HC Deb 06 July 1994 vol 246 cc301-4
3. Mr. Dalyell

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the extra cost to be incurred by Government sources as a result of alterations in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill between the Bill as presented at First Reading and its current state.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)

The Government have incurred no significant costs as a result of alterations made to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill since its introduction.

Mr. Dalyell

In the light of the Rowntree study, which showed that the economies of scale in education would be disaggregated, are the Government quite certain that there will be no increase in service delivery costs?

Mr. Stewart

I have made the figures absolutely clear, and the changes that the Government have made since the introduction have been widely welcomed. I quote the views of West Lothian district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency: The new structure of local government must combine democracy and efficiency. A new West Lothian Council would strike exactly the right balance. It would also lend itself to a quick and economical transition, thus maintaining the continuity of service which is vital to both citizens, business and partner organisations. It was to those representations that the Government rightly listened.

Mr. Bates

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the additional savings that will result from the Bill's provision for the abolition of Monklands district council? In particular, has he received any representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who stated in The Herald on 30 June that he had seen figures which proved the existence of corruption? Does my hon. Friend agree that if those figures were made available to him we could arrange an inquiry into the matter of corruption, which seems to be gaining all-party recognition?

Mr. Stewart

If anyone has evidence that Monklands district council—or any other local authority in Scotland—is in breach of its statutory responsibilities, of course the Government will look into it. I have received no representations from Opposition Members seeking a meeting, but if the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) or the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) wishes to seek a joint meeting with me, I have no doubt that such a meeting would be an entertaining and interesting occasion.

Mr. Canavan

Will the Government now do the decent thing and abandon their expensive and unwanted carve-up of Scottish local government? Would it not show absolute contempt for the wishes of the people of Scotland if a Tory Government proceeded with such gerrymandering plans, especially after the Tories were so resoundingly defeated in the recent regional elections and were virtually annihilated in the Monklands by-election?

Mr. Stewart

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his own district council, Falkirk, which I understand is very content with the Government's proposals.

Mr. Riddick

Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra costs resulting from the Bill and associated with the abolition of Monklands district council will be money well spent? Do not the revelations of corruption, nepotism and dubious job practices in Monklands during the recent by-election vindicate Conservative Members who have pointed to the corruption in that council? How many other Labour councils in Scotland are getting up to similar shenanigans?

Mr. Stewart

The short answer is that I do not know. The Scottish Office cannot take action simply because a local authority may indulge in practices that others would criticise; we can act only if a council is in breach of its statutory responsibilities.

Sir David Steel

To return to the main question, can the Minister tell us whether he included in his calculation of the cost of the local government changes the cost of providing in every centre of population the all-purpose offices that will be necessary in areas such as the Borders if local government is to continue to have any meaning at all?

Mr. Stewart

I certainly hope that there will not be huge all-purpose offices in the centres of all the new local authorities—for the very good reason that at the centre of our local government proposals is an emphasis on decentralisation of facilities rather than centralisation. Of course some costs may be incurred, but there will also be savings. The figures published by the Government take no account, for instance, of receipts from property sales.

Mr. Foulkes

Will the Minister confirm that he has received a deputation and a request from members and employees of Kyle and Carrick district council? This is the real scandal in Scottish local government. The authority is now re-tendering a contract for cleansing and refuse collection which still had three weeks to run, and it has been discovered that the provost of Kyle and Carrick had five secret meetings with a Spanish contracting company before making the decision. That is the kind of corruption that is taking place in Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick. The Minister has received a request for an inquiry: when will he conduct one?

Mr. Stewart

I must say that that remark was pretty racist from a party that is supposed to be "communautaire". Did not the favourite for the leadership of the Opposition recently say that it was communautaire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question as soon as hon. Members give me an opportunity to do so.

I met the delegation led by the hon. Gentleman, and I listened courteously and carefully to the points that were made. I told the hon. Gentleman that, prior to that meeting, we had had no evidence whatever of wrongdoing by Kyle and Carrick district council, but that I would examine the evidence which the hon. Gentleman put to me and write to him. That remains the position.

Mr. McLeish

While the Minister sits back and enjoys his hypocrisy and complacency—

Madam Speaker

Order. There is no hypocrisy in this House. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase what he has just said?

Mr. McLeish

While the Minister sits back and enjoys his complacency over allegations of corruption, does he accept that the time scale for the implementation of reorganisation proposals is simply a shambles? Does he accept that if he proceeds with the timetable services will be destroyed, jobs will be lost and local government will lose a great deal that it has built up over the past 30 years? In view of the result in Monklands last week, is there not some political merit for the Tories in abandoning the elections next year and returning to the real problems facing local government? Why does the Minister not announce today that there will be a year's delay? Better still, why does he not scrap such crazy, ill-conceived proposals?

Mr. Stewart

The timetable is almost the same as for the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland, when some difficulties arose during that period—notably a coal strike and a general election, neither of which we envisage happening between now and the elections for the shadow authorities next year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult Fife regional council—his own Labour-controlled council—which estimates that the Government's proposals will save £68 million over 15 years. Moreover, it has made no representations to the Government suggesting that it is anything other than happy with the proposals.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the evasive nature of the Minister's answers, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.