INITIAL REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

§ Mr. McLeish

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss the following: New clause 3—Cost of re-organisation— '.—(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review and publish a report on the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions of this Act; and the report shall be laid before Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.'.

§ Mr. McLeish

I wish to speak to new clause 3 and amendment No. 42.

The debate is important because it covers not only local government boundaries but the important question of how they were determined and the costs of what the Opposition still regard as a half-baked proposal. There has been widespread concern in Scotland throughout the passage of the Bill; that concern has been apparent both during the Committee stage and right up to Report.

The key issue about which we are all concerned is how the Government arrived at some of the boundaries that we see not only in the Bill but in the amendments before us. The Bill has been framed with no consensus in Scotland among political parties, local government or the trade unions. There is no consensus for any form of change. There has been no in-depth independent review. The hallmark of the 73 proposals building on Wheatley was the desire not only to attain consensus but to have an independent commission assess the implications of change and report to the House where decisions were taken.

The boundaries in the Bill are not built on any notion of improved service delivery. It seems ludicrous that we are debating boundaries this evening when no consideration has been given to the link between boundaries and effective service delivery. I shall develop that theme later. Despite the Government's rantings, no regard has been given to historical communities, historical links or natural boundaries.

If the boundary changes are not linked to any of those issues, what we are faced with is simple gerrymandering. The Government do not like that word; they complained in another place about its use. There is no other word to sum up how the Opposition and the people of Scotland feel 744 about a set of proposals that bear no relationship to their needs and aspirations, but much relationship to the needs and aspirations of the Conservative party.

After the trouncing that the Conservatives were given in the regional elections in Scotland, England and Wales, one might have thought that Ministers would be visited with some degree of humility. It is clear from the initial water debate that that has not happened. We wait with interest to see whether that will change in relation to this debate.

No one—even the Government—could argue that policies and boundaries that were built on gerrymandering could ever endure. I warn the Government that we will fight to ensure that the elections that the Government hope will take place next year will be derailed and delayed. The proposals before us, because of their instability, simply could not endure a change of Government? Why are the Government not saying, "Yes, we need to build consensus. Yes, we need an independent review." If they did that, it would save us having to move and debate the issues this evening.

§ Mr. Stewart

Which of the Government's proposals is the Labour party specifically against? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, for example, that the Labour party is specifically against moving Kincardine-on-Forth into Fife?

§ Mr. McLeish

The Minister is trying to challenge my humility. The suggestion was daft in the first place. I do not think that I should applaud in any way the Government coming to their senses in one minus way to deliver Kincardine back to its people. We are against the Bill root and branch. It will do nothing for Scottish local government. It will do everything for the Conservative party—

§ Mr. Stewart

Well, maybe.

§ Mr. McLeish

I will qualify that. I want to discuss that in a minute.

The Bill does not deserve to survive. The Secretary of State may smile. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord Douglas-Hamilton) may just carry on with note filling, but the point is that the Bill is thoroughly bad and obnoxious.

On gerrymandering, when the Bill was conceived, the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and some of the other apparatchiks who work out of Conservative central office decided, "Let us build the reorganisation around those two seats. So what we had in the first instance was Stirling becoming a single tier. We need not go into it, but it is legendary"—

§ Mr. Graham

Eastwood.

§ Mr. McLeish

My hon. Friend makes the point. That constituency seems to have been the marvellous focus for a Bill, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not have read, but which, clearly, we have. It is great credit to the Minister that he has been able to wrap the whole of the Conservative machine in Scotland around his little finger to come up with such a daft, divisive and dangerous system. Perhaps he should be applauded for that, but he will get little applause from the Opposition.

Clearly, major issues are involved in the boundaries. I cannot miss the opportunity to say that, last Friday, when the Government tabled new amendments, they also conceived the smallest unitary council so far. We started with 28. Then, through the Government's inspiration—or, I should say, that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) 745 as he rampaged through Scottish councils looking for anyone for whom he could move an amendment—we ended up with 30. On Friday, the figure went up to 32.

I ask the Government to accept a challenge. Can a council covering 47,000 people constitute an all-singing, all-dancing, all-purpose authority? That is what we now have in Central region. I do not doubt for a moment the quality of either councillors or officials, but it is important for us to flag up one point. Fiction has been turned into sheer farce. We now know that Stirling was gerrymandered for political reasons—and we have also discovered that the Government are willing to go to any lengths to demean the processes of review and local government reorganisation. We have seen that with Clackmannan, a council covering 47,000 people.

7.30 pm

I am led to believe that Clackmannan has half the number of schools that my constituency contains. Now its water will be provided by three super-quangos, its police will be provided by one of the eight police authority boards and its fire services will be delivered by one of the eight fire authorities. Sadly, the Stirlings and Clackmannans of the world will be wholly dependent on larger authorities: they will be like colonies of Fife regional council, which will bestride it with its 350,000 people. Where on earth is Clackmannan to find its education and social services? That is not an abstract question. The Minister smiles, but he knows full well that, although the Government's plan may fulfil the politics of madness on the Conservative Benches, it does not fulfil the politics of reality for those poor people in small authorities. They will suffer greatly.

The Minister laughs ruefully, because that is not his agenda. His agenda does not concern the quality of services enjoyed by people in Central region, Lothian, Tayside and Grampian, whose councils will be dismembered. His interest is in what the Government call enabling councils, referring to the ability of any council—regardless of its size—to purchase services wherever it wishes. Health boards do it; health trusts will do it. It is called "purchaser provider". But it simply is not working, and if the Government approve the relevant amendments—the vote may take place tomorrow, because of the scheduling of business—certain people in certain communities all over Scotland will be condemned to much poorer services. We cannot accept that that could be a legitimate aspiration in any reorganisation, Conservative or otherwise. It seems to us that the Government have now come clean, and decided that they are willing to plumb any depths to provide local councils with few services to administer.

One of the key issues behind all the rantings of Ministers and all the gerrymandering has been cost. In new clause 3, we ask for a Treasury inquiry into Scottish Office-inspired madness—for that is all that it can be. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State sitting in on the debate; he was absent during the 170 hours that we spent in Committee, and we sincerely hope that he will wish to contribute to the debate on costs. Costs are crucial. Whether we believe the £720 million figure given by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the back-of-an-envelope job provided by the Scottish Office —which suggested savings of £60 million for 1995–96 —we cannot deny that there is a huge disparity in the estimates of the cost implications of the Bill.

That would be enough to persuade any sane Government to submit the matter to independent scrutiny.

746 We do not argue that the Treasury is independent; but we have a feeling that—when faced with a possible public sector borrowing requirement of £35 billion at the next election, a position in which front-line services are starved of resources and circumstances in which such innovations as "care in the community" have little funding to implement the proposals involved—the Treasury would be happy to investigate the kind of madness that we are seeing in the Scottish Office.

The crucial aspect of costs is the question of staff cuts, with which the question of savings is inextricably linked. It was in the House, at our last Scottish Question Time, that the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag: for the first time, he talked about redundancies.

§ Mr. Lang

Rubbish.

§ Mr. McLeish

The Secretary of State says, "Rubbish." I hope that the Minister who replies will explain away that first reference to redundancies. In the House and elsewhere, the Government have given the impression that these massive savings can be made by means of a painless cut in staff numbers—but the word "redundancy" implies something more sinister and significant. I hope that the Minister will begin to clarify its meaning.

Playing politics with 300,000 jobs in Scotland is not just a sinister process, however; it is even worse than that. The Government were unwilling to write into the Bill the arrangement introduced by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which automatically transferred all dedicated committee staff to the new authorities. Why? And why did the Government then decide to turn their back on the European acquired rights directive and the transfer of undertakings legislation? Every conceivable legal opinion is telling the Government that of course all the staff will be transferred; whether it takes the courts to do that is immaterial.

The Government have sought to justify this half-baked reorganisation by reference to savings. That is why they did not include in the Bill provisions for those people to be transferred automatically and why they have turned their back on European legislation. Ultimately, however, there will be no savings, because there will be no staff sacrificed on the altar of this reorganisation. The Minister should tell us why the Government are able to ignore both precedent and Europe, and play politics with the future of 300,000 people.

It has already been suggested that 30,000 jobs could be lost—up to 10 per cent. of the current number of jobs in Scottish local authorities. Is the Minister willing to say from the Dispatch Box, "Yes, that is the case," or will he continue to play politics and talk about figures between 700 and 2,000? However we look at the figures, they simply do not add up: the Government are behaving in a sinister fashion, unwilling to own up to the truth about costs.

If we take the labour savings out of the equation, it will mean that the Government will save nothing at all. Unison, the public service union in Scotland, will take the matter to the European Commissioner and to every existing local authority: if they decide that there will be no scrapping of staff but an automatic transfer, the Government will have no savings with which to justify the reorganisation.

The Government amendments constitute a firm commitment to gerrymandering of a high order. They also constitute a commitment to massive savings, when none will be made. If we discount the gerrymandering and the 747 bogus savings, what on earth are we left with? Why did we spend 170 hours in Committee, and why are we to spend two and a half days on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading, when the Government have now been fully exposed?

I believe that this is a real tragedy. We gave the Government a chance to rescue themselves in the last debate, and they failed; in our new clauses and amendments on boundaries, we ask them to see common sense. When will they wake up to the fact that there is no suspension of political reality in Scotland? That has not happened over the past 12 months, and it will not happen over the next 12 months. Scots simply do not want this reorganisation, and opinion polls show that two thirds of them do not support the single-tier concept.

What we need is an independent commission, and at least a Treasury first look at the costs involved. We want the people of Scotland to appreciate that what the Government are doing is not in their interests, but in the interests of the Conservative party. I hope that what I have said, and what my hon. Friends will say, will be taken on board.

It is a sad occasion when the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers totally ignore public opinion. There can be no greater and more sinister development in any democracy than when the gap between the Government and the governed grows so large with no prospect of being bridged; at that point, we move from an issue of reorganisation to a dangerous issue of democracy and politics.

Even if the Government do not give a damn about the services enjoyed by 5 million Scots, the effectiveness of the £7.5 billion spent every year on services or the Strathclyde water referendum, do they not have any pride in democracy? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are supposed to support that, but at times it seems that, while the Opposition support democracy, the Government only pay lip service to it. We have reached a dangerous situation in Scotland, and all because the Government will not listen. Tonight, they have an opportunity to listen and to respond. We hope that they do so.

§ Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Channel 4 news has just released information that the Cabinet Committee will meet on Thursday to consider the selling off of 51 per cent. of the Royal Mail and 51 per cent. of Parcelforce. Have you received notification of a statement on that matter? Given that Scottish Office Ministers are present, and that they must surely have been consulted about such a proposal, perhaps one of them can make a statement at the Dispatch Box to confirm that Channel 4 report.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have received no notification of anything, other than the fact that the House is debating new clause 2.

§ Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made an astonishing attack on Clackmannan and East Lothian district councils, which are the subject of Government amendments before the House. I expected the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Opposition new clauses but he chose not to do so.

For the record, new clause 2, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is unnecessary because the 748 legislative powers to which it refers already exist. The hon. Gentleman referred to costs. New clause 3, which he did not address at any length, suggests that the Treasury should make a fundamental review of the costs of reorganising local government in Scotland. That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how central Government conduct their business. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he and his colleagues displayed that misunderstanding in Committee, when they constantly suggested that the Scottish Office was putting forward figures without the Treasury's consent. That kind of scenario is completely inconceivable.

§ Mr. McLeish

Will the Minister confirm that he suggested to the Treasury that this muddled mess might cost £720 million? Did that happen?

§ Mr. Stewart

No. The Treasury has rather more sense than that. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have more sense than to believe the figures presented by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. As he raised the point, I will refer to his own estimates of council tax rises in Fife, which he represents, following reorganisation. They suggest that band D council tax in Dunfermline would rise from £621 to £1,061, and in Kirkcaldy from £664 to £1,094.

§ Mr. McLeish

May we have the Minister's estimates?

§ Mr. Stewart

I am not giving the hon. Gentleman my own estimates; I am simply giving him the estimates of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

How many Conservatives are on that council?

§ Mr. Stewart

Not a lot. That is precisely my point. That council cannot reasonably be regarded as some kind of crypto-Conservative organisation, yet it estimates that a single-tier Fife authority would produce savings of £4.9 million per annum. That is the estimate of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.

§ Mr. Foulkes

Does the Minister agree that all the arguments relating to Fife apply equally to Ayrshire?

§ Mr. Stewart

No, I do not agree—but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope to be able to respond to his points later. I will have to take fully into account the points made by the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohue) in favour of the Government's present proposals for Ayrshire.

§ Mr. Connarty

Before we debate who prefers what in relation to democratic responses and public feeling about representation, perhaps we may focus on costs. Has the Secretary of State asked the Treasury to make a reasonable and rational assessment of the report on which he based his figures, compared with that produced for COSLA by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? They seem to take different views and to give different estimates. In Committee, more credibility was attached to the CIPFA report. Has the Secretary of State asked for an independent assessment of costs? That aspect will affect every other decision on resources and services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said.

§ Mr. Stewart

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we in the Scottish Office are in constant and close touch with the Treasury.

§ Mr. Canavan

The Treasury tells him what to do.

§ Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Treasury tells me what to do, but Labour Members suggest that the Treasury ought to tell us what to do. That is the purpose of their new clause. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

§ Mr. Canavan

We are calling for an independent element in assessing the costs.

§ Mr. Stewart

Labour's amendment suggests that the Treasury should have an estimate of the costs. I am saying that that happens in any event. It is inconceivable that any major Government measure is adopted without the Treasury's full involvement. That has been the case in relation to the Bill, as with every Government Bill that is put before the House.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central did not refer specifically to new clause 29, which would involve the National Audit Office in the auditing of local government reorganisation costs. I am sorry about that because I was going to say that the amendment's heart was in the right place but that it is unnecessary because the NAO has a relationship with central Government costs, not local government costs.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond specifically to points made by hon. Members representing highlands constituencies, because the highlands case was not, by agreement, debated in Committee.

It may help the House if I said something about costs and and about the Government amendments. My main point in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central is that the estimates to which he has referred to, and especially the COSLA estimates, assume, first, that more than 3,000 local government staff will be made redundant and paid extremely generous sums—my understanding is that the sum would be between £100,000 and £200,000 each—and, secondly, that they will all be replaced by new staff. I regard that as a ridiculous and unreasonable proposition and certainly the Government would not finance a scheme of that nature.

Moreover, estimates by individual local authorities of all political persuasions throughout Scotland consistently show savings as a result of the Government's proposals. The Scottish National party authority of Angus shows savings of £8.45 million over the status quo; the Borders shows savings of £22.4 million, for the unitary authorities in Tayside; Dundee shows savings. I have already referred to Fife and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will have studied Fife regional council's estimates in great detail.

§ Mr. McLeish

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Stewart

He is wrongly shaking his head.

§ Mr. McLeish

I do not like statistics.

§ Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not like statistics. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ Mr. Stewart

I shall give way when I have finished the point.

Fife is suggesting that the Government's proposals would result in savings, over 15 years, of some £68 million.

§ Mr. Dalyell

May I ensure that we have understood exactly what the Minister said? Do I misquote him in saying that, when he was talking about compensation to employees, he said that the Government would not finance figures of that nature? The figures are put at £100,000. There are many employees, who have to make decisions about their futures and their careers, and who would like to know exactly on what basis they are to be compensated. If the Government are saying that they are to compensate in a niggardly manner, that ought to be known.

§ Mr. Stewart

I accept that the hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate point. What I regard as completely unreasonable is the proposition that local authorities—because. ultimately, it is their responsibility—would make people redundant at an enormous cost and then take people on to replace them, which is the essential assumption made in the COSLA figures. In the Bill, we are introducing powers to control such things.

§ Mr. Welsh

Why is no transitional figure given for property in Scotland when the figure has been calculated for England and for Wales? Will the Minister comment on COSLA's point about the staff turnover effect, following on from what he said? Does he dismiss that idea, and does he think that that would not have an effect on costs?

§ Mr. Stewart

Of course there must be staff turnover; nobody denies that. The hon. Gentleman asks about property. I hope that he will recognise that the decisions are for local authorities—and, as I understand it, his own SNP-controlled local authority has no particular difficulty over that matter.

Government amendments Nos. 287, 292, and 295—which relate to Dundee—reflect the undertaking that I made in Committee to look closely at the boundary of the city. They have the effect of including Invergowrie in Perthshire and Kinross. In response to the reasoned arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and by the City of Dundee district council, we proposed to include in the city the Balgarthno area to the east, Birkhill cemetery, Clatto Moor and Baldovan Wood, and an area to the east of the Forfar road. The case put to us was that those areas were integral parts of the city's overall strategy for future development.

The only essential difference between the amendments and the case put to the Government by the hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Dundee, West was over Strathmartine. The community council there argued that the area is predominantly rural, and we have respected that view, which favours an Angus link.

§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

I do not want to delay the House in any way, because I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that the Minister is being at all honest with the House. When he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in Committee, he almost misled him by the way in which he said that he would introduce amendments to reflect what my hon. Friend said. As I shall show if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendments in no way meet the points put to 751 the Minister by Dundee district council, my hon. Friend and myself. The Minister knows as well as I do that his father is still very disappointed about what he is doing here tonight.

§ Mr. Stewart

My father always expresses his views with great lucidity. May I say to the hon. Members for Dundee, East and Dundee, West that I do not accept that general criticism? I accept, of course, that the Government have not agreed to what was proposed by Dundee district council, but in essence we have agreed to all the proposals put forward by the district council except those in relation to Strathmartine, which the community council indicated it wanted to remain in a rural authority.

§ Mr. McAllion

The Minister knows very well that the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Milnefield is one of the areas which, as I clearly explained in Committee, has been excluded from Dundee—as has the Tay estuary nature reserve. A whole series of areas that were raised with the Minister in Committee have been kept out of Dundee, and very few concessions have been made to the case that I put on behalf of Dundee district council.

§ Mr. Stewart

I am not disputing the geographical facts with the hon. Gentleman; I am saying that I believe that, in the face of conflicting arguments, we have responded to the case put by the City of Dundee district council. We have not entirely accepted the case that has been advanced but we have conceded that the case—which I thought was the most important point—for Balgarthno and the industrial estate there was valid. It is clear from the amendments that the Government have listened.

There is a detailed amendment to the boundary in relation to Luss and there is a major change to the Government's proposals in relation to Central region. We decided that there should be three councils in Central region—Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling—based on the existing district council boundaries. That was an extremely difficult decision to make.

It was clear that the Government's original proposal to link Clackmannan, Falkirk and Kincardine was not generally acceptable. We therefore decided that Kincardine-on-Forth should go back into Fife. We then faced a choice between one council or three for Central region.

I emphasise that the fact that we decided in favour of three councils was not a criticism of Central regional council, which has many achievements to its credit. However, there is no doubt that the district councils—and Falkirk and Clackmannan in particular—put forward a very pragmatic case to the effect that they would be able to supply the necessary services to their people, if they were on their own, by co-operating with neighbouring councils and with the private and voluntary sectors.

§ Mr. Connarty

The Minister must realise that I would express concern because the original amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me and which was debated and discussed at great length in Committee, proposed that Stirling and Clackmannan should be together; that was the recommendation of the Wheatley 752 commission for the district authority without the education and social services functions allocated to it. That was the proposal put forward in Committee.

The Government must explain at greater length why they rejected the two-council solution. If it was not to be one council, I cannot understand why the Minister should diminish the size and resource base of local government in Stirling, of which I was previously the leader, and of Clackmannan, which I know very well, to the point where we think it will not be viable in the long term.

§ Mr. Stewart

I fully accept that there is a balanced argument here. However, the view expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East is not the view that Clackmannan district council put to the Government. That council put forward the view that As a unitary authority the District Council would continue … maintaining a flexible and responsive approach to decision-making and internal management. It stated that the council has enthusiastically embraced the concept of enabling and working in partnership. It added that that has not been solely in response to the Government's view, but was more a result of an appreciation of the needs and aspirations of the area and its people and the need to reach pragmatic, practical solutions which involved working with other interested parties and service providers. That was the view of Clackmannan district council which, as the House is aware, is not run by the Conservative party. It is a Labour authority. It believed that it could deliver the necessary services as an enabling council.

Clackmannan district council concluded that it believed that it is uniquely placed to carry this structure of local government forward as a unitary authority and to build on it as a model of quality local government for the future. Those are not the words of the Scottish Office. They are the words of Clackmannan district council. I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that different arguments apply and that reasonable people can take a different view. The view that we eventually took was that the question about Central regional council turned on the Clackmannan case. We eventually agreed to accept the view put forward by Clackmannan district council.

§ Mr. George Robertson

Does the Minister agree that all that verbiage has nothing to do with the real point? The way in which Central region was divided up had everything to do with a vain attempt at keeping Stirling district as a future fiefdom for the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The logical way out of the conundrum in Stirling was to link Clackmannan and Stirling districts together into a functioning local authority. The fact that we now have three unitary authorities in the centre of Scotland has everything to do with an attempt at gerrymandering the map and nothing to do with real local government.

§ Mr. Stewart

I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Labour-led Clackmannan district council is somehow part of a plot involving Tory gerrymandering. I have read out the position of Clackmannan district council—the wee county. Its position is perfectly acceptable. Of course, we had to consider the decision very carefully—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but I am saying that, given a difficult choice, the Government eventually accepted the case of Labour-led Clackmannan district council.

753 I want now to consider the Government amendments in relation to the split between East Lothian and Midlothian. That again, was a matter of judgment as several considerations pointed in both directions. We received very strong representations from East Lothian which, again, is a Labour-led district council. It argued that it should be an independent council. If Opposition Members are saying that the Labour leaders of Eastwood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eastwood?"]—of East Lothian; that was to make sure that Opposition Members are awake.

§ Mr. Home Robertson

I must point out to the Minister that there is a substantial distinction between Eastwood and East Lothian.

I am grateful for what the Minister is saying and, above all, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted defeat for their original outrageous proposal which would have split the historic county of East Lothian between Livingston and the eastern borders. However, people in East Lothian very much value the quality services provided for them directly now, not only by East Lothian district council, but also by Lothian regional council. Will the Minister undertake to allow the new, comparatively small single-tier authority of East Lothian to budget to continue to directly deliver that full range of local services that the people value so highly at present?

§ Mr. Stewart

Yes, the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these matters. Given the representations that we have received from East Lothian district council in response to the questions that I asked at the meeting that the hon. Gentleman and I attended, we are convinced that East Lothian can deliver the services of a unitary authority to its people effectively in terms of service quality and costs.

The final Government amendment in the group represents a change in Renfrewshire which will be of particular interest to the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). The amendment moves the Ralston ward from East Renfrewshire authority to Renfrewshire. Both hon. Members will welcome that proposal.

§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)

From the original proposals for Renfrewshire, all the areas except Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor, have now been taken back into what was West Renfrewshire authority. That also means that the new East Renfrewshire authority; as proposed by the Minister, will comprise exactly his parliamentary constituency boundaries. He knows that boundary well. I raised the matter with him in Committee. On 28 April, I received a reply—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is a very long intervention.

§ Mr. McMaster

It is short and relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary answer on 28 April, the Minister said that the A727, which is a boundary listed in the Bill, is no longer a classified route, and when it was a classified route it ran from Clarkston to Cathcart.

§ Mr. Stewart

Those problems will be resolved as a result of the Government amendment. I hope that that will be warmly welcomed by the hon. Members for Paisley, North and for Paisley, South.

§ Mr. Graham

rose—

§ Mr. Stewart

I have responded to a number of points made by Labour Members. I know that a large number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

§ Mr. Dalyell

Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Stewart

Not at the moment.

I shall sum up the Government's amendments by saying that all of them respond to genuine concerns that have been expressed on a non-party political basis. On that basis—

§ Mr. Graham

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that we must sit here all night listening to the Minister. However, he has not mentioned the fact that a democratic referendum took place in his constituency—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

§ Mr. Stewart

I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir David Steel

The Secretary of State has not dealt with the other amendments on the list of selection, including my amendment No. 5. I am grateful to him for giving way because it saves me from trying to make a speech, which will particularly delight my hon. Friends.

May I further entice the Secretary of State to accept my simple amendment No. 5? As he will know, the co-ordinating committee which is preparing for the new authority of the borders believes that its title should be the Scottish Borders Council to bring it into line with Scottish Borders Enterprise and the Scottish Borders Tourist Board. I hope that he will agree.

§ Mr. Stewart

I am sorry, but I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with the amendment—first, because there may need to be a longer period of consultation; and, secondly, because the new council will be able to change its name to the one suggested by the right hon. Gentleman if it wishes to do so. On balance, that is a sensible way to proceed.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate. In particular, I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 169 which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is beside me.

I underscore what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. By prior agreement—I am grateful to all those who were involved in that agreement—we now have the first opportunity in the proceedings, given that there was no highland Member serving on the Committee, to discuss what is in many ways the most radical boundary proposal for local government across the whole of Scotland. Under the proposal, all the existing local government structure in the Highland region at present will be dismantled and replaced by a single council which will cover half the land mass of Scotland—it will be bigger than Wales and, indeed, almost as big as Belgium.

I know that both the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been good enough to meet delegations from both sides of the argument. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is also present and will be hoping to catch your 755 eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, given the debate that has taken place.

I make it clear from the outset—although the Minister and the Secretary of State are aware of this—that my hon. Friend and I speak from a north highland perspective, in particular Caithness and Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty, and we will be recommending a two-council option. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will wish to speak against that and in favour of what is presently proposed by the Scottish Office. In so doing, he will be representing the views of one of the districts in my constituency, Skye and Lochalsh, which shares the view put forward by the Government. That district does not share the view that I am putting forward this evening, although the other two districts in my constituency, Ross and Cromarty and that part of Inverness district which falls within my parliamentary seat, share that view, as do the Caithness and Sutherland district councils.

I am against the single Highland council that has been proposed, basically, for reasons of gut instinct. It is much too large and, accordingly, it will be much too remote. It as simple as that. It has been argued by some—indeed, some hon. Members in the Labour party have argued the point; the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has argued it elsewhere—that, in the highland context, the opposition to what the Government are proposing is not as it may have been in certain other areas, but it is a defence of the status quo.

I do not agree with that. I am in favour of single-tier local authorities. Like many others in the highlands, I viewed the introduction of the Bill as a great opportunity to bring local government closer to people and to simplify it. In my constituency experience, it is clear that people do not adequately distinguish, or understand sufficiently well the distinction, between the functions carried out by districts and the functions carried out by the existing Highland regional council. Therefore, I do not accept the status quo as a defence.

8.15 pm

In asking the Secretary of State to think again, I shall argue a few points. First, I refer to public opinion. As the Scottish Office knows, the Association of Highland Districts commissioned a public opinion poll which showed that no less than 83 per cent. of 1,000 respondents across the highlands were against the imposition of a single Highland council. In a parliamentary answer to me yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that almost exactly the same proportion—83 per cent.—of those who had written to the Scottish Office were against what was being proposed and were in favour of the two-council option. Indeed, with an entire year at its disposal, and with the backing of the Highland region, the Scottish Office has been unable to amass more than 51 respondents in favour of what is proposed.

Secondly, I refer to the cost. There will be savings, whatever happens. Under the proposal, we are talking about abolishing eight district councils and having only one local authority for the whole area, so there will be savings, whether there is one Highland council or two. The Association of Highland Districts estimates its savings to be some £2 million per annum.

756 Thirdly, as we heard in the earlier debate, the proposal is completely inconsistent with what the Scottish Office is bringing forward elsewhere in Scotland. How can we have one local authority with fewer than 50,000 people in one part of Scotland, yet another local authority with more than 200,000 people for the whole of the highlands? It does not make sense.

Fourthly, I refer to a strategic overview. We speak against the backdrop of the highlands having secured objective 1 funding. We are all pleased about that. That is an example of a single authority being able to provide a strategic overview and argue its case not only at the national level but at the European Union level, too. I must point out that the campaign for objective 1 status involved more than Highland regional council; it involved other local authorities both to the north, the west and the south. If there were two Highland councils, that degree of co-operation would be essential.

Officially, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has come out in favour of one local authority, but its constituent parts, the local enterprise companies—including Ross and Cromarty Enterprise in my constituency, which favours more than one local authority—are by no means unanimous.

Fifthly, I refer to the quality of democracy. If the proposal goes ahead, how will the authorities live up to the ideals and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out in the White Paper? There will be a massive democratic deficit. We will be getting rid of scores of local councillors in terms of the total number for the highlands. Even going to the top end of the scale in terms of the number of councillors that there might be, I cannot see how one authority can effectively deliver useful, worthwhile, and genuinely local democracy with a certain number of councillors when set against areas that would be the size of wards, as well as the range of functions that they would have to administer.

Finally, we tabled the amendment tonight almost in a probing sense to find out whether there had been any movement of minds in the Scottish Office, and also to find out whether the Government might yet be amenable to further consideration, with a view to further changes at a later stage in another place.

After the local elections, it was made clear that the Scottish Office was into listening and trying to work with the grain of public opinion. Here is a good issue where the Scottish Office can do just that. It is not even a party political issue in the highlands, as all parties have the divisions of opinion which are clear from my party's ranks tonight. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and will indicate that when he winds up.

§ Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 289 and 290, and I start by congratulating Clackmannan and Falkirk district councils on securing what they wanted for their respective areas.

Clackmannan waged a spirited, imaginative and energetic campaign which built on the high regard in which it is held by the community. Falkirk district, for its part, never swayed from its view that a unitary authority based in the main town in the district would serve the people better than a council administered from Stirling.

I suppose that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is satisfied with the outcome of his campaign since he has won an authority based on the boundaries of his own constituency, along with the villages of Cowie, 757 Fallin and Plean from my constituency. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's cup of ambrosia will be overflowing, and it may become a poisoned chalice. The recent local government results showed that Labour was a clear 13 points ahead of all Tories—both independent and official—compared with only 3.6 per cent. in 1990.

The amendments deal with four authorities which currently deliver services to my constituency. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that Clackmannan county constituency covers the whole of Clackmannan district, which has 12 wards in it, and which, in turn, has six Central region wards. On top of that, there are another four district wards—two in Stirling and two in Falkirk—which comprise in turn another two wards of Central region.

When the composition of the new unitary authorities was being considered, one can imagine my surprise when the proposals which appeared first in the White Paper and then in the Bill made such a dog's breakfast of the Central region area. Before the publication of the White Paper, I went to see the Secretary of State to express my concern at the proposed authority, which was rumoured, of Falkirk and Clackmannan districts.

§ Mr. Lang

indicated assent.

§ Mr. O'Neill

The Secretary of State nods his head. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the two areas were not linked and that they were separated by the River Forth. He did not know at the time that Kincardine bridge, which is the nearest crossing of the Forth to the two areas, may be in Falkirk in the south, but it lands in Kincardine —hence the name, I suppose—in the north, in Fife.

I can only imagine that my brief geography lesson had a salutary effect on St. Andrew's house, since that part of Fife was then put into the new authority. While the Secretary of State had an excuse—after all, he was educated at an English public school—the Minister benefited from the excellent education service which was provided by the old Fife county and therefore had no excuse.

Only after the debacle of the Committee, where the Minister could not guarantee a majority for the defence of the clause, did the Government see reason and return Kincardine to Fife. That, of course, resulted in the collapse of the Falkirk and Clackmannan option.

I do not want to take up the time of the House with Falkirk, as my two colleagues who represent the bulk of that district may wish to do so. It would be churlish of Clackmannan to say that it was only the Government's desire to create a Stirling authority, or the wrongheadedness of their aim to lump it with Falkirk, which resulted in what we have at present. Although it has resulted in the creation of a unitary authority with a population of about 47,000, it must be said that, since 1980 —since when there has been overall Labour control—a series of outstanding councillors have worked with excellent chief executives to provide a local authority that has been imaginative and cost-effective in delivering services.

Every council house has both central heating and double glazing, and while Clackmannan may not be the only authority to offer a mortgage rescue scheme, it certainly is the smallest in Britain to do so.

We have heard about economies of scale. We have not heard about critical mass, but my hon. Friend the Member 758 for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could have applied it in his arguments against Clackmannan. We are told that somehow there is a size below which an authority cannot fall. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central is paying attention to this point because it is central to a reasonable assessment of the chances of the authority taking root and giving services.

Under virtually every criterion which one could choose to apply to the size of a service-delivering body, Clackmannan seems to be below it. As for its being a district authority and providing the range of services which districts are required to do, size has not been a disadvantage so far. Indeed, it has been able to secure leveraged financing arrangements for a number of projects which, through input from outside agencies in both the public and private sectors, have realised ambitious schemes.

I shall mention only one which is contained in the excellent publicity material that has been provided for the debate. An investment of £100,000 by Clackmannan district council in the Tillicoultry urban renewal project has attracted support from other agencies to the order of some £5 million.

The authority has become noted for its pragmatism and its willingness to work with the private and public sectors. There are those who say that such a small authority will not have the resources or expertise to operate a proper education service or to make adequate social work provision. I have to say that the jury is still out on those charges. The problems certainly would have been far greater had it not been for the excellent facilities and staff which it will inherit from Central region.

It seems that, in the restructuring, Central region will be swept aside. It, too, fought a hard and straight campaign to defend its record. Unfortunately, such was the Government's commitment to creating the Tory island in the central belt around Stirling that Central was sacrificed. But why did the Government think that they could carve up Central and preserve Fife?

The two authorities are roughly the same size and they are coterminous in a number of areas. I realise that the answer is not simple and certainly there are problems with which Central region has had to deal with over the years. For a start, the name is not particularly attractive and the officers and councillors of Central region, in adopting the heart of Scotland concept as a defence, gave an indication of that.

There were other problems. Certainly in my area there was a view that insufficient attention had been paid to road development in Clackmannan and that the administration was too remote. It must be said that the news about substantial road improvements, the opening of local offices and the attempts to create local advisory groups was welcome, but I suspect that it will, sadly, be too late to mend the damage that has been caused by bruising disagreements on planning matters.

In the early stages of its life, Central region had a decade of apparent inertia and indifference. As one who has represented a constituency within Central region for the past 15 years, I must say that, if we had had the purposeful dedication and fight that we have had in the past five years for resources and services by Central region in the preceding 10 years, we might have seen a different authority emerging from the review procedure.

I am happy, however, that last night the Labour group of Central region for the first time appointed two members 759 from Clackmannan to be the leaders of the planning and economic development functions. I recognise that the region has attempted to bridge what has become a gap with some of the areas. That must be put on record as evidence of Central region's good intent and of the fact that it is a shame that the region will not feature in what goes ahead.

As the debates of previous months have shown and those during the Bill's remaining progress will show, the changes that we are discussing are, frankly, neither wanted nor needed. I am conscious that the people of Cowie and Fallin and Plean, for whom Tory politicians are as relevant as the dodo or the dinosaur, are in danger of being consigned to a right-wing-controlled Stirling district, if the Government's assumptions about the electoral outcome are correct.

8.30 pm

I am greatly worried about fragile communities, where one in three of the men is out of work, being sacrificed as some sort of adventure playground, which is what we would have in a Stirling unitary authority. The resolution of that problem is not to be found by splitting that part of Stirling off from Stirling. The resolution of a problem of that character would be the combination of Stirling and Clackmannan in one authority, where there could be a proper mixture of industry, commerce and the like.

Nothing said in Committee or this evening and nothing that is likely to be said in the days ahead will alleviate the fears and anxieties of my Catholic constituents in Clackmannan district, whose children will have to go to St. Modan's in Stirling—outwith the area where they can exercise any democratic control—to a school to which they will have to travel and for which the provision is unclear in a number of respects. I raised the matter on the day that the White Paper was published, but we have yet to receive the sort of assurances that will satisfy that community in my constituency.

While I congratulate my colleagues in Clackmannan on their achievements and wish them well, they will now have to prove the doomsters wrong. When Labour—in office —looks at local government, it will direct its attention to authorities like Clackmannan and Falkirk. If the administrative hurdles that lie in the way of change are overcome, the hardest thing about the changes might be that those small and potentially under-resourced authorities will have to make them work. If the Bill is enacted and they have to face that challenge, I can only wish them all the best. Their problems may well be greater, however, than any of us assume at present.

I would like to be proved wrong, but I fear that the Government's intentions in creating a Tory Stirling will force everything else into second place. That is why I can give only a mixed welcome to the success of my colleagues in Falkirk and Clackmannan in achieving what they wanted. I wish them well and will work with them to achieve the best, but on balance I am a little pessimistic.

§ Mr. Salmond

I support amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which I and my colleagues tabled, and I hope to be able to move them at the appropriate time.

The amendments concern the establishment of Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority within the new set-up, taking it out of the proposed Aberdeenshire option which 760 is favoured by the Government. There are a number of arguments behind the amendments and I shall deal with them as quickly as possible.

First, public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the amendments. In a survey of 3,332 residents in Banff and Buchan, 93.6 per cent. were in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The options presented were either Banff and Buchan or Aberdeenshire, as proposed by the Government. Among the remaining 6.4 per cent., there were more "don't knows" than people who supported the Aberdeenshire option.

In the regional elections, a week past Thursday, there was a further test of opinion on the options because, in the Cruden, Ugie and Boddam ward in my constituency, a sitting district councillor, who supports the Aberdeenshire option, ran against a sitting SNP regional councillor, who supports the Banff and Buchan option. I do not pretend that that was the only issue in the campaign, but it was none the less an interesting test of opinion. The sitting district councillor came bottom of the poll and was even beaten by the Conservative candidate, which was no mean achievement in my constituency.

On that test of opinion, there has been a resounding vote in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The community councils in the constituency are in favour of that option; 17 out of 18 of the sitting district councillors and eight out of nine of the newly elected regional councillors are in favour, as is, of course, the Member of Parliament.

Therefore, as far as we can ascertain, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of a unitary authority in Banff and Buchan. The Minister had the grace to acknowledge that fact in Committee. In his remarks on the amendments he made it clear that he did not dispute the fact that public opinion favoured the Banff and Buchan option. Two months ago, when a cross-party delegation from the Banff and Buchan campaign met the Minister, he acknowledged the public opinion argument, but wanted to see some detailed financial estimates. As he can confirm, he was presented with a detailed assessment within a week from Richard Blackburn, the chief executive of Banff and Buchan district council.

That assessment considered the capital and revenue implications of the Banff and Buchan option compared with the Government's Aberdeenshire proposal. It was no macro-aggregate garbage in, garbage out, model, where one plugs in certain numbers and, given the assumptions, gets certain numbers back out. It was a detailed estimate —a detailed look at the proposed committee structure, the cost of amalgamating computer systems and the travel costs of the various options. Each and every aspect of the finances of the two proposals was examined.

The Blackburn report concluded that there would be an immediate £5 million saving on capital costs with the Banff and Buchan option and a stream of revenue savings, equivalent to a £25 saving in the council tax in the district. Significantly for other hon. Members who might be interested, there would also be savings in the other two component authorities concerned—Kincardine and Deeside and Gordon. As far as I am aware, that was the only detailed financial assessment of the proposals. It was not a global overview, but a detailed blow-by-blow assessment of the proposals' implications and it is a very powerful document.

What is wrong with the Aberdeenshire authority proposal? It has attracted very little public support. In the original consultation document only five responses were in 761 favour of that option, compared with 63 in favour of Banff and Buchan. The Aberdeenshire option therefore has little or no support. However, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has given it support and caused great offence in my constituency, given that in the Standing Committee he was able to make a case—with cross-party support—on grounds of public opinion for the adjustment of boundaries that immediately concern his constituency.

There was some annoyance in my constituency about the fact that he professed in The Press and Journal today his opposition to Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority. If the Government maintain their position, which is totally against public opinion in my constituency, fingers will be pointed in the direction of the hon. Gentleman as someone who put a spoke in the wheel of a proposal that has overwhelming public support.

Aberdeenshire is a doughnut option—not because the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside supports it, but because, like a Polo mint, it will have a hole in the middle. The proposed authority will have no centre, because its natural centre is the city of Aberdeen.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made an excellent point in Committee—to the irritation of some of his colleagues—when he demanded to know of the Minister where he thought the headquarters of the proposed Aberdeenshire authority would be. Any detailed assessment would prove that there are no suitable chambers or headquarters within the proposed Aberdeenshire area equipped to cope with an authority of 46 members, who on a reasonable estimate would require 6,300 sq m of accommodation at their headquarters.

Currently, in Aberdeenshire there are a number of headquarters and district councils. Viewmont in Stonehaven accommodates 12 members of Kincardine and Deeside district council. Gordon House in Inverurie copes with 16 members of Gordon district council. The biggest of the current headquarters is county hall in Banff in my constituency which, in the old Banffshire authority, coped with 30 members. But none of the current headquarters buildings could remotely cope with the sort of council that is being suggested in the Government's current proposals.

That means that the first act of the new Aberdeenshire authority, if it comes to fruition, will be a straight choice of either establishing its headquarters in the present regional headquarters of Woodhill house in Aberdeen, outside its own local authority area; or, alternatively, building a purpose-built, high-cost new local authority headquarters somewhere in the new Aberdeenshire. I cannot believe that anybody would seriously argue that the new authority will endear itself to the population either by headquartering outside its own area or by embarking on a high-cost building scheme. It is a nonsense proposal.

The authority area, as suggested by the Government, encompasses 630,000 hectares. It is only marginally smaller in size than Dumfries and Galloway and, under the current proposals, only Highland is bigger in size than these two. While Highland and Dumfries and Galloway are existing regional councils, the proposal would involve the creation of a new authority of that enormous size.

As I understand it, the argument in favour of Aberdeenshire put by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is for a strong buffer authority around the city of Aberdeen. Yet Aberdeenshire without Banff and Buchan would still have a population of 125,520—not just a substantial authority in terms of the Government map, but 762 much bigger than the authorities around the city of Edinburgh, for example. That is bigger than West Lothian, Midlothian and East Lothian. Absolutely crucial to the calculation is the fact that both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside have rapidly growing populations.

In the comprehensive submissions that have been put forward by the Banff and Buchan campaign committee, a number of examples have been given to demonstrate why Banff and Buchan—although it has some similarities—is quite different in complexion from the two authorities, Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside, with which it is proposed to lump it. One difference is obviously population change.

From 1981 to 2001, both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside are projected to be rapidly growing population areas, with growth rates of 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. In contrast, Banff and Buchan has a relatively stable population, with a projected population growth of only 5 per cent.

Figures in the census for commuting demonstrate the difference between the authorities. In Banff and Buchan only 6 per cent. of the working population commute, presumably, to the city of Aberdeen. In Gordon and in Kincardine and Deeside, the percentages of commuters are 35 per cent. and 32 per cent. The Government are proposing to lump together two fast-growing commuting authorities with an authority which has a more stable, non-commuting population. The tensions implicit in that arrangement, with the natural demands for capital resources of the two authorities which have growing populations and will require increased capital costs, are evident for all to see.

I suspect that we could approach the local government map in terms of unitary authorities in two ways. According to the proposal that has been put forward, Banff and Buchan would be by no means the smallest unitary authority on the map—certainly not after the new changes have been made. In fact, it would be only the tenth smallest. It would be bigger than Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Stirling, Moray, East Renfrew, Clackmannan, East Lothian and Mid-Lothian.

I do not think that the Government can hold the argument that a population area with gross domestic product per capita of £10,000 which is very high in Scottish terms—and a substantial economically active a nd enterprising population is not capable of sustaining a unitary authority.

The choice in terms of unitary authorities seems clear. The Government could go for a strategic unit which would allow local authorities to have strategic planning roles. If it did that, the natural authority would not be Aberdeenshire; it would be the Grampian region. Alternatively, it could go with the argument which tries to meet community interests—a unitary authority that commands the loyalty and support of the people who live in that authority. If that is the path which the Minister wants to go down, there can be no gainsaying the fact that the appropriate unit in the north-east corner of Scotland is Banff and Buchan.

In its 20 years of existence as a district, Banff and Buchan has commanded an enormous degree of loyalty from its population—as has been demonstrated by the number of people who have rallied to the cause of seeing it survive as a unitary authority. I hope very much that the 763 Minister will be able to give some indication that the Government will now pay some attention to the force of public opinion in my constituency.

§ Mr. Ernie Ross

Earlier in the debate, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Minister referred to Dundee and to Government amendment No. 287. I wish to speak about that for a few minutes.

The Minister said that he had responded to the excellent case presented by the city of Dundee district council, with the support of all the political parties represented on that council—Conservative, Scottish National party and Labour. He also said that he was responding to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who made and expanded on several points in the Standing Committee. In column 215 of the Committee Hansard the Minister said: I expect to bring forward amendments that would reflect the case made by my hon. Member for Dundee, East. I was present at the Committee sitting, but I cannot remember any blinding flash of light striking my hon. Friend at that time, although I recall him saying that he was grateful to the Minister for what he had said. In column 216, my hon. Friend went on to say:

I recognise, however, that the Minister is being very positive and helpful towards the people of Dundee."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 February 1994; c. 215–16] If what is contained in the Government's amendments and what the Minister has said today are supposed to be helpful to Dundee, my hon. Friend will wish to intervene and perhaps to have a word with the Minister after the debate to clarify one or two things. The people of Dundee East Conservative Association, of which the Minister's father is a formidable member, will also want clarification. The Minister knows that his father does not agree with what is being said in the Chamber today, which will dramatically affect the possible success of a single-purpose authority in Dundee.

The Minister attempted to allay our fears by saying that he had responded to the majority of comments made by Dundee district council. He gave us the cemetery and Balgarthno, and we certainly welcome that; it is very necessary for industrial use.

§ Mr. McAllion

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister conceded on Birkhill cemetery only because nobody in that cemetery can vote for the Conservative party in elections?

§ Mr. Ross

I would not want to disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says. The people of Dundee are grateful that the Minister has given us Balgarthno. We require it if we are to continue the fine work being undertaken in Dundee to help to regenerate the area.

The Minister knows Dundee very well—as I have said, he has family connections there—and he knows that the people, we are seeking to attract are saying that, to attract industry, we need high-quality housing in the area. The weight of the argument put by local authorities, by all political parties, by my hon. Friend in Committee, and by both him and me when we came to see the Minister, is that 764 we needed Belldovan and Balmuir so as to have high-quality housing which would add to the attractiveness of Dundee as a place where industry might locate.

We need Strathmartine hospital for the same reason, although whether it should be closed is another matter. When that hospital is closed and the building no longer serves the health board, there will be an existing service site which will be of extreme benefit to any local authority seeking to expand its housing. That is another reason why we argued for Strathmartine hospital.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said in an intervention, it is essential that Mylnefield and the crop research institute based there should be retained within the Dundee boundary. The Minister knows of the excellent work being undertaken by Mylnefield and Dundee university, the one complementing the other. If that is outside the boundary, it will be more difficult for the two organisations to co-operate.

Equally, the Minister knows that much work has been carried out by Dundee district council on the Tay estuary nature reserve. He knows that a plan was put forward, in which Perth district did not wish to participate, and Dundee district council was prepared to continue with the nature reserve. We are close to designating that area a nature reserve, but it cannot be made a nature reserve if we know for a start that Longforgan is going to the new Perth area and that the reserve and the concept of the reserve and the estuary will not be supported by Perth district council.

The Minister is, in effect, killing the possibility of creating the Tay estuary nature reserve, and people who are interested in wildlife and the countryside will be very disappointed.