| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No. The Minister can answer at the end of the debate.
Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I am not giving way; there is not enough time. The Minister will be able to answer in his winding-up speech. I assume that he wants time to wind up; perhaps he would like to give another plausible explanation.
Some £700 million was wiped off the capital debt of the new water quangos. The Government can always find cash for their dogma, for their political playthings and for their waste, but they plead poverty when it comes to the vital services on which whole communities depend.
This year's settlement for local government in Scotland is a disgrace and a sad start for the new councils, which the Government wished on Scotland but could not capture for their own party. The people of Scotland are being punished for the lamentable political failure of the Conservative party last year. That is an act of cynical betrayal which will not be forgiven by the people of Scotland.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked where the money had gone. My speech is about social work and in particular about funding for care in the community. I hope that I shall go some way towards answering some of the questions.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to seek an explanation of the cost models that have been created by social work departments throughout Scotland. Social work departments control almost every avenue of inquiry and make it extremely difficult for meaningful data, such as their expenditure arrangements, to leave their control. How do they spend the money allocated?
My understanding is that social work throughout Scotland received a real increase in 1994-95 of more than 44 per cent.; the amount went up from £110 million to £158.3 million in Department of Social Security transfer moneys. Over and above that, the health boards are making almost £40 million a year available to local authorities. Did the social work departments, through their policies, influence how the money was spent? How have they been monitored? Can they demonstrate due economy and efficiency in their use of financial resources? Do they abuse their power?
A Tayside region social work committee meeting on23 November 1995 considered a report on community care implementation. At that meeting, the director of social work sought council approval for a joint venture agreement with the Church of Scotland--incidentally, in my constituency. Ostensibly, the venture concerned the provision of dementia care.
It should be noted that the director, Mr. Bates, had previously put it to the social work committee, in item 3 from report No. 1550/95, that the regional authority should turn down the opportunity to purchase dementia care services from the private sector at costs beginning at only £195 per week. Mr. Bates stated that the £195 gross was
The council accepted Mr. Bates's recommendation and turned down the £195 per week option.
In appendix 1 of report No. 1554/95, Mr. Bates states that the running costs for the joint venture agreement option are £423 per week per place provided. He also advises that the cost does not include any element of capital cost. In paragraph 2 of item 2, he says:
in my constituency--
It appears, however, that Mr. Bates may have failed to identify to the members of the social work committee the fact that the Belmont Castle home appears to belong to Dundee city council, which has leased it to the Church of
Scotland. Furthermore, the money for the refurbishment came from the taxpayer via a grant from Scottish Homes, at an apparent cost of about £60,000 per bed.
In making his submission, Mr. Bates would seem to be ignoring his own advice. He stated in the press on30 November 1995:
Furthermore--[Interruption.] Hon. Members will enjoy the rest of this. Mr. Bates states that
Consequently, Mr. Bates is responsible for and should be held accountable for the following. The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the order. I hope that he will do that very quickly.
Mr. Walker:
I thank you for your guidance,Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks relate directly to the order because the claim being made throughout Scotland, by Mr. Bates and others, is that the order is inadequate. He claims that he cannot fund the project he has in hand. I have to look at the projects he has in hand so that we can assess whether his claim in genuine.
The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been more or less completed. That is a serious point, because if the funding came from Scottish Homes, as it appears to have done, there would have been a requirement for an endorsement by Tayside regional council before the funds could be approved by Scottish Homes.
How can Mr. Bates possibly justify recommending the joint venture option with the Church of Scotland as it costs 216 per cent. more per bed to support than the option he could purchase from the open market? The joint venture project provides only eight registered beds and 20 unregistered beds in the form of tenancies. I suggest that that is a manoeuvre, creating an unregistered environment for people who have definite care needs and who will deteriorate.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker:
I will not give way because of the time restriction.
I have reams of evidence of other matters to do with Tayside region social work department which affect my constituency. Because of that--
Mr. Welsh:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is addressing specific points to Mr. Peter Bates. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to turn up at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs this morning, he could have put those points directly
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is an interesting point of information, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Walker:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is fairly obvious that Opposition Members do not want to know how and where the money was spent, despite what the hon. Member for Hamilton said.
I understand that there have been failures to use funds wisely in Argyll and Bute and in Fife, and I shall send my right hon. and hon. Friends a detailed dossier on the matter. In Tayside, the Perth and Kinross care manager service is having problems because it claims that the funding allocated by the orders will be inadequate. Yet the Association of Nursing Homes in Tayside, an organisation advising the Perth and Kinross care manager service, took minutes at a meeting--I will not bore the House with the details of the minutes, but I do have them--at which the care managers said that they were not bothered about the law or about accountability because the regional council's social work department had the power to do what it thought was right, regardless of the law or of financial constraints.
"not financially advantageous to the council."
"In recognition of this background the Church of Scotland and the Social Work department have been working jointly on the refurbishment of Belmont Castle Residential Home for Older People"--
"in a project whose capital costs have been fully met by the church."
"The fact of the matter is that we are now involved in quite extensive rationing of a number of the services we provide in Tayside . . . the fact of the matter is that we cannot spend pound notes that we have not got."
"it was my decision to introduce rationing . . . and that means making tough choices."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |