HC Deb 18 December 1996 vol 287 cc943-4
12. Mr. Salmond

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his public expenditure statement presented to the Scottish Grand Committee on 9 December. [8143]

Mr. Michael Forsyth

My public expenditure plans have been welcomed by the universities, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Tourist Board and many others.

Mr. Salmond

And by the RAF.

Mr. Forsyth

Yes, and by the RAF.

Mr. Salmond

Was not the Secretary of State ashamed at having to confirm that total research spending on E. coli 0157 by the Scottish Office over a six-year period amounted to a mere £500,000? Given that it was known well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire that we had a particular problem with E. coli 0157 in Scotland, is that not a deplorably low amount? Does it not typify an attitude in Scottish Office towards research spending, environmental health and public safety which reeks of complacency? Was not the so-called insider in the Health Department who was quoted this weekend right to say that the current hyperactivity of the Secretary of State for Scotland is a cover for his inactivity when it mattered?

Mr. Forsyth

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am surprised by his ignorance of the way in which research is commissioned by the Government. As he knows, it is done on the advice of the chief scientist's office. He also knows that the Department of Health is the lead Department in that respect. Given that he has been told repeatedly that research into E. coli is more than £2 million, but insists on quoting the Scottish Office figure instead of that for the Department of Health, I can only assume that he is deliberately trying to distort the situation and to make cheap political capital out of a very distressing situation in Scotland. I am sure that he will earn everyone's contempt for doing so.

Mr. Congdon

rose

[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"]

Mr. Congdon

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind those who demand higher public expenditure in Scotland that it is already higher per head than it is in England? Does he agree that those who persist in their demands for devolution will have to answer to taxpayers in England as to why we should continue to subsidise such high levels of public expenditure if they want a devolved Parliament?

Mr. Forsyth

I noticed that several Opposition Members asked "Who is he?" when my hon. Friend asked the question. The answer is that my hon. Friend is one of many Members of the House who would determine Scotland's budget if we ever had a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. It would not be determined by Scottish Members of Parliament sitting in a Scottish Parliament. Those Opposition Members who jeer and sneer at the key point that my hon. Friend makes—that devolution threatens Scotland's public services—should recognise the strength of that argument and realise that their responsibility is to the people of Scotland, not to socialism and the Scottish Labour party.