Local Government Finance (Hansard, 23 March 1994)

§ 9. Mr. Maxton
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)
My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January, and plan to meet them again on 17 June as part of the normal consultation with the convention on local government finance matters.

§ Mr. Maxton
Does the Minister agree that the cavalier dismissals from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of the amazing referendum result on the future of water in Scotland are insulting to the intelligence of the people of Strathclyde? Are not they particularly insulting to the 96 per cent. of the Minister's electorate who voted no in that referendum? Are not they also a complete negation of all democratic principles in Scotland.? Will the Minister now take the opportunity to tell COSLA that he is withdrawing his proposals for water, or have we now reached the point where the views of the Scottish people do not mean a damn thing to the Government?

§ Mr. Stewart
The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are no, no, no and no.
In relation to local government finance, if Strathclyde can easily find £750,000 for a wholly misleading and meaningless exercise, it suggests that, if anything, my right hon. Friend's local government finance settlement verged towards the excessively generous in Scotland.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges for local government finance during the next few years will be how we adequately fund the updating of the water and sewerage systems throughout Scotland? That challenge can be met only if it is looked at objectively, sanely and in the light of where funds can be obtained from. The displaying of badges does nothing to help the debate, and it will certainly not help the Standing Committee when the Chairman is displaying his prejudice.

§ Mr. Stewart
Could I say in response to my hon. Friend's general point—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I did not understand the last sentence of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I wonder whether he could make it clear because I am not sure whether what he said was acceptable.

§ Mr. Walker
By convention, in the Chamber, the Chairmen of Standing Committees do not speak or show their views on matters that are being discussed in a Committee. I believe that an error of judgment has been made today.

§ Mr. Stewart
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland.

§ Mr. George Robertson
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I normally take points of order at the end of questions, but I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman who has just repeated his question did not repeat it in exactly the same terms. I believe that he said originally that the Chairman of a Standing Committee was prejudiced because he was wearing a badge. [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the matter. If that is the case, I require the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks and to rephrase them.

§ Mr. Walker
I have no hesitation in obeying your instruction to withdraw remarks because I always accept the decisions of the Chair. I believe that an error of judgment has been made—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to an opinion, provided that it is within the rules of the House.

§ Mr. Walker
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe that an error of judgment has been made. I believe that I was in order to draw attention to it. If I did so wrongly, I apologise to you, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We shall now have the Minister to respond to the original question.

§ Mr. Stewart
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland. We have proposed an effective partnership between the public and private sectors to ensure that.

§ Mr. Wallace
Does the Minister expect that when he and the Secretary of State next meet the president of COSLA, Councillor Gray will remind them of a letter that he received from the Prime Minister shortly before Christmas on water and sewerage services, which said that the proper way to proceed was one that would allow 273 Scottish opinion to be given expression through Members of Parliament? There can be no doubt that Scottish opinion is in favour of the removal of the Government's proposal for water and sewerage. The proper parliamentary response would be to remove the relevant clauses from the Bill and to make proposals that would allow for water and sewerage services to be in the hands of democratically accountable people. Will the Minister do that?

§ Mr. Stewart
The Bill to reform local government in Scotland and change the structure of the delivery of water and sewerage services was presented to the House and received a Second Reading by a majority of 41.

§ Mr. Salmond
Does the Minister agree with COSLA that the results of the Strathclyde water ballot demonstrate the democratic bankruptcy of this Westminster Parliament? Who will decide the future of Scotland's water? Will it be the 1 million or more Scots who reject the Minister's plans or the five English Tory Members of Parliament in a House of Commons Committee who have dictated each and every vote against the Scottish public interest?

§ Mr. Stewart
Given the reception that the hon. Gentleman's question received on the Labour Benches, it seems that, yet again, the united front against the Government has fallen apart. The Bill is in Committee. It is being considered line by line in great detail. It will come back to the House. The House will decide on the Bill and it will then go to another place. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman fundamentally. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. George Robertson
I am not in the slightest surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland has dodged the column on this issue today of all days and passed the buck to the junior Minister. After yesterday's historic 97 per cent. rejection of their water policy, the Government have to face the fact that they have decisively and humiliatingly lost the argument and that if they continue to lose arguments and to treat the people of Scotland and their views with contempt and arrogance, on 5 May they will get the punishment that they richly deserve. Surely even this Minister can now see that the message from the people of Scotland to the Government is loud and clear: scrap the plans for water and keep it under local democratic control.

§ Mr. Stewart
This is the first question I have answered during Question Time today—I thought for a moment that I might not be answering any. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has answered a considerable number of questions. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knows perfectly well that I have never accepted the legitimacy of the so-called referendum in Strathclyde—not beforehand, not during and not afterwards. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue his case in the Standing Committee on those occasions when he attends its sittings.