<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<opml version='2.0'>
  <head>
    <title>Sitting of 4 March 1997</title>
    <dateCreated>Tue, 04 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000</dateCreated>
    <ownerName>UK Parliament</ownerName>
    <ownerEmail>mail@robertbrook.com</ownerEmail>
    <ownerId>http://www.parliament.uk</ownerId>
    <docs>http://www.opml.org/spec2</docs>
  </head>
  <body>
    <outline id='3116379' text="&lt;i&gt;The House met at half-past Two o'clock&lt;/i&gt;" title='Preamble' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/preamble'></outline>
    <outline id='3116380' text='[MADAM SPEAKER &lt;i&gt;in the Chair&lt;/i&gt;]' title='PRAYERS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/prayers'></outline>
    <outline id='3116380' text='PRAYERS'>
      <outline id='3116382' text='PRIVATE BUSINESS'>
        <outline id='3116383' text='&lt;i&gt;Order for Third Reading read.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 March.&lt;/i&gt;' title="KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)" type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/kings-college-london-bill-lords-by-order'></outline>
        <outline id='3116384' text='&lt;i&gt;Order for Second Reading read.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 March.&lt;/i&gt;' title='LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/lever-park-bill-by-order'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3116425' text='Oral Answers to Questions'>
      <outline id='3116433' text='ENVIRONMENT'>
        <outline id='3116435' text="Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local authority capital expenditure plans for 1997&amp;#x2013;98. [17001]&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The Government forecast that local authority capital expenditure in England in 1997&amp;#x2013;98 will be &amp;#x00A3;6.2 billion.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Burden: On the day that Birmingham city council meets to set its budget, will the Secretary of State congratulate Birmingham on being the most solvent council in the country, having reduced its debts by 5 per cent. in the same period as the Government have doubled the national debt? Secondly, will he explain to the people of Birmingham why the Government have cut the capital allocation to Birmingham by some 50 per cent. and education funding by 80 per cent? Why do the Government seem determined to stop Birmingham's children being educated in schools that have had all the necessary repairs?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to talk about education in Birmingham, given its scandalous history of education spending by Labour and the way in which money that should have been used for education was spent elsewhere. Birmingham's basic credit approvals for 1997&amp;#x2013;98 are the highest of the 392 authorities in the country. The hon. Gentleman should accept that his party has made a commitment that there will be no extra money, so if he wants an explanation to give to the people of Birmingham, he had better seek it from the shadow Chancellor.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large numbers of local authorities could lay their&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;694&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;hands on funds for capital expenditure if they transferred their housing to housing associations and paid off their housing debts? Does not the fact that Liberal and Labour-controlled local authorities hang on to their council houses like Stalin hung on to agriculture say something about them and their political parties?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: The fact is that, under the new regime that we have put in place, in 25 Birmingham wards the local authority could spend 100 per cent. of its capital receipts if it went down the route that my hon. Friend described. Birmingham would have every opportunity to spend more if it opted for large-scale voluntary transfers as we would like and the tenants have agreed.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Armstrong: Has the Secretary of State read the report prepared for his Department by York Consulting on capital challenge? Does he agree with one of its basic findings that capital challenge has skewed the decisions away from basic needs, so that authorities have been unable to address the basic needs of their communities, but instead have had to respond to the Government's lottery? Will the Secretary of State meet local authorities to discuss the matter before the Government reach a decision? Will he take that basic finding of the report into account?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: As we commissioned the report, we shall take its findings into account and discuss them with local authorities, as we promised when we started the pilot programme. What is more, Birmingham received &amp;#x00A3;5.7 million under capital challenge. Local authorities that go in for capital challenge decide their own priorities. The hon. Lady wants me to continue with a situation in which we, instead of local authorities, decide where they should spend their money.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Garnier: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is so worried about local authority capital expenditure, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the level of local authority capital debt across England and Wales, whether that has some affect on the public finances, and the Labour party's answer to the question?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: Birmingham's problem in those circumstances is that, if the Labour party came to power and did what it said it would&amp;#x2014;release capital receipts&amp;#x2014;Birmingham would receive no money, because it has no capital receipts. Indeed, Birmingham would receive less money from capital allocations because, as local authorities that do have capital receipts spend them, the money available to be spent on capital would be reduced&amp;#x2014;unless Labour were to decide that it would increase public spending. However, Labour has said that it would not increase public spending. It cannot have it both ways." title='Local Government Finance' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-government-finance'></outline>
        <outline id='3116436' text="Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's plans for the continued administrative operations and financing of the royal docks in the borough of Newham. [17002]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): English Partnerships will complete certain projects in the royal docks when the London Docklands development corporation winds up, in March 1998. The LDDC is discussing with Newham successor arrangements for its other legal responsibilities.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Spearing: Apart from the legal responsibilities of the London borough of Newham, are there not significant costs in maintaining the royal docks' magnificent marine facilities&amp;#x2014;which happen to be in Newham, but which provide services for all of London? In particular, the Victoria dock project for young people provides facilities for sailing, rowing and canoeing, and the magnificent 2,000 m Olympic rowing course would be available not only to residents of the south-east but to everyone in the United Kingdom, and perhaps also to citizens of Europe and of the wider world. If there are difficulties in maintaining those expensive facilities, does he not think that some provision should be made so that an unfair burden is not placed on those who live adjacent to the docks' facilities?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: We are aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can assure him that, certainly in the short term, English Partnerships will assume many of the responsibilities and that Newham will assume some. We are currently in discussion with those two organisations, on the basis of an asset-liability package. He will also be aware of the Royal Docks Management Authority. We anticipate that, in the long term, funding for it will come from service charges to developers of the area." title='Royal Docks (Newham)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/royal-docks-newham'></outline>
        <outline id='3116437' text="Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to involve non-governmental environmental organisations in the planning for the British contribution to the Earth summit II in New York in June. [17003]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: The NGOs' involvement began with an Oxford seminar in June 1996, and continued with a Government consultation paper which was issued at the end of December. Comments on the paper are now being considered. We are in close touch with non-governmental organisations and have invited them, local government and businesses to join the United Kingdom delegation to the event and to the two preparatory meetings.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Smith: As the Minister is unlikely to be available in April for the final planning meetings for Earth summit II, what plans does he have to give more responsibility to NGOs and local authority delegations to press the United Kingdom's case? What action will he take to ensure that banks are meeting their Rio commitments? According to this week's Green Alliance report, they are failing dismally.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: We are keeping NGOs closely involved, as we have throughout. We are of course including Friends of the Earth&amp;#x2014;which, on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, appears to have been excluded from his meeting.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will he&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;696&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;confirm that Friends of the Earth is playing an important part in planning Britain's contribution to the second Earth summit? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the extremely petty action of the Leader of the Opposition, who has banned Mr. Charles Secrett, executive director of Friends of the Earth, from attending his meeting with other environmental chiefs, simply because he had the temerity to write an article criticising the Labour party's environmental record?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have found that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other organisations are particularly important in giving us advice. I have excluded no one from the discussions that we have had. I am sorry that the Labour party&amp;#x2014;which knows so little about the environment and has had so few meetings on it&amp;#x2014;has, now that it has called such a meeting, decided to exclude one of the most important organisations. Friends of the Earth has shown great independence of mind in criticising the Labour party.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Matthew Taylor: One of the issues that concerns the NGOs in relation to Earth summit II is the continuing problem of relations between the United Nations' environmental work and the World Trade Organisation, which remained entirely unresolved at the Singapore meeting. Is there any progress on that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that it is fair to say that the problems are entirely unresolved. It is clear that the international environmental commitments that we have entered into cannot be overthrown by decisions of the WTO. We are seeking to ensure that proper protection of the environment continues and that any argument between the two can be resolved. Britain will continue to play a creative part in that.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Meacher: As reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be such a crucial issue at Earth summit II, why did the Secretary of State cave in last night at the European Environment Council by tamely accepting a much lower level of cut than is needed? How can he pretend to green leadership in Europe when he offers only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010, whereas Germany and Austria have offered a 25 per cent. cut and the Labour party is committed to a 20 per cent. cut? Is not his problem that the Conservatives' hostility to public transport, which is environmentally friendly, and his recent cut in the funding of energy efficiency, far from helping to find a solution to global warming, have made it a lot worse?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: Every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made is wholly wrong. Britain has taken the lead and has brought other nations on board. We were the first country to go for a commitment. We are the only country in Europe to be able to cut our emissions to below 1990 levels before 2000. The Labour party is committed to spending more money on coal-fired power stations, which would increase emissions. The Labour party has the worst environmental record of any socialist party in Europe and is a laughing stock among all its neighbours. All the other Ministers at the Council of Ministers, including those from Germany and Austria, complimented the United Kingdom on our leadership and wondered how we managed to play such a role with a Labour Opposition so uncommitted to the environment." title='Earth Summit II' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/earth-summit-ii'></outline>
        <outline id='3116438' text="Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about replacing local authorities' services with cash allowances. [17004]&lt;br/&gt;The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): None that I am aware of. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations in connection with the community care direct payments scheme.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Thurnham: The Government say that they are in favour of more choice and opportunity. Why do they deny community care direct payments to 700,000 pensioners? Surely it is nonsense to say that town halls cannot cope with it as an optional scheme.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are often pressed to introduce programmes on a trial basis and to extend them once we have ascertained that the trial works effectively. The scheme applies to people under 65. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will follow it closely. The option of extending it remains open if it demonstrates its value.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many local authorities are unable to carry out the tasks that they are meant to perform, such as collecting rents, renting out houses to new tenants and collecting council tax? Will he therefore be wary of giving additional burdens to councils that are so incompetent at carrying out their existing duties?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The scheme involves giving money to people so that they can acquire services or equipment, short-circuiting the normal bureaucracies. It is a cost-effective way of giving choice, flexibility and speed of response. As for the fulfilment of basic managerial functions, it is worth remembering that a 1 per cent. improvement in council tax collection rates across the country would be equivalent to &amp;#x00A3;80 million to spend on local services." title='Local Authority Services' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-authority-services'></outline>
        <outline id='3116439' text='Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented housing starts he estimates will be made by (a) housing associations and (b) local authorities in 1997&amp;#x2013;98. [17005]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): We estimate that the Housing Corporation will grant approximately 26,000 approvals for new rented housing association homes in 1997&amp;#x2013;98.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Jackson: I am not sure whether the Minister was present when his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, told the Select Committee on the Environment on 10 January last year that he considered that 60,000 new starts in the affordable rented sector was "quite robust". The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the actual figure is less&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;698&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;than half that. I am sure that his colleague did not want to mislead the Environment Committee. Was it simply incompetence on the part of the Department in not meeting its own targets?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady is right in that I was not present in the Environment Committee, but she is also wrong. If she studies the evidence, she will see that our target was 60,000 lettings, not new starts. She knows that we meet housing need in a variety of ways besides new starts, including tenants buying their own homes and the releasing of existing houses for new tenants. The target is 58,000 to 60,000 new lettings over the year&amp;#x2014;which we shall achieve.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wilkinson: May I say how right my hon. Friend is to emphasise the role of the private rented sector in meeting housing need? In that regard, will he and his Department have a careful look at the notorious activities of Hillingdon borough council in using public money through the Housing Corporation to promote housing association developments on green chain and public open space such as recreation ground in my constituency&amp;#x2014;a move that is bitterly opposed by local residents?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. The private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing need. It has been very good that, since 1988, there has been a major revival in the private rented sector due to deregulation, which the Labour party bitterly opposed at the time but which has been a great success. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important that we protect our green belt.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Beggs: More and more elderly people and more and more disabled people like to feel that they are capable of living in their own homes. What advice are the Government giving local authorities and housing associations on an estimated reasonable percentage of new starts that should be adapted from the beginning to meet the needs of disabled people?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We give guidance through the Housing Corporation which, as he will know, has a role in overseeing the housing associations in ensuring flexibility in their programmes to provide for old people who want to stay in their own homes&amp;#x2014;something that we regard as very important.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Raynsford: Let me remind the Minister that, 20 years ago, in 1977. under a Labour Government, we started 81,000 council homes and 26,000 new housing association homes. Does he recognise that, in this last year of a discredited Tory Government, he cannot even forecast a single council start and can forecast only 26,000 housing association starts&amp;#x2014;exactly the same number as Labour achieved 20 years ago, minus the 81,000 council homes? Is not the fact that the Government have allowed the house building programme for social needs to fall to the lowest level since the end of the second world war an appalling comment on their neglect of their housing responsibilities?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are meeting housing need. I take his contribution as a plea&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0357"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;699&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;for higher public expenditure. He wants to go further. He should know that his idea of releasing council receipts amounts to higher public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman and his party have not done their sums correctly on this issue. Such an idea counts towards higher public expenditure.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is another problem for the hon. Gentleman. Contrary to what he was telling listeners in the London area over the weekend, there is no correlation, no matching, between housing need and capital receipts.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Raynsford: There is in London.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clappison: Well, let me tell him that, in London, the three authorities that have the highest council receipts are Enfield, Merton, and London City. By contrast, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth have very few, and Southwark, Newham and Hackney have none at all. If that is the hon. Gentleman&apos;s idea of social geography in London, he has a very poor grasp of geography&amp;#x2014;almost as bad as his grasp of mathematics in not realising that his idea amounts to higher and higher public expenditure.' title='Rented Housing' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/rented-housing'></outline>
        <outline id='3116440' text="Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum allowed for local authority credit approvals for housing investment in 1996&amp;#x2013;97; and what are the figures for each of the past three years. [17007]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: The totals are &amp;#x00A3;789 million, &amp;#x00A3;1,014 million, &amp;#x00A3;893 million and &amp;#x00A3;869 million.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. McAvoy: When so many people are homeless or living in substandard accommodation, why are the Government cutting local authority capital investment programmes even further? Is it not time that the Government released, or started to consider releasing, the set-aside capital receipts, to boost local authority housing investment and help ordinary people?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) asking a question about investment in English housing. I suppose that he is getting his practice in, because, if the Labour party came to power, he would not be able to ask questions about Scottish housing. The hon. Gentleman's proposals run into the sand in three or four ways. They would involve public expenditure, no matter how the books were rigged. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has said, the need and the receipts do not match each other. For example, the extent to which Malvern Hills can invest is probably limited. There would have to be a massive redistribution and that would need primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman will not tell us how much he would spend, when he would spend it, or when he would legislate to spend it. The proposal is not worth a row of beans, let alone a row of semis.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. David Shaw: Why is it that so many councillors believe that the capital receipts are sitting in some bank account, when local authorities have already taken them into their accounts and spent the money? It seems to be Labour councillors who believe in that mythical situation&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;700&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;and who do not understand that the commitment by the Labour party to spend capital receipts would involve an extra &amp;#x00A3;5 billion to &amp;#x00A3;6 billion public expenditure on the public sector borrowing requirement.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems to think that the receipts are in an old sock under the mattress, but they are being used. They have been redirected into housing and housing revenue accounts, because otherwise rents and taxes would have to go up. That is a formula that Labour will not recognise. It is not a free option: it is an extremely expensive option. The Labour party would fiddle the accounts or betray its promise, and the latter is more likely.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fraser: Has it not occurred to the Government that the less we invest in social housing, the more we pay exorbitant levels of private housing benefit, keep people in the poverty trap and push up unproductive public expenditure? Is that not nonsense as Government policy?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman could no doubt make out a case for increased public expenditure across the range of public services. His colleagues could make a case for an increase in spending on education or on health, but if the Government gave in to all the demands for increased public expenditure, the economy and interest rates would get out of control and we would become less competitive. We would then find ourselves in the position of too many of our continental partners, who cannot run their economies." title='Local Authority Housing' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-authority-housing'></outline>
        <outline id='3116441' text='Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal by local authorities to approve opencast mining applications have been (a) heard and (b) successful since the changes to minerals planning guidance 3 in 1994. [17008]&lt;br/&gt;The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Some 34 opencast coal appeals have been heard since MPG3 was revised in 1994 and, of those, nine have been successful.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister accept that the present minerals planning guidance means that many local authorities are accepting applications, rather than going to appeal, often despite the wishes of local communities? Is he aware of the huge Windsor opencast site that threatens my constituents in Morley and people in the constituencies of Normanton, Batley and Dewsbury? Is it not true that the only way in which constituents can be sure that that application will not plague them for 15 years is for a Labour Government to be elected, so that our 10-point plan for opencasting can be implemented and local communities can resist developments that they do not want?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: I note from that last remark that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Labour party to deciding planning issues before an application has even been submitted, much less determined by a local authority, considered at an independent inquiry by an inspector or reached the Secretary of State&apos;s desk. That&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0358"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;701&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;goes to show that the Labour party cannot be trusted with any judicial or semi-judicial system. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that all those issues have to be considered on their merits by local authorities and by the Secretary of State and that a balance has to be drawn between environmental and economic considerations.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site and is well aware of local opposition in Batley and Spen. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is wrong to say that we need a Labour Government to refuse permission: it is up to Labour-controlled Kirklees council.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend clearly says, the mineral plannings authority is a Labour-controlled authority.' title='Opencast Mining' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/opencast-mining'></outline>
        <outline id='3116442' text='Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce changes to the formulae for the standard spending assessments. [17009]&lt;br/&gt;Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to begin discussions of standard spending assessments for 1998&amp;#x2013;99 with representatives of local government. [17010]&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: The 1997&amp;#x2013;98 formula is set, and discussions on the 1998&amp;#x2013;99 formula will commence later this year.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Hodge: Can the Minister explain how he and his Department can preside over a scheme that adjudges Westminster the fourth most deprived place in the country, while Barnsley, which has had 18 pit closures, lies 326th? Will he confirm that the way in which the deprivation indicators interact with the overseas visitors allowance means that more than one in 10 of the visitors who go to the Ritz or the Hilton are considered by the Government to be in overcrowded conditions, and therefore attract extra grant for Westminster? Is that not a tremendous funding fiddle for the few&amp;#x2014;the very few&amp;#x2014;Conservative-controlled councils?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: I am not as au fait with the Ritz as the hon. Lady obviously is. She has been involved in local government for many years, so she should know better than to come up with such gobbledegook. If the 1997&amp;#x2013;98 needs assessment for Westminster, in comparison with Liverpool, had been treated as Labour treated the 1979&amp;#x2013;80 assessment, Westminster&apos;s SSA would be &amp;#x00A3;25 million more than it is; in other words, under those terms, Labour would have given each man, woman and child in Westminster &amp;#x00A3;126 more.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Corston: Will the Minister admit that, far from there being new money for education next year, many local education authorities will face a cash cut in central Government funding? Bristol city council will have to cut its spending by &amp;#x00A3;4 million next year, leading to staff cuts and larger classes. Will the Minister admit that it is Government policy to hike up the council tax, so that ordinary families pay more and get less, and that blaming it on Labour councils simply will not work?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady&apos;s local authority is becoming a unitary authority and the Labour councillors,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;702&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;while talking about cuts, are planning a party to celebrate. They are raising their own pay by up to 66 per cent. and building a new &amp;#x00A3;1 million council building. I understand that it is to be quite a delicate building, with turrets that have been described as reminiscent of a French chateau. Perhaps the councillors should get their act together and concentrate on providing opportunities for the people whom they should be serving.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that settlements for many areas, and especially Lancashire, have been more than generous for items such as education, largely as the result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament, in the face of opposition from incompetent county councils? Where does he think that the money that is being asked for by leaders of Lancashire county council will come from, when the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have said on the record that there will be no more money for local government?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend who, along with other Conservative Members from the area, not only pressed the Government for money but encouraged local authorities to try to produce better value for money. That is the action that authorities must take now.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend accept that the most objectionable feature of the formula for most people is that it cannot be easily understood? Does he accept that the doctrine of the Trinity is a kindergarten subject compared with local government finance? Can he offer any hope of enlightenment in the future?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I should offer to take my hon. Friend by the hand and give him a little guidance before we set the standard spending assessments for next year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Government accept that what is needed is a fairer system than the present one, which so featherbeds Tory Westminster that millionaires in Mayfair pay less council tax than more than 7 million council taxpayers in other parts of the country&gt;&amp;#x2014;including, for example, in Coventry, where everyone with a house worth more than &amp;#x00A3;40,000 pays more than a Mayfair millionaire? Do not Ministers realise that the present system is indefensible, which is why the incoming Labour Government will change it root and branch?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: That sounds like a doctrine of gerrymandering. The hon. Gentleman is talking about changing the system root and branch. He does not accept that it has been worked out carefully or that it is accepted by experts&amp;#x2014;but then he does not accept experts. He also fails to accept the meaning of the word "efficiency". If, in terms of its SSA, Camden were as efficient in 1996&amp;#x2013;97 as Westminster, his local residents would save &amp;#x00A3;420.34. Harlow residents would get &amp;#x00A3;48.73 back, Islington residents would get &amp;#x00A3;520.04 back and Barking residents would get &amp;#x00A3;293.06 back. I fail to see any understanding of the word "efficiency" on the part of the hon. Gentleman.' title='Local Government Finance' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-government-finance-1'></outline>
        <outline id='3116443' text="Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the conclusions of his recent seminar on international environmental crime. [17011]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: Our recent seminar was very successful and will help the UK to continue to take the lead in combating environmental crime. We are working with our partners in the EU and beyond to intensify our efforts.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the smuggling of hazardous materials and CFCs is on the increase? What action was planned at the conference? What does he propose to do to combat this crime, which is of great concern to our constituents?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: We are certainly tightening the arrangements between the countries of the EU and within this nation, and this country has the most forward-looking system. But we want to ensure that we cover the areas of trafficking, most of it from the former Soviet Union.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barry Jones: Is the diesel motor engine detrimental to public health? What is the state of the Department's research on the subject?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that that has much to do with environmental crime. Our air quality programme is better than that of any other country. We will get rid of both summer and winter smog within the next 10 years, so that once again we will be in the forefront of clean air policy." title='Environmental Crime' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/environmental-crime'></outline>
        <outline id='3116444' text="Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the assessments of the needs of rural areas in the standard spending assessment formula. [17012]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: We reviewed it last year and we have no plans to review it this year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Greenway: That reply notwithstanding, does my right hon. Friend agree that the resources allocated to most rural district and county councils are substantially lower than those given to metropolitan councils? The Labour party can whinge and moan all it likes about resources for London boroughs, but does it not have a lot to learn from smaller councils about efficiency and managing on low resources? When can people in rural areas expect the same funding for their schools and other services as urban areas have had for years?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend represents a rural community, as I do, and he knows that we reviewed the system last year and were told that it was about right. In the circumstances, we maintained it; but it is absolutely true that too often metropolitan areas do not recognise that delivering services to sparsely populated areas is an expensive business. I will make sure that we continue to assess their needs objectively and meet them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: Why do Conservative Members point at us as though Opposition Members do not&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;704&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;represent rural areas, when many of us do? Does the Minister realise that part of my constituency, from Wanstead Flats to Epping Forest, is very rural? What recognition do we get for adding to people's delight at being able to visit rural areas? What has happened to the cattle of Wanstead Flats?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although not in an agricultural capacity. If he wishes to visit my constituency, I would be delighted to show him around; he might then understand the difference between countryside and countryside." title='Standard Spending Assessment (Rural Areas)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/standard-spending-assessment-rural-areas'></outline>
        <outline id='3116445' text="Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the amount of standard spending assessment allocated to Warwickshire county council in each year since 1993. [17014]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: Warwickshire county council's SSA has increased from &amp;#x00A3;267 million to &amp;#x00A3;279 million since 1993&amp;#x2013;94. During that period, there have, of course, been changes in the responsibilities of county councils, in particular in relation to police and to community care.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer, which clearly shows that spending on education will rise and that spending on the fire service will go up by about &amp;#x00A3;800,000, or 8 per cent. Despite those substantial increases, does he agree that it is time the outdated, clumsy SSA procedure was abandoned for something fairer and more intelligible?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that every local authority that makes representations about its SSA thinks that the system is unfair to it, and that whatever proposals it has are justifiable on entirely objective criteria. We have to find a system that we can keep up to date and that distributes resources effectively; we then need efficient local government.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Olner: The Minister knows that Warwickshire is a very efficient authority, as the district auditor has said. The Minister also knows that over the past three years Warwickshire has had to go over cap to provide its services. Will he assure us that when the authority sets its budget this year, and has to go over cap again because the Department has not taken into account the education disregard, the Government will allow it to do so?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Curry: When a local authority sets a budget over the cap, it can explain its reasons to the Government. We take them into consideration in determining whether to accept the higher budget or to require something lower. The same will happen again this year." title='Local Government Finance (Warwickshire)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-government-finance-warwickshire'></outline>
        <outline id='3116446' text="Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the consultation process to determine the 1998&amp;#x2013;99 standard spending assessment. [17015]&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: We propose to invite representatives of local government to discuss possible changes in standard spending assessments for 1998&amp;#x2013;99 in the usual way.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister make it clear during that consultation that if Nottingham were funded on the same basis as Westminster, band D council tax payers would not pay &amp;#x00A3;809 a year but would get a rebate of &amp;#x00A3;661?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: That is a possible question, but one could also ask why Nottingham cannot be as efficient as Westminster and save its band D council tax payers &amp;#x00A3;135.47.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a problem with SSAs in respect of tourism? Is he aware that there is a difficulty with standard bed nights, with visitor bed nights and with day visitors? When Torbay's local authority gains unitary status, will he at least reconsider the criteria on which day visitor numbers are counted so that they can be included with visitor bed nights?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: As ever, I shall consider all sensible suggestions. My hon. Friend's suggestion seems as if it may be one that we may examine carefully.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on inequities in the current funding formula for local government; and if he will make a statement. [17016]&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: What one authority considers an inequity, another often considers entirely justified.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Simpson: I understand how difficult it must be to have Mayfair and Park lane and the poverty associated with those areas in one's borough, but is not the unfairness of today's formula the fact that the real benefits tourists in Britain are the rich in the Ritz? They are the ones whom the Government's tax subsidises, at a cost to almost every other local authority in Britain and every other council tax payer.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that the factor that he criticises in respect of Westminster, if adjusted, would necessitate a similar adjustment for Chester, York, Cambridge and Durham. He should recognise that, contrary to what has been suggested by Labour Front Benchers, one cannot gerrymander the system.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Congdon: Rather than whingeing, would it not be better if local authorities got on and managed their services better? In that context, will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to place more elderly people in the private sector and hence save nearly &amp;#x00A3;750 million a year, instead of discriminating in favour of their own homes?&lt;br/&gt;Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right&amp;#x2014;like many of us, he has to live with Croydon council. Many Conservative councils have overcome the difficulty that he describes by using the private sector, being imaginative and using lateral thinking." title='Local Government Finance' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/local-government-finance-2'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3116447' text='PRIME MINISTER'>
        <outline id='3116453' text='Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17031]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the negotiations in Northern Ireland result in a devolved assembly, Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland should continue to be able to speak and vote in this House on matters affecting England, Scotland and Wales? If he does agree with that, why would it not be a threat to the Union?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the powers that are likely to go to a Northern Ireland Assembly with those proposed for a Scottish Assembly. As he knows, they are not remotely comparable.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Soley&lt;i&gt;indicated dissent.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but they are not comparable. That is why his corollary is the wrong one.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the past 18 years has been the strict control of immigration, which has much reduced racial tension in this country? Will he condemn the proposals, even by new Labour, to abolish the primary purpose rule and to grant immigration rights to the extended family? Does he agree that that will increase racial tension and create resentment even among sections of the Asian community?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: In the past 18 years, we have seen the most extraordinary changes and improvements in race relations in this country. I think that is immensely important. I am certainly not going to lend my voice or my policy to anything that would damage that improvement.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister deserves credit for that answer.&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must come to order. Mr. Jamieson.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree, following the past 48 hours, that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the national health service, rather than adding to the crisis in the Conservative party?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to improve services in the NHS, and he has also tackled many social service matters that required&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0361"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;707&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;examination and improvement. I think that he has been an outstanding Secretary of State for Health, and I believe that many people who are treated in the health service these days appreciate the improvements that have occurred.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least accept the evidence contained in a report due to be published on Thursday? A survey of 300 accident and emergency departments across the country shows that many are in acute and chronic crisis and that many simply cannot make do. The survey says that the problem has been made worse by the Conservatives&apos; internal market reforms.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;If the Prime Minister is to stumble on in office until 1 May, would it not be better for Ministers to use that time not playing games about who the next Tory leader will be but showing real leadership and tackling the problems facing the country?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: Over the past five years, as we have tackled the problems facing the country, we have had nothing but opposition from the Labour party. Whatever fresh proposition was put forward&amp;#x2014;whether for health, education or controlling public spending&amp;#x2014;we could be certain that the Labour party would oppose it, and it did.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The fact is that we are creating a modern health service fit for the 21st century. Instead of carping about the health service, it would make a change if the Opposition offered some constructive proposals because, as yet, we have seen none. They say that they oppose bureaucracy, but they opposed us when we abolished the entire regional health tier. They say that hospitals are underfunded, but they will not match our pledge to increase funds. They say that they would increase efficiency, but they would abolish our reforms and set up a new tier of bureaucracy. The very last thing that the national health service needs is an ideological Labour Government causing chaos and disruption.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: The very problem that the health service has had is an ideological Tory Government causing difficulties. That is why we have 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. If the Prime Minister believes his case on the health service, education and other issues, let him have the courage of his convictions and put the matter to the country now.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be taking our case on the health service and other matters to the country. I look forward to discussing the reality of what has been done in the health service.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he seeks to improve the health service. The Opposition opposed national health service trusts, which are delivering better hospitals; they opposed fundholders, which are transforming primary care; and they attacked managers despite the fact that, before the reforms, no one could tell anyone where the money was going in the national health service.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Opposition also attacked compulsory competitive tendering, despite the fact that it is saving millions of pounds that can go to patient care; and they are committed to a minimum wage, without saying how much it would cost the health service and whether they would fund it.&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;708&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;The Opposition will not match our pledge to increase funds in real terms for the health service in each successive year of the next Conservative Government.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents involving NHS employees are costing &amp;#x00A3;154 million a year, according to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee only a few days ago? Will he therefore ask the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given by the national health service executive to hospitals is put into practice? That would lead to great savings from fewer accidents; that money could be redeployed to acquire more nurses, more doctors and more services.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: We are certainly keen to ensure that the money goes to patient services. That is happening increasingly now that we know how the money is being spent in the health service&amp;#x2014;before our reforms, we did not have that information. Of course I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend&apos;s suggestion.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ashdown: When last week the Prime Minister instructed members of the Conservative party to start the fight back immediately, did he expect them to take him quite so literally? Lord Tebbit attacks the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord McAlpine seeks to duff up the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary seems to want to take on the whole Cabinet. In deciding how to deal with these delinquents, has the Prime Minister ever considered making use of secure accommodation and electronic tagging?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: If that is an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he does support measures such as electronic tagging, I am pleased that in some areas he is moving towards the Government&apos;s policy.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition propounded by the post-war Labour Government that constitutional measures should always be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. That has been the constitutional position in this House. It is the way in which matters have normally been handled. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to change that long-established tradition.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17032]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Winnick: Is Lord McAlpine correct to say that the Prime Minister asked him to collect a very large sum of money and that the person concerned turned out to be a Greek shipping tycoon, a very dubious character who had supported the Greek military dictatorship? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General feel any responsibility for the fact that stolen money&amp;#x2014;and it is stolen money&amp;#x2014;from Asil Nadir is being used by the Conservative party for its election campaign? Should not all those matters be referred to the Nolan committee?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The Labour party has just been canvassing for resources in the United States, presumably from overseas donors. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all Members of the House, propounding the idea that it is acceptable to take money from Americans but not from people of other nationalities, were it to be offered. If he is concerned about funding, he should concern himself with the funding of his leader&apos;s office and his deputy leader&apos;s office, and with the trade unions buying votes in the Labour party.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Luff: Is it not all really rather simple, when properly understood? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has the most successful economy of any major country in Europe? Are not the Government determined to protect the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe and to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and its interests and influence throughout the world, and would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party&apos;s policies?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The most important element of the economy&apos;s success is the fact that success and growth yield the resources to fund the services, such as education and health, that we wish to improve but which could not be improved without an improving economy.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17033]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Jackson: Following the very decisive statement by the voters of Wirral last week, will the Prime Minister&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;710&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;take the opportunity today to redeem his long-established reputation for indecisiveness and tell us whether the election will be on 1 May?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I warmly congratulate the new hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success, but I would advise him not to unpack his bags.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of unemployment in every constituency in Wales is lower than that in Germany and France? Does he agree that if the United Kingdom were to copy the European social model, as the Dollies opposite would have us do, unemployment in Wales would double?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The levels of unemployment have fallen dramatically across the United Kingdom over recent years, as a result of the policies that we have followed. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), they have fallen by 25 per cent., and by 36 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in Sheffield, and by 40 per cent. in Sedgefield. On the back of that, one would expect the Opposition to agree that the policies that we have been following create jobs, whereas the policies that they are following have created unemployment across Europe.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Insley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17034]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Illsley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the attack by Lord Tebbit on his Deputy Prime Minister, whom he described as&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"tasteless, tacky if not dishonourable, and self-centred"?&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister replied for himself quite adequately on that matter.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/engagements'></outline>
        <outline id='3116458' text='&lt;i&gt;The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:&lt;/i&gt;&#x000A;James Keith Chapman Esq., for Wirral, South' title='NEW MEMBER' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/new-member'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3116461' text="3.32 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The future of our people in Europe will be determined by the age-old principle: united we stand, divided we fall.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The British are ambivalent about Europe. Nothing that has yet been proposed will resolve their feelings. Indeed, the referendum that has been proposed will tell us only that we are divided, which we already know. We need solutions to the dilemma. Most of all, we need real changes in Europe that can harness the support of all the people in our country. We owe it to those whose livelihoods depend on Europe to ensure that we achieve the changes in Europe that would bring more of the country alongside them.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;How do we scale the mountain necessary to persuade our friends in Europe that we need change, and that their venture, European unity, is likely to crumble to dust unless they address and resolve some of our difficulties with European development?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The only way to move mountains is with power, and the only power that we have among the 15 members of the European Union is ultimately the strength of our arguments.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Valedictory speech.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Booth: It may be a valedictory speech, but it is an important one.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The first step is to find the national argument that can win all the support of Britain&amp;#x2014;and the unity of the nation is vital. Those two aspects must go together, and my Bill is one part of the argument: a piece in the jigsaw to win. I seek to support our leaders when they argue our case for change in Europe. Officials in the Foreign Office agree that, if we are to negotiate changes to answer legitimate complaints, we need to strengthen our negotiating arm. This is no time to groan; it is time to be constructive on Europe.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our problem is not Europe itself. Our problem is that we were not there in 1957, as part of the foundation of the venture, and it has been made worse by the fact that policies have been made and directions taken since then that have made the problems chronic and the solutions therefore more difficult to find. I do not share the view that there is no solution, however; I believe that we must find a solution.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The problem is not about sceptics. In a sense, there is no such thing as a sceptic: there are only people who complain, and yet find no answer. My modest Bill is my contribution to what I believe to be one of the most important debates that the House has had in 700 years. I seek to strengthen the hand of our leaders in two ways&amp;#x2014;first by giving them a strong card to play, and secondly by increasing unity behind the Prime Minister in his quest to promote a partnership among free nation states. Negotiation, even between friends&amp;#x2014;even in a family of nations&amp;#x2014;can be tough. I make no apology if&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;712&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;my proposals sound tough; if on occasion it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, it is sometimes also necessary to be tough to achieve harmony.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My Bill proposes that the Government should research viable alternatives to our membership of the European Union. Others may be suggested, but I happen to believe that there is only one that would be in keeping with the worldwide horizon of the British people&amp;#x2014;the development of global free trade through the World Trade Organisation. That would make regional trade arrangements, such as the European model, a stepping stone to world prosperity, and greater prosperity beyond that. When I went to Geneva to research the matter earlier this year, I was satisfied that the WTO would, in the end, have the strength to give Britain a viable alternative to the EU.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;How can that help us? Why does a viable ability to leave the EU without damaging our economic interests strengthen our negotiating power? There are two reasons. First, I do not believe that there is a Member of Parliament who has not been faced with the argument that the train has left the station, and that we have no choice but to stay or else become Norway mark 2. I believe that the one chance of a new start in Europe is to demonstrate that our whole regional exercise in Europe could, in the next decade or so, be shunted into the sidings by global free trade and global arrangements. Making their arrangements more effective could be seen by those in Europe as vital to avoiding relegation to the second league.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Secondly, we sell ourselves short all the time. Our partners in Europe have strong reasons to keep us in their sphere of influence. We are their export market: in every case, we are just about their principal export market. Two years ago, Germany exported &amp;#x00A3;6 billion more to us than we exported to it. It needs us in Europe, and we should use that card. Rather than promoting our departure, it is likely that my proposal will cement the ties that we have in Europe, through a stronger negotiating position and the ability to reflect the changes required by our people. If Europe can deflect itself from various policies that we find irksome, everyone will win.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is no time in this short speech for me to list the changes that are needed, but the European Court, the common agricultural policy and fisheries policy would be on my personal shopping list. I stress, however, that I am not presenting the Bill to promote our departure from the EU. On the contrary, I am presenting it to say that those who often appear deaf to the British point of view should listen to our plans. I am presenting it to be constructive and positive. We must show our friends&amp;#x2014;yes, friends&amp;#x2014;in Europe that some change will assist them too, because it will buttress a common venture. I believe that the tide of freely expressed anxiety&amp;#x2014;the tide demanding change&amp;#x2014;will sweep away even the finest ambitions unless Britain is in Europe, to play our part and to contribute our version of common sense. Rhetoric helps no one, but successful negotiation among friends certainly does.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I commend my Bill to the House.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Question put and agreed to.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Bob Dunn, Sir Ralph Howell, Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Lidington." title='United Kingdom Membership of European Union (Research)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/united-kingdom-membership-of-european'></outline>
    <outline id='3116463' text="Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 128]." title='UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP OF EUROPEAN UNION (RESEARCH)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/04/united-kingdom-membership-of-european-1'></outline>
    <outline id='3116485' text='3.40 pm&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I beg to move,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997. which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997&amp;#x2013;98 (HC 272), which was laid before this House on 13th February. be approved.&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in aid of building works at Dunblane Primary School and Grant in aid of Local Authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy (HC 273), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: This afternoon, the House has its annual opportunity to debate the Government&apos;s financial settlement for Scottish local authorities. It is an important day&amp;#x2014;a day when I would have expected the Opposition Benches to be filled. I note, however, that they are singularly empty at present. I trust that greater interest will be shown as time goes on.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I realise the quandary that the Opposition are in this afternoon, because a poll in &lt;i&gt;The Herald&lt;/i&gt; this morning shows a 6 per cent. drop in support in Scotland for the Labour party; and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has at last realised that cutting administration and bureaucracy is an area that should be considered. He proposes to do that in the health service, but what has he done in the months and years past, in local government? Absolutely nothing. Yet his party controls local government in Scotland. The Labour party has said that there is no more money for local government, and Labour Members are here to debate that issue with us. We have said that there is plenty of funding for local government.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The purpose of the debate is to approve a package of legislation that deals with Scottish local authority funding. I propose therefore to begin by briefly introducing each element of the package.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Welsh: I seek a straightforward explanation. Why is the Minister withdrawing &amp;#x00A3;350 million from Scottish local authorities, and threatening some 17,000 jobs, which will increase council taxes and council rents? As Scotland will subsidise the United Kingdom by some &amp;#x00A3;12.5 billion over the next five years, why is he doing that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would come up with something better than the old story of surpluses. Unfortunately, he is unable to understand the budget deficit between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997 is accompanied by a report that sets out in detail the way in which the figures have been arrived at. It has been&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0365"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;715&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;subject to extensive consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I shall be happy to expand on any points of detail that hon. Members wish to raise.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The next order before us is the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which is also accompanied by an explanatory report. The figures have again been calculated on a basis agreed with COSLA. Overall, the order provides for the payment to local government of a net sum of &amp;#x00A3;2.73 million.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997&amp;#x2013;98 is the second such report. The proposed grant payments for 1997&amp;#x2013;98 ensure that the 10 councils will be protected for 50 per cent. of their mismatch. The report provides for the payment of special grant totalling &amp;#x00A3;14.19 million next year, &amp;#x00A3;6.97 million of which will go to Glasgow city council.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Lastly, hon. Members will see that we are also seeking their approval for the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on grant in aid of building works at Dunblane primary school and grant in aid of local authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy. We estimate that the first of those grants will amount to &amp;#x00A3;2.091 million, and the second to &amp;#x00A3;2.073 million. The report sets out how we have determined the amounts of grant that will be paid and their purpose. It is the product of close liaison with the council since the horrific events of last March. The report requires the formal approval of the House, which I hope it will obtain in a way that spares the community undue further attention.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;So much for the detail of our proposals. I expect that, as in previous years, the overall local government finance settlement rather than the specifics of the orders and reports is likely to dominate the debate. We shall doubtless hear the usual, totally predictable complaints. Opposition Members, COSLA and virtually every local authority constantly complain that Scottish local government is underfunded, and that next year&apos;s settlement will require councils to cut expenditure.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It bears repeating as often as those claims are made that nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to all the talk of cuts next year, next year&apos;s settlement allows every single council in Scotland to increase expenditure compared with the current year. It also bears repeating until the message has hit home that the overall settlement provides for an increase of more than &amp;#x00A3;140 million, or 2.2 per cent., in local government expenditure. That is before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;At the same time, the level of Government support for that expenditure has been increased by more than &amp;#x00A3;60 million, which is &amp;#x00A3;46 million more than local government expected to receive, when it considered its planned expenditure for next year as outlined last year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister has given local authorities, such as Glasgow city council, new burdens of additional expenditure for the police and for community care.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman came to see me last Friday, with representatives of Glasgow city council. It was an interesting meeting, because Glasgow city council receives &amp;#x00A3;21 million of mismatch funding, partly through&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;716&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the self-finance mismatch funding scheme and partly from the almost &amp;#x00A3;7 million that it receives in supplementary top-up, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced last year. Glasgow said that in this year&apos;s expenditure, it would be able to pay off a deficit of&amp;#x00A3;9 million. That means that Glasgow city council has&amp;#x00A3;10 million extra expenditure that it can incur while staying within its capping limit, plus &amp;#x00A3;9 million that it seems to have accumulated, so that it can pay off a deficit this year. Therefore, the council has the possibility to increase its budget by some &amp;#x00A3;19 million. Of course, that does not stop the council, because it says that it still has to make further cuts of some &amp;#x00A3;80 million. That shows that it is looking to increase its budget by some &amp;#x00A3;99 million. At a time when inflation is running at between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent., that budget increase would be in excess of 10 per cent. That is unreasonable.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Glasgow has had a fair deal. When Councillor Gould came to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year and pleaded for some extra help to buy time to get his expenditure into line with revenue, Councillor Gould knew perfectly well what was going to happen to the funding of Glasgow city council this year. I give him credit for the fact that he seems to have been able to pay off a deficit this year. It appears that he seems, if what he says is right, to have managed to get his expenditure into line with budget, so I fail to understand why he is seeking to increase his budget now by more than 10 per cent.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will recall the detailed discussion that Glasgow Members and city council representatives had with him on Friday. I am sure that, if he recalls that discussion, he will remember that, although there was a &amp;#x00A3;9 million surplus this year, that still leaves the council with an &amp;#x00A3;80 million deficit and having to sack up to 2,000 workers and cut services accordingly. Does he still think that Glasgow is trying to spend more money? It is struggling to avoid spending far less and wrecking services.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady has not been listening to what I have said about Glasgow city council. My point is this. It appears that next year it is seeking to spend almost &amp;#x00A3;100 million more than this year, but when I mentioned at the meeting some of the information that I had received as a result of asking Councillor Gould about his councillors&apos; travel arrangements in the past year, I noticed that certain hon. Members rose very quickly to their feet.&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Rose.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend mentions the word "rose". That could lead me to give some of the details. Hon. Members heard me say that, when I looked through the analysis of councillors&apos; visits to conferences and trips abroad, I found that two councillors went to Rostov-on-Don for the Rostov city days event&amp;#x2014;what that has to do with Glasgow I fail to understand&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: In a minute. I did not mention the hon. Gentleman, but I was referring to him, and I shall give way in just a minute, because he may be able to justify those trips, at a time when Glasgow city council is&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0366"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;717&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;advocating significant cuts&amp;#x2014;his words, not mine&amp;#x2014;in service delivery. There were two trips to the Rostov city days event, one to St. Petersburg for a symposium on cultural policy in Europe and another to an international rose exhibition in Rome. Lastly, I fail to understand why a councillor from Glasgow city council went all the way to Hong Kong for a meeting of the International Badminton Federation, when the council is talking about cutting services.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Martin: The Minister was referring to me and to the comments that I made. He should have been fair, because I invited him to have a debate on the Floor of the House about trips abroad, so that we could talk about some of the trips that Conservative Members go on, which are so strange that the Privileges Committee has had to examine them. I speak as a Member who has not been abroad in this Parliament. I say to the Minister: hold a debate, when we can talk about everyone&apos;s trips abroad. It is a scandal that the Privileges Committee has had to examine hon. Members who have brought shame on the House.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I understand the hon. Gentleman trying to divert the debate from what I was talking about, which is what is going on in Glasgow city council, but it might interest him to know that I have made two trips abroad in the past 18 months. From one, I brought back 4,300 jobs after inward investment by Chunghwa Picture Tubes and. from the other, 500 jobs were created at the Lexmark company in Rosyth. I believe in spending money wisely, in the interests of my responsibilities. I find it difficult to understand the expenditure to which I referred, at a time when Glasgow city council is asking its electorate for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax and talking about cutting services.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not like to hear about foreign trips, I refer him to the fact that Glasgow city council proposes to spend &amp;#x00A3;500,000 celebrating the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. How does it plan to do it? It proposes to be environmentally friendly and pour red dye into the Clyde. What on earth that will do for the good citizens of Glasgow, I fail to understand. In addition, it has spent &amp;#x00A3;810,000 on 28 cars for the council and about &amp;#x00A3;500,000 on legal costs, trying to bust the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest. That is quite inexplicable from a council that is seeking to cut services to its council tax payers, but it is only to be expected from the prospective candidates for the tax-raising Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats wish to set up after the election, if, God forbid, they ever come to power.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John McAllion: As the Minister is comparing trips abroad with cuts in public spending at home, how does he justify the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland going to Atlanta to watch the Olympic games, after imposing one of the worst ever housing settlements on Scotland and making more vicious cuts in housing expenditure? What connection is there between the Olympic games and housing in Scotland?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman failed to remind the House that my hon. Friend is also the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland, and one of his functions is to ensure good and successful sporting activity. The meetings that&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;718&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;he held in Atlanta contributed to his current thinking about the future of sport in Scotland. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was a football fanatic, would appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend was taking a healthy interest in his subject.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;What badminton in Hong Kong or a rose exhibition in Rome had to do with Glasgow city council, however, I fail to understand.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland not gone to Atlanta to support Scottish competitors in the Olympic games, all hell would have broken loose among the Opposition? We like our Ministers to represent Scotland at major sporting events, as I did at the Commonwealth games.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he is a former Sports Minister and was once a successful rugby player, he knows only too well the need for the best possible information about sport.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I do not wish to be diverted too far on the issue of sport. Let me return to Glasgow city council.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Worthington&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: If it is on Glasgow city council, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Worthington: I really must appeal to the Minister to treat the matter with great seriousness. We have lost hundreds of jobs throughout Scotland, services have been cut and there have been massive increases in council tax. If we have a successful economy in Scotland, why can we not afford the same services this year as last year?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman talks about treating the matter seriously. I consider it to be exceedingly serious, and that is why I have had meetings with councils and with right hon. and hon. Members. 1 am disappointed by the fact that it was apparent at those meetings that hon. Members had not understood the councils&apos; intentions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know that if we did not have capping, as is Labour policy, Glasgow city council would not be asking for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax. The council would go to council tax payers and ask for a 62 per cent. increase. That is a disgraceful way in which to run a council&amp;#x2014;it is attempting to increase expenditure by more than 11 per cent.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Minister really understand local government finance? It is obvious that he does not understand the city of Glasgow, which has been eroded and become riddled by years of Conservative government, crime, drugs and homelessness. Medical reports such as the Black report show that the infant mortality rate in Glasgow is the worst in Europe. That is the Government&apos;s record. The Minister does not understand finance. In his letter to the provost, he wrote about "aggregate finance", "specific needs" and "needs and resources elements". He aggregated those elements, and it cost Glasgow millions of pounds.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, because he showed a singular lack of&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0367"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;719&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;knowledge of local government finance when leading the delegation that met me last Friday. The facts of life are that Glasgow city council may well have the problems that he mentioned. However, he fails to recognise the fact&amp;#x2014;although it is staring him in the face&amp;#x2014;that the Labour party has been in control of Glasgow city council and has created those conditions, because it cannot prioritise spending in the best interests of council tax payers.&lt;br/&gt;Several hon. Members&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: Conservative Members are responsible, and they attempt to ensure that taxpayers&apos; hard-earned funds are spent wisely, to achieve cost-effective service delivery within local government.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Godman&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. Too many hon. Members are attempting to intervene at the same time. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time, and that is the Minister, unless he gives way.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dalyell: If I have heard the Minister wrongly, forgive me. I thought that, in his outburst, he referred to busting the conditions of the Burrell bequest. Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what the Government&apos;s policy is on the very difficult matter of the Burrell bequest? Are the Government really in favour of "busting" its conditions?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: As I understood the position&amp;#x2014;although I shall attempt to clarify it&amp;#x2014;the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest are a responsibility of the trustees, not of the Government. However, I am concerned that Glasgow city council is attempting to break the conditions of the Burrell bequest and, in doing so, incurring expenditure of up to &amp;#x00A3;500,000 of council tax payers&apos; funds. If that is the case, I question whether that is funding well spent, at a time when Glasgow is&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Godmans&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I should like to move on, but I am happy to see such healthy interest on the Opposition Benches. I shall give way.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maxton: I wonder where the Minister gets the figure of &amp;#x00A3;500,000, whereas the council says that, at the maximum, it is &amp;#x00A3;90,000? That is the sum. Why is the Minister trying to tell us that it is &amp;#x00A3;500,000 when it is not?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I very carefully said "up to &amp;#x00A3;500,000", and I hope that the figure&amp;#x2014;if anything&amp;#x2014;would be&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;720&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;significantly less. The councillors who came to see me with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) clearly should be attempting to spend council tax payers&apos; funds and central taxation in a wise manner, so that their council tax payers have good delivery of service. At that meeting, however, when we analysed the request, they made it clear that what they effectively wanted was &amp;#x00A3;50 million more, to be given to Glasgow city council. They already have &amp;#x00A3;21 million more, through the two mismatch schemes.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Would hon. Members representing areas covered by the other new local authorities in the former Strathclyde region&amp;#x2014;East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire&amp;#x2014;be happy for an extra &amp;#x00A3;50 million to be taken from their funding, to go to Glasgow? That is what the Glasgow councillors were arguing to me. They said that the distribution of funds did not favour Glasgow adequately and that more money should come from those areas outside Glasgow.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Godman: Clause 4 of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill places additional responsibilities on fire authorities to deal with emergencies at sea. What discussions have there been between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport about that additional burden to be placed on our fire authorities? Was there any discussion about the funding of training of firemen for the extra duties and the provision of extra equipment?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The grant-aided expenditure on fire has been increased considerably. There are always discussions with the authorities to ensure adequate funding.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I allowed myself to be slightly diverted by the detail of Glasgow. I wanted to conclude by saying that local government has been treated favourably in last year&apos;s public expenditure survey.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ray Michie: I was waiting for the Minister to move on from talking about Glasgow. How does he account for the fact that Argyll and Bute council is facing &amp;#x00A3;8.5 million of cuts as it tries to meet the commitments inherited from Strathclyde regional council? Some &amp;#x00A3;3.5 million of those cuts are in education. We are facing the closure of three more schools, two of which are on an island. Why can the Minister not help Argyll and Bute?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I am able to do something for Argyll and Bute. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been disagreement among the local authorities about the disaggregation of the former Strathclyde budget. The Scottish Office has always said that it was for the local authorities to decide about that distribution. After a lot of effort in trying to persuade West Dunbartonshire council to accept an independent arbiter&amp;#x2014;a point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) when he came with a council delegation to see me&amp;#x2014;I am delighted to say that the arbiter has worked incredibly quickly and has come up with a figure, which I believe has been agreed with Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire. Argyll and Bute should be able to spend more than &amp;#x00A3;500,000 extra this year within its capping limit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce that officially to the council later this afternoon.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0368"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;721&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;At the recent meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, my right hon. Friend challenged any Opposition Member who thought the settlement inadequate to say which Scottish Office programmes they would cut to give more to local government. Predictably, Labour Members ran a mile to avoid answering. They could not answer, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has decreed that there will be no increase in public expenditure, and therefore no extra expenditure in Scotland on local government.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton, who will be opening for the Opposition, is now considering how to redistribute funding. I should delighted if he is really talking about getting his Labour councils to start looking at making themselves more cost-effective, and spreading local authority expenditure away from the centre, the bureaucracy and administration, and out to the front-line delivery of service, because that is what we believe in. We believe in cost-effective delivery of service.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Perhaps the Labour party finds it easier to act simply as a postbox for the misleading claims that local authorities are being compelled to cut services&amp;#x2014;without examining what is really going on. Labour Members have doubtless been briefed by councils and COSLA on the scale of cuts&amp;#x2014;as they call them&amp;#x2014;that they claim will have to be made. I should, however, be pleasantly surprised to find that Labour Members had examined such claims at all carefully. I have examined the claims very carefully indeed. As I said, I have also had the opportunity to discuss the claims face to face with a number of council representatives, including those from Glasgow and Argyll and Bute, which revealed an absolutely fascinating fact.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Councils are claiming that they need to increase their spending by about &amp;#x00A3;500 million this year, just to stand still. That is half a billion pounds on top of any efficiency savings that they can make, or an increase of 8 per cent. on current spending, at a time when inflation is only about a third of that. If capping were not in place, that &amp;#x00A3;500 million would mean an increase in the council tax in Scotland of no less than 42 per cent.&amp;#x2014;by mostly Labour-controlled councils. Yet the Labour party believes that if it ever came to office, it would not put up taxes. The Labour party is the party of spend and tax, as we are seeing in local government in Scotland. Its assertion is an extraordinary one, which I cannot believe any sensible person would take at face value.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Fyfe: As the Minister&apos;s words a moment ago showed that he disbelieved the claims made by councils, is he telling us that he is predicting that there will be no redundancies in Glasgow in the provision of essential services?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: Glasgow city council must face up to facts; that is the long and the short of it. The hon. Lady does not of course understand. I assume that exactly the same distribution of central funding, through a formula agreed jointly in the distribution committee between COSLA and the Scottish Office, would be in operation should the Labour party ever come to power.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I have sought to find out whether COSLA wants to change the method of distribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the president of COSLA, asking whether he agrees with the desire of the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;722&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;hon. Member for Hamilton to have an independent look at the distribution of funds from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is in total opposition to COSLA, because COSLA&apos; s president said that he was more than happy with the distribution committee.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went a stage further and suggested that perhaps it was time to take the responsibility for the distribution of funds away from the distribution committee; perhaps a totally independent body should consider distribution, so that people in Glasgow and hon. Members who represent Glasgow could feel that the process was independent. Yet COSLA, which is largely made up of the Labour party in Scotland, says that it is happy with the distribution. There is the most incredible split in the Scottish Labour party, which is only too apparent in local government finance.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that, last year, Glasgow council made cuts of &amp;#x00A3;68 million and increased the council tax by 25 per cent.? Does he further agree that, this year, in order to meet the Minister&apos;s capping level, it will have to increase its council tax by another 25 per cent., sack 2,000 employees and cut some services by 10 per cent. and some smaller services by 15 per cent. and 20 per cent?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what happened last year, when Councillor Gould struck a deal with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The deal was that my right hon. Friend would guarantee to give extra funding to Glasgow and other so-called mismatch losers if they agreed to bring expenditure into line with revenue. It is up to the councils how they organise their funds. Last year, Glasgow&apos;s budget was some &amp;#x00A3;843 million, and the council could prioritise its spending within that budget, to ensure good service delivery.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Last year, the councillors talked about cuts, but again they increased expenditure over the year before. The hon. Member for Provan fails to recognise, from what the councillors told me on Friday, that they are able to increase expenditure on service delivery by some &amp;#x00A3;19 million this year. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but officials were concerned by the questions that I asked at the meeting. The councillors told me that they would not be in deficit at the end of the year. Indeed, they said that they would be in surplus, so that they could pay off &amp;#x00A3;9 million of budget deficit inherited from the former Strathclyde council. That means that they spent some &amp;#x00A3;9 million less on service delivery than they expected, so they probably have a flexibility of &amp;#x00A3;9 million within their capping limit, which can be added to the &amp;#x00A3;10 million increase, giving some &amp;#x00A3;19 million. The long and the short of it is that Glasgow has had a good settlement. Glasgow must recognise that for years, under a Labour administration, it has prioritised its expenditure out of line with the people&apos;s needs and has not ensured good service delivery. It is time that Labour Members recognised that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I have yet to have a satisfactory explanation from councils or from the Labour party, of why councils should need the enormous increase that they want. By the councils&apos; admission, the increase would not be used to enhance or improve the services that they provide&amp;#x2014;it would be used to stay where they are. That is hardly an attractive sales pitch. I can conclude only that they have a spending wish list and that talk of cuts is simply deplorable scaremongering.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0369"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;723&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;I have heard tales of councils varying their claims of expected council tax increases. Edinburgh made the most ridiculous claims not many weeks ago, but it is now talking of a council tax increase of some 3 per cent. The stories are scaremongering and nothing more. Certain councils have created unnecessary alarm among the more vulnerable members of the population, and that is sad. I condemn that, because it does no service to the cause of local government.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Eric Clarke: Does the Minister remember that I brought a delegation of Midlothian councillors to meet him? He disagreed with our claims about the way in which the money was redistributed by COSLA, but the reduction of &amp;#x00A3;3 million in grant aid to Midlothian is a fact and is equivalent to a 16 per cent. increase in council tax. Nobody challenged our figures at the meeting&amp;#x2014;merely the way in which they were calculated.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me, and I welcomed our discussion. I pointed out to the Midlothian councillors that they were permitted to increase their expenditure, within the capping limit, by some 3.17 per cent. this year. That takes into account the public expenditure policy on pay and salaries&amp;#x2014;that awards should be funded from efficiency improvements&amp;#x2014;so councillors have 3.17 per cent. more to spend on services, and there is absolutely no reason for cuts. The hon. Gentleman is a Whip, so perhaps he should ask his colleagues on the Front Bench what funding they would give local government if ever they came to power.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Throughout all the discussions of the past weeks, Opposition Members have complained about cuts and insufficient funding for local government, as they have done year on year on year, yet this year there has been a strange silence from the Opposition Front Bench. That silence was leaked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) when he said to people at a party meeting in Dundee that they might not believe it, but Labour was going into the next general election campaign advocating no increase in expenditure.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That may be a major problem for the Labour party, but I cannot help that. We have given increased funding to local government, which occupies about 37 per cent. of the Scottish Office bloc. Once again, I challenge the hon. Member for Hamilton to say what he would give to local government, and where he would take it from, if he were on Government Benches.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Local government benefits from reasoned, realistic, informed debate. I hope that we shall have that this afternoon; from the interventions that I have taken so far, I find that difficult to believe, but I live in hope. To shed more light on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I commissioned the local authority current expenditure study, which was published last month. Copies of the report were sent to all Scottish Members. Hon. Members have now had time to study what my right hon. Friend rightly described as a major and important piece of work.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The study was carried out entirely independently of Government, by Coopers and Lybrand and Pieda. After going to great lengths to ensure that it was comparing like&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;724&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;with like, the report concluded that spending levels across a wide range of services were higher&amp;#x2014;in some cases, very much so&amp;#x2014;than in England or Wales.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The report completely destroys the myth that Scottish local government is underfunded. One of its many interesting points is that the much higher spending levels have been consistent over the past 10 years, despite all the claims by Opposition Members that the Government have starved Scottish local government of resources.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Critically, the consultants question the extent to which issues that are often cited as "explaining" the much higher levels of expenditure in Scotland, such as sparsity, deprivation and unemployment, are genuinely significant. Opposition Members may want to think seriously about that before launching into this debate.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are committed to a second-stage study, the main objective of which would be to get behind the figures that have been published and explore further the reasons for higher spending by Scottish councils, and to consider the relative efficiency of councils and the quality of service that they deliver.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. George Robertson: This is ridiculous.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that it is ridiculous, but it shows the wide gulf&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: The Minister has been speaking for 42 minutes.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been speaking for 42 minutes, but I have been taking interventions from Opposition Members. He would slag me off if I did not take interventions from hon. Members who want to ask about their councils&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: It is only a three-hour debate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: It is a three-and-a-half-hour debate. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from what I am trying to say.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We challenge the Labour party to say whether, in the unlikely event that it were to form the next Government, it would also proceed with the second-stage study. It seems reluctant to do so. I ask again whether the hon. Member for Hamilton would do it. Perhaps Opposition Members would prefer not to lift the lid on local government spending, for fear of what they might find. Council tax payers will doubtless draw that conclusion.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I repeat that reasoned, realistic, informed debate benefits local government. We have recent examples to prove it. The serious and thoughtful representations from a number of councils led us to review the capping limits set for 15 relatively low-spending councils, which argued that it was unfair that they should be permitted only the same year-on-year increase in capped expenditure as high-spending councils. The councils that argued for an increase in their capping limits accepted that the additional costs would have to fall on their council tax payers. That change in capping limits would push up council tax levels and local authority self-financed expenditure by &amp;#x00A3;10 million.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0370"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;725&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;As we tirelessly try to explain to Opposition Members, that increase in public expenditure can be afforded only by making offsetting reductions in other expenditure programmes. We have explained our intention to reduce the level of local authority capital consent that will be issued for next year, by some &amp;#x00A3;10 million. That will come from a supplementary allocation later in the year.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;A further reasoned and realistic proposal put to us concerns the so-called "spend to save" scheme. We accept that some authorities face difficulties in adjusting their existing spending patterns to what can be afforded, while protecting the front-line services to which we all attach priority. At the suggestion of COSLA, we have agreed to grant councils additional flexibility within the total resources available to them, to allow them, if they so wish, to use some of their capital provision to secure savings on their revenue budgets. No new resources are available for that purpose, but it will give councils more room to manoeuvre in setting budgets. Officials are discussing as a matter of urgency the practicalities of that with councils that are interested in the scheme.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;These measures genuinely help local government&amp;#x2014;unlike the constant repetition of tired and implausible claims about cuts and underfunding. The measures recognise the reality of public expenditure&amp;#x2014;that more for one programme means less for another. Altogether, the settlement for next year is very favourable. I challenge the Labour party&amp;#x2014;which has ambitions to form the next Government&amp;#x2014;to say whether it would increase the settlement and, if so, where that additional money would be found. If, as I suspect, Labour Members remain silent on that, I must ask whether&amp;#x2014;in line with their past practice following such debates&amp;#x2014;they plan to divide the House on the orders. If so, why? Yet again we shall see the inconsistency in the logic of the Labour party in Scotland. For my part, I commend the two orders and the two reports to the House.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I call &amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I call Mr. George Robertson.&lt;br/&gt;4.26 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and I were stuck on the 10 o&apos;clock Edinburgh shuttle for some three hours today. Clearly, we have been forgotten down here in the interim.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I start by welcoming the special grant report that has been tabled in relation to Dunblane primary school. I fully support this order and the moneys that have been made available. The order is a reflection of a tragedy that occurred almost a year ago, which united this House. There were unavoidable costs attached, and let us hope that those are never to be incurred again. We fully support and agree with the moneys provided to cover those costs.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I cannot say the same for the rest of the Government&apos;s plans for local government. One of the more disappointing aspects of this important debate&amp;#x2014;in which we are considering local government on the edge of a general election&amp;#x2014;is that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open it. His predecessor had the guts to come to these debates most years, and did not put up some clone in his place. This is the key local government debate of the year, and the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;726&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)&amp;#x2014;the Secretary of State&apos;s predecessor&amp;#x2014;did not desert the battlefield when it came to defending the indefensible policy of the Government.&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is perfectly capable of putting the case for local government. The difference between the situation when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for Scotland and now is that, in his day, the Labour party was arguing for more money, and was not supporting the Government.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I do not think that that is sufficient excuse. The right hon. Gentleman is not capable of defending the Government&apos;s indefensible position on local government. People outside the House will reach the right conclusion.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I will state our position on local government and local government expenditure, but it is for the Government, in their dying days, to tell us why they have allowed this situation to develop, and why they promote this settlement. The Minister, whom the Secretary of State seems to trust, has signally failed to do that. Despite taking 47 minutes of a three-and-a-half hour debate, he gave no explanation of why local authorities across Scotland have been put in such a position, or why council tax payers must pay the penalty.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Secretary of State fiddles, like some tartan Nero, on the eve of a general election, while communities across Scotland suffer the consequences of his settlement. That is another example of the arrogant complacency that has been the hallmark of his period in office, which has meant that he has barely risen a fraction in the opinion polls, despite our momentary drop.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the disappointments of these debates is the way in which he talks down to Conservative Members and uses personal abuse? He should stick to the issues. Is it not a greater disappointment to him that the majority of Scottish Labour Members have not turned up? Perhaps they are all on foreign trips.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a pity that we resort to personal abuse; then personally abuses people who are not even here. That is the sort of consistency that we have enjoyed from him during his brief period in the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This is an important debate about what the Government propose this year for local government. As local government takes up almost half the Scottish Office budget, it is a subject of more than average relevance to the House and to Scotland.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Not one independent commentator on local government in Scotland agrees with what the Minister told the House. They all agree that council tax bills will go up way above inflation, that compulsory redundancies will be forced on councils, and that there will be real and painful reductions in services across Scotland: all because of the Government&apos;s grant settlement for this year. I doubt whether the Minister expects anyone in Scotland to believe his fiddled statistics.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: I challenge the hon. Gentleman again to say how much more he would give if he were in government. How much, and from where?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I will deal with that precisely later. No incoming Government could repair in their first&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0371"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;727&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;18 months the damage of the economic failure of 18 years of the Conservatives. I make no pretence about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have made it clear that we are not likely to find extra hidden caches of money left behind by the Government when they lose power. We have to accept the spending limits that have been laid down for the current year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Bill Walke&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait while I answer the Minister.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We will have to live with the totals, but we will have wholly different priorities. We will put extra money into education in Scotland by abolishing the nursery voucher scheme and providing places for all four-year-olds in Scotland. By abolishing the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes for the first three years of primary education, we will put extra money into education in Scotland. Through other means, we will find more money for the education system of our country, because that is vital for our future competitiveness. It would be wildly irresponsible to do that when the statistics are not available.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government on the basis of figures that they provided from the Red Book and other sources. Government is about determining priorities. What are his priorities? Which budgets will he reduce to increase other budgets? He should remember that we have not all been in the House for a short time. Will he say just what he can do? I do not mean palliatives such as the little bits and pieces he mentioned. In real money terms, what changes will he make?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: No wonder the hon. Gentleman wants to know&amp;#x2014;the Conservative Government will not tell the people of Scotland anything about what they would do if they won the next general election. One would think that the election had already been won&amp;#x2014;that Labour were the Government and the Conservatives were the Opposition. The Conservatives no longer have any responsibility, any ideas or any clue about what they will offer the people of Scotland in future.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Where did the Secretary of State manage to find &amp;#x00A3;500,000 for one opted-out school, which just happened to be in his constituency? He told us last year that they were strapped, that there was no extra money to help local government and no extra money for education or for the health service, yet halfway through the year &amp;#x00A3;500,000 was spirited up.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: If the right hon. Gentleman will sit down and wait for a minute, I shall. One of his great problems is that he seems to be incapable of listening&amp;#x2014;he always wants to be telling. The Secretary of State might be better off, on the edge of an election, if he was capable of listening to the Scottish people instead of lecturing them. Now let him ask his question.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Forsyth: I was hoping to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me. He asked where the money&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;728&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;for the opted-out schools came from. There is a Budget line for it&amp;#x2014;it is all published, and the hon. Gentleman can see our priorities. If he wishes to have other priorities, he should say where the money will come from, and stop pretending that the information is not available to him. When he says that he will abolish nursery vouchers, that is extra money for local government-an extra &amp;#x00A3;30 million in year one. Where is the hon. Gentleman going to find that extra money he is promising? If he is not promising extra money, why is he opposing the settlement?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: We are opposing the orders tonight so that the Government can go back and look again at their priorities. The Secretary of State says that he found the &amp;#x00A3;500,000 for the one opted-out school in his constituency from a specific Budget line&amp;#x2014;of course he did not do that. When, in the Scottish Grand Committee, he threw a document across, it was a generalised figure of &amp;#x00A3;24 million for education in Scotland.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The right hon. Gentleman is able to do that, just as the Conservatives during their tenure in the Scottish Office wasted &amp;#x00A3;1 billion on the poll tax. In the straitened circumstances in which they insisted they found themselves, the Government were able to waste&amp;#x2014;lose in a black hole&amp;#x00A3;1 billion of taxpayers&apos; money on a failed experiment in local taxation whose residue is felt even today.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government have managed to lose or waste billions of pounds on the privatisation of the railways; &amp;#x00A3;30 million was wasted on Health Care International&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finishing reciting this catalogue of waste for which the Government are responsible, I shall be happy to listen to how his party will pay for everything on every account.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government lost &amp;#x00A3;30 million on an investment in a private hospital at Clydebank.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: Those are last year&apos;s figures.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: Last year&apos;s figures&amp;#x2014;last year&apos;s waste and last year&apos;s mistakes. Yes, but they were all found within a Scottish Office budget, and when we come to power, we will scrutinise that budget with great care to see where savings can be made and waste prevented. What about the &amp;#x00A3;1 million that the Government are going to spend on advertising the voucher scheme that almost no one in Scotland actually wants? Where will the money come from to enable them to push that scheme down people&apos;s throats on the edge of the election?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Angus, but I stress to the House and to failed Tory Ministers that they were responsible for that waste&amp;#x2014;they were able to find that money. We will change the&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0372"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;729&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;priorities within the Scottish Office budget and within every other budget in the land, and people will notice right away where our priorities are.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Welsh: I want to ask a specific question. Would the hon. Gentleman wish to continue the policy of the self-financing public sector pay awards?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: We intend to finance pay awards next year out of the existing settlement&amp;#x2014;my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made that absolutely clear. The Scottish National party believes that anything may be financed. I wonder what sort of settlement the hon. Gentleman would impose. Clearly, SNP councils have had to live with the existing budgets.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I return to the local government settlement, and to the deceit and the fiction of the Government&apos;s case. We are used to the broken promises and lies about taxation from this Government. The fact is that, even according to the Government&apos;s figures, permitted expenditure this year will rise by only &amp;#x00A3;75 million, or 1.4 per cent&amp;#x2014;and that is before new burdens placed on local government by central Government and Parliament are taken into account. We have yet to deal with the deception regarding the cost and the savings of local government reorganisation, and the self-financing awards have yet to take place.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government&apos;s case is simply not true. As I said, no independent commentators in Scotland or elsewhere will support the Government&apos;s contention that more money is being made available in real terms to local government in Scotland. Councils must finance new burdens out of this year&apos;s settlement.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Alex Salmond&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. We shared a cab today, but that is all that I am willing to share with him at present.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Forsyth: You have to give way.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: We are back to the old "kissing cousins" relationship between the two extremities of Scottish politics. However, the people of Scotland will continue to choose the middle ground. Even in today&apos;s poor opinion poll, we are 20 per cent. ahead of the party of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and 30 per cent. ahead of the Government. That says it all.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;New burdens have been imposed on local government. It must finance the installation of seat belts in school transport. The landfill tax from last year&apos;s Budget has produced huge burdens for local authorities across Scotland. Increased burdens have arisen from care in the community and support for carers legislation passed in the House. Extra burdens have been imposed by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Higher contributions are required from local authorities for police and fire employees. Those additional burdens have been imposed upon local government in the past year, and they will not be funded by the Government.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I have given way to the Minister twice. He spoke for 47 minutes in a three-and-a-half-hour&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;730&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;debate. Many of my colleagues wish to speak also, so perhaps he should sit back and listen rather than talking all the time.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kynoch: Chicken.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members will recall that "Erskine May" asks us to conduct debate with moderation and good temper. The debate seems reasonably good-tempered at present: let us keep it that way, and possibly improve it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I hope that the Minister will take that rebuke on board.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a rebuke: it is a reminder that is addressed to all hon. Members.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: The fact that the Secretary of State did not come to the Dispatch Box today will be noted all over Scotland. The people of Scotland recognise the importance of the local government settlement this year.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On top of the burdens that have been heaped on local government but not financed by central Government, the Government have decided to impose their own priorities on local authorities. Despite the Secretary of State&apos;s fine words last year during the Dick Stewart memorial lecture about local government having more power, authority and autonomy, he decided to top-slice the budgets this year and impose his priorities on local government first. Some &amp;#x00A3;103 million has been top-sliced for police, fire services and education.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Forsyth: Security in schools.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robertson: I do not disagree with some of those priorities; I simply point to the contrast between the Secretary of State&apos;s claims that local government should have greater autonomy and his decision to top-slice the budgets in advance. He knows that that will mean cuts in other local government budgets. We should recognise that the Secretary of State&apos;s fine words about local government autonomy boil down to his making more choices off his own bat in areas where others previously had the right to take decisions, to make mistakes and to stand by them at the ballot box.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Another deceit at the heart of the local government settlement is the pretence that local government reorganisation has brought significant savings. Not one person in Scotland believes that daft claim. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy established a joint committee to examine the cost of reorganisation. They asked the Government whether they would care to be involved, but, significantly, the Government said that they would not co-operate with the study.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That independent study found that the Government have under-estimated the cost of local government reorganisation by some &amp;#x00A3;200 million, resulting in a hole of &amp;#x00A3;50 million in this year&apos;s local government settlement. Only a few years ago, the Government set out to gerrymander a wasteful, unnecessary, unresearched and under-prepared reorganisation of local government. It was inevitable that that botched reorganisation would cost&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0373"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;731&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;money, and they now expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for that gargantuan and enduring Tory folly. That &amp;#x00A3;50 million hole as a result of local government reorganization&amp;#x2014;which the Government pretend is a saving&amp;#x2014;lies at the root of certain problems facing councils today.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The reorganisation has created particular problems for some councils. Councils such as City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, Dundee, Argyll and Bute and Borders have been left to swing in the wind as Ministers fail to recognise the consequences of reorganisation. In some cases, those consequences have had brutal effects on services&amp;#x2014;and they will have an even worse effect on council tax payers.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Ministers stand back, as though they had nothing to do with the reorganisation or the disaggregation of staff and budgets, and allow those councils to swing in the wind. It is a total abdication of responsibility by Ministers, who pretend that they had nothing to do with creating the new local government set-up: it is almost as though a pure accident of fate created 29 mainland councils in Scotland. All the consequences are ignored, as the problems pile up&amp;#x2014;problems that were created simply by the way in which the reorganisation affected local government financing.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We stand for partnership in local government, not provocation. We will replace the destructive confrontational approach of the present Government with a constructive partnership with local government in the public interest. We shall not be easy on councils next year as we try to sort out the debris of the Government&apos;s economic stewardship. Eighteen years of damage inflicted on government, particularly local government, cannot be resolved in the first 18 months of a Labour Government, but there is the prospect of a better future for local government.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We will tackle the problem of council tax collection&amp;#x2014;a legacy of the poll tax&amp;#x2014;and we will give councils the extra powers they require in order to ensure that the money is collected. We shall ensure that value for money is the criterion, not simply cheapness of product; that is why the crude competitive tendering that the Government have stood for over the years will be swept away and a better, quality-based system put in its place.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We shall set up an independent review into the relationship between central Government and local government in Scotland&amp;#x2014;a partnership review, which will allow all these things to be examined, and if that means that we are considering the distribution formula or the way in which that formula is organised, I expect that COSLA will want to participate in considering how it can or could be improved.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;These are ways in which we shall make progress in our relationship with local government if we are returned at the election in only a few weeks&apos; time.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In the meantime, it is, I fear, an unfortunate fact that the present Secretary of State has a grudge against Scottish local government. He clearly wants revenge, as does the Conservative party, on a local government structure that the Conservatives gerrymandered for their own interests but which did not deliver a single Tory council to them two years ago. That is the only possible explanation for this year&apos;s punitive settlement, and for the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;732&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;parade of fraudulent propaganda about extra money for local councils, which every member of the Scottish public knows not to be true.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I believe it was two weeks ago last Saturday that the Secretary of State for Scotland told BBC radio&apos;s "Newsround" programme that he wanted to give more power back to local councils, and that he had even prepared a devolution to local government Bill, of which nothing has been heard since. No one believes him on the Bill or on his intentions about devolving more power to local government. He has become the enemy of local democracy, whether at council or Scottish level.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;However, the real tragedy, I fear, about this vengeful confrontation is that the victims of the Secretary of State&apos;s prejudice will not be the Tory Ministers who will bite the dust in the next few weeks, but the vulnerable people throughout Scotland who depend on local government services&amp;#x2014;on home helps, care assistants and those who work in local government&amp;#x2014;and the millions who will pay a hefty price in their council tax bills for the Government&apos;s dismal economic failure.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Those people who will suffer, those people in local government who will lose their jobs, and those people who depend on the services of local government, will certainly remember the Government&amp;#x2014;but they are unlikely ever to forgive them.&lt;br/&gt;4.51 pm&lt;br/&gt;Sir Hector Monro: After 21 minutes of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I must say that I preferred 42 minutes of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We had 21 minutes of clich&amp;#x00E9;, riddled with perorations that kept mounting and falling away, and then it was the usual story&amp;#x2014;when the hon. Member for Hamilton is asked questions, he is always going to answer them but never does. Whether the subject is local government or the tartan tax or anything else to do with government in Scotland, he sits on fences watching them crumble beneath him, and never answers. He never gives a clear answer; even in the effort that he made in the Sunday newspapers to clear up the tartan tax, he sat on the fence and dodged most of the issues, and he knows it.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The performance of the hon. Member for Hamilton this afternoon was most disappointing. I want an answer from him&amp;#x2014;if not from him, perhaps from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) later. The hon. Member for Hamilton sweeps his hands around and says, "We shall change the budget," but the only things that he was prepared to say he would change were vouchers and the assisted places scheme. Where will he get the other hundreds of millions that he says will sort out the problems of local government in Scotland?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Gentleman speaks about partnership and not confrontation. Is he looking forward to meeting the parents of the children who will lose vouchers or assisted places? Is that partnership? It is confrontation of the most evil kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Parents look after their children&apos;s education, and if they have the opportunity of an assisted place or a voucher for nursery education, they will grasp it with both hands, yet the hon. Member for Hamilton says that he will sweep it away, in dictatorial fashion. There will be no chance for parents who want their children to have a better education. He is a pathetic figure, sitting on that Front Bench.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0374"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;733&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;I noted today, when I was sitting listening to 21 minutes of peroration that never reached an end, that it was almost exactly this month 45 years ago that I was elected to a local authority&amp;#x2014;in a four-cornered fight, in case the hon. Member for Hamilton thinks I got in under the counter.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In many ways, local government has not changed. Throughout my years as a county councillor, we were asking, "Why can&apos;t we have more money to improve our services?", but we knew that we had to produce the money by good housekeeping, good husbandry and keeping down expenditure. The challenge was not how to increase local taxation but how to reduce expenditure. That is the challenge for local authorities. They always ask, "How can we spend more?" when the challenge is, "How can we spend less if we are to look after the interests of our many constituents in the local authority?"&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing for the people of Dunblane; it is absolutely right, and I support that move entirely. It reminds me that the Government were so helpful at the time of the major disaster at Lockerbie, when we lost 270 people in one evening.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is profoundly disappointing that, although COSLA was set up to try to bring the best out of local authorities, it seems only to use its Labour majority to hammer the Government, day in, day out. I should like COSLA to make a much more co-operative effort to find the right formula&amp;#x2014;the rural authorities are, obviously, highly critical of the formula agreed by COSLA&amp;#x2014;for the distribution of the block grant.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Labour councillors, independent councillors, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat councillors and so on are not correct when they say that there are cuts everywhere, because it simply is not true. The statistics show that there are increases of &amp;#x00A3;140 million&amp;#x2014;2.2 per cent.&amp;#x2014;and that cannot be converted into cuts, however one wants to jiggle the statistics, including this and excluding that, and then say, "It isn&apos;t fair." Ultimately it must be recognised that the Government have provided more money for local authorities, and that there is not a cut in their resources.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I shall mention the Labour party once more. It is not good enough&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; Good Lord, the hon. Member for Hamilton has gone already. &lt;i&gt;[Laughter.]&lt;/i&gt; Oh, he is back again. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Hamilton to sit there, and stand there later, and not tell us how he intends to give more to local authorities, when his Front-Bench spokesman, the shadow Chancellor, says that there is no more for local authorities. That may be why his public opinion poll rating has plummeted today, and perhaps that is why he is so crotchety and unhappy sitting there on the Front Bench: because he knows that, once the poll begins to slide, it is very unlikely to stop.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I shall briefly mention what has been happening in Glasgow. I notice from the report given to us by the chief executive that there were 203 conference attendances by Glasgow cou