House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 1999 (pt 30)

Mr. Letwin: Of course the Minister is right that my main point is a constitutional one and about the future, rather than a financial point and about the past, but does he accept that the NAO report is interesting in that it looks in painstaking detail at the way in which the moneys that were disbursed, after administrative expenses and so forth, were used, and whether value for money was achieved in terms of cost per job? It also, I should add, examined internal auditing controls; I am not and have never suggested any impropriety and the NAO found none. However, does he agree that the report does not look at all closely at whether the organisation is, as a financial enterprise, running its internal affairs efficiently? Is that not surprising?

Mr. Macdonald: That is a point that the hon. Gentleman could take up with the NAO. Certainly the tone of the report is one of general satisfaction with the operations of Scottish Enterprise. Unless we know

21 Jan 1999 : Column 1111

otherwise, we would do better in this Chamber to emphasise that positive side, albeit the hon. Gentleman wants to make those wider points about scrutiny. It would only be fair if, here, we accepted that the NAO issued a generally positive report on Scottish Enterprise, and we can only assume that it found favour with the Public Accounts Committee as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) made the point that, during the Select Committee visit to north America, it heard glowing testimony of the high regard in which Scottish Enterprise is held in north America because of the nature and quality of its work and the way in which it is perceived. I agree with what he said about Scottish Enterprise strategy and I find nothing to disagree with his points about Glasgow in general. I agree particularly with the fact that we need to address the problems of Glasgow, not just through the efforts of Scottish Enterprise, but through other measures such as the new deal, social inclusion partnerships and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston also mentioned the subject of brown-field sites in Glasgow which, quite rightly, he raises frequently. The treatment of such sites is important and my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that £3 million has been ring-fenced specifically for the development of brown-field sites in Glasgow.

The future oversight of Scottish Enterprise will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It will be one of the agencies under the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive and its agencies will be held to account by the Parliament. One would assume that the Parliament will have its own audit committee, which, like the Public Accounts Committee, will play an active and powerful role in the life of that Parliament. From April next year, responsibility for auditing Scottish Enterprise will transfer to the auditor-general for Scotland. That may not answer the deeper questions about devolution that were asked by the hon. Member for West Dorset, but I believe that those are just points of disagreement between both sides of the House about the merits of devolution and the need to achieve it.

Mr. Letwin: Without entering the depths of the dispute, if there is one, will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point? Is he saying that, it is the Government's view that, following devolution and in the light of the audit arrangements which he no doubt correctly says will be established by the Scottish Parliament, there should be no opportunity for oversight by this House or this Parliament of the use of funds by agencies which come under the Scottish Parliament.?

Mr. Macdonald: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be free to make his own speeches after devolution and to raise any points that he wishes with the Government of the day about how that Government are spending

21 Jan 1999 : Column 1112

their money. It is a firm view on the Labour Benches that those responsibilities and duties should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and, in our view, it will be the responsibility of that Parliament to fulfil them.

Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to interrupt again; this will be my last intervention. Can the Minister tell us how far he intends to press that point? Is he saying that, even if there are suggestions in this House that moneys voted by this House through the block grant to the Scottish Parliament are being ill-used, he and his colleagues do not intend to set up any specific mechanism to enable the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, as represented in this House, to investigate that?

Mr. Macdonald: I am confident that the Scottish Parliament will be able to acquit its financial duties and its responsibility for oversight of the agencies every bit as competently as the current Parliament and Government are able to do. As I have said, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be able to make their own speeches and raise their own points in their own way post-devolution. I hope that he will at least accept that, within the Parliament, there will be a powerful mechanism for ensuring proper oversight of those agencies.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to this debate. Although it is a technical Bill, it has raised some interesting issues. As I explained at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is intended simply to raise the aggregate limit for Scottish Enterprise to allow it to continue its important work, which I am grateful to note has received cross-party support. I commend the measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scottish Enterprise Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise--

(1) any payment out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from increasing by the Act, to an amount not exceeding £4,000 million, the aggregate amount which is permitted to be outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of the items mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990; and
(2) any increase, resulting from such increase, in the sums payable into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.--[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

21 Jan 1999 : Column 1113

PETITION

Evercreech Primary School

6.40 pm

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I should like to present, and offer my support for, a petition that I was given earlier this week at Evercreech primary school. I am grateful to the school's staff, children and governors for the welcome that they gave me. The petition has been signed by 250 people resident in Evercreech and in the surrounding district of Somerset, including the area's county councillor, Mrs. Gloria Cawood.

The petition states:

The number of pupils attending Evercreech Primary School, and the continuing popularity of the school, is such that class sizes are unacceptably large, and that one class now has 38 children, to the detriment of the educational opportunities offered to local children.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take such matters as lie within their powers to urge that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment ensures that such resources are available to Somerset County Council as may be required to provide an extra permanent classroom and one extra teacher for Evercreech Primary School.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

21 Jan 1999 : Column 1114

Parish and Town Councils

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mrs. McGuire.]

6.41 pm

Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I start from the premise of a belief that often the importance of parish and town councils--or, as I shall refer to them, local councils--is undervalued and that the advantages that they offer, not only to their own community but as the basis of representative government, is underestimated.

I should immediately declare an interest: I am a local councillor. I have been a Stonehouse town councillor for the past 12 years, and shall remain a local councillor if those in power will select and re-elect me.

I realise that I am not the only hon. Member who has the onerous responsibility of being a local councillor. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) is a parish councillor in his constituency, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is president of the Durham Association of Local Councils. Recently, I became a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. The Minister for Local Government and Housing once filled that position with distinction. It is interesting how we hon. Members begin our careers.

I should like to give my thanks to all those who have served with me in local government. I should certainly like to thank my own councillors on Stonehouse town council and the two clerks who have been with the council for the past 12 years. I thank also all the other town councils with which I have had contact both before and especially since I was elected to the House.

My constituency has 48 parish and town councils, consisting of the five town councils of Stonehouse, Dursley, Nailsworth, Stroud and Berkeley; 41 parish councils, which vary in size from Cam--which my old friend, Councillor Brian Addle, always assures me is the biggest parish in Gloucestershire--to very small parishes, such as Brookthorpe-with-Whaddon, Standish, Elmore and Miserden. Finally, but not least, it has two parish meetings--which hon. Members who know about such matters will realise comprise the lowest level of representative democracy and meet only very occasionally, when the need arises--at Moreton Valence and Owlpen.

I should like to make special mention of two people who have helped me to compile my notes for this speech: Stephen Wright, the secretary of the Gloucestershire Association of Town and Parish Councils, who doubles as the director of the Gloucestershire rural community council; and Robin Wendt, the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils.

Local councils tend to be seen as the lowest and least form of democracy and are sometimes parodied as something of a French farce. In "The Vicar of Dibley" they are portrayed as not as serious as they could be. It is easy to think of local councils in that way, but those who serve on them regard their role as important. Although it is not always easy to get people to serve, councils are an important part of the democratic process. When they work, they work very well.

21 Jan 1999 : Column 1115

The councils that set out to fulfil their role and take it seriously are many and varied throughout the country. The late Professor Bryan Keith Lucas, emeritus professor of government at the University of Kent, said:

"It would be difficult to exaggerate the diversity of parishes and how their councils provide for them."

That comes from the foreword to the 1997 book "Parish Government 1894-1994", which he co-authored with K. P. Poole.

Lord Faversham, currently president of the NALC, has said that local democracy is a vital element in a healthy state and that parish, town and community councillors can make local councils a relevant, valuable and necessary part of the governance of this country in the 21st century.

We are all aware of the historical importance of parishes. When people say where they come from, they often refer to their parish rather than a large city or a town. Parishes go back way beyond the creation of parish councils. That historical link is good to see. Only in the Local Government Act 1894 were civil parishes formally created. That was reaffirmed in the Local Government Act 1972. Although both Acts were widely welcomed, they were also opposed by some in authority--the landed gentry and the Church in the first example and larger councils in the second, because they saw local councils as a threat. How things move on and sometimes come round.