Cash-strapped NHS has had to foot the £12million bill for the SNP's public inquiries
The bill for long-running public inquiries has cost Scotland's beleaguered NHS more than £12 million in the past four years alone, figures show.
National Services Scotland (NSS), the administrative arm of NHS Scotland, admitted that it has had to fork out £9 million in legal fees and £3.1 million in staff costs since 2021 to respond to inquiries that include the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry and the Covid-19 probe.
Holyrood's finance committee is currently assessing if the number of public inquiries held in Scotland is value for money.
The SNP 's Kenneth Gibson, who chairs the committee, has raised fears about the £100 million bill for the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, as it emerged that the total cost of all Scottish inquiries since 2007 has now ballooned to £230 million.
Meanwhile, the probe into disgraced NHS Tayside surgeon Sam Eljamel has cost £1 million before the inquiry has even begun, official records show.
The enormous cost to the NHS to respond to inquiries and defend its actions in some instances comes despite huge waiting lists and a GP crisis – and last night critics said the money could be better spent.
Scottish Conservative health spokesman Dr Sandesh Gulhane said: 'Taxpayers will be appalled that the NHS has splashed out £9 million on legal fees.
'This is money that could have been spent cutting A&E waiting times or boosting the number of GP appointments available for patients.
'The sheer number of inquiries taking place speaks volumes about how the SNP are failing Scotland.
'On their watch no ministers or senior figures are ever held accountable for their mistakes.
'That leaves too many left without answers as to why failure has become so routine after 18 years of this SNP government letting down our NHS.'
According to a submission to the Holyrood committee by NSS, the NHS in Scotland has spent £3.1 million since 2021/22 in responding to public inquiries.
Meanwhile, Scotland's Central Legal Office has provided around £9 million in legal services to NHS Scotland boards for public inquiries since 2021, which includes the cost of counsel.
The scale of the outlay has led NSS chief executive Mary Morgan to suggest that an independent advisory board should be set up to avoid spiralling costs to the public purse.
She wrote: 'NSS suggests that the current processes for monitoring public inquiry costs are inadequate. Costs are significant.' She added: 'Costs are incurred by each participant to an inquiry.
'Costs are not reimbursed or reported consistently. There is no oversight of costs incurred.
'Public bodies involved in an inquiry incur costs to prepare for and participate in inquiries (including paying for staff time from the public body and legal representation).
'It may be helpful for inquiries to set out what costs should be recorded by participants and arrange for those to be reported to the inquiry and shared publicly on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly) to ensure that there is a consistent approach to providing information.
'NSS suggests that the independent advisory body could have a role in assessing and monitoring costs. Tight terms of reference are essential when a public inquiry is established to ensure value for money.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
The Wargame - episode one: False Flag
👉 Click here to listen to The Wargame on your podcast app 👈 Tensions with Russia escalate, and an imaginary week in the near future takes a turn for the unexpected. The prime minister calls an emergency Cobra meeting. A major five-part series from Sky News and Tortoise imagines how a Russian attack on the UK could play out - and invites real-life former ministers, military chiefs and other experts to figure out how to defend the country. Written and presented by Sky News' security and defence editor, Deborah Haynes.
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
Warning over 'dirty secret' of toxic chemicals on farmers fields
Successive governments have failed to deal with the threat posed by spreading sewage sludge containing toxic chemicals on farmers' fields, a former chair of the Environment Agency has told the 3.5 million tonnes of sludge – the solid waste produced from human sewage at treatment plants - is put on fields every year as cheap campaigners have long warned about a lack of regulation and that sludge could be contaminated with cancer-linked chemicals, microplastics, and other industrial Howard Boyd, who led the EA from 2016 to 2022, says the agency had been aware since 2017 that the sludge can be contaminated with substances, including 'forever chemicals'. "Forever chemicals" or PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals which come from things like non-stick saucepans. They don't degrade quickly in nature and have been linked to seen by BBC News suggest the water industry is now increasingly concerned that farmers could stop accepting the sludge to spread and that water firms have been lobbying regulators and making contingency plans in case rules Howard Boyd says efforts to update rules, which date back to 1989, to include new contaminants were "continually frustrated by the lack of ministerial appetite to deal with this issue." In a public letter signed by more than 20 others she called on the current Environment Minister Steve Reed, to act Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told the BBC regulations around sludge spreading are being looked at. The water companies trade body Water UK told the BBC they were aware of the concerns but that no legal standards for contaminants had been set by the government. Unlike the cleaned water that is discharged from wastewater treatment plants, the sewage sludge, or biosolid as the industry calls it, is considered "exempted waste".That means the treatment focuses mainly on killing bacteria and testing for heavy metals in the is no routine testing for chemicals, including "forever chemicals", which have been developed over the last three decades and are getting into the sewage network from both from domestic and industrial users."I think the big concern is because these substances (forever chemicals) are so persistent they'll stay around in the soil for hundreds, if not thousands of years," says Alistair Boxall, professor of environmental science at York University."It may be in 10 years' time that we start understanding that these molecules are causing harm," he said. "Then we're going to be in a bit of a mess, because we'll be in a situation where we'll have soils in the UK that will have residues of these molecules in them, and at the moment we have no way of cleaning that up."In 2022, the US state of Maine became the first state to ban the spreading of sludge contaminated with "forever chemicals" after high levels were found in water, soil and crops. Reports and emails shown to the BBC by Greenpeace's Unearthed investigation unit and obtained using Freedom of Information Act requests, reveal the water industry is acutely aware that attitudes are changing and is both lobbying government and making contingency companies are concerned on two fronts: that general rules regarding the spreading of sludge on land (so called Farming Rules for Water) may soon be tightened due to fears that it's polluting watercourses and that farmers' concerns about the chemicals in the sludge might make them unwilling to put it on their water industry has already commissioned reports looking at what might happen if the spreading is of them predicts that the "most likely" scenario is a shortfall of about three million hectares in land needed to spread the sludge. The water industry says that would lead to them either incinerating it or putting it into landfill. Both options would bring extra costs that would be passed on to billpayers."This investigation is yet more proof that we can't trust the privatised water companies to deal with waste responsibly," Reshima Sharma from Greenpeace said."So long as they can get away with it, they will just pass any problems on to our countryside and pocket the money they should be investing in solutions." In 2017 a report commissioned by the Environment Agency found that sludge contained potentially harmful substances, including microplastics and "forever chemicals", at levels that "may present a risk to human health" and may create soil that is "unsuitable for agriculture".It said that "perhaps the biggest risk to the landbank" is from the spreading of physical contaminants such as microplastics into agricultural soil. The report also said it had heard evidence from EA staff indicating that some companies may be using wastewater treatment plants to "mask disposal of individual high risk waste streams not suitable for land spreading"."EA colleagues were continually frustrated by the lack of ministerial appetite to deal with this issue," Ms Howard Boyd, who was chair of the regulator at the time, told the BBC in an email. "EA proposals since 2020 to reform the regulations were treated with a lack of urgency, hampered by delays in passing requests up to the relevant ministers for decision-making, and a consistent failure by successive secretaries of state to take the matter seriously."The letter Ms Howard Boyd has signed jointly signed was organised by campaign group Fighting Dirty. It calls the contents of the sewage sludge a "dirty secret" and demands that Environment Secretary Steve Reed take action. Sewage sludge is cheaper than other fertilisers, and can sometimes be free, though farmers may have to spread it Lewis-Thompson tells me it has "the smell of death"."It lingers in the air for somewhere around two to three weeks," she tells me when I go to visit in her home on Dartmoor in the south-west of gathered together a group of neighbours who've all had direct experience of sewage sludge being spread near their properties. Before we start recording there's a long discussion about whether they should speak out for fear of upsetting nearby farmers and the contractors who spread the sludge, who are often of their concerns are about the smell and about potential contamination of their water sources. One young woman leaves in tears saying it had made her sick."The fact it's spread for free ought to raise a few eyebrows," Richard Smallwood, a local beef and sheep farmer who doesn't use sewage sludge, tells me."If we're starting to produce food on grassland and arable land which is filled up to the ear holes with PFAS compounds and nano and micro-plastics that find their way into the food chain I think my job's over before I begin." With the alternatives to sewage sludge disposal costly, there's broad agreement that the recycling of sludge into fertiliser has to be made to work."In principle, I think using properly treated human sewage to spread on the land, put it back into the ground for growing food in the UK, that's the right thing to do," Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the cook, writer and broadcaster, tells me at his small farm and café in east Devon. He's also signed the protest letter to the environment minister."We know it's happening. Our farmers are rightly worried. We've got to take action. Government's got to take action," Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall says."That means regulations are not voluntary regulations or guidelines, [they should be] legally enforceable regulations that stop these pollutants getting into the sewage and onto our land."Despite the concerns there are still plenty of farmers who see the sludge as a cheap way to fertilise their Oliver is on the National Farmers Union Crops Board. He says he applies about 800 tonnes of sewage sludge every year to fields where he grows maize destined for animal water company provides the sludge for free and Mr Oliver says he's careful how much he uses and trusts the company to make sure it doesn't have chemical contamination."If we can be sensible with how it's used and spread on the land, it can be positive for farmers and for the water companies," he says."I'm doing it because it's adding value. It's improving our organic matter. It's benefitting the crop that I'm growing, and it's reducing my spend on bagged fertilisers." The Department for Environment Fisheries and Agriculture did not contest anything the former chair of the EA Ms Howard Boyd told the BBC."We need to see the safe and sustainable use of sludge in agriculture to help clean up our waterways," a spokesperson said."The Independent Water Commission will explore a range of issues, including the regulatory framework for sludge spreading, and we continue to work closely with the Environment Agency, water companies and farmers in this area."Water UK represents the water companies of England and Wales, said: "Although there are some concerns that some bioresources may contain contaminants, such as microplastics and forever chemicals (PFAS), there are no legal standards for them and, in some cases, no agreed assessment techniques.""Any standards and techniques are a matter for the government and the regulator and need to be based on firm evidence and detailed scientific research."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Winter fuel humiliation: After huge U-turn Rachel Reeves bizarrely claims she was 'right' to cut handout - while Sir Keir Starmer is ridiculed for suggesting move is now possible because Labour's 'fixed' stricken economy
Labour 's spending plans descended into chaos last night as Rachel Reeves backed down over winter fuel. The Chancellor said all pensioners with incomes of less than £35,000 will get the payment this winter following a huge public backlash over last year's cuts. The humiliating climbdown means nine million pensioners will receive the handout – worth up to £300 a household – at a cost of £1.25billion. Ms Reeves refused to apologise for the original decision to slash the number of those eligible for the payment – a move which triggered a collapse in Labour's poll rating. She insisted she had been 'right' to cut the payment last year. And, despite having repeatedly attacked opponents for making 'unfunded' spending pledges, she refused to say how she will pay for the U-turn. Labour MPs seized on the Chancellor's political weakness and lined up to demand that she now scrap the two-child benefit cap and cancel plans to cut disability benefits at a combined cost of £8.5billion a year, fuelling fears of further tax rises. Downing Street claimed the U-turn was possible because the economy had now 'turned a corner', despite the fact the Office for Budget Responsibility has halved official growth forecasts for this year. Sir Keir Starmer insisted Labour had ' fixed the foundations of the economy', in spite of rising unemployment and inflation. Reform leader Nigel Farage, who pledged this month to restore the payment in full, said Labour's U-turn was triggered by 'blind panic' at its collapsing poll ratings. The Treasury said the winter fuel reverse would not lead to a 'permanent rise in borrowing'. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said this was likely to mean 'permanent additional taxes'. The move came ahead of tomorrow's spending review, when the Chancellor will announce a spending spree totalling an extra £300billion over five years – equal to £8,100 for every taxpayer in Britain. Labour minister Sir Chris Bryant said the review would mark 'the end of austerity'. But Tory business spokesman Andrew Griffith said Labour was 'massively adding to the national debt our children will have to pay and ensuring that taxes will rise and growth will fall'. Economists last night warned that the financial markets could turn on Labour if ministers were unwilling to keep spending on a 'sustainable path'. The Chancellor's decision to means test the winter fuel allowance was one of Labour's first steps in office last July. It meant that around 10million pensioners lost the previously universal benefit last winter. The decision also helped trigger a plunge in Labour's ratings and was widely blamed for the party's dismal performance in last month's local elections, when it lost two-thirds of the seats it was defending. A More in Common poll yesterday found that just 14 per cent of voters now think the Chancellor is doing a good job. Ms Reeves yesterday said she had 'listened to people's concerns'. Kemi Badenoch urged ministers to apologise for the 'callous' decision to cut eligibility for the payment last year. The Tory leader said: 'Pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. Keir Starmer should apologise to them.' Tory work and pensions spokesman Helen Whately said the U-turn was 'most humiliating climb down a government has ever faced in its first year in office'. Ms Whately added that the cut had contributed to an extra 100,000 visits by pensioners to A&E departments last winter. 'Their mistake has hurt people and it is cowardly not to own up to it,' she said. But, asked if she would apologise, Ms Reeves said: 'The irresponsible thing to have done last year was to allow the public finances to carry on on an unsustainable footing.' She added: 'I'm always going to put stability in our economy first.' At present, only pensioners with an income of less than £11,800 are eligible for the winter fuel payment. This will treble to £35,000 this winter. It will continue to be £200 per household or £300 for the over-80s. The winter fuel retreat emboldened Labour rebels pushing for increased welfare spending. Left-winger Nadia Whittome said the episode had been a 'fiasco' for the Government and urged ministers to now abandon £5billion of cuts to disability benefits that are designed to curb the ballooning welfare budget. Bradford East MP Imran Hussain said it would be wrong to continue with 'devastating' cuts to disabled support. Former leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey welcomed the U-turn but said it was also 'right to lift children out of poverty' by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. The decision to restore the winter fuel payment to three-quarters of pensioners was welcomed by campaign groups. Caroline Abrahams, of Age UK, said Ms Reeves' reversal 'will be a huge relief to many'. Who will now get winter fuel payments? If you are over state pension age and your income is less than £35,000 your household will now be eligible. How much is it worth? The annual payment is worth £200 per household, or £300 if someone who lives there is over 80. How do I get it? The payment will be made automatically to all pensioner households and then recouped from any that aren't eligible. Who will have to repay it? If your income is above £35,000, your payment will be 'recovered' by HMRC or you can opt out. What if my partner's income is below £35,000? Payments will be assessed on individual, not household, income. Payments are split if a household has two pensioners. In the case of a couple where one has an income above the threshold and one below it, half the total will be paid to the pensioner with the lower income. Can I just turn it down? If you know that you definitely won't qualify for a winter fuel payment, as your income is more than £35,000, you can opt out to avoid the hassle of paying it back. What if I need to pay it back? Pensioners whose income is above £35,000 and who don't opt out will need to pay all of it back. It will be repaid either via a self-assessment tax return, for those who complete one, or automatically through PAYE. The Treasury said: 'No one will need to register with HMRC for this or take any further action.' Is this plan for all of the UK? The Treasury announced this move for England and Wales, but Scotland and Northern Ireland might make separate new arrangements. Last winter, Scotland replaced the Winter Fuel Payment with the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment. Northern Ireland made a one-off £100 payment to pensioners who lost their winter fuel payments. How much will this cost? The cost of reinstating Winter Fuel Payments for those now eligible is estimated at £1.25billion in England and Wales. Compared to when the payments were a universal benefit for pensioners, the savings will now only be around £450million annually.
