Title

It's a common cry, especially after a disaster of some sort, that when safety is involved, money should not be a consideration. And the same applies when it comes to expensive medical treatment. If it's a matter of life and death, cost doesn't enter into the equation. Yes, prime minister Gordon Brown conveniently released £14m for flooding, but when disaster strikes just weeks into your premiership, naturally, you're going to ride straight in on the back of a rescue package to gain favour with the British public. This is the exception and not the norm. I'm sorry to break the news, but money is a factor in almost everything, even life and death. We don't put a fully-manned fire station on every street corner of the country, even though we would like to, to protect our communities, because the cost would be astronomical. Likewise, we can't have a hospital with full accident and emergency facilities in every town. The job of politicians is to make judgments about how much should be spent to enhance safety or preserve life. In making that judgment, they are mindful of how much they think they can ask us to pay in tax. They also have to make judgments about competing priorities – would £1m spent on fire stations and crews be better spent on life-saving drugs in the NHS, or would it be better spent enhancing the quality of life of disabled children? With the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 on the horizon we can expect the usual anguished cries from councils about service cuts and the impact on users. What would be really refreshing is a bit of honesty. We cannot afford to do everything that is desirable or even necessary unless taxes are much higher. It would be nice if the Government had the courage to tell us what it is not prepared to fund and what level of risk it is willing to take, even in matters of life and death. Phil Walker is director of finance at Surrey CC

Title

FINANCE

Money matters

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING