| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Council Tax
3. Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the expected levels of council tax for 1997-98. [17315]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Council tax levels will depend on the decisions of individual councils.
Sir David Steel: I thank the Minister for that blinding flash of insight into the financial affairs of Scotland. I seriously thank him and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the courteous hearing that they gave to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in Selkirk, and for rearranging the capping limit for the Scottish Borders council. However, will the Minister accept that new money is not coming from the Government to the council, but that the council is simply being allowed to raise council tax, to mitigate the worst effects of the Government's starvation of local council funds? Does he recognise that, when the Borders council meets tomorrow to make unacceptable cuts, it will also have to make an unacceptable increase in council tax--all of which adds up to a Tory tax?
Mr. Kynoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least being big enough to be thankful for the fact that my right hon. Friend and I listened to his lobbying on behalf of the Borders council. I was surprised that his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not mention that in yesterday's debate. At its request, the Scottish Borders council has the flexibility to spend an extra £924,000.
The council's budget proposals, if no capping was in place, would have increased council tax by 48 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman talks about "unacceptable"
increases in council tax, but the local Liberal Democrat administration wanted to increase council tax even more than that. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the local government settlement is more than fair, and that councils must act responsibly and ensure good value for money in service provision to council tax payers.
Mr. Gallie:
Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in south Ayrshire are absolutely delighted that South Ayrshire council has received an above inflation rate grant this year? Does he agree that there should be an element of optimism--[Interruption.] Well, perhaps not when it is a Labour council. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is cause for some optimism that the council could hold the council tax rate this year?
Mr. Kynoch:
My hon. Friend works on the same principle as I do. A reasonable settlement that allows South Ayrshire council to increase its expenditure next year by £3.5 million, or 3.21 per cent., should be more than adequate to maintain the level of services and to improve them. My hon. Friend is right: the Labour administration, with the level of cuts that it apparently wants to make, has sought an increase in spending of 7.7 per cent. If the council were to have that spending power, it would have to increase the council tax for my hon. Friend's constituents by 27 per cent. That is what the Labour party is like when it is in power: that is the Labour party in local government in Scotland. The Labour party wants a tax-raising parliament in Scotland. It wants to increase the level of government in Scotland, and to increase spending and taxation. That is the Labour party that we all know still exists.
Mr. George Robertson:
Everyone will notice that, once again, the Secretary of State dodges the column and fails to defend the Government's record on local government. Does the Minister realise how much real anger there is in Scotland about the level of council tax increases and the cuts in education, all of which are the Government's responsibility? Why do the Government continue to pretend that extra money is available, when they have put extra burdens on councils? They know that the cost of the gerrymandered reorganisation of local government, for which they were responsible, makes a mockery of their claims about extra money.
The Government have only a few more weeks left on their deathbed. Why do they not repent, and put some of the money that they are holding back for pre-election gimmicks where the people of Scotland want it--into the education of our children?
Mr. Kynoch:
Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman used the excuse that he had been stuck on an aeroplane at Glasgow airport for his poor performance at the Dispatch Box. I am not sure what his excuse is today. He implied that the Government will not be re-elected, so I assume that he thinks that his party will be elected. Given that he is critical of this year's local government settlement, he should tell the Scottish people whether he believes that more money should be given to local government, how much and from where. I asked those questions time and again yesterday, but I received no answers. I ask the hon. Gentleman again this afternoon, and I hope that he will tell the Scottish public the answer.
Lady Olga Maitland:
Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax rises by the Labour party are due to its usual
Mr. Kynoch:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the management of taxpayers' money. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that we are the trustees of the taxpayer. I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition realise that central Government and local government funding comes from the taxpayer. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend that such mismanagement is a measure of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. The sooner we get the election over and the Government are restored to power, the sooner we will get better value for money for the taxpayer.
4. Mr. Home Robertson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to mark the thousandth anniversary of the accession of King Kenneth III to the Scottish throne. [17316]
Mr. Michael Forsyth:
I see no reason to mark the anniversary of the accession of King Kenneth III, who came to the throne by the violent overthrow of Constantine III. As the only significant event of his reign was the loss of Lothian to the English, who were led by Ethelred the Unready, I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's desire to honour him.
Mr. Home Robertson:
The question was inspired by the Prime Minister's hallucinations about 1,000 years of British history. Is the Secretary of State aware that King Kenneth reigned fully 710 years before the Union with England? Is he further aware that King Kenneth lost his seat, so to speak, as a consequence of a rather drastic leadership challenge? I should warn the Secretary of State that such has been known to happen in the Stirling area. Would not the best recognition of 1,000 years of Scottish history and 300 years of British history be a modern constitution with a parliament for Scotland for the next millennium?
Mr. Forsyth:
Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Ethelred the Unready who won Lothian in the year in question. I know that the Labour party seems to have forgotten its principles and its history, but perhaps I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that the first person to talk about 1,000 years of history in the context of the British constitution was the late Hugh Gaitskell. During his speech to the Labour party conference in 1962, he warned of the dangers of a federal Europe and said:
Mr. Jessel:
Did not the late Hugh Gaitskell insist that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Forsyth:
It is correct that the late Hugh Gaitskell was a member of the Procedure Committee which in
Mr. Canavan:
What about King Kenneth I, otherwise known as Kenneth McAlpine of the same clan as Lord McAlpine, who spilled the beans about the Government's skulduggery and is now saying that the Tories must be defeated in the general election in order to clear their heads?
Mr. Forsyth:
Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman, who is a constituent of mine in Stirling, that I am the Member who represents Bannockburn. When the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose.
5. Mr. Kirkwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the allocation of capital consents via the capital challenge fund for the financial year 1997-98. [17317]
Mr. Kynoch:
My right hon. Friend has today announced full details of the central challenge fund winners. Nineteen bids have been successful in full or in part, with awards totalling £59 million.
Mr. Kirkwood:
I am really, really grateful, but perhaps the Minister can put me out of my misery and tell me whether the Scottish Borders council's bid for Hawick has been approved. The bid was well put together and, more than anything else, it provided an opportunity for the health board's plan for a new community hospital and the local enterprise company under the new small towns initiative to come together to form a coherent and integrated approach to social and economic regeneration in the town of Hawick, which is very much needed. If the Minister is about to tell me that he has anticipated all this and has approved the Hawick bid, I will be really very grateful and thankful.
Mr. Kynoch:
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman was not grateful yesterday, and we made the announcement today. I am sorry to say that on this occasion the Hawick bid has not been successful. The good news for Hawick, as the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, is that it is one of the pilots for the small towns initiative which was announced a little while ago. It will be up to the local enterprise company and Scottish Enterprise to discuss funding for the projects that are likely for Hawick.
All the bids for the challenge fund were of a high standard and all were judged carefully. Officials from the Scottish Office will be in touch with the local authority in Hawick to discuss how it can modify the bid and come back again for a future challenge fund competition and perhaps be successful.
Mr. Bill Walker:
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the people of North Tayside welcome the challenge fund decision. They welcome the fact that the Perth flood prevention scheme is being addressed,
Mr. Kynoch:
It never ceases to amaze me where my hon. Friend has been and what he has been involved in, but that is why he will be so successful in the general election.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the fact that Perth and Kinross council's bid for flood prevention works in Perth will be a major beneficiary of the challenge fund. The funding will cover five years, and that shows how the challenge fund bid process can benefit local authorities and enable them to undertake, for the benefit of council tax payers, larger projects than they can tackle under their normal allocations.
Mr. Chisholm:
Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether the north Edinburgh bid from my constituency has been successful. How much has been taken out of capital consents to provide some slight reduction in the massive cuts that he has imposed on Scottish local authorities? Does the Minister still think that those cuts are imaginary, as he said yesterday, or is it just his fiddled figures and the so-called savings from local government reorganisation that are imaginary?
Mr. Kynoch:
Edinburgh council will receive £7 million for the north Edinburgh project, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that good news for the people in Granton and surrounding areas, who will receive significant benefits. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his allocation for local authorities, he took full account of the provision for the capital challenge fund to put together a package that was fair and reasonable for local authorities.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did not answer my question, so perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) will do so. The Labour party is critical and asks for more money, but how much more would it put into local authorities? At least, the hon. Member for Leith was honest with his party in Dundee when he told it--although he was embarrassed about it--that the Labour party would go into the general election campaign without committing itself to more funding. The hon. Gentleman cannot be his two-sided self, and refuse to come clean with the Scottish public and say that there will be no more money under Labour.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham:
In Perth and Kinross, we are grateful for the announcement today of £18.3 million for the Perth flood prevention scheme, but the Minister will be aware that there is still a shortfall of some £3.5 million on the bid. The rural flood prevention schemes still need £1 million. Six of those schemes are now ready to go ahead. When will the Minister make an announcement about borrowing consents for those schemes?
Mr. Kynoch:
I am grateful that the hon. Lady has recognised that we have given something to the flood prevention proposal, because it is not so long since she
"It does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state . . . it means the end of a thousand years of history."
I advise Opposition Members to learn from their party's history and perhaps start putting principles before their narrow political interest and risking the integrity of our constitution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |