| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Local Government Finance (Glasgow)
8. Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): If he will make a statement on the local government financial settlement for Glasgow for 1999-2000. [65833]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Scottish councils will see the best financial settlement for seven years, with significant funding increases for front-line services, especially education. Glasgow's share of central Government support for 1999-2000 is set to rise in line with the Scottish average by almost 5 per cent.
Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether that will reduce the differential that is paid by Glasgow residents over and above that which is paid by other council tax payers in Scotland? Will he do all he can to ensure that Glasgow's bearing of the metropolitan burden and its difficulties--Glasgow faces the highest rates of poverty and unemployment in Scotland--are adequately recognised in future grant settlements?
Mr. Dewar: I recognise that there are special problems in Glasgow, which is my own city. I also recognise that Glasgow gets a higher grant per head than other local authorities, although there is always an argument about whether the balance is right. The increase in guidelined expenditure in Glasgow will be £47.6 million, or 4.9 per cent., which takes the overall figure to slightly more than £1 billion. Although I am sure he is aware of it in general terms, I remind my hon. Friend that Glasgow is the major beneficiary of the safety net, which is worth about £8 million to the city this year; that the Scottish Office has made arrangements to cover the revenue costs of the transfer by Glasgow from its housing revenue account of capital costs to the general fund relating to demolished houses; and that Glasgow's schools project alone is worth
a capital equivalent of more than £130 million. We are trying to help Glasgow and recognise its problems, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased with that pork barrel list of extra help for Glasgow. Will he comment on the fact that he believes that council taxes will rise by 5 per cent.--twice the rate of inflation--which surely flies in the face of the Labour Government's commitment not to put up taxes? Is he confident that Glasgow will keep to 5 per cent., given that most local authorities that have been told by the Government that they should be charging 5 per cent. extra are pushing up to 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. extra? Is that to be the reality of Labour government, both national and local, in Glasgow?
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is becoming an increasingly ridiculous figure, although, to be fair, he is trespassing into areas about which he knows little. He will remember that, under the settlements provided by the Conservative Government, the annual increase in Glasgow's council tax ran at about 20 per cent. That figure has now been halved and I hope that it will substantially decrease again this year. We are making progress and our aim is to provide the people of Glasgow with the services they deserve, while properly recognising the protection required by council tax payers. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the record, he would blush as deep a colour as his hair once was and say little about the subject and the record of the Conservative Administration.
A83 Closures (Ferry Fares)
9. Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): Pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998, Official Report, columns 688-89, on the A83 closure, if he will ensure that fares on the temporarily enhanced ferry service are charged at a rate which reflects road equivalent tariff. [65834]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Road equivalent tariff is not a system we favour generally, because, as the hon. Lady knows, there are winners and losers, depending on the length of the route. However, I recognise the difficulty she points to and I shall make available extra resources to CalMac to allow fares for heavy goods vehicles to be reduced by up to 50 per cent. at off-peak times and for other traffic by up to 25 per cent.; and there will be smaller reductions at peak times. From 1 July 1999, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to restructure fares, but it is not good enough. Even with a 50 per cent. reduction, fares will be far too high for a short, 20-minute, four-mile journey. Does the Minister agree that the Kintyre economy has suffered enough, with the closure of Machrihanish and the Campbeltown shipyard, farmers going to the wall and the effect on tourism? Does he accept that I am asking not for RET for the whole CalMac ferry fleet--not today, anyway--but for arrangements to cover only two or three weekends? That would make an enormous difference to local businesses and I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
Mr. Macdonald: I accept that the hon. Lady wants to get the best for her constituents by securing the maximum
reductions possible, and she is right to do so from a constituency point of view. However, I have to try to balance the available ferry capacity with what is reasonable in terms of public expenditure, and I believe that the reduction is a balanced one, costing £100,000 extra to CalMac.Land Reform
10. Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): What responses he has received on his consultation on land reform. [65836]
12. Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry):
If he will make a statement about the economic impact of his proposals for land reform in Scotland. [65838]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar):
We received more than 1,200 responses to our consultation papers on land reform. Our proposals are genuinely radical and have been widely welcomed. I am glad that they are attracting the attention of so many Conservative Members.
Mrs. Laing:
I agree that the Secretary of State's proposals are, if nothing else, radical, but does he not agree that, in practice, those who look after the land in Scotland are farmers? Would it not have been more relevant to events in Scotland if the Secretary of State had made plans to spend taxpayers' money helping farmers in their present crisis instead of wasting enormous sums on his radical but old-fashioned policies on land reform?
Mr. Dewar:
May I say to the hon. Lady in a friendly spirit that I would welcome her coming back to her homeland, going perhaps a little wider than Kilmacolm, where she was born, and talking to the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the substantial package of aid twice put together in the past year to help, in particular, those in less favoured areas of agriculture, such as beef and sheep? A great deal of money has gone into that.
We are now putting forward a radical proposal that would allow communities who have lived on the land and invested their life's work in the land to have a say. They would be able to buy the land if it were on the market and would get the advice, support and encouragement that would allow them do that if they so wished. That is not an easy option and people must be in a position to take advantage of that chance--they must have skills, know-how and staying power. Throughout Scotland, there is popular support for our attempts to deal with the land question and give those small communities, who often live in fragile parts of the country, the right to have a say, so that they do not wake up one morning and find that the land on which they live has been sold from under their feet without their knowledge.
Mr. Boswell:
Will the Secretary of State heed the danger that the threat of a compulsory purchase order may reduce the collateral available to landowners on which they could raise loans to develop their properties and business? Will he also have regard to the interim report of the working party to the Deputy Prime Minister, which sets out the entirely sensible, fundamental principle that
Mr. Dewar:
I recognise that there are good landowners and that many struggle, often in difficult circumstances, to maintain their holdings and work them effectively. The hon. Gentleman has obviously given the matter much thought, so I am sure he will recognise that there has been a great deal of support for our proposals, from institutions as well as individuals, some of whom represent large bodies of landowning opinion. I have been very impressed by the constructive way in which many of those organisations have approached the matter.
I do not want to embarrass a noble Lord, but I cannot help reflecting on the words of the Duke of Buccleuch, who said of the reform:
"If this had been going through the House of Lords, I would have voted for it."
I should say, in fairness, that he went on to criticise aspects of the reform.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |