private sector ones as well. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, who is the Minister responsible for the environment, has already met SEPA officials to discuss the agency's funding difficulties. We are at present considering with SEPA what is necessary to allow it to carry out its functions related to the protection of the Scottish environment.
The Secretary of State will provide SEPA with all the resources necessary for it to meet its statutory obligations, including the new ones to which the hon. Lady referred. In a normal year, SEPA's VAT liability would be about £1 million--not £2.7 million, as stated by the hon. Lady. That compares with its current budget of about £28 million. While that liability is clearly a pressure on the organisation, it is not as big a problem as some have claimed, and must be viewed in the context of SEPA's overall financial provision.
The hon. Lady contrasted that situation with the treatment of the Environment Agency in England. Although that agency delivers in England and Wales the functions performed by SEPA in Scotland, it has a wide range of other responsibilities that SEPA does not carry out. They include flood defence, fisheries, recreational use of water, and navigation. In particular, it is responsible for flood defence work, which is largely funded from drainage levies on English and Welsh local authorities. Those levies total more than £200 million per year, and contribute nearly 40 per cent. of the agency's income. Therefore, the agency is eligible to claim refunds of VAT.
The Government and SEPA attach the highest priority to SEPA's continuing to perform its core functions, which cover a wide range of activities. SEPA is responsible for
promoting the cleanliness of Scotland's fresh and tidal waters by regulating discharges to the water environment and for providing flood warning systems and advising on flood risk. It issues authorisations to operators of processes prescribed under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is responsible for licensing waste management sites and waste carriers and brokers. The agency can take enforcement action against anyone who pollutes the environment illegally.
The continued delivery of those core functions, including the availability of emergency and out-of-hours cover, constitutes the day-to-day business of environment protection in Scotland. The Government are committed to maintaining that business.
Mr. Welsh:
Will the Minister explain what he means by "out-of-hours cover"? He may be aware of the Hospitalfield situation in Arbroath. Residents live in an atrocious environment on weekends, but are unable to contact anyone in SEPA. An out-of-hours or weekend service is surely essential in those circumstances, but SEPA claims that it cannot finance such a service. How does that fit with the Minister's assertion that SEPA's finances are perfectly adequate?
Mr. Chisholm:
Hospitalfield is an operational matter for SEPA. The Government are committed to providing adequate funding for SEPA's core functions. Beyond delivering those functions, SEPA must determine priorities among its other activities in light of the resources available to it. They include assessments of the general state of the environment, and appropriate research and development. They are desirable, rather than essential, activities, and progress with them is not allowed to undermine SEPA's core business.
I assure the House that the Government are committed to protecting the environment of Scotland. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has done much since it was established. In a very short time, it has pulled together the functions of 64 predecessor organisations and staff from many of those bodies. It has delivered effective environmental regulation from day one. It has published a state of the environment report and a draft national waste strategy. I congratulate the board and the staff on those achievements. We intend to build on that record of success.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby):
I am grateful that my topic has been selected for debate this afternoon, as it is extremely important to the people of Scarborough and Whitby, the people of North Yorkshire and our near neighbours.
I congratulate the Minister of State for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), on her recent appointment, and I wish her well in her endeavours on behalf of my constituents. Unfortunately, we do not have a full complement of Members in the House at present--perhaps because the debate has been called early. I wrote to those hon. Members who have an interest in such matters advising them of the debate, and I look forward to seeing them here before I conclude.
On 14 November 1996, Channel 4 screened an edition of the "Dispatches" programme that made a series of allegations about the North Yorkshire ambulance trust's operational effectiveness and management style. The programme initiated much local concern in North Yorkshire, and featured heavily in the national media. Following those allegations, the regional health office set up an independent review panel, chaired by Mrs. Anne Galbraith, on 15 November1996. The long-awaited report was finally published on3 June 1997.
Shortly after the publication of the report, the chair of the trust, Mr. Murray Naylor--who is, incidentally, a newly elected Conservative county councillor for the Rillington division--resigned from his post. A fortnight before the report was published, the chief executive, Mr. Michael King, retired on the grounds of ill health, at the relatively young age of 37. I must point out that I began my parliamentary career at the relatively ancient age of 40, and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), recently assumed his responsibilities almost at the age at which Mr. King has retired.
I am also led to believe that some questions remain unanswered regarding Mr. King's illness. That is a serious concern for me and for those in the ambulance service who do not know what Mr. King's problem is. Front-line staff drew certain allegations to my attention and to that of the "Dispatches" programme producers. Some of those who blew the whistle about concerns within the trust were disciplined, and several people were dismissed for breaching their contracts of employment. Subsequent industrial tribunals upheld the management's decisions. As a result of the report's findings, I believe that the management's staff dismissal process looks unsafe, and I urge the Minister to consider that matter.
We may contrast the management's treatment of its staff with the tolerance that it showed to the former chief executive, Mr. King, during his long period of ill health. Many people in public service in North Yorkshire are deeply puzzled about that obvious inconsistency in the treatment of staff at different ends of the trust hierarchy. I believe that the matter should be re-examined in light of the review panel's findings.
The Galbraith report raised several key points. The national health service executive, Northern and Yorkshire region, states in a press release of 3 June:
The Galbraith report also decided that the trust's ratio of operational ambulance staff to trainers is inadequate. Although the trust fell into significant arrears with its paramedic re-certification programme in 1996, the panel found that the situation has improved. Galbraith also found that the organisation's management style had adversely affected the trust's operational effectiveness, and that was severely criticised in the report.
The trust took some remedial action following the James Dean incident, which was a sad incident in which a teenager died, but the issue remains of the responsiveness of the service to accident calls. The panel believed that there were some lessons to be learned, and I shall deal with them shortly.
The key point, as the panel decided, was a failure to separate income generation calls--those that concerned assistance for the veterinary service and dentistry--from emergency calls, which is why the service exists so as to help us. There seems to have been some confusion in the control room about the priorities to be given to incoming calls, which led to severe operational efficiency defects. The panel found that the problem had been remedied by the trust by early June.
I feel that there are some essential national lessons to be learned from this sorry tale. I know that the community in North Yorkshire expects that locally and nationally our health service should be managed efficiently, and should be there to deliver within the highest standards of public service.
As a former railway manager, I have carefully studied the Galbraith report and its findings. I have mounting concern about the internal management structure and style that was pervasive over the period leading up to the report being delivered. That structure and style failed to deliver an honest team-working spirit. I see a failure to establish what I regard as a no-blame culture within the workplace. I am concerned especially that there seem to be unresolved issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider these, perhaps in a later response.
I shall now inform the House of the sad events that occurred on the afternoon of Saturday 7 June. They took place in front of me during a journey that I was making between my constituency and York, within the constituency of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who I see has now joined us in the Chamber. At about 3 pm, the radio news had just finished, and at that moment I could not really believe what I was seeing in front of me. I saw, about six vehicles ahead of my car, that a roof ladder had become detached from a pick-up truck and was lying almost horizontally across the opposite carriageway. It had the appearance of crop sprayer.
I saw a private car and a coach moving towards the ladder from the direction of York. The coach hit the ladder, and its windscreen was shattered. I pulled over and tried to help.
I discovered that the coach was occupied by a class of 12-year-olds from the Cavendish school, Hemel Hempstead. I am glad to report that no serious injuries resulted. I believe that that was due to the fact that all the children were wearing lap seatbelts, and because the driver was wearing sunglasses, which protected his eyes.
I made a 999 call on my mobile telephone at about six minutes past 3 o'clock. That was about four minutes after the accident had happened. The police attended within several minutes. I must commend them on their prompt action.
The problem, as I see it, was that the first ambulance arrived at about 25 minutes past 3, well beyond the standard response time that is expected. As I had studied the Galbraith report only a few days before the accident took place, and had been assured by subsequent press reports from the trust that major improvements had been made in meeting response times--I am on record locally in commending the work that has been done--I became concerned about response times. I feel that it is still a significant issue in north Yorkshire.
These events led me to call and write to Madam Speaker to ask for an Adjournment debate. I am grateful to her, because she must have thought that the matter deserved some attention.
I have some key questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, are the Government happy that the inquiry was wholly independent? As a test, I shall use an extract from a letter that was sent from my close and hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) to Mrs. Galbraith on 20 December 1996. I shall quote the paragraph about the independence of the inquiry. It reads:
In addition to that test, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what measures the regional health executive officials are taking to ensure proper performance and adherence to corporate governance requirements for the future of the North Yorkshire ambulance trust, and, indeed, for the future of all national health service trusts. Has any performance recovery plan been established? I would like to know also whether that has been requested and whether such a plan will be published. Will the public of North Yorkshire be able to learn of the targets?
I wish to ascertain also whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be giving detailed and early consideration to the future occupancy of key positions within the trust. I should like to see a serious re-evaluation of the appointments process within a key public service that extends across the country. The findings of the Galbraith report suggest that that should happen.
There are key questions of accountability and accessibility to the community served within such an important public service. These factors should be taken into account if any future design is made for improving guidelines for appointments to health trusts.
Some published mechanism should be established that allows for positive feedback from public servants within a no-blame, no-bully culture. That would allow and encourage a real team-building process. It would allow also an honesty of approach, to ensure that we have the most effective services from health trusts.
I would like the Minister, if it is possible, to deal with the rumours that are now abroad in North Yorkshire and Humberside about the possible merger of the two ambulance trusts. These rumours are sapping staff morale and causing loss of staff confidence. I am talking of people who have been knocked from pillar to post by the events that led to the Galbraith inquiry.
I believe that the North Yorkshire ambulance service has an identity of its own. In spite of the sorry management regime investigated by Mrs. Galbraith and her team, the service has developed a strong relationship with the people of North Yorkshire. Those who work in the service are to be commended for the work they do.
1.23 pm
"Performance standards were marginally over-stated but there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of deliberate manipulation"
of figures. It continued:
"The decision to procure a new command and control system, costing more than £650,000 was not fully tested against alternatives."
The panel, quite rightly, questioned the appropriateness of the technology in view of the size of the trust. The procurement, installation and commissioning of the system are heavily criticised in the report.
"You will be aware that I have expressed concern about whether your inquiry will be independent. I understand that the North Yorkshire Ambulance Service was involved in 'headhunting' members of the inquiry team and in setting your initial terms of reference. I regard this as unsatisfactory but will judge your report on its merits before deciding whether to ask the Public Accounts Committee to investigate the allegations about the service."
I would like feedback on that issue. I, too, am concerned that we may have to ask the Public Accounts Committee to investigate further.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |