| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bill Walker: I do not represent Perth.
Mr. Clarke: I am giving you an example. I am not saying that you represent Perth; I know who represents Perth--the lovely lady up there.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman always to address the Chair?
Mr. Clarke: I am very sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One cannot compare Perth with Wester Hailes, or the big urban areas in Glasgow with some of Scotland's lovely rural cities; and it would be unfair to try to do so. Those cities have natural amenities and resources, whereas urban areas--massive areas of concrete jungle--have very little or nothing at all.
Mr. Walker:
I trust that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the cost of providing education in rural areas can be much more expensive because of the distances involved and the problems faced. That is one aspect of the matter. As education is a very large part of local government expenditure--[Interruption.]
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
The Minister does not accept that.
Mr. Walker:
Does the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) accept that--when one compares what one gets for every pound spent--it is not unreasonable to say that one must take a population increase into account?
Mr. Clarke:
All I am saying is that like-for-like comparisons are very difficult when the circumstances are absolutely different.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has just given a splendid example of why invidious comparisons between England and Scotland are absolutely inappropriate?
Mr. Clarke:
I totally agree. Because of Scotland's sparsely populated areas, with their massive deficits for road maintenance and many other services, it cannot be compared with England.
It is unfair to write off urban areas and merely to say that they are different from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Tayside. Those areas are different, and they have different problems. All I can tell him is that we should be compassionate to one another. It is not a matter of me taking anything away from other areas. In certain circumstances, areas should be given grants and rights. On that basis, I support the city of Glasgow.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)
: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Clarke:
I have already given way three times, and I know that other hon. Members would like to speak; I am sorry.
If this debate does nothing else, I hope that it will ensure that those listening to it--not only to my speech, but to those of other hon. Members--understand the reality that we are attempting to describe, so that they can see beyond the smokescreen of allegations about inefficiency and globe-trotting, which, intolerably, is being used to shortchange us all.
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr):
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) speaks as a member of the shadow Front-Bench team and as a Labour Whip, and he has just challenged the entire thrust of Labour's position on local government expenditure. Labour has said, "Not 1p more"; but he says, "The Government are shortchanging Midlothian." I can tell him that the Opposition will shortchange Midlothian in exactly the same way, because they are not offering any more cash.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) intervened on the hon. Member for Midlothian, highlighting the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) as to why Scotland receives additional expenditure, and she was quite right. The expenditure differential has been expressed in the Barnet formula. The Government have honoured the formula for many years, and they will continue to do so. By emphasising the problems of rural areas, however, she has not examined the situation in cities and in Scotland's central belt.
One question that must be asked is why Glasgow receives 80 per cent. more aggregate external finance than English cities? Why is there a 42 per cent. greater increase in AEF across Scotland than in similar towns and villages in England? It is a major problem, and it must be dealt with. I suggest that Opposition Members take on board the need to examine how money is being spent in local authorities, and to determine true value for money.
In his pathetic speech, the main criticism made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open this debate. I should tell Opposition Members that the leader of the Scottish Liberals has not spoken in this debate--nor, I suspect, will the leader of the Scottish National party. Perhaps the difference between hon.
Members in the minor Opposition parties and Labour Members is that they have more faith in their junior shadow spokesmen. Obviously the hon. Member for Hamilton does not have such faith. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is sitting on the Back Benches. I remind the House of the time when he was relegated there. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not even keep him in the picture of Front-Bench thinking. All hon. Members should reflect on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about local authorities and about the belief--particularly in Labour-controlled authorities--that the value of controlling one lies in how much one can spend. I can provide an example of that sentiment from my own days on Cunninghame district council. When I challenged Councillor Jim Clements--whose family was steeped in local government--on why he never became involved with community councils, he said:
I know that Opposition Members have recently challenged the Government on the health service. We have been told that efficiencies are necessary. I have a letter from the North Ayrshire and Arran trust which challenges the beliefs of Opposition Members. It states:
Mr. Gallie:
I fully accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to illustrate how wrong Opposition Members are on those issues. They believe that attempts have not been made in other areas, such as the health service, to rationalise and to produce results and wise expenditure levels. Such results have been achieved in the health service, unlike in local government. It is time for local authorities to reanalyse their position. I recognise that I shall have to sit down in the not too distant future to allow other hon. Members to speak, but it is worth giving up several other issues that I wanted to raise to make several causes for thought.
I should like to pick up on one issue in relation to Glasgow. I note that £130,000 has been spent on a glossy magazine to inform people about what the City of Glasgow council sets out to do. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) nodding his head and saying that that is great. He obviously approves.
Mr. Michael J. Martin:
I did not say a word.
Mr. Gallie:
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman approves. He and his hon. Friends have criticised the Government for spending £600,000 on advertising the nursery voucher system. The public need to be advised about the system so that they know how to use it. That is
Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East):
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has a Minister asked you whether it is possible for him to come to the House to apologise for a statement made during Environment questions this afternoon? I have had telephone calls from my constituents, whose interests I am sure that you wish to protect. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said that Bristol city councillors were increasing their allowances by 66 per cent. and that they were going to build a flagship building with turrets at a cost of £1 million. Neither of those statements is true--they are both misleading. Is it possible for the Minister to come to the House to set the Hansard record straight today?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
In answer to the hon. Lady's first question, I have received no such notification. As far as the substance of her complaint is concerned, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy of statements made by any hon. Member--Minister or otherwise. The hon. Lady has made her point.
"They are worthless. They have no money to spend. I only want to be involved when we have money to spread out and provide services across the community."
He never thought for one moment about how that money was earned. That is the difference between Opposition and Conservative Members.
"The numbers of nurses and midwives have increased by 4.6 per cent. since April 1993".
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes cantering down that particular road, I remind him that we are debating local government finance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |