§ 9. Mr. WelshTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report by the consultants Quayle Munro on the future of water services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
§ Sir Hector MonroIt is a good answer, worth waiting for.
As part of the Government's review of water and sewerage services in Scotland, consultants were commissioned to give advice under conditions of commercial confidentiality for the purpose of informing policy. That advice is reflected in the consultation paper that my right hon. Friend published yesterday.
§ Mr. WelshActually, that was not much of an answer.
Why have the Government allowed access to the local government report, but not to the water privatisation report? Have they something to hide? Surely, "commercial" sensitivities are in fact political sensitivities—the sensitivities of an isolated Government who are swimming against the tide of Scottish public opinion. Will the Minister confirm that the price of his secrecy is about £50,000, and will he now abandon this unwanted, unnecessary privatisation scheme?
§ Sir Hector MonroEven after 24 hours' reflection, the hon. Gentleman is getting most of it wrong. Does he not understand that the document published yesterday by my right hon. Friend is a genuine consultation document? There are eight options, and variations may be produced in the intervening period. If Opposition Members put their minds to producing constructive reports for my right hon. Friend, they would be doing something really valuable for the Scottish people whom they represent.
§ Mr. WallaceThe Secretary of State said yesterday that he had engaged Quayle Munro to look into the technical aspects of water organisation. What technical qualifications—as opposed to financial qualifications—did Quayle Munro have? Do any of the commercial sensitivities relate to any French companies? Finally, is not the Secretary of State under a statutory duty, under section 1 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, to publish information relating to water services in Scotland? What is more fundamental than information that relates to the future organisation of those services?
§ Sir Hector MonroI hope that the hon. Gentleman too has read the report which he has now had in his hands for 24 hours. Of course, the Quayle Munro report was valuable to my right hon. Friend for its technical and financial information. What the Secretary of State has published is a fair reflection of the position. It gives many alternatives. In fact, Opposition Members were all rumbled; they thought that it would be a privatisation document, and it is not. It gives alternatives which the country can consider. We will look at it carefully and come to conclusions later next year.
§ Mr. McLeishDoes the Minister accept that it is a scandal for a company that has access to confidential 285 information to be allowed to advise possible bidders in the privatisation process if the Government proceed with that crazy idea? Will he tell the House that the real reason for commissioning Quayle Munro was the cosy clique of Ministers and favoured consultants seeking private information about quotations and franchising, and had nothing to do with any of the other six options? Will he tell the House why his office is behaving in such a deplorable manner, abusing the taxpayers' money and the office of the Secretary of State? It is a scandal. When will the report be published so that we may know what is in it?
§ Sir Hector MonroThe hon. Gentleman should count up to eight rather than to 10 and he would realise that there is a great deal of valuable information in the report. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer, he need not listen. Quayle Munro was one of a number of companies that tendered for the consultation process. There was no question of a cosy operation; it was very competitive tendering.