HC Deb 21 July 1983 vol 46 cc649-55 9.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)

I beg to move, That the Rate Reduction (Stirling District) 1983–84 Report, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved. Like Lothian, Stirling district has been the subject of selective action in the two years previous to this. In 1981 Stirling preferred to lose grant rather than return savings to the ratepayers. In 1982 common sense prevailed and, following the approval of a report by the House, the council reduced its rate by 4p. That rate reduction was the equivalent to a smaller expenditure reduction of £832,000 than that originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and approved by the House — a reduction of £1.2 million.

In accepting the proposed rate reduction my right hon. Friend made it clear that he regarded the savings to be made by it as only a first step in reducing the council's expenditure to a level which he could accept as satisfactory. He also made it clear that he expected the council to consider urgently further reductions in expenditure in 1983–84. It is a matter for regret that my right hon. Friend's act of understanding on that occasion has not been repaid in a substantial expenditure reduction this year.

However, for 1983–84 Stirling's guideline excess was, at 29.5 per cent., well above the average and its expenditure per head at £68.89 was above that of comparable authorities. [Interruption.] Its reduction in expenditure from 1982–83 appears to my right hon. Friend to be insufficient to bring its expenditure down to a reasonable level. The reduction from last year's outturn was less than 1 per cent.

As with other authorities against which my right hon. Friend initiated selective action, he gave careful consideration to the council's representations and limited the original rate reduction that he proposed from 3p to 2p. The council had the opportunity to make that reduction voluntarily and I understand that its policy and resources committee was prepared to recommend a reduction in the rate, although not of the level that my right hon. Friend had proposed.

It is a pity for the ratepayers of Stirling that, having accepted that rates should come down, the council, like Kirkcaldy, put the political gesture before its ratepayers' interests. That left my right Friend with no choice but to lay a report as the means of returning the justifiable savings to the ratepayers of Stirling and it is that for which I seek the support of the House tonight.

9.33 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

This is a ritual which the Minister has already outlined in the debates that we have had in the House over the past few years about Stirling. It is part of a debate which many of us have had to put up with over the past three years when we were seeing the powers of local authorities in Scotland being continually eroded. However, in days gone by we have had the services of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who used to argue the case on behalf of the Government and when there was a possibility of some kind of serious debate on the matter.

We have had this evening an understandably short but wholly unjustified attack on Stirling. The substance of the Government's case against Stirling has not been argued. The local authority is being denied the right to provide the services that the electorate want. The Government are required to prove their case against Stirling, and we want that done tonight. It has not been done and the onus still rests on the Government to justify the imposition they are making on a democratically elected authority.

Over the years Stirling has become aware of the need to improve services. The services were so inadequate in the late 1970s that even the Right-wing majority on the council realised that something had to be done. In 1978–79 it underspent by 3.6 per cent. Today, it is 29.5 per cent. in excess of the guidelines.

It would be wrong to suggest that Stirling is the only district in that position. Some 13 districts are spending in excess of 25 per cent. above the guidelines. Only Glasgow of the other top five high-spending authorities is also on the hit list. Aberdeen, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Dunfermline and Cumnock and Doon all spent more than Stirling. As the guidelines have been undermined, perhaps we can say that they do not matter. It could be argued that, if we took account of the Government's cuts in expenditure, we would be discussing an even lower figure tonight.

Stirling cannot easily be compared with other authorities. Few others have the urban nucleus together with the large rural hinterland of Stirling. The adjustment from the rate support grant to the client group method has brought about even more abuses of the already irrational basis of comparison.

The Secretary of State has undergone a number of changes of mind. Since 1981–82 he has tried to compare Stirling with 10 other authorities. He used four authorities in the first year and scrapped three of those the following year. A year later he used another four. No reason has been given for those changes. There was no discussion with Stirling about the basis upon which it was being compared with other authorities. The comparable authorities which spent more than Stirling were not on the hit list.

In 1983–84, all comparators were planning an increase in excess of Stirling for expenditure, rates and the average domestic rate bill, yet in all those instances Stirling is making a reduction. Cunninghams and Kyle and Carrick have either spent or are planning to spend more than Stirling during the period 1978–79 to 1983–84. Cunninghams has had higher rate increases than Stirling since 1978–79.

It is not as though the services provided by Stirling are in excess of other Scottish authorities. It is the fifth highest spender in cleansing the tenth in planning, the third in libraries and museums, the sixteenth in leisure and recreation, the first in environmental health, the nineteenth in burial grounds and, perhaps most important of all, the thirty-ninth in administration.

No one is trying to suggest that Stirling is a low-spending authority. Those days have gone. At the last district elections the electorate voted for better services, and that is what they are getting. They are also getting a far better adminstration and far better value for money. This authority is a credit to Scottish local government. It is providing at a relatively low cost better services than many other authorities and is doing so in a way that will enable it to have a reasonble level of spending.

On any basis of comparison, six districts will be spending more; five districts will have a bigger excess over guidelines; five districts will have higher rates; and five districts will have a higher domestic rate bill. In all, that accounts for 10 different authorities, only one of which is on the hit list. The desirability of these services is now accepted within Stirling. We have heard much this evening of the cross-party agreement in Lothian. The Conservative produced their budget at the finance meeting in Sterling. The budget was for 28 per cent. over the guidelines. The Labour majority had a bigger figure of 29.5 per cent. It would appear that everyone except the Secretary of State is out of step in Scotland.

We were told before the legislation was passed that the aim was to cut public expenditure. The contribution of this order to cutting the overspend of local authorities throughout the United Kingdom is 0.02 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. If the report is agreed this evening, the overspend of British local authorities will still be 99.98 per cent. of the total.

What will be the result of this cut? We will see once again an abuse of local democracy. In Stirling, there is a wide measure of consensus between the Conservative and Labour groups on the quality of services, but those views will be cast aside. It will happen in a way that will do Scotland, and the office of the Secretary of State, no credit.

We were told earlier this evening that Stirling district council was putting political gestures before the ratepayers. In the short time available to me I have tried to make it clear that Stirling recognises that its citizens are entitled to decent services, that the community as a whole wants decent services and that the only people who are stopping them from getting those services in a responsible and efficient manner are the Secretary of State and his running boy. "Chairman Earl", across the way.

We wish to make it clear that we shall divide the House on the report. We shall be opposing the Government's political gesture by taking the only action that is available to us and we shall be expressing our support and confidence for a good authority that is seeking to protect its people.

9.42 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the issue of mandate and what the electorate voted for in Stirling. The electorate in Stirling had an opportunity to vote in the not too distant past and long after the district council elections to which he refers. The electorate of Stirling voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Member of Parliament and it rejected the extravagant policies on which that district council had embarked. Even if the electorate in that constituency, who are included in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, had voted for the extravagant policies which the leader of the council, the Labour candidate, advocated, he would still have suffered defeat at the polls. There is no local mandate in Stirling for this extravagance. No election address promising catastrophic rate increases of 122 per cent. was delivered during those council elections.

My experience during the election campaign was one with which hon. Members south of the border may be not familiar. Callendar is not a big place and it is possible to drive along the high street and miss most of the shops, but six of them closed last year.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

That is the fault of the Tory Government.

Mr. Forsyth

Six shops in one street in one tiny village closed because they could not pay their rates — rates levied by the Stirling district council. The Opposition play down the effects of high rating and make out that central Government are to blame. Tell that to my constituents who are involved in the tourist trade, who must compete with neighbouring Perth and Kinross, where the rate is 18½p in the pound compared with Stirling's 40p. The hoteliers must meet that cost. It means less business and fewer jobs, about which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) always tells us of his concern.

Nobody in Stirling I have come across, not even the leader of the district council, would argue that the standard of service in Stirling district is twice as good as that in Perth and Kinross, but the bill is more than twice as much.

The difference between us is one of ideology. That ideology would have that council continue with its irresponsible spending, and the Government are right to stop that kind of behaviour. Local government in Scotland under Socialist control is helping to cripple the progress we are making with the economy in Scotland. It employs 20 per cent. more staff per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. We must never forget, for all the talk of democracy, that those who foot the bill—most of them in industry, commerce and trade — have no vote in district council elections. But they had a vote, which was clear, when they decided to close their businesses and leave the constituency.

Stirling district council has shown, by its history, its attitude to selective action. In 1980–81 the Secretary of State proposed a reduction of 6p in the rates. The same arguments came up — indeed, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West was there arguing the same case—about services being destroyed and the most appalling devastation being brought to the constituency. My right hon. Friend gave way and lowered the reduction from 6p to 4p.

The doom and gloom about which we were told was not forthcoming. At the end of that financial year, Stirling district found itself with the embarrassment of an enormous surfeit of money, about 2p of rate which the Secretary of State, out of his concern, had allowed the council to keep. What did those concerned on the council do with it? They rushed out and bought themselves a football ground and paid off the football club's overdraft.

Mr. O'Neill

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the purchase of Anfield. I suggest that he waits to see what happens there because it is clear from the interest that is being shown in that site that it is likely that the town will obtain a valuable asset of tremendous use to the ratepayers far beyond the simple confines of a football stadium.

Mr. Forsyth

I have no desire to debate the merits of local authorities being in the football business. I am simply pointing out the threats which we heard from the district council and Labour Members about the social services and so on suffering. That did not occur because they were left with money to do various other things. What are they doing in this financial year? They are talking about giving £50,000 to a company in the form of a loan to develop a bowling club.

Local democracy in Stirling is the sort of local democracy which has not even given the Conservative members on that council—nine compared with Labour's 10 — the opportunity to discuss the response to the Secretary of State's initiative. Their local democracy is the sort of democracy which keeps the elected Conservative members out of discussing policy but illegally invites trade union representatives into the workings of the council to discuss, according to their vested interests, how ratepayers' money should be spent and not saved.

I had the pleasure of reading in some detail and responding to the Stirling district's submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The argument about democracy can be summed up in this way. The most democratic way to deal with other people's money is to leave it in their pockets and allow them to spend it themselves. Stirling district council has increased its manpower by about 18 per cent. since 1980 to a projected 1,010 in 1983–84. That means a 43 per cent. increase in leisure and recreation staff and a 27 per cent. increase in its inefficient direct labour organisation which is involved in housing repairs. Last year alone the numbers employed by that authority increased by 4 per cent. The rate increase of 1981–82 of 122 per cent. brought greater hardship throughout the constituency. Had my right hon. Friend not intervened, instead of paying a 40p rate we would have been paying a 46p rate. Expenditure is about £68.89 a head compared with the average of £58.68.

In its submission the district council says that it does not like guidelines. No spendthrift likes his overdraft limit or his bank manager. The council argues that statistical methods of establishing need should not be considered. However, it has never argued against the rate of support grant, which is determined on the same overall basis. The council claimed credit for achieving a real reduction in expenditure. It has achieved that, but, my goodness, expenditure started at a high level and the fact that the authorities could do that shows that they raised rates and destroyed jobs needlessly. That is the same catalogue of scare stories designed to frighten the public. Stirling district council argues that cuts in services must be the inevitable consequence of expenditure costs and that a loss of jobs will result.

Stirling district council and its executives are planning a reorganisation to bring about efficiency. This means bringing in more chiefs at high salaries to police ever-increasing numbers of Indians. They have ignored the pleas, not just from the Conservatives but from the ratepayers' association and others, to invite tenders for services and to introduce volunteers, despite claims of savings of more than 2p on rates. They blame the Government for adding to their obligations, burdens and expenses. It is true that some measures add to their obligations, but others, such as council house sales, produce savings year in, year out on the housing revenue account. However, Stirling district council has dragged its feet on that issue to an obscene degree, resulting in delays. The average time taken to buy a council house in the Stirling district was 22 months. Some people had to wait more than three years. Not only is that financially irresponsible, but it is irresponsible treatment of council tenants.

Government economic policy must take precedence over the dreams and profligate plans of local politicians. Stirling district council is extravagant and irresponsible, and it has acted without any mandate or support from the constituency. Its performance was overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate in the general election.

I welcome the measures proposed by the Secretary of State. They offer protection for my constituents, including the elderly who receive four-figure rate bills that they cannot pay. I welcome the 2p rate reduction. However, I regret that the Minister has been almost too reasonable in letting the council have that reduction; he should have gone for the full 3p. The council should count itself lucky that the Minister has again placed his trust in it.

I hope that the money that is left to the council will be used more responsibly than in the past. This report will be widely welcomed in Stirling. It will provide a greater boost to jobs and businesses than any other Government action.

9.54 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. Although I no longer have a direct constituency interest in Stirling district and its affairs, nevertheless, I suppose that I should, like the Secretary of State, declare my interest. I am a ratepayer and, like the Secretary of State, if the order is passed, we will perhaps receive some money in our pockets from a rate rebate. However, I differ from the Secretary of State; because I want better services not just for myself and my family but for the community.

The Secretary of State, like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—it sticks in my craw to call him the hon. Member for Stirling because if it had not been for the gerrymandering of Tory Sheriff Taylor, the hon. Member would not be here tonight. He is not the Member for Stirling district. He may be the Member for the cooked-up gerrymandering constituency invented by Sheriff Taylor—

Mr. Michael Forsyth

rose—

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Sit down.

Mr. Forsyth

I should like to make it clear that if one took that part of Stirling district which is not in my constituency and assumed that every elector would have voted for my Labour opponent, I should still have been elected. I have a mandate to represent Stirling district.

Mr. Canavan

That is pure hypothesis. The hon. Gentleman knows that the only reason why Fallin, Plean, Cowie and Throsk were transported across the water was to make it easier for him or some other Tory placeman to come in to this place and misrepresent the interests of the people of Stirling district.

The hon. Gentleman does not represent the interests of the people of Stirling district. He represents the gerrymandering Tory part of Stirling district invented by Sheriff Taylor in which the Secretary of State lives. The Secretary of State stands to receive a rebate if the order is approved tonight.

Almost 10 years ago, before I came here, I was the first leader of the Labour group on Stirling district council. We were then a minority. I always stated that we would control Stirling district one day. I believed—the majority of working class people within Stirling district eventually realised that I was right—that the only way in which we could improve local government services, whether at regional or district level — education, social work, environmental health, leisure, recreation and so on—was by returning a Labour-controlled district council in Stirling.

I am pleased to report that in 1980 we almost achieved that. We had parity. We had 10 out of the 20 seats. There was one enlightened independent member from a rural area who decided that a socialist administration would be in the interests of the people that he represented as well as those of Stirling district in general. We had a working majority with the casting vote of my good friend, convener councillor Edward Monahan. Since then there have been many progressive changes in that part of Stirling district which used to be in Perth county and which was inherited from the previous Tory Administration represented by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) the former Solicitor-General, who was deservedly sacked. People in Aberfoyle, Doune and Dunblane, and in much of the rural area that falls within Stirling district now admit that the services provided for them, whether in libraries, bucket collecting or whatever, are far superior to the parsimonious attitude which has been adopted for many years by—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.