House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jun 1995

Madam Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Lady who, although she has not long been in Parliament, is an experienced politician. I am sure that she will put a question when she has said what she wishes to say.

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. My constituents are unhappy about the extent to which they have been used as a political football in the House. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland: will he now resign, because he is failing to look after the interests of all the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Well, I understood that the Labour party wanted me to set up an inquiry under section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I asked the hon. Lady during the by-election, when she said that she had evidence and was going to send it to me, to let me have

Column 885

it so that I could consider it. That arose from the Labour party's earlier inquiry. I also asked the late John Smith to send me the inquiry; neither she nor he did so. As a result of Professor Black's report, however, we have further information that we have considered carefully and that has led me to the conclusion that I have just announced.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is nothing terribly unusual about Monklands? Most Labour councils in west Scotland behave exactly in the way that Monklands has behaved. Will he therefore bear in mind the possibility of 211 inquiries into other councils --for example Dumbarton and Renfrew?

Mr. Lang: If my hon. Friend has evidence that he would like to send to me that might justify such a matter, I shall of course consider it. Perhaps one of the things that is different about Monklands district council is that, in February 1994, 81 Labour Members signed an early-day motion

"That this House deplores the actions of certain honourable Members in claiming that there has been impropriety of various kinds by elected members of Monklands District Council".

That seemed to be their conclusion after their earlier inquiry. The circumstances now, however, seem to be different.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State not accept that, while no one will take seriously Labour's attempt to abdicate its responsibility for Monklands, there is a question as to why the Secretary of State has taken two years to take the action that he has announced today? Is it the case that it was the policy of past and present Scottish Office Ministers deliberately to allow the Monklands position to fester for political advantage, just as it was the Labour party's policy to try to sweep it under the carpet?

Mr. Lang: That is quite wrong. I have been aware of certain allegations for some time, but I am obliged to consider the position in its statutory context, as I have made repeatedly clear to the House. I am now of the opinion that it is appropriate to initiate an inquiry of the sort that I have announced.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many requests-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We will have one debate at a time in this House.

Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, year after year, there are many requests for inquiries into different local authorities, and that he and his staff can consider only the evidence that they have, before they can make a decision on whether there is adequate evidence? Was it not the absent evidence, especially the evidence collected by the Labour party, that could have brought forward this inquiry if it had been made available?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I repeatedly asked for such evidence to be forwarded to me. However, I now have Professor Black's report to deal with instead.

Mr. George Robertson: Let me first welcome the belated announcement by the Secretary of State that he will now have that statutory inquiry into Monklands district council, for which, as my hon. Friends have said, I, the late John Smith and many others have been calling

Column 886

for some time. May I regret that it was slipped in here today in the answer to a question, although that is the usual sleekit way that we expect these things to be announced from the Tory party today? Will he not admit, however, that he has now been stung into doing this inquiry, which he should have instructed at least two years ago, by the decisive and determined action taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Scottish Labour party last week?

While the Secretary of State for Scotland was interested only in scoring party political points about the fears, apprehensions and worries of the people of Monklands, it was left to the Labour party to call for Professor Black's independent inquiry. In contrast to the dilly-dallying of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, we took clear and decisive action on it within 24 hours. While the Tory party plays at politics, the Labour party takes action.

Mr. Lang: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman was complaining because I was not answering a question; now he is complaining because I have answered a question. On 4 March 1993, the Labour party's inquiry into Monklands concluded:

"The Committee has carried out its remit with integrity and sensitivity and would anticipate that the recommendations form part of a concerted effort to restore credibility and to renew confidence in the local Party in Monklands . . . There will be a continuing interest from the Scottish Executive to ensure the smooth and effective operation of the Party in Monklands".

That was its view on 4 March 1993. Its view seems to have changed a little since then. It is a great pity that it did not send me the evidence that I have repeatedly asked for in the compilation of that report. If it had, we could have had the inquiry a long time ago.

Taxation

13. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the total grant of Government expenditure in Scotland was raised by taxation in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [29383]

Mr. Kynoch: In 1992-93, it is estimated that taxes raised in Scotland--excluding North sea oil revenues--accounted for some 72 per cent. of total general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, in Scotland. Even if all oil revenues were allocated to Scotland in that year, the percentage would increase only to 77 per cent.

Mr. Robertson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, to keep services at their current levels, an independent Scotland would face a budget deficit of anything between £6 billion and £8 billion? Can he confirm that that would mean £6 billion to £8 billion of tax increases or of spending cuts?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The policies of the Scottish National party would cause significant problems for Scotland and for Scottish business. My hon. Friend may have seen in today's newspapers that not only are the nationalist policies damaging for Scotland, but, according to the leader of the Institute of Directors, devolution is also damaging and would force firms out of Scotland.

Mr. Graham: The Minister will be aware that in Inverclyde we recently faced a terrible blow in that one

Column 887

enterprise zone site is no longer applicable. The folk of Inverclyde are desperate to see a new site on which we can build factories. Will the Minister ensure that some of the money paid into the coffers in taxes by the people of Scotland is put to good use to rectify that problem created by the Government?

Mr. Kynoch: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to all the success stories that we have had throughout Scotland. Enterprise zones are not always the answer to problems. They take a long time to set up and have a limited life. What is important is that we have given sufficient powers to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise network to work in partnership with local authorities to try to ensure that local businesses thrive and have every chance of expanding.

Mr. Forman: In view of the figures given by my hon. Friend in his original answer, and bearing in mind the unusually high public expenditure per head in Scotland when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, is it not clear to anybody in this Parliament of the United Kingdom that the Scottish people are relatively undertaxed and over-represented within the United Kingdom context?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend interprets the situation in one way, but another interpretation is that the situation is like that because we justify it. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that, should a devolved Parliament with tax-raising powers be introduced in Scotland, it is almost inevitable that a significant increase in taxation would occur in Scotland. What the Labour party has failed to say is where that tax would be raised. Income tax increases of 3p in the pound would raise only £150 million per 1p against the £3 billion of extra public expenditure that is spent by the Scottish Office compared with the United Kingdom average.

Mr. Trimble: Is it not unrealistic to compare taxation and expenditure while we are all in the state of the United Kingdom? Is not the principle that individuals, whether resident in Scotland, Merseyside or wherever, who are paying the same tax rates as others, are entitled to the same levels of benefit and public services so long as the principle of parity is maintained? Is it not also the case that, if the principle of parity is departed from through having different tax rates in part of the kingdom, it calls into question the other side of the coin of parity?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about differences in taxation. It is clear that, should a tax-raising Parliament be introduced in Scotland, it could well be the slippery slope towards separation within the United Kingdom. That is why the SNP has stated clearly that it supports the Labour party's devolution proposals.

Mr. McFall: Is not the crucial question how the Government spend that money? Official figures show that, on a conservative estimate, local government reorganisation alone has cost more than £250 million--an unwanted cost in what is now a Tory-free area. According to official figures, the poll tax in Scotland alone cost more than £1.5 billion. Then we had the scandal of Health Care International--a scandal that will follow the Secretary of State to his political grave--which cost £45 million. Is not the conclusion to be drawn from that brief, random sample that Scotland cannot afford to be governed by the Tories at any cost, irrespective of whether that means Redwood or deadwood?

Column 888

Mr. Kynoch: As usual, the hon. Gentleman misquotes the figures. Each of those figures is erroneous, although I shall not go into detail about them now, other than to point out that, if he had listened to the Public Accounts Committee hearing on HCI, he would know that the real figure is about £15 million. Clearly, what is of interest is trying to ensure that we get the best possible services in Scotland and the best possible chance for business to succeed there. I believe that the Government's policies have delivered, and are delivering, just that.

Teaching Posts

14. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimate for the number of teaching posts that will be lost as a result of the recent education funding settlement. [29384]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December last year was a tight but realistic one for local authorities. It is for authorities to determine their spending on education and other programmes in the light of the resources available to them.

Mr. McKelvey: The Minister has not answered the question. I asked how many teachers would be unemployed. He knows that there are unemployed teachers in the Lothians, in Central region, in the Orkneys and in the Borders. Why is the settlement considered tight but adequate when the pupil -teacher ratio is different in different schools? Local authority schools have a ratio of 15 pupils per teacher and grant-aided schools nine pupils per teacher. In the independent schools, the ratio is 10:1. Why do the Government not aim for a mean figure so that the children of Scotland have equal opportunities for education and the same number of pupils per teacher?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement provided for Government- supported expenditure to rise by £103 million--an increase of 1.72 per cent. It is for local authorities to choose their priorities within their budgets, and any job losses must be seen against a background of growth in Scottish local authority manpower. In the year to June 1994, the staffing levels of authorities in Scotland increased by more than 2,000--nearly 1 per cent.--and there was an increase of no less than 9 per cent. in central service staff. In the same period, English authorities reduced staff by 1 per cent.

Mr. Stephen: Can my hon. Friend confirm a figure given to me by the Library--that Government spending on education per head of population in Scotland is 31 per cent. higher than similar spending in England? Is that not a solid commitment by the taxpayer to the education of Scottish children, and is it not one of the many benefits that the people of Scotland enjoy by virtue of their membership of the United Kingdom?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In fact, the figure is even more substantial. Spending is 33 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than south of the border. [Interruption.] However much hon. Members may complain, that is substantial funding. But of course local authorities have the discretion to choose their own priorities. In our view, it would be wrong to take powers away from local democracy in that respect.

Mr. Worthington: Last week, St. Andrew's college in my constituency had its teaching courses graded as highly

Column 889

satisfactory by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, but at the same time the same body was telling it to produce plans whereby it would lose one third of its teaching force by 1998. That is a result of the Government's settlement for higher education and for education in general. Are the Government not ashamed that they are requiring colleges to lose one third of their staff?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter is under consideration by the SHEFC. The council is assisting the college by appointing an external consultant to work with the college management on the preparation of its plan, and I understand that there have been meetings on the subject recently. When the SHEFC has received the college's proposals and has considered the plan, it will be in a position to make a considered statement. We are not yet at that stage.

Higher Education

15. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently on higher education courses in Scotland; what was the figure in May 1979; what those figures were as a fraction of the population of the relevant age; and if he will make a statement. [29385]

Mr. Lang: There were 132,509 people on full-time higher education courses in Scotland in 1993-94 and 68,322 in 1978-79. The age participation index for the earliest available year, 1980-81, was 17.3 per cent. compared with 38.3 per cent. in 1993-94. These figures show the extent to which the Government have increased overall numbers of students, and participation, in higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept my strong congratulations on those excellent figures? The people of Scotland will surely know that this Government have brought real educational opportunities to the young people of Scotland in a way that the Labour party never has.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An increase from just under 70,000 when the Government came to power to 132,500 now is a remarkable commitment by the Government to higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the increased numbers in higher education in Scotland, why are the Secretary of State and his colleagues so cool about the possibility of developing a university of the highlands, an idea that is backed by the development agencies, by the local authorities and by all the Members of Parliament in the area?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the considerable expansion of the universities which has already taken place in Scotland. I have, of course, taken a close interest in the development of academic opportunities for those in the highlands. I compliment all those involved in the extension of distance learning techniques and other activities to bring advantages to that area. At the moment, we do not see a case for a university of the highlands as such.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have beaten their own targets in terms of increasing the proportion of people going into higher

Column 890

education. Would he consider moving money from that budget into training people in technician and apprentice work? We seem constantly to be putting money into graduates who sometimes do not get jobs, although we do not have enough people with good, practical technical skills.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right and makes a telling point. This is a matter to which the Government have given considerable attention. My hon. Friend will have studied the recent

competitiveness White Paper and its predecessor a year ago, which show that the focus of our attention is on improving skills in precisely the area that he identifies.

Food Hygiene

16. Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is being given to environmental health officers in respect of the possible organised infringement of food hygiene

regulations. [29387]

Mr. Kynoch: Advice on the enforcement of food hygiene regulations is contained in the codes of practice made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. Further advice is issued on an ad hoc basis when necessary.

Mrs. Liddell: The Minister will be aware of the fact that in my constituency, a shopkeeper was recently fined £1,000 for selling food that was 10 years out of date. Will he join me in congratulating the environmental health officers of Monklands district council on their efficiency in tracking down this appalling situation? In view of the seriousness of the offence and the possible danger to many vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly and the very young, from eating contaminated food, will the Minister instruct his Department to give extra assistance to food hygiene inspectors so that any organised infringement can be tracked down?

Mr. Kynoch: I was aware of the hon. Lady's problems with food labelling in her constituency. She is right to say that it was within the remit of the environmental health officers to deal with the matter. We are confident that they have sufficient powers under existing legislation to deal with such cases.

NHS Management

17. Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the management of the national health service. [29388]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The NHS reforms in Scotland provide improved health and patient care and will continue to do so.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Government's plan eventually to privatise all NHS trusts, either by management buy-outs or by takeovers by companies such as BUPA and AMI, in terms of which Stonehaven hospital is the first classic example? Will that development be linked to private health insurance, giving us a fully private health care system? When will the Government come clean about their true plans?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that services will continue to be provided free

Column 891

at the point of delivery, whoever provides them and, of course, we are interested in the highest possible standards of service. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see that no less a person than the adviser to the last Labour Secretary of State for Health has written in the Fabian Review:

"There is now overwhelming evidence that GP fundholders are able to get a better deal for their patients . . . It makes sense to build on what has been achieved and induce more GPs to join the system." That is confirmation that what the Government are doing is entirely on the right tracks from one of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues.

Poverty

18. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people in Scotland living in poverty; what plans he has to reduce this figure; and if he will make a statement. [29389]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Statistics on patterns of household disposable income are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1991/92", published in July last year. The best response to low

Column 892

household income is to sustain economic recovery and to assist those in greatest need. The Government's policies address both these aspects.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister not thoroughly ashamed of his cop-out in answering that question? Does he not realise that many crime and drug problems stem from poverty? Many young people have no hope and no future. Many old people have no decent and dignified retirement. Does he not know that people are dying as a result of poverty in health, housing, jobs and finance? When is he going to do something positive, such as making the Millennium Commission spend some of its millions on projects to tackle poverty instead of on making multi-millionaires out of Tory Members?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should have told the House that unemployment in his Shettleston constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. He has forgotten to mention that more than £85 million pounds is being given in urban aid to areas of housing deprivation in Scotland and, of course, that the vast majority of people in Scotland are far better off. Average income rose 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1991 and is up for all family types. I would advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the whole position. Scotland is doing extremely well in many respects.

Column 891

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page