§ 4. Mr. GorrieWhat representations he has received about the resources required by councils to provide their statutory services. [12041]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm)My right hon. Friend and I have met a number of councils to discuss their financial positions. We have also received letters on the subject from hon. Members, local councillors and members of the public.
§ Mr. GorrieDoes the Minister agree that the Government's insistence on keeping to Conservative spending plans will cause severe cuts in essential services in almost all councils, as they follow year after year of cuts, and that it will be even worse if the Government require some councils to help to bail out others, such as Glasgow, which have a funding deficit?
§ Mr. ChisholmNeither the media nor the hon. Gentleman have understood the issue perfectly. Our proposals have nothing whatever to do with helping Glasgow, with the effectiveness of service delivery in any one authority, or with taking existing resources away from any authority.
The problem is that many changes in distribution are in the pipeline because of the mismatch and the changes to the formula for distributing social work grant. We are determined to act for two reasons. First, distribution is an imperfect science and it is therefore right in principle that changes should be phased in. Secondly, and more important, distributional changes primarily affect not service levels, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but council 101 tax levels. We are determined to protect council tax payers from massive increases flowing purely from distributional changes.
§ Mr. Russell BrownWill my hon. Friend give the House an update on the current discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the recent study of social work allocations? Will he recognise the need for stability for local authorities? Will he bear that principle in mind when looking to future years?
§ Mr. ChisholmThe social work changes to which my hon. Friend refers are an important component of the distributional changes. It is right to recognise that there has been controversy about that, but the consensus view is that the changes should be introduced, but further reviewed. We will continue to review and monitor the social work changes and we will continue to review distributional formulas across the board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who loses?"] There will be some losers and some gainers in terms of distribution. That will affect not service levels, but council tax levels—and it is council tax payers whom we are determined to protect.
§ Mr. AncramDoes the Minister agree that concern about resourcing local councils is balanced by concern about the way in which some of them, including Renfrew and Glasgow, use those resources to conduct their affairs? Does he agree that allegations of sleaze against those councils are rightly matters of public concern? In that context, could he explain why the Secretary of State has not responded to my calls to set up public and independent investigations into the allegations? Does he not realise that in these days of Labour spin doctoring, internal party investigations will carry no credibility? Will he set up a public investigation, or is he frightened of what that public investigation might reveal?
§ Mr. ChisholmThere are no grounds for setting up a public investigation because there has been no breach of statutory duty. The Labour party, however, is taking firm and decisive action as a party on all these matters. Moreover, the Government have responded positively to the Nolan committee report on aspects of local government conduct. Following consultation, we will introduce and announce measures that flow from that. In terms of delivery of service, the best-value regime instituted by the Government will result in the continuing better use of resources in local government.