| Child Care Strategy For Scotland
|
|
Mr. Dewar: I should welcome the welcome that has been given to some of the measures that we have introduced, particularly in education and health. The hon. Gentleman is right to welcome them; they are substantial additional cash inputs, and the prospect of the output is exciting. What we are doing will, I hope, mean a real raising of educational standards it will ensure that the health service remains comprehensive in cover and genuinely free at the point of need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares our objective. I mention that to the hon. Gentleman because of the four-year spending programme that the Scottish National party put forward last year. If I remember rightly, on 14 July on a "Good Morning Scotland" broadcast, he described that programme as alive and kicking, but its input for the health service would have been only £35 million a year. His protestations ring a little hollow when one considers that figure against a budget of more than £4,000 million. It is statistically insignificant. The Scottish National party claims that it wants to be the guardian of he health service and to give it high priority. However, those arguments look hollow when the last two years of its four-year programme are compared to the first two years of the comprehensive spending review. The Scottish National party promised £70 million when the Government have promised an input of close on £1,000 million. Although I accept that the hon. Gentleman's congratulations are genuine, I also assume that they have been given to reflect gratitude for the fact that the Government have tackled a problem that the Scottish National party clearly and self-evidently was not going to tackle. Of course, there are many ways of looking at the figures. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows he has no doubt done much work on them if we take 1994-95 as the criteria for the total Scottish Office budget and consider the per capita expenditure figure, we will find that the Government are spending more than was spent at that time. The real difference between this Government and the previous one relates to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), who was the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, said about creative accountancy and nasty things under the surface. In 1994-95, spending was financed by a massive increase in public borrowing, which took place for short-term political reasons and could not possibly be sustained. It is a measures of this Government's responsibility that, under a fusillade criticism from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, we have held to our plans to put public finances in sound order. By borrowing to invest, not to fund current expenditure, we have produced a plan and are confident that it will be delivered. That is the essential difference between what happened in 1994-95 and now. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are not providing enough other hon. Members in other parties are saying that we are providing too much let me remind him that in two overlapping years the Scottish National party's proposed budget was £1.7 billion and that ours is £2.1 billion. It will be spent on Scotland's real priorities health, education and housing. I am happy for our commitments to stand comparison with the alive-and-kicking not doubt, in protest budget that the Scottish National party produced. We are making an investment in people. We are investing in people who work and care for the health service and people who teach our children and work in our schools, and we are investing heavily in a large expansion of student places. In the next few years, we will create 43,000 student places when the Scottish National party's budget proposals would not have produced a single additional place. If we are talking about the knowledge economy and giving people opportunity, that is a significant comparison. On pay, the health service will have an independent review body and teachers will have the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee machinery. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not dispute that affordability has to be a consideration for employers and Government when it comes to teachers' and health service pay. Inflation and efficiency are other factors that must be taken into account. The review bodies have retained their independence and we shall await the outcomes. However, it is clear that those who work in those public services will be immensely encouraged by a Government who have made a long-term commitment and have done so on a basis that suggests that that commitment can be maintained and delivered much to the benefit of Scotland. I do not know what will happen because these issues will run into the Scottish Parliament. However, I will be proud to campaign on the Government's priorities. I firmly believe that they will be backed by the people of Scotland. Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): There is so much in the public spending review for Scotland that we could spend all day applauding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's efforts. His policies justified the confidence of the people of the Carron and Carronshore ward in my constituency of Falkirk, East who, on 18 June, saw off the challenge of the Scottish nationalists and elected Craig Martin, returning the Labour candidate back to Falkirk council with an increased majority. That shows how the people put their faith in the Government's pledge to treat local government fairly. I especially welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we are at last withdrawing from the Conservatives' strategy, wich was to introduce capping, thereby effectively voting themselves into a majority in every council in Scotland and in the UK. That is going to be reversed and the people of Scotland will take that as a mark of respect for the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend are treating local government by restoring its independence. I am sure that local government will use its independence rightly and properly. I welcome the approach to housing, which is to withdraw debt gradually from local authorities sand free up resources for them. Will my right hon. Friend explain how we can ensure that a council such as Falkirk, which has been thrifty and fiscally responsible and has a low average housing debt as well as councils burdened with a large historical debt, often city councils will also benefit from the Government's approach? How can we ensure that such thrifty councils receive a fair response from the Government and that some capital is freed up for their use? Mr. Dewar: Briefly, I appreciate my hon. Friend's points and one of the main features of our settlement is giving back a degree of responsibility to local government. The duty of local government to act responsibly will remain. We have set out certain parameters for council tax, which we hope will be met or even improved on, and we shall retain residual powers. However, the annual ritual of capping can be relaxed and, on the capital spend side of non-housing matters, grate freedom of manoeuvre is being granted to councils, which live in a changing world. Where there are shortfalls, we will have to act to deal with them and some outstanding issues remain in that respect. My hon. Friend referred to the low housing debt of Falkirk council. That authority also showed great initiative and imagination in private finance initiative development for schools and school buildings, which I applaud. I hope that we can work with councils to improve the delivery of services for those who depend on them. That is an important partnership and I want it to continue, but it must be carried forward on the basis that we are living through a time of change. Much of the money we need for housing will be levered in from the private sector on a partnership basis. I want a strong emphasis on community ownership and a mixture of tenure. That will improve choice and the quality of life for people living in the housing stock, which must be the end and overriding priority both for central Government and for councils. Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): First, I too am sorry that we will not have a statement from the Transport Minister tomorrow because I wanted to ask questions about Caledonian MacBrayne and about roads in Argyll, which are subject to landslides [Interruption.] Too many lanslides. In view of this week's announcement of a £840 million boost for local authorities, will the Secretary of State tell us whether any additional funding will go to authorities such as Argyll and Bute, which has been landed with the unexpected and unwelcome debt of £28.5 million from the accounts of Strathclyde regional council? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the extra money includes at last a special annual needs allowance for Argyll and Bute, which has to deliver costly services to its many island communities? I have asked about this year after year and I hope that at last the Government will respond. Mr. Dewar: I cannot promise a total exemption from landslides of whatever kind in Argyll and Bute. I am afraid that I must give the hon. Lady a reasonably cautious answer. I cannot promise to provide the special islands allowance. The hon. Lady has pursued this matter with immense persistence over the years and will no doubt continue to do so. The £840 million in the coming three years is obviously an important additional resource for the councils. Some of it is to be used for the improvements to education, including nursery education, to which we are committed, and obviously that must be taken into account. However, these are exciting opportunities for local government in Scotland, because local authorities will be centrally involved in much of the proposed expansion. Nursery education, classroom assistance and other proposals have given authorities new horizons and opportunities, which I hope councillors of every party will welcome. We shall discuss in detail the hon. Lady's points about Strathclyde.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 21 July 1998 |
