| Child Care Strategy For Scotland
|
|
Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his detailed questions, which were constructive in the sense that I suspect that he genuinely wants to know the answers. That is not always a characteristic of the exchanges that take place in this Committee. I start with an apology. There was a slip in the text, although not in what I said, as the hon, and learned Gentleman noticed. The eye tests will be for the over-60s and I was specific about that, but I apologise for the fact that I did not pick up the slip in the text. I was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged that the Chancellor was acting responsibly, although I have to disappoint him by saying that my right hon. Friend was not following the specific advice of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). If my right hon. Friend was following that advice, it was only on a narrow point. He certainly disagrees with the hon. Member for Gordon on a wide range of issues. I shall try to deal quickly with the specific questions. The first question was about tuition fees. The Government have made it clear that that money will be used to strengthen the Scottish higher education sector's ability to deal with the expansion of the knowledge economy, which I am sure that we all want to see. As the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows, the Government's plans are based on a substantial expansion of further and higher education over the next three or four years. We have encountered a fair degree of unpopularity regarding the new student support system, but that system will allow us to sustain expansion. The hon. and learned Member will recall that the previous Government capped student numbers because of financial restrictions. We have removed that cap because we want expansion. Clearly, an integral part of achieving expansion is to use tuition fee income to sustain and support our programme. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about local authority budgets, especially the non-housing capital side and sales of properties. The knowledge that the Scottish office would immediately snaffle 50 per cent. of the proceeds was a great disincentive to sell. An apparently attractive price becomes unattractive when it halves. I hope that the programme will give a boost to the capital line, and encourage the authorities to make sensible decisions about when they need assets. Authorities should realise those assets to ensure that the money is put to better use. On the housing side, we are attempting to control and reduce the debt. We believed that it was right to leave that provision in place. I cannot add much to the hon. and learned Gentleman's wisdom on health service pay. The independent pay review body that deals with such matters remains independent. Governments have been faced with difficult decisions when judging recommendations in the context of economic circumstances. Affordability, as well as inflation and efficiency targets, should be taken into account. However, we shall have to wait for the pay review bodies' recommendations. I hope that the substantial input into the health service of £1.8 billion a formidable figure will provide professional opportunities and a better overall service for patients and will boost the morale of those who work in the health service. I shall deal with the general point about reserves, sustainability and ability to fulfil the programme that we have set out. The Government cannot be challenged on their prudent management of the economy. Most arguments, including those of the Liberal Democrats, suggest that we have been overprudent. The Chancellor has made it clear that the golden rule will apply: we shall fund investment, not current expenditure, from borrowing, and we shall control inflation tightly. There is a political price for that. Governments who adopt such measures do not follow a popular line. However, we will have created space by cutting debt servicing by £5 billion a year by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. Responsibility is an important factor in the programme. We are confident that we will sustain the programme over a period. On the hon. and learned Gentleman's final point, which is entirely legitimate, the consequentials will run. We have had a fair settlement. The full share has come to Scotland, according to the Barnett formula, which successive Governments have defended for many years because it is simple and explicable. No, I must not exaggerate for those who understand it, it is a neat and tidy method of adjusting Scottish expenditure so that it is in line with that of comparable Departments south of the border. I expect that to continue. Dr. Norman Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): I am sorry that my recommendation for a designer for the new Parliament was ignored by the Secretary of State's committee. It was ignored in an exceedingly courteous way; nevertheless, it was ignored. I do not want to anticipate tomorrow's statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, but, on the modal shift in transport policy, I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that Caledonian MacBrayne will remain in the public sector, and that two new ferries will be ordered in the near future from Scottish yards. The larger one could be built at Ferguson's on the lower Clyde, and the smaller one could be built at Troon. The management of Caledonian MacBrayne and its location on the Gourock water front needs to be sorted out. Mr. Dewar: I am sorry if my hon. Friend feels that his advice on architectural matters was ignored. The public interest in the design for the Scottish Parliament was extraordinary. Between 30-40,000 people took the trouble to look at the exhibition and pass comments. Therefore, my hon. Friend shares the opinion of many who feel that the decision was not the one that they wanted. However, we have an extremely imaginative and sensitive design team; in terms of architectural content it involves Edinburgh as well as Spain. I look forward to seeing how things develop. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to take a close interest in the matter and quite right too. As to Caledonian MacBrayne, I do not want to pursue matters very far, since there are to be announcements tomorrow. It is important to face the need for a genuine shift in transport policy. Inevitably, some decisions will be unpopular and will be sniped at. However, we need to do something substantial for public transport and tackle gridlock and problems of investment. Those problems will grow and grow if we ignore them. A simple answer that I can give about Caledonian MacBrayne is that it will stay in the public sector. As to the ship orders, abut which local interest is, I understand, very great, my hon. Friend must wait patiently for tomorrow. Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside): First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I welcome the increases in resources for education and health that the Secretary of State has announced particularly the plans for nursery places for three-year-olds. That was a general election manifesto commitment of ours something that I cannot imagine did much to persuade the Secretary of State in his decision. I also welcome the commitments about classroom assistants and improvements in the health service. I welcome the Government's offer of a three-year spending approach, which was to a significant extent demanded by local authorities. It will help them with their forward planning. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) and I want to do so too. In his response to the public expenditure settlement for 1994-95, the right hon. Gentleman said:
While I should not venture to say that it is a whole lot nastier, there is certainly a truth behind the hype. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the first two years of implementing his party's manifesto he has cut public expenditure in Scotland on a cumulative, real-terms basis, by more than £1 billion? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm analysis produced by the House of Commons Library, showing that Scottish Office expenditure is projected to increase by 0.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the five years of the present Government, compared with 1.3 per cent. per annum under the previous Government? Will he confirm that the departmental expenditure limit for the Scottish Office will fall, as a share of United Kingdom totals, from 7.92 per cent. in 1997-98 to 7.53 per cent. in 2001-02? I listened with great care to the Secretary of State's response about the security of the spending plans against inflation, which would be above the estimated figure. He said that the Government were prudent in their estimate, and determined to ensure that they were applied. I took that, and the right hon. Gentleman's comments that there was a political price to pay for that prudent financial management, to mean that the price of protecting against inflation might be higher interest rates. What protection can he offer or the security of the spending plans, and the prospect of their being applied in year three without any qualification resulting from changes in estimates? Finally, as to public sector pay, the Government have clearly invested in public services, but I am sceptical about whether they are prepared to invest in people. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to public sector workers, whose pay increases are already trailing private sector increases in Scotland, that they will be decently remunerated at the end of the period in question?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 21 July 1998 |
