| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Douglas Alexander (Paisley, South): In the light of what he has just said, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the coming weeks and months his party's spokesman on housing will not use terms such as "privatisation" to describe community ownership?
Mr. Salmond: Privatisation is quite an interesting description. Brian Weddell, Edinburgh's housing convener, said:
- "the ruling Labour administration is opposed to the wholesale privatisation of Edinburgh's council housing . . . It is one thing to advise people of their options--it is another to hold a gun to their head".
Of course partnership could well be an option for certain communities, but it is not reasonable to disadvantage communities and council tenants who wish to remain in the public sector. I hope that the local government Minister has analysed the points made by Shelter about new housing partnerships. Shelter feels that they will offer less rent protection, less secure tenancies, no statutory duty to house homeless people, and insufficient guarantees for future improvement of the stock. Those are real points that need to be addressed if we are to help people.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
We have had an interesting debate concentrating on three key points. First, there has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not this year's settlement is a generous one. We heard the revivalism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) in a speech which I very much enjoyed. As is the wont of the present Government, he added together the figures for three years, subtracted an inflation rate for the next three years--with a prescience that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not share--and produced what he described as a splendidly generous settlement. We were then treated to some doses of the truth by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
This is not a generous settlement. That is not surprising, because there is no such thing as a generous settlement. When the Government spend, or allow other people to
spend, taxpayers' money, that is not an open-handed form of moral generosity but merely a means of transferring money from one pocket to another.
That may be good or bad, but it is certainly not generous to do more of it; nor have the Government done more of it. As we have heard repeatedly today, they have done rather less of it, overall, even than the previous Government. If they were honest, they would explain clearly and honourably that they have reasons for controlling public expenditure, but they do not want to do that because they want to gull themselves and their electors into believing that they are being generous. That has already begun to catch up with them today, and when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan rises as a ghastly phoenix from the ashes of the Secretary of State's policy, they will know what they have done.
The lack of that so-called generosity means that local taxpayers will pay considerably more this year. As the Minister admitted, their tax rises will be around 5 per cent. on average. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, some local tax rises will be considerably higher, which will not be greeted with great joy, as it would not be anywhere in the country.
Local government in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom faces the greatest uncertainty that it has ever faced, as a result of Government policies. Here we enter a terrain of great seriousness. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring correctly described the Government's replacement for what they called crude and universal capping as a system of arbitrary and retrospective capping.
In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, supported by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, argued that self-financed expenditure should be removed from the public sector borrowing requirement. That is a long-running call from local government. I remember such calls in the late 1970s and there has been a running discussion ever since.
There has also been huge objection to universal capping, and perhaps such capping, and the constraints of PSBR accounting, are crude--I accept that, as anyone who has been involved in local government is bound to do--but at least the old system had clarity. Through the present arrangement, the Government consciously underfund the total expenditure that they believe to be appropriate for local government--that is the difference between the grant-aided expenditure and the guideline spending--and then tell local authorities that they cannot and will not let them know at which point they are spending too much.
That is an extraordinary way of conducting public policy and government. If it were done in relation to the private sector, I have no doubt that it would lead Ministers to be subject to judicial review. It would be regarded as an arbitrary action to tell a private individual that he would be informed only after he had acted whether his actions were proper in the light of the law. That is exactly what the Government are telling local authorities in Scotland: that they will not tell them what will ex post facto be judged to be wrong behaviour.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish):
I will very much welcome being in the Scottish Parliament after 1 July, if I am elected, so that we can hear a Conservative Opposition who know something about them speaking up on Scottish issues. Conservative Members have shown breathtaking brass neck and breathtaking ignorance of what is happening in local government. After 19 years of neglect, we have a Government who are addressing the substantial issues in Scottish life.
During 2001-02, an extra £840 million will be provided, including additional resources for pre-school education. That will mean that we start to tackle the issues that matter to ordinary people, including education. We will look at service delivery, and the Government are committed to improving public services after that period of total neglect.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to council tax collection levels, and said that £50 million was added in the last year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that £810 million was added from 1979 to 1997, when the Tories were thrown out by the Scottish people. If one thing contributed to the culture of non-payment, it was the most monumental piece of stupidity called the poll tax. That is the charge that the Conservatives cannot defend.
We are starting to reverse the situation in Scotland with the support of all local authorities, who take this issue seriously. That includes Scottish National party, Labour and independent councils. We think that people should pay their debts to local authorities--something that was never taken seriously by the Conservative Government, and certainly has not been taken seriously by the Conservative Opposition. The Conservatives now want to be spending more after a period of neglect. That is dishonest in relation to Scots who want extra investment. The Labour Government are now pushing forward investment.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) berated the Government for their lack of investment, but he grudgingly conceded that there had been some improvement. We cannot turn around 19 years of neglect in the space of two years. However, we are putting in substantial investment and we are making a start, and the services that he addressed are the focus for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made the point that in terms of the foundation years of pre-school education, the Government are delivering. That should be welcomed by families in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. I hope that he would concede that that is happening throughout the country.
Mrs. McKenna:
This is an historic occasion, since it is the last time that there will be a Scottish local government finance debate in this House. It is important to recognise that, and to congratulate Ministers on the work that they have done on local government. Despite what all the opposition parties have said, all local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have welcomed the real-terms increase in the settlement. It is important to put that on the record.
Mr. McLeish:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It has been acknowledged by all organisations in Scotland--especially those representing the 290,000 local
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |