Public Expenditure (Hansard, 24 February 1988)

§ 7. Mr. Kirkwood
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his commentary on Scottish public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Rifkind
Copies of the Scottish Commentary were placed in the Library on Wednesday 17 February.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are no assumptions in the commentary dealing with the pay increases or other allowances that are expected in the fiscal year 1988–89? Does he accept that that makes it difficult for health boards, for example, to plan next year's finances, particularly when there is no reference to any special allowance for nurses' pay review awards? Will the Secretary of State undertake to use his influence within the Government to ensure that, whatever the review body recommends, once the Government have taken a decision and made an award they will fully fund it, so that the local health boards in Scotland will not have to use their own resources to meet in part the pay review award?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The Government have an excellent record on implementing the recommendations of pay review bodies. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what the pay review body will say. We shall have to consider that at the time on the basis of the criteria normally applied.

§ Mr. Hayward
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that expenditure next year on health in Scotland is to increase by £225 million, or 8.6 per cent., and that that will contribute to the preparation for the replacement of the acute hospital at Ayr?

§ Mr. Rifkind
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Health Service is in fine fettle in Scotland. That might explain why the industrial action today is not about the resources of the Health Services, but is about this controversy over competitive tendering.

Mr. O'Neill
Will the Secretary of State take account of the amount of public expenditure which has been put into the Castlebridge mine, which is in my constituency and forms part of the Longannet complex, whose future is endangered by the foolhardy programme of tendering for importing foreign coal? Does he agree that the flexible attitude adopted by British Coal and by the local mineworkers union in that area suggests that that investment should have a long-term future and should not be endangered by short-term rushes towards privatisation of the South of Scotland Electricity Board?

§ Mr. Rifkind
Naturally, we hope that the difference of view between the SSEB and British Coal will be resolved amicably, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate the difficulties for all parties involved. There are difficulties for British Coal, for reasons with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar, and for the SSEB, which has an obligation to its consumers, particularly its industrial 290 consumers. The House is anxious that Scottish industry should be as competitive as possible and that Ravenscraig should not be put at a disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman must know that Ravenscraig, which is the largest user of Scottish electricity, clearly has an enormous interest in tariffs in Scotland being as low as possible. The SSEB must also take that factor into account.

§ Mr. Harris
Just in case anyone outside the House might be tempted to take seriously the latest manifestation this afternoon of whining and whingeing by Opposition Members from Scotland, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that public expenditure per head in Scotland is, on average, higher than in England? Will he also confirm that spending on the Health Service amounts to £454 per head in Scotland, compared with £365 per head in England?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The level of Health Service expenditure in Scotland is determined by the Secretary of State from within the overall block available to him. It has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State to take into account the particular health requirements of Scotland and to make generous provision for health expenditure. A further £225 million will be available for that purpose next year.

§ Mr. Dewar
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are few signs of an amicable resolution of the coal dispute and that there is genuinely widespread disappointment at the negative stance taken by the Scottish Office on that matter? As the Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility for electricity supply, is he satisfied that it is in the public interest to substitute foreign imported coal for that produced domestically? If that occurs, what impact will it have on jobs and on stability of supply? Does he recall that, in a widely published speech last Friday to the CBI in Scotland, he listed coal as one of the group of important industries providing vital jobs? Does he not think it important to stop the hands-off negative approach and to do something to protect those jobs?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the difficult problems that must be resolved. He has not expressed any view today about the implications for consumers, including industry in Scotland. Last night he spoke eloquently about his devotion to the interests of the steel industry in Scotland. He must know that the most crucial question affecting industry is the cost of the power that it uses. When the Electricity Board and British Coal have certain interests in common, and certain differences of view, it is much more sensible to allow those two boards to come to a conclusion as to what is required than for the Government to interfere in what is ultimately a matter to be determined by those involved in the industry.