HC Deb 17 January 1994 vol 235 cc533-632

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker

I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), but no doubt its content will arise during the debate.

3.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today's debate marks a major staging post in the long journey towards the reform of local government in Scotland. It is right that the journey should be a long one, for the reform of Scottish local government is a major undertaking, which will have far-reaching implications for the people of Scotland. That is why the Government have, over the past three years, carried out the most thorough preparation, research and consultation before laying the Bill before the House.

There have been two major consultation papers on the structure now proposed, followed by a White Paper. There have been further consultation papers, on internal management, tourism, water and sewerage, the children's reporter service, and costs, and the issues have been extensively debated on the Floor of the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee. Now we have the opportunity for further thorough debate as we take our reform proposals through Parliament and make them a reality. All that is as it should be.

Local government plays a unique and vital part in the political, democratic and administrative life of Scotland. As a provider—or, increasingly, as an organiser—of services, local government touches the lives of all of us, having responsibility for many key services, including education, social work, housing and many more on which the quality of people's lives depends.

In democratic terms, local government provides a local focus for people's wishes, needs and aspirations. It is also Scotland's largest employer, employing more than a quarter of a million people and it is responsible for current expenditure approaching £6.5 billion per annum, and capital expenditure of about £1.5 billion. That works out at about £1,800 of total expenditure for every man, woman and child in the country.

It is essential that an institution of this size, importance and cost should be structured in such a way as to allow it to carry out its functions with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness, and in such a way as to provide Scotland with a source of robust and relevant local democracy. That is why we are debating this Bill today.

Over the years, the role of local government has inevitably changed as the world around it has moved on. Periodically, it has also been necessary to restructure local government to ensure that it has remained in a position effectively to fulfil its role. Experience clearly shows, however, that the timing of any restructuring is vital. Synchronising the change with the changing external environment is essential if local government is not to fall behind the times and become seriously damaged as a result.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Has the Secretary of State considered whether the gerrymandering proposed in the Bill is worse than the accusations of gerrymandering in Westminster? Lady Porter is accused of gerrymandering only a single council, whereas the Secretary of State is proposing to gerrymander an entire country.

Can the Secretary of State honestly tell the House that he would have been happy if the leaders of any of the other political parties in Scotland had had the right or the desire to draw their own boundary lines on a local government map of Scotland? Would he have been happy with that process?

Mr. Lang

I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge, and I look forward to debating such matters further with him in Committee.

In 1975, the change came too late. The old local government system had reached a parlous state, and the result was that momentum was lost in key services for a number of years on either side of the reform process. There was a widespread recognition of the need for major surgery. It was not for nothing that the very first words of Lord Wheatley's report were: something is seriously wrong with local government in Scotland".

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang

I would like to make a little progress first; then I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The evidence is now plainly there that, despite the Wheatley reform, something is still seriously wrong with local government in Scotland. From the time when the two-tier system was first conceived, its long-term validity was called into question. Reporting in 1969, the Wheatley commission, while ultimately recommending a two-tier system, acknowledged that an all-purpose system has obvious advantages. It is simple to understand and to operate … The problems … of ensuring that functions which go together can be properly co-ordinated with one another simply do not arise, because all services are under one authority". Those are prophetic words. Reporting in January 1981, the Stodart committee of inquiry into local government in Scotland—on which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) served—considered existing arrangements less than six years after the introduction of the two-tier system, and found a great deal of dissatisfaction with it, particularly among local authorities.

The extent of dissatisfaction among local authorities led Stodart to state in his report: We must take note of this early stage in our Report of the substantial body of opinion—not least among some local authorities—which maintains the belief that only the creation of all or at least most purpose authorities throughout the country will produce a wholly satisfactory system of local government.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Is not the Secretary of State aware of the concern that some of the smaller local authorities that he proposes to set up will not be able to provide the full range of services in, for example, education and social work? A profusion of quangos and local boards will inevitably result from his proposal, which will be expensive and will not provide services efficiently. That is a heavy price to pay simply for the sake of creating a few Tory-controlled councils.

Mr. Lang

It is right that, if a small local authority may not be able to provide all services at its own hand, it should have access to a neighbouring authority that can assist it. The structure that we are contemplating should enable us to do that.

In his report, Lord Wheatley said, on precisely the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman: Such a large area"— referring to Strathclyde— would offer no educational advantages; it would be administratively unwieldy; and it would raise the question whether, with one education authority covering almost half the population of Scotland, it was really worth while to have local education authorities at all. Clearly, therefore, there was anxiety when the present regional structure was set up that education would be handled at too high a level and by authorities that were too large.

Mr. Home Robertson

The Secretary of State is talking about small authorities. Has he grasped the fact that the smallest authority that he is proposing, to be named East Lothian and Berwickshire, is not wanted by either the people of East Lothian or those of Berwickshire? Can we hope to hear of any concession on that, in view of the overwhelming feeling of the people of East Lothian and Berwickshire that they do not want that type of authority?

Mr. Lang

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill contains a map that is largely unchanged from that in the White Paper, although there is a change affecting Prestonpans, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I look forward to debating those borders in Committee.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

rose—

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

rose—

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

rose—

Mr. Lang

I must make a little progress; then I shall happily give way again.

The issues referred to by both Lord Wheatley and later by Stodart have not gone away over the years, and that is little wonder, for the problems endemic within the present structure are profound. The division of responsibilities within the tiers of the current structure is arbitrary, in some cases it is bizarre, and in many sectors it is far from clear. Not only is the consumer of local services confused; the services that he or she consumes are not delivered as efficiently or as effectively as they should be.

Beneath its inflated rhetoric, the Labour party has often highlighted the shortcomings of the present two-tier system and the potential for a single-tier structure to remedy them. In its policy document, published in 1990, the Scottish Labour party said: The continuing widespread confusion about what tier carries out what functions undermines accountability. All-purpose councils facilitate the move to an integrated approach to service provision and also decentralisation through a local one-door approach … I absolutely agree with those sentiments.

Mr. Foulkes

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I wonder whether he can help me. Representatives of Cunninghame district council, including the chief executive Mr. Bernard Devine, have been quoted locally as saying that the Secretary of State has ruled out an all-Ayrshire option. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is shaking his head.

Yet the Minister of State told a deputation that I took to see him from Cumnock and Doon Valley and Kyle and Carrick that the Government would consider all possible options—including the all-Ayrshire option—in Committee and has also said so publicly since. Will the Secretary of State put it on record that all options, including the all-Ayrshire option, can be considered by the Government and by hon. Members in Committee and on Report?

Mr. Lang

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that all options for boundary changes can be considered in Committee—that is what that stage is about. I recall that the original recommendations of the Wheatley commission were for fewer than 50 local authorities, but we ended up with 65, and quite a different map from the one it suggested.

I am talking about the advantages of a single tier. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman emphasised his view in the House as recently as the debate on the Loyal Address, and that he is among those on both sides of the House who see merit in a single-tier structure.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

The Secretary of State's references to Lord Wheatley are particularly apposite. If he is so confident of the virtues of the scheme he is proposing, why has he not established an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, to judge the merits of his proposals?

Similarly, if the right hon. Gentleman is pleased with the nature of consultation that has been afforded, why have the Government rejected the responses in East Lothian and north-east Fife, for example, where people have rejected the very proposals that he is seeking to persuade the House about because they do not regard them as an appropriate way to deal with the problems that he has identified?

Mr. Lang

As I have already explained, the Wheatley commission did not lead to the detail that ended up in the reform carried out in the early 1970s, which departed substantially from what that commission had recommended. Nor do I see any evidence of widespread support and enthusiasm for some of the commission's recommendations south of the border. In 1975, we upgraded the structure of our local authority system to an extent that reduced 426 authorities to 65, and we created a much more coherent structure than that which existed south of the border, so the work is largely done.

As far as the proposals for Fife, the Borders or any other part of Scotland are concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Lang

No, I must make a little more progress; then I shall no doubt end up by giving way again.

The commitment to a single tier of local government is generally agreed by all parties, and was included in their election manifestos. What is surprising is how quickly the Opposition parties have reneged on their election promises. However, the present system is flawed and is acknowledged to be so—even by Opposition Members—and those flaws are wide-ranging.

The system that we have today is unduly and unnecessarily expensive. On the mainland of Scotland, we have a superstructure of 53 districts and nine regions. Over the years, with many changes to the pattern of service delivery, the role of many districts has become inadequate and the scale of the unnecessary expense incurred in maintaining two tiers of local government has become more apparent.

For example, since 1979, as many as a quarter of Scotland's council houses have been sold to their tenants, yet the number of staff employed by local authorities to provide housing services has actually increased in the same period by as much as two thirds, instead of reducing proportionately, We can no longer afford to burden Scotland with a system that produces such nonsense as that. Nor can we allow Scotland to continue to be burdened with a system of local government that is ineffective, unaccountable and shrouded in apathy.

With two councils for each area of Scotland, there is a weak democratic link between the councils and their communities. One of the malign effects of the two-tier structure has been to blur the identity of authorities in the eyes of the public. It has made councils less accountable and voters more apathetic—the turnout at local elections has been pathetic.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

If the Secretary of State were setting up a single-tier system within Scotland, there would be a great deal of agreement among hon. Members on all sides of the House. The Secretary of State is being extremely disingenuous, however, because he is withdrawing major services from local councils and local accountability and giving them to placemen.

Is it not simply dishonest for the Secretary of State to pretend that he is setting up a single-tier authority when he is taking water and sewerage away from local authorities, when he is taking the police away, when the reporters department is being taken away and when the further education system has been taken away already? That is not a single-tier system; it is a multi-layer mess.

Mr. Lang

I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the position that is a multi-layer mess, as he will discover if he comes on the Committee and takes part in the debates about what we propose.

Against the background that I have described, it would be wrong to delay a restructuring exercise when all the evidence from all sides points to the need for one. Lord Wheatley's commission—I will quote from it again—recognised the need when he said: evidence from all sides convinces us that the structure of local government cannot afford to remain static". In 1975, reform had been put off for far too long. To allow that to happen again—by failing to take account of change and to anticipate change in the future—would be a serious dereliction of duty by Government. It would also render a major disservice to local government and those people who use its services. The Bill tackles the flaws that so obviously exist and puts local government on a more effective footing from which to carry out its various functions.

Mr. Maclennan

Does the Minister recognise that one thing which has not changed since the last reform of local government is the size and extent of the Highland region, and the fact that local government cannot by any test be regarded as local if it covers half the land mass of Scotland? Does he recognise that it is regarded by business men, at least in the Caithness and Sutherland chamber of commerce and others, as being inimical to their economic interests to seek to govern at local level the half of Scotland that is based and centred upon Inverness?

Mr. Lang

the hon. Gentleman has a point of view which he expresses clearly, but some of his hon. Friends do not hold the same view. Under the decentralisation that we propose, all those services—the vast majority of local services in the Highlands came before from the Highland Region—will now come again from a Highland council, but they will be decentralised in a way which will lead to a much closer link administratively between the council and its local areas. The existing Highland regional council is already doing a great deal of work in preparation for that.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

rose—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

rose—

Mr. Lang

No; I must make further progress. I will give way later.

I do not propose today to use up the House's time in describing at length all the provisions of the Bill. With 169 clauses, it obviously includes a great deal of detail, which we will, I hope, debate thoroughly in Committee. I would, however, like to spend a few moments on the principles which underpin our proposals for local government and for water.

Taking local government first, I have already touched on the support which many commentators have given to single-tier local government over the years. However, I think that it is important to reiterate exactly the three key objectives of the single-tier structure proposed in the Bill.

First, we want local councils to be strong, and, in local government, strength comes from being accountable. The ability of the public to call their local authority to account—through the ballot box or otherwise—will be improved beyond recognition where all local government responsibilities rest with a single council in an area. More accountable local government means more powerful local government.

Secondly, we want the delivery of local services to be improved. The fact that one organisation will have responsibility for the full range of services will be a major step forward on service delivery. The benefits of having social work and housing brought under one roof are well known and much anticipated, but many other areas of policy, such as leisure and recreation and education, environmental health and trading standards, will benefit from a single-tier structure.

Thirdly, we want a less bureaucratic, more flexible and efficient structure of local government. The rationalisation of local government outlined in the Bill will soon start to yield savings—savings which cannot be ignored. That has been confirmed by every submission that we have received from a local authority on the matter, and Professor Percy, chairman of the independent organisation the Local Authority Accounts Commission, stated: In our view, the unitary authority structure favoured by the Government's White Paper on Local Government Reform provides a better way of delivering that service. We believe reform will be effective in the long term, and in the short term, once the legislation is through, all of us must get down to making it work.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of having a single lead authority in charge of the various functions that will be given to local authorities. He knows that he has just embarked on an ambitious care in the community policy. He has placed the social work departments of regional councils, such as the social work department of Tayside regional council, as the lead authorities in charge of that policy.

The proposed reform will create three different social work departments in the Tayside region. Which of those will be the lead authority in implementing care in the community? Instead of making the system clearer and more accountable, the Secretary of State is taking steps that will make it far less accountable. It will be far less clear who is in charge, who will implement the policy and who will be responsible if it does not work.

Mr. Lang

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to a very important policy which we have devolved from central Government to local authorities—care in the community. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the position on social work, and in his conclusion. The benefit of having social work handled in one unitary authority is that it will be possible to interrelate action on the social work side with action on the housing side. One of the strongest criticisms of the bizarre relationship between the top tier and the bottom tier of the present system concerns the lack of co-ordination between housing policy and social work policy.

Mr. Kennedy

Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), will the Secretary of State clarify how any of the principles that he has just enunciated can be realised in the context of the highlands? The principles will be rendered null and void as a result of the size of the area.

Will he confirm that Touche Ross based its estimates on average council sizes of 60? That would be a reduction of two thirds in the number of councillors that the Highland region has at present. If the figure is increased to anything resembling the reckonings in the White Paper, there would be more than 130 councillors, which would be more than Strathclyde has at the moment. The Prime Minister described that regional council as a monstrosity. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is a complete illogicality.

Mr. Lang

The Highland region will still have only a little more than 200,000 people in it. Of course it is a geographically large area, but everyone recognises that Sutherland, for example, with a population of 15,000 or 16,000, could not constitute a single authority in itself, although it might do geographically. I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends disagree on the detail of what the Highland region should look like. Our proposal will give the most efficient, the most accountable and the strongest local government that we can create for that very important part of Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood

It is obvious from the interventions that the Secretary of State has already accepted that the most burning issue in the minds of most hon. Members is the boundary map at the end of the process—[Interruption.] What does the rest of his speech contain? I hope that he will take time to set out exactly how the Committee stage and the subsequent stages in the House of Lords will arrive at the final boundaries.

Is the Secretary of State aware, for example, that there is now a unitary alternative for south-east Scotland, the Lothians and the Borders? It has been proposed that West Lothian should be a free-standing unitary authority, and that Midlothian and East Lothian should be put together. That would leave Berwickshire in the Borders region, where it belongs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House on Second Reading exactly how he anticipates that these questions, which are vital for hon. Members, will be resolved during the passage of the Bill?

Mr. Lang

The hon. Gentleman has served on many Committees, and he knows the form. The boundaries are dealt with at an early stage of the Bill. I expect that a Back Bencher, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, will table amendments affecting precisely the areas on which he has just touched. That will enable the Committee to debate the matter and to reach a conclusion. Thereafter, there will be a chance to return to these matters on Report. The Bill then goes to the House of Lords and back to the Commons if necessary.

We have every opportunity. I look forward to debating these issues, because I acknowledge that the borders and boundaries are important. Scottish National party Members showed clearly during the hon. Gentleman's intervention that not everyone shares his view that those issues are the most important.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

If the Secretary of State believes that his Government are proposing the new, democratic way forward for councils in Scotland, why does he not acknowledge that the proposals for East Renfrewshire council have been utterly rejected by the people? In a democratic vote, 82 per cent. of the people in Ralfston rejected them, 91 per cent. voted against them in Dykebarr and 78 per cent. rejected them in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor. Those figures are in an official document from Renfrewshire district council. If the Secretary of State is determined to have genuine democracy, should he not listen to the people?

Mr. Lang

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate that matter further as the Bill progresses.

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)

I look forward to that.

Mr. Lang

Yes, I look forward to it, too.

I recognise that there are concerns about change to a single-tier structure that are signalled in the Bill. I fully acknowledge that there will be a measure of disruption during the transitional period. That is not in itself a reason for not proceeding with the reform. Just because something involves change, it is not an excuse for shying away from it.

It is the Government's view, backed by many in local government, that the transition is a perfectly manageable process, and that, with early and committed action by local government, the disruption can be minimised. I have no doubt that, given the professionalism of many local government staff, the hurdles which will undoubtedly emerge can be successfully negotiated without undue disturbance to the delivery of services.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Who did the Secretary of State have in mind when he referred to the many in local government who back his proposals?

Mr. Lang

I am referring to many people in local government at official level and at elected level, to all the submissions that we have received from local government, to all the delegations that have been led by Members of both sides of the House who have been to see myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning. The hon. Gentleman will discover, as the Bill progresses, that there is widespread support for single tier—an issue on which his party fought the election on a manifesto that contained such a commitment.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

May I urge my right hon. Friend not to name as requested by Opposition Members all the people who have communicated support for his excellent proposals? Please do not name those people, because many of us want to speak during the debate.

Mr. Lang

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that quite a lot of the names are already available in the House of Commons Library. We have published our reports on the submissions that we have had in the response to the first consultation paper.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang

I really must make some progress. This is an important debate, and I have a lot to say to the House.

A number of provisions have been included in the Bill specifically to aid the transition process. They include clauses that provide for the appointment of a staff commission—clause 12—which allow the establishment of one or one or more residuary bodies—clause 18—and of a property commission—clause 19. The clauses relating to staff and property transfers have all been drafted to allow local government the maximum flexibility in determining the most appropriate arrangements.

Dwelling for a moment on those provisions, we are fully aware that local government staff represent authorities' most valuable resource, and the Government are concerned to mininise the disruption that staff may face. The great majority of staff, of course, will simply transfer to the new authorities on their existing terms and conditions. We shall be considering carefully over the months, hopefully in discussion with local government and staff interests—if they are prepared to talk to us about the interests of their staff—the arrangements which will apply to those staff for whom there will not be an automatic right of transfer. The staff commission will also have a role to play once its members are appointed, and we will listen carefully to what they have to say.

Still on the question of facilitating the transition, clauses 55 and 56 provide respectively for the provision of information from the old authorities to the new authorities and for the establishment by existing authorities of joint working committees to prepare for the effective operation of the new authorities.

It is therefore ironic that, while the Government have taken considerable steps to assist local government in managing the transitional period, and will continue to do so, the very organisation which was established to assist and represent local government—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has chosen to adopt the posture of the ostrich, bury its head in the sand and be as obstructive as possible. Its attitude is short-sighted, short-term and ultimately damaging, not only to local government, but to staff and those who most depend on its services.

I should like to take the opportunity of today's debate to call on COSLA to decide at its meeting on Friday to call off the policy of non co-operation, in the interests of good local government and the people of Scotland. I know that it is difficult for it to admit how seriously it has miscalculated, and that it must regret its short-sighted posturing and the way in which it has split its members and paralysed its own organisation.

Its policy has failed, but it is time to look forward, not back. I for one shall not seek to make any political capital from—[Interruption.]—no political capital at all from COSLA's climbdown, whenever it comes. I hope that Opposition Members will urge it, as I shall, to get it over and done with, and to do it now.

Inevitably, some concerns have been expressed, and I do not dismiss them, but, again, the Government's task is to distinguish them from the often ill-thought-out and generalised protectionism that argues only that the present system is perfect and that any change must by definition be detrimental. I find such arguments deeply unconvincing. They are not arguments to which the forward thinkers in local government subscribe. They frequently seem bound up with the self-preservation of those who articulate them and find little support among other authorities that are thinking seriously about how to deliver efficient and effective services after reorganisation.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

The Minister began by saying that he believed in a local focus and local democracy. Why, therefore, is he creating three giant water boards that are neither local nor democratic? As a Cabinet Minister, he voted in favour of a £7 billion green dowry to English water authorities. Will a similar green dowry be given to Scottish water boards, or does he believe only in putting public money in private pockets?

Mr. Lang

The hon. Gentleman will remember that some adjustment was made to the finances of the Scottish Office when the changes were made in England. I shall deal with the water industry shortly.

I was mentioning authorities that are looking imaginatively at alternative means of service delivery and are investigating the possibility of co-operation among authorities and between authorities and the private sector. The Bill contains much to encourage authorities to adopt new approaches to service delivery in a range of areas.

Of particular importance is clause 57, which clarifies the legislation in relation to the ability of local authorities to trade with and provide services on behalf of each other. As the Scottish Labour party has said: All-purpose authorities assist the development of local government as an enabling co-ordinator at the centre of a network of providing agencies … Local authorities should be able to develop their enabling role, frequently acting as the commissioning agency rather than the direct provider of services". Again, I wholeheartedly welcome its conversion to our way of thinking.

Part II provides for the setting up of the three new public water and sewerage authorities and the customer protection body heralded in the White Paper. The first 10 clauses of part II and schedules 7, 8 and 9 establish these new bodies and set out their duties, powers and constitutions.

The new structure that will be put in place for the delivery of those vital services will achieve two crucial objectives. It will make maximum use of existing resources through economies of scale, and it will deliver necessary new resources on the best terms possible.

The backdrop to restructuring was described in detail in the consultation paper. The requirements to maintain and renew existing infrastructure and to build new plant to cope with quality obligations are well known and widely accepted and they carry a projected price tag of some £5 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. The challenge outlined in the consultation paper was how to sustain this scale of capital programme without an intolerable cost falling on Scottish customers.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

The Secretary of State spoke earlier of the importance of accountability through the ballot box. At present, members of water authorities in Scotland are directly accountable through the ballot box. How many of them will be under the proposals in this rotten legislation?

Mr. Lang

Water authorities will be accountable to me as Secretary of State and, through me, to Parliament. If we were not to make this change and there were to be 28 water authorities, with widely diverging costs for water and sewerage, people would take a pretty poor view of their local authority's handling of their interests if they had to pay almost twice as much for their water.

I believe that the proposals in the Bill meet the challenge that we have set. They acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in the consultation that services should remain in public hands and, at the same time, promote partnership with the private sector for the ultimate benefit of the customer.

Under the Government's private finance initiative, I look to those new public authorities actively to form partnerships with the private sector to provide the new treatment works and other investment that is required. This will happen without the public purse taking the strain. The authorities themselves, however, will remain public authorities directly answerable to the Secretary of State, and through me to the House.

I call attention in particular to the provisions establishing the customers council. This will be a powerful voice on behalf of the consumer and will exercise a particular role in the setting of charges as well as monitoring service standards. The council will ensure that full expression is given to the principles of the citizens charter in the operation of the restructured services. These proposals are designed to deliver the most efficient and most cost-effective water and sewerage services possible.

Restructuring was inevitable as a consequence of local government reform, and it has afforded us the opportunity to align water and sewerage services to the demands of the future. The status quo was never a realistic option. Twelve authorities currently deliver services, but multiplying this number to 28 makes no economic sense. We have produced sensible measures in response to circumstances, and we shall vigorously defend them in Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

The Secretary of State said that the new boards will be accountable through him to the House. Will he assure the House that, when hon. Members table questions to him, he will answer those specific questions in this House and not duck out and pass them back to bodies that are not directly accountable? Will he answer direct questions put to him directly in this House?

Mr. Lang

We shall answer questions in the same way that we answer them in relation to other comparable bodies. We shall remain accountable in respect of the water authorities as we do with the other bodies.

The Bill represents a comprehensive and concerted attempt to address the need for local government reform. However, the Opposition are so busy facing Janus-like in both directions that they seem unwilling to face up to any of the real issues. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will today clarify where they stand.

In the general election, the Opposition supported reform and talked of "powerful, new single-tier authorities." Yet in last November's debate on the Gracious Speech, they claimed that reform was "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." Which do they really believe?

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might answer that question.

Dr. Godman

I will answer that question if the Secretary of State answers a question that I put to him honestly and directly. Because of the Bill's complexity and its implications for every citizen in Scotland, should not the Secretary of State refer it to a Special Standing Committee by way of Standing Order No. 91?

By that means, now that the Bill has been published, at least those people who are deeply concerned about the Bill and its implications would have the opportunity to express their concerns, which have been expressed to me over and over again in Inverclyde. Will the Secretary of State refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow interested parties to be cross-examined by hon. Members?

Mr. Lang

No, we will not, because we have already had nearly three years of consultation on the reform of local government in Scotland. We have had more consultation papers, more submissions, more meetings with local authorities and delegations and others, and more debate in this House on these measures than on any that I can remember in my entire time in Parliament. The people of Scotland now want us to reach a decision.

From representations that we have received from many Opposition Members, I know their views and how keen many of them are to move on to implement single-tier authorities. However, I want to know more about the Labour party's position.

Mr. Maxton

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang

No, I will not give way at the moment.

On the one hand, the Opposition call for "powerful, new single-tier authorities", while on the other they claim that they are "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." They claim that our reforms would strip powers from local authorities. However, the only substantial service that we are transferring, to other public authorities, is that of water and sewerage.

As I have pointed out, we recently transferred the very important community care service to local authorities. Yet Labour seems to be prepared to contemplate reforming local authorities only if it also sets up a Scottish Parliament —and where would such a Parliament draw its powers but from local government? In the shadow of a Scottish Parliament, local government would be a very sadly diminished institution, whether of one tier or two.

Then there are the costs of reform. We have made our position clear. There will be initial costs which we calculate at less than £50 million net over the first three years and for which we are providing additional resources. Thereafter, net savings will grow and will continue year after year, reaching as much as £1 billion within 15 years. As the main costs are for redundancies, the higher the initial costs turn out to be the higher must be the subsequent savings.

Of course, as it is decisions by the new authorities that will decide the precise figures, we cannot be exact about them at this stage. However, nor can anyone else. But it is interesting how different perspectives lead to different interpretations of the figures.

Where authorities—especially Labour-controlled authorities—are making a case for their own retention under the new structure, our figures are suddenly presented as pessimistic—over-estimating costs and under-estimating savings. Only once the element of self-interest is removed, where the motivation is to discredit the reform process, are our figures portrayed as optimistic. All that leads me to believe that our figures are about right.

The hon. Member for Hamilton and his number-crunching friend the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) are all over the place on costs. On 8 November, the Scottish Labour party published a briefing paper which said that local government reorganisation would cost £200 million. Three weeks later, in The Herald, the hon. Member for Hamilnton said that local government reform would cost at least £500 million. That is a rate of inflation which even the previous Labour Government did not surpass. It would also make nonsense of anything that the Labour party had to say about the costs of local government reform.

There is a curiosity at the heart of the costs debate. In the Labour party manifesto, which provided for the establishment of single-tier councils, there were no reservations about the costs of reform. Nor have we at any stage subsequently heard any mention of the cost factor in the Opposition's proposals, whether those proposals are just to restructure local government or to set up a Scottish Parliament as well. Yet, oddly, the Government's proposals are, once again to quote the hon. Member for Hamilnton, "extremely costly".

I would be very interested to know what it is that is likely to differentiate the costs of the Government's proposals from those of the Labour party. The only significant difference that I can think of is that, under our proposals, the taxpayer will not be obliged to bear the costs of the establishment and maintenance of a Scottish Parliament. In all other respects, I would welcome an explanation from the hon. Member for Hamilnton how a policy which, in his hands, is a manifesto commitment, suddenly, when implemented by the Government, becomes "extremely expensive".

There are, therefore, inherent and fundamental weaknesses in the Opposition's case, which they must address if they are to present a credible case to the people of Scotland. On the one hand, they argue that reform is too costly, while on the other they are themselves committed to a concept of single-tier local government and, in addition, a Scottish Parliament.

They cannot argue that the status quo is an option, if they hold to their earlier manifesto pledge to create "powerful, single-tier authorities". They cannot hold to their manifesto pledge if they claim, as they do, that the reform is "completely unwanted" and "totally unnecessary". I expect that we shall listen in vain today for some straight talking on that matter from the hon. Member for Hamilton.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

I refer the Secretary of State to the most important phrase that he has used so far. On costs, he said that the matter becomes clear only when "the element of self-interest" is removed. Does he not understand that, on such an important issue for the people of Scotland—the tier of government which is nearest to them, which is probably more sympathetic and which is less bureaucratic than any other—it is precisely the self-interest of the Tory party in conducting the investigation and consultation that is at issue?

Does he not understand that, when a party refuses not only an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, but even a semblance of independence under a Standing Committee, the people of Scotland have every reason to doubt the objectivity of the exercise that has been carried out? Would it not be better to follow the strictures that the Secretary of State imposed on others, and remove his own self-interest, that of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and that of his party? He might then have a shred of legitimacy in his proposals.

Mr. Lang

Since the Opposition fought the last election promising single-tier local government and they now regard it as expensive, unwarranted and totally unnecessary, it is the objectivity of the Labour party that is called into question.

Against the unprincipled and ill-thought-out position of the Labour party, one thing stands out: the Government have acknowledged the problem with the present local government structure. We have defined the problem and we have had the courage to tackle it. The proposals represent a comprehensive and cohesive attempt to get to the root of the structural problems which are currently inhibiting local government.

I fully expect the Bill to be thoroughly debated, and rightly so. I can assure Opposition Members that we will listen carefully to all the arguments that are presented as it passes through all its stages, but I will do so alert to the weaknesses of the Opposition's case and their failure to present a credible alternative.

We want to get back to basics in local government. While opposition parties offer only double-talk on single-tier, we want to get on with this much-needed reform. We want local authorities that are local. We want local authorities that have authority. We want local councillors who are at last able to perform the complete function of local councillors. We want local authorities and councillors who can ensure the coherent and efficient provision of all local services in their area. In that way, we shall help to restore a true sense of local community and local identity and give a new impetus to the growth of strong local democracy.

The Bill will achieve those objectives, and I commend it to the House.

4.29 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

Over the weekend, I began to wonder exactly how much trouble the Prime Minister was in with his "back to basics" policy. We heard the Secretary of State for Scotland repeat the phrase "back to basics" this afternoon. Yesterday, when I read the Sunday newspaper that said that only the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Health supported the Prime Minister in his "back to basics" campaign, I realised exactly how deep a hole the Prime Minister is in.

This is a bad Bill. It is bad for Scotland, bad for democracy and bad for local government. It is even bad for the Government, who are apparently in their death throes. The Bill does nothing for the people of Scotland. It will do much harm to them and to their lives. Once it has done that, the people will pay for it with poorer services and the disruption and confusion of local government. They will then pay again through their pockets. The Bill will be an expensive fiasco.

This reorganisation will be paid for by higher taxes. At the last election, the Government said that they would lower taxes. Higher taxes than we expected will be imposed by those who promised lower taxes but who instead give us higher taxes with every month that passes.

This is a wholly unwanted and unnecessary reorganisation, and it will be costly.

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson

As the hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to climb the ladder of progress in a party that is declining, I will give way.

Mr. Kynoch

If this reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, can the hon. Gentleman explain why, on "Scottish Lobby" on 11 December 1993 he said: The current structure could benefit from a review—a major review"? What is it that he now thinks is unnecessary in the way of a review?

Mr. Robertson

The hon. Gentleman—I hope that this will help his career—precisely makes the point. We want a review. A review is necessary. If a review concludes that changes are needed in local government in Scotland, that is something that the House should properly consider, not this gerrymandering mess dreamed up by a few individuals in the Scottish Office. No independent review has been undertaken. No royal commission has been ordered which would allow the people of Scotland to give their views and to have them considered.

This reorganisation will be a distraction. It will drive a wedge between the people and those who govern them. It will reduce accountability and increase the rule by that spreading unelected, unresponsive Tory phenomenon—the crony-stuffed quango. It will dramatically centralise power in St. Andrew's house and increase the dead weight of bureaucracy. It is an attack on democracy. Ministers who started by proclaiming it now ignore it. They started by boasting about it, but they will scarcely defend it in public now.

It is just like the poll tax. Not long ago, the Secretary of State defended and proclaimed the poll tax, which came out of the same stable of crazy ideas. A so-called reform of local government was supposed to be the efficient, cost-effective answer to that continuing rebuff to Conservative pride in Scotland, the elected Labour council, but it is now the neglected child of the Government's legislative programme; it has been locked away in a dark room and is now a source of acute embarrassment. Rightfully and justly, the Government are ashamed of this legislation.

The Government cannot walk away from the consequence of their continual self-serving meddling with the institutions of democracy in Scotland. Twist them as they will—bend, break and remould them as they will try to do—at the end of it all is the ballot box, and the Government cannot and will not escape the message which will come from that.

On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject, just as when they get the chance they will reject this rotten, sleazy and shambolic Administration as well.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South)

On 7 September last year, The Herald carried a report in the name of Jack McConnell, the general secretary of the Labour party in Scotland. The report said that the Labour party would be launching a national petition against the proposals the following week, which would take us up to 14 September. When was that petition handed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?

Mr. George Robertson

I have no doubt that the petition on local government will be presented to the Secretary of State. I was collecting signatures for it on Saturday afternoon. The petition will be large and its message substantial. The Secretary of State knows that. He has already received petitions, letters and a chorus of disapproval for what he is doing to local government in Scotland.

This is some week to be considering the Bill, as it is only four days since the word gerrymandering hit the headlines across the nation. "Unlawful, disgraceful, improper" said one headline in the Evening Standard. Those were the words used by the Westminster district auditor about a policy to sell Westminster council houses to buyers who were likely to vote Tory. What was illegal, improper and disgraceful was the spending of thousands, indeed millions, of pounds to get officers to prepare plans for what, in the words of the district auditor, was the promotion of electoral advantage". That is what the Westminster council Tories stand accused of and, if found guilty, that is what they will be surcharged £21 million for.

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

Westminster is in England.

Mr. Robertson

The Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland has suddenly discovered some brand new knowledge of geography which seemed to be absent when it came to dealing with the map of Scottish local government.

Of course, there is another ex-member of Westminster council in the Government—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the man who invented the poll tax and who has now departed to an English Department, as well he might.

The district auditor for Westminster, John Magill, works for Touche Ross—an organisation that the Secretary of State might recognise. The district auditor condemned the council when he found that the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy". If Dame Shirty Porter ever comes back to these shores and needs some comfort before she shells out her large share of that £21 million surcharge—the amount that she and her pals squandered as they pochled votes in the Westminster city council area—let her read the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and eat her heart out. Here it is: all that she did and more, enshrined in legislation before the House of Commons.

The District Auditor said: the council was engaged in gerrymandering which I am minded to find is a disgraceful and improper purpose. Those words should be repeated, because the Secretary of State for Scotland should be not allowed to forget their full and lasting importance. Today he rejected the accusation that the Bill involved gerrymandering. He said in the House on 14 July: That is not gerrymandering—it is a healthy strengthening of local democracy in all its diversity."—[Official Report, 14 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1000.] Lady Porter herself could not have put it better.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), should not take my word for it with regard to accusations of gerrymandering. Let them listen to the words that I quoted in the debate in November. They are the words of Councillor Brian Meek, expert columnist and authoritative sports journalist but one of Scotland's top Tories. He is a friend of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Defence Secretary. He is part of Scotland's Tory establishment. His words and his views must be of some consequence in Scotland.

Councillor Meek is not a Westminster city councillor. I do not think that he ever was, although his words of praise for Westminster city council in today's Herald may yet come back to haunt him. Two days before the Secretary of State for Scotland denounced the concept or the very thought that he might be gerrymandering, District Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council told Herald readers: So let us get on to the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't they give an advantage to themselves—the best chance? There it is. Frank, brutal, to the point, no messing. Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council got it right. Perhaps he keeps on getting it right. Why shouldn't they? The answer to that involves the words "unlawful", "disgraceful" and "improper" in one order or another. In any Government with any shame, decency or honour left, those words would be ringing around the Cabinet room.

Does any gentle soul—for instance, the innocents among the Conservative Back Benchers about to be condemned to serving on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—still care to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I have no doubt that they will read Hansard before they serve on the Standing Committee. Or perhaps they have to commit their offence before they are sentenced on Wednesday at the Committee of Selection.

Quite a selection of people's names come immediately to mind as possibilities to serve on the Standing Committee. If they read my speech in Hansard and if they believe the Secretary of State for Scotland and not me, let them look at Ayrshire. Let them marvel at the unique cartography that carved Conservative Kyle and Carrick out of that ancient county. Let them gaze with astonishment at the proposed East Renfrewshire council, the gyrations of which go round the Renfrewshire Tory houses and middle class enclaves close to tiny Eastwood.

In schedule 1 of the Bill, the description of each council takes a mere four or five lines. The description of East Renfrewshire takes up 49 lines—49 stricken lines in which houses, farm roads, cottages, burns and even fields are all identified in statute. It does not require the skills of Governor Huey Long of Louisiana to smell a bright blue rat in that formation.

So let any of the innocent Conservative Members of Parliament trembling at Westminster council's castigation look at the sheer imagination of the proposed Clackmannan and Falkirk council. Two distinct communities divided by the River Forth and connected only by a bridge are to be carved out artificially and unwillingly from the kingdom of Fife.

Let the Secretary of State, wriggling away as he is from the charge of gerrymandering, explain the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from—[Interruption.] I can tell the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary what page it is on. It is on page 117—[Interruption.] I see that the PPS has now been briefed and is reading the page. He should probably telephone the occupants of Nos. 52 to 50 Ben Wyvis drive and check whether they intend to vote the right way so that the appropriate amendment can be moved in Committee, if necessary. No doubt the Secretary of State would look forward to debating that in Committee.

Let Conservative Members consider the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from Dumbarton or the ludicrous and perverse Balerno corridor, which links West Lothian to Midlothian and East Lothian. Let the Under-Secretary of State explain the removal of Berwickshire from the Borders. Let him say how that nonsense can be described, as the Secretary of State did, as creating areas where there is "an established identity."

Westhill into Aberdeen; Monifieth and Invergowrie out of Dundee; Stirling and its knife-edge Toryness preserved like some South African homeland—it is the most crudely and shamelessly gerrymandered map of local government that Britain has seen this century. Here in all its nakedness is the real reason for the Bill, for this unwanted butchery of Scottish local government. It is a cynical promotion of electoral advantage, to use the words of the Westminster district auditor.

The Scotsman puts it well in its new year editorial. It said that 1993's nadir came with the deliverance of a shamelessly manipulated local authority map that spoke eloquently of an administration grown too comfortable with the insolence of office. "Unlawful, improper, disgraceful": let those words haunt those who would put gerrymandering into the law of Scotland.

I have dwelt for some time on the clear partisan motivation behind the Bill because I believe that it represents an outrage and an offence to our elementary democratic standards. Yet the faults of the legislation are not confined to the partisan manipulation of the local political map of Scotland. I would make a further point. It is a serious one filled with consequences for the House. The gerrymandering ambitions of the Government are not confined to local boundaries.

The parliamentary Boundary Commission is redrawing the parliamentary boundaries. It has to ignore the proposed new local authority building blocks. However, the next redistribution will have to deal with the new map. To seek to manipulate the political geography of Scottish local government is offensive enough. But it is easy to see that the party of Dame Shirley Porter and Lady Thatcher has a much more sinister long-term objective to sort out the parliamentary boundaries of Scotland as a whole. That kind of chicanery will be seen even by the faithful in Scotland as unforgivable and unsuccessful.

As for cost, on which the Secretary of State for Scotland is so defensive, we are told that the justification for the Bill is that the reorganisation of local government will save money. A brand new set of statistics has been delivered to the House this afternoon to prove that crazy point. As we know, the Government have no clue about the cost of what they are doing. Frankly, they care even less. They do so at a point in time when in a few weeks they will ask the people of Scotland, who have extra-large heating bills, to pay VAT on those bills to sort out the financial mess in the nation's Treasury—a mess that the Government created.

The Government first produced the Touche Ross report, which showed that we would all be financially better off as a consequence of the reorganisation. It was discredited and abandoned within days. Then came new figures, which showed one-off transitional costs of between £120 million and £186 million, but alleged savings of between £22 million and £66 million annually. The Minister with responsibility for local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood, even went so far as to say: What is abundantly clear however is that the proposed reform will pay for itself within about five years and thereafter actually save money. The Secretary of State told us across the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons only five days after that article appeared that he was prepared to accept a figure of £200 million for transitional costs. As the total climbs and climbs, it is clear that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and all the rest of them do not have a clue about the cost of what they are doing.

Indeed, the Secretary of State tells us with open and unexpected candour that it is all going to be down to local authorities to make the saving that he is forecasting and which he is to tell them that they must make—as though he can now wash his hands of an exercise that is fundamental to his case, but which is profoundly embarrassing were it to be examined in depth.

The issue of who will pay is much too more important to be left to the Government's propaganda machine, which only a month ago told us of the Secretary of State's public spending triumph over the Treasury, but which then had to go into full-scale reverse when Sir Russell Hillhouse's memorandum told us the truth of that triumph.

In November, I showed quite soberly and accurately how the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the most authoritative and reliable source of financial information in local government, had proved that transitional costs could easily be as high as £500 million. There has been no convincing reply to CIPFA's case, which was made in February of last year. The chairman of the Accounts Commission, Professor Percy, whom the Secretary of State had the gall to quote earlier, had this to say in the annual report published in September: The Commission believes that there is a need for a dispassionate and professional look at the priorities and resourcing requirements of the new authorities. That is true, but the fact is that no dispassionate or professional look has been given to the whole exercise for one reason alone: Government fears about the outcome of any such investigation.

I have carefully examined all the evidence, not the guesses or the optimistic gambles, but the hard evidence of the promises and the realities behind the Government's obsessional experiments with local government—the abolition of the metropolitan counties in England, the GLC and ILEA. I have examined each one. It is an interesting exercise because, in every case, Ministers claimed that there would be huge savings, fewer people employed and lower wage bills as part of the new set-up. But in every single case, transitional costs were wildly higher than promised. It all costs money, and in no case did it save it. More people were employed than before, and wage bills were appreciably higher in all cases.

That is the solid evidence to set against the guessses, hopes and completely unconvincing forecasts of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let me cite just one example, but nevertheless an interesting and illustrative one. Of ILEA, which was abolished in 1990, Norman Tebbit—now Lord Tebbit—said: ILEA … that overgrown, overpriced, overpolitical, underperforming monster will soon be gone, forgotten and unlamented. But after education had been put back from one single all-London authority to 13 London boroughs, what happened? In particular, the number of senior officials—administrators earning more than £20,000 a year—rose from ILEA's total of 352 to a new total of 590 in the highest paid administrative category.

Of course that is the reality. Those are the facts. That is what happens in local government. For example, consider what the Layfield report said about the previous reorganisation in Scotland and what Sir John Banham now warns about reorganisation and the review that is taking place in England and Wales. Those are realities rather than fiction. Sir John Banham warns: The reorganisation is complex. It is messy and picks apart practices developed successfully over almost 20 years. There is no way that some effortless and seamless process can be put in place to avoid the transitional costs, which were found unavoidable in every other reorganisation of local government.

The Government claimed that there would be huge savings on property, which will accrue from the sale of surplus property. But taxpayers in Scotland should be aware of how bogus that prospectus really is. Of course there will be surplus property if the regions are abolished. India street in Glasgow, Tayside house in Dundee, Viewforth in Stirling, and more, will all lose their tenants. Who on earth will buy those properties? Who will rent them? In Stirling, the vacancy in Viewforth will add 60 per cent. to vacant office space. That will be accompanied by a building bonanza in other areas as the new authorities have to build in their own locations to deal with the new functions that they will take on.

One of the saddest aspects of the whole exercise is the way in which local government services have taken second place to the ideology of reorganisation. In the White Paper, education—probably the most important local authority service of all—is dealt with in a mere 15 lines. We have not heard a single word from the Secretary of State for Scotland about education and the implications for it. Social work is disposed of in a mere 12 lines.

No explanation has been given about how education services are to be supplied when the wide range of services provided by the regions are dismantled. No information has been given to parents of children in special education facilities, about where they are to go in three years' time—only the abolition of the statutory requirement to have an education committee and a director of education. What sort of significant signal is that to the people of Scotland, from a Government who are more interested in money than in the need to maintain and improve educational standards and provision?

Mr. Kynoch

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State's proposals are going to save money, because he seems to have just said that money is taking precedence over education? If that is so, he is at least accepting that we will save some money through the proposals.

Mr. Robertson

The Secretary of State for Scotland certainly claims that they will save money, but I hope that I have demonstrated and proved that that will not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is going to climb the ladder of opportunity in the Government—there should soon be plenty of vacancies available for him to climb into—he should make better points than that if he is going to interrupt.

We get no guidance from the White Paper. We have had little guidance from Ministers, even about social work and the myriad services now threatened by the atomisation of social work authorities. Where are the words of reassurance for the voluntary sector? Why are they now left in limbo? Why is their future and transitional financing not worthy of a single comment or reassurance from the Government? There is something shoddy about the whole exercise, from the inadequacy and dishonesty of the consultative process, through the thinness of the White Paper and to the sheer lack of thinking and guidance which has followed its publication.

As a consequence of that, and to allow people in Scotland to present their views to their parliamentarians, I will seek to move at the end of the debate that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, it is committed to a Special Standing Committee of the House so that people can make their views known—for example, about concessionary travel and concessionary travel arrangements. In Strathclyde alone, 340,000 old people and 78,000 handicapped people now face a threatened service. What about information on the problems of school catchment areas? What about the future of the trading standards service, or the regional chemist? How will they survive in this era of multiple councils?

No information has been given. There have been no background studies, no detailed planning, no conceptual frameworks. There has been nothing but the doctrinaire dash for a new gerrymandered structure, subject to no independent review. All of that, as the Accounts Commission says, is to be introduced on a ludicrously short time scale. All the time, the Government, like some demented parrot, repeat the message about the need for single-tier authorities.

Other parties recognise the benefits that might come from some single-tier councils, but never as suggested in the Bill in its ill-thought-out, gerrymandered, back-of-the-Eastwood-envelope way. A Scottish Parliament, with powers over Scottish local government, is needed more now than it ever has been to look at what Scotland's local democratic institutions should be and should do. Never before has the case for a devolved parliament been so strikingly made as by this half-baked reorganisation proposal.

The next Government, committed as they will be, to a strong Scottish Parliament, responsible for Scottish affairs, but robustly operating within the United Kingdom, will expect that parliament to look urgently at the new set-up proposed in the Bill, if it manages to get through this Parliament.

The Bill does not propose a single-tier system, except on the map. Boards, joint arrangements and quangos will litter the landscape of Scottish local government. Instructions from the Secretary of State jump out of every page of the Bill, ranging from With the approval of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State may direct to as may be determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Just choose any page of the Bill to find such examples. The clammy hand of St. Andrew's house is everywhere, rendering meaningless the very idea of local democracy and accountability on which the Secretary of State has had the cheek to pronounce.

Why do the Government not stop pretending and admit that political control will not even stop at quangos, but will now deliberately reach deep into the last remaining balance to the centralising obsession of the Government—the locally elected councils of Scotland? This is the era of the quango, and the Bill is the quango charter.

The proposed three new water quangos are a better alternative to the Government's undisguised ambition to privatise Scotland's water, but none the less they still represent a foolish and unnecessary move away from genuine accountability. One opinion on the proposed set-up for water states: The present water authorities are accountable to consumers and others through the local electoral process. Restructuring will remove that accountability, which must therefore be substituted by adequate statutory safeguards for consumers and others. Are they the words of the Labour party, some disgruntled community group or members of a regional council? No. They are the words of the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has written to hon. Members about the proposal. Perhaps its opinion is surprising to some, or perhaps not, because some people in Scotland deeply believe that the creation of super-quangos is wrong for the water supply industry and Scotland. They are willing to speak out, whatever their traditional loyalties may have been.

The federation even noted: The Consumers Council, which is intended to look after the interests of consumers, will be ineffective and out of touch with local conditions unless amendments are made. The one amendment that is needed is simple and it would be effective: leave water alone.

If we needed an example of what rule by Tory quango can mean, we need look no further than the continuing cover-ups in the saga of Greater Glasgow health board. A man appointed as general manager, with the full backing of the Secretary of State and Ministers, a Tory to the hilt, was sacked after the health board was told that the Secretary of State had lost confidence in him. That dismissed man was then appointed to an unadvertised, specially created new job, on a salary of £80,000, on three conditions of which we are now aware—no talking, no suing and no cashing of a cheque for more than £40,000.

The Tory chairman of the board was then hung out to dry, to take the blame. We then found that even the top civil servant at the Scottish Office has been the subject of leaks and smears from unofficial, unattributable briefings. All the time the Secretary of State and the Minister of State apparently knew nothing, were told nothing and are blameless.

Mr. Lang

In the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman has been free and easy with his smears and innuendos on this matter. I understand that he has written to the Prime Minister and to Sir Robin Butler. I hope that when he gets their replies he will be as willing to seek a platform as public as this one on which to apologise for his behaviour.

Mr. Robertson

I will, of course, apologise, but I do not believe that there is anything to apologise for. I just wish that Ministers would tell the people of Scotland the truth about this affair.

In December, during Scottish questions, the Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and said: I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make an offer of a financial settlement to him.—[Official Report, 8 December, 1993; Vol. 234, c. 304.] On 1 December, however, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—I was present—that on 8 July he approved an approach by the national health service executive in Scotland to the Treasury relating to a package to sever Mr. Peterken's employment with Greater Glasgow health board, which would have amounted to £185,444.

That was submitted with the knowledge and, in Lord Fraser's words, "the support" of his Department and him. The Secretary of State says that he has been assured that Mr. Fyfe was told that he could not make that submission, but in the Select Committee Lord Fraser seemed to contradict him flatly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We would all like to know the answers to those questions. Is Lord Fraser telling the truth? Is