Local Government Reform (Hansard, 5 May 1993)

§ 6. Mr. Dalyell
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £55,000 paid to Touche Ross for a report by Anna Capaldi on the financing of local government reform he has asked to be returned to the Scottish Office.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)
My right hon. Friend has not asked for the return of any of the fee paid to Touche 176 Ross for its report on the financing of local government reform; nor does he intend to. The consultants delivered a helpful report on an acceptable time scale.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Ought the taxpayer to pay up in full for a report that is so flawed that Bruce Mackie, the Conservative leader of Tayside council, describes it as having been blown out of the water by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy?

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Gentleman has secured an Adjournment debate about the matter on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question. In that debate, the issues that he has raised can be debated more fully
A wide variety of comments have been made about the Touche Ross report; however, we consider its conclusions broadly acceptable, and believe that they provide a basis for the reorganisation of Scottish local government into a single-tier system.

§ Mr. Kynoch
When examining the figures in the Touche Ross report and considering local government reform in Scotland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not simply a question of the number of local authorities concerned? It is also a question of the way in which those authorities will conduct their business. Is it not important for us to have well-run authorities, delivering local services efficiently?

§ Mr. Stewart
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. What will matter is exactly what local authorities do in practice under the new structure. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that in his own region of the country, Aberdeen City district council, which is run by the Labour party, said of the Touche Ross report that Many of the cost assumptions which can be checked have been shown not to be unreasonable, while further sensitivity analysis has been carried out. That gives the lie to some of the fantastic statements that have emanated from Opposition Members on the issue.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
If statements are regarded as fantastic, why does the Minister not only publish the full report but all the papers and evidence so that it is available in the public domain and people can make up their own minds? Above all, instead of this flimsy response to local government problems and a reference to an Adjournment debate, important though that is but which few people will hear about, why can there not be a proper commission and a proper review of local government, such as that which is taking place in England?

§ Mr. Stewart
First, I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. We have published the full Touche Ross report. I am sorry that he has not read it.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I cannot take points of order at this stage.

§ Mr. Clarke
The Minister has misunderstood the question.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I am sure that the Minister has got the question.

§ Mr. Stewart
I must repeat that the Touche Ross report has been published in full. Some of the fantastic figures that the hon. Gentleman has put forward in the press 177 about the costs of local government reorganisation are as realistic as the chances of democracy in the Monklands Labour party.

§ Mr. Wallace
I noticed that in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Minister damned the report with faint praise. He said that its conclusions were broadly acceptable, but he did not say that they were accurate. So that we have an informed debate, not one in which fantastic figures fly around, can the Minister tell us what the cost of savings will be for each of the four different structures that were announced in the Government's consultative document, on the basis of any revised figures that he has received from Touche Ross?

§ Mr. Stewart
We have not received any revised figures from Touche Ross. We made it absolutely clear in the consultation paper that we would look at the figures in the light of further evidence. That is to be found in paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of the consultation paper. Of course we are looking at the Touche Ross figures in the light of the variety of comments upon them, even though many of them have been mutually contradictory. When we publish the White Paper we shall publish the estimates of cost associated with the preferred structure.

§ Mr. John Marshall
Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Touche Ross report referred to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering, which has enabled local authorities to give the same or a better service, at much less cost to the taxpayer? Did the Touche Ross report also refer to the cost of nepotism, as practised in Monklands?

§ Mr. Stewart
The Touche Ross report did not refer to the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, although it has been widely referred to in other ways. I agree with my hon. Friend about the immense benefits that local authorities can gain by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering. That is proved by the gains that many local authorities, even under the present structure, have achieved by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering in Scotland.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, it was extremely far-seeing of you to give us an Adjournment debate on Friday.