| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to an extra £150 million for local authorities, which is more than 1p in the pound on income tax in Scotland. He has also said that the Liberal Democrats would raise 1p in the pound specifically for education. Does that mean that they want to raise income tax by 2p in the pound? Education is only part of local authority expenditure. Higher education must be paid for as well, and I presume that some of that 1p for education would be spent on higher education.
Mr. Kirkwood: The Government have charged us to say where the money will come from, and I am trying to quantify what is required to achieve a sensible settlement for local government next year. Given the figures available to me, my assessment is that £100 million or £150 million is required to provide services of the same high quality as in the past.
My party voted against the tax cuts, without which £2 billion more would now be available. If the Scottish share of that were put into the local government budget, it would provide a 3 per cent. increase, which would amount to between £150 million and £180 million. I would have to persuade the public that that is necessary if they want the services. If they want to have lower taxes and to pay for taxis to take them 40 miles to a swimming pool because the pool in Jedburgh is likely to be closed on Thursday, that is up to them. As a Liberal Democrat and someone who is trying to make sense of the local government settlement, I think that not enough money has been provided.
Education is a priority for Liberal Democrats--I suppose that it is a priority for everyone. We cannot duck the fact that we have had a good education system in Scotland, because we have invested more in it, and I want that to continue.
Mr. Kynoch:
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He suggested that his party would provide extra funding. Has he studied the Coopers and Lybrand and Peida report, which shows that local government in Scotland is well funded across the board? We should seek improvement and value for money, not throw more money into local government.
Mr. Kirkwood:
I am as keen as anyone to obtain value for money and efficiency savings. I look forward with enthusiasm to engaging in the argument on the Peida report. I can give the Minister two examples off the top of my head. The local authority in Northumberland may receive less per head than the Scottish Borders council, but many of the development workers with the local development commission are not taken into account. It has park rangers coming out of its ears, and they are not taken into account in the local government settlement for Northumberland. So long as the Peida report covers the professionals who deliver the services and obtains a true, costed comparison, I will happily meet the Minister any place, any time, to discuss the nitty-gritty.
Of course, I want efficiency savings: we must ensure that we get value for money. But people would be more enamoured of what we are doing if we provided the proper resources. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the new responsibilities that Parliament has given local authorities. Professionals north of the border estimate that the financial burden for community care in the next financial year will be £123 million. I accept that the Government have made allowances for that in the settlement, but the Scottish Office provision is £55 million, which is nowhere near £123 million. Those professionals are not irresponsible party politicians: they are trying to make proper provision under the legislation that the House passed. We give them half the money required to do that--Parliament must stop doing that.
I sponsored the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which was introduced by a Labour Member. Professionals estimate that it will cost £50 million next year. What have the Government allowed? Zilch, zero, nothing. It is unconscionable to put layer upon layer of responsibilities on the shoulders of local authorities and expect them to provide services out of fresh air. The contention that local authorities in Scotland have saved up to £60 million is merely accounting acrobatics: the figure is nothing like that, and everybody knows it.
The settlement is one of the worst that I have known since I was elected to the House in 1983. I am faced with difficult meetings. I have to respond to a petition containing 3,000 names that were collected in 10 days in Duns, which will lose its educational centre. We are losing swimming pools and sports centres, which keep the kids off the streets. The meeting about the Jedburgh pool was the most difficult hour and a half that I have spent: we all got soaking wet, but we were proud to do so if it made any difference and made the Government think again about the closure.
The Burnfoot project has been in existence for 17 years and has a proven track record. The community is proud of that facility for rehabilitating difficult children: it has been used as a model in other parts of the region. Why is it to be closed? Because the local authority has new responsibilities under the Children Act 1989, for God's sake. That Act is supposed to support kids such as those who will be thrown out the door of the Burnfoot project. It is the economics of the madhouse. In addition, Foulden school is, relatively speaking, a brand new building; its doors are going to be shut and the windows boarded up for financial reasons. That will take the heart out of the local village community. The building will be left to moulder and fall to bits, and loan charges will continue to be paid. How does that make sense? How is that to be explained to people whose kids--primary school children--are going to have to get on a bus and go 15 to 20 miles to and from school?
Those decisions are not being taken lightly by Scottish Borders councillors. They are being made because they have absolutely no alternative. They have a budget of £100 million. There is no fat left. They have no flexibility. Half the budget is for education. They are having to make swingeing cuts in services, to reduce jobs and to lower investment, and they will end up with higher council taxes.
This system of local government finance, of raising only £15 out of every £100 yet being accountable for all expenditure, is no use, has had its day and should be swept away. We need not just reviews of the relationship between local and central Government, although that would help, but a root-and-branch reform so that local councillors can truly represent the interests of their council tax payers and be held to account at the ballot box.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
That was an interesting speech. Some important aspects of local government were covered. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) may find that some Conservative Members think that councillors and local government should be held more to account locally, and that the best way to do that is through financial accountability. I do not disagree with that. One of the advantages of the pressures that exist at present is that we may at long last take an in-depth and serious look at how local government is structured, funded and held to account.
People can always, as they do, blame central Government because the bulk of the money--85 per cent.--comes from central taxation. There may be merit in removing revenue raising completely from central Government and letting local government raise it all locally. We might then find that Glasgow and elsewhere would take an entirely different view of how the 85 per cent. funding is distributed.
The plain truth is that, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities formula, pain is being felt in all sorts of different ways. For example, no real account is taken of
the substantial increase in population in my constituency. People want to live in my part of the world, which is not surprising. They want to leave the big cities and to move into country areas, where the quality of life is good. As long as we can contain the numbers, education and all the other facilities will remain at a very high standard, but we may reach a point, and we are getting close to it, where the numbers will make it much more difficult to maintain the quality of services, particularly in education, that we have enjoyed in my constituency.
I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that the comments about people travelling related to doing so at public expense. If people have travelled from this place--the hon. Gentleman drew attention to that--it is important to distinguish between that which is public expenditure and that which is not. I trust that his comments were not directed at the Sir Gordon Downey aspect and at the Select Committees.
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
I never mentioned the Select Committees.
Mr. Walker:
That is what I am saying. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was not talking about Select Committees. He should read his speeches afterwards. He brought together two different activities in a way that devalued the standing of the House--that is how I understood him. If he disagrees, that is fine, but it is not the first time that he has lumped things together to make a point. He does not always understand that people outside do not have the knowledge to break down the differences, as we do in this place, and that can do terrible damage. If he is really concerned about the reputation of this place, as he claims, he should think carefully about the way he lumps things together--that is the only point I am making.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |