| Home Page |
Column 275
House of Commons
Wednesday 18 November 1992
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
SCOTLAND
Housing Waiting Lists
1. Sir David Steel : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on current housing waiting lists held by local authorities in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : Details of supplementary housing capital allocations to local authorities will be announced shortly. Those measures will be helpful in relieving pressure on waiting lists, although I have to say that housing waiting lists themselves are not always a reliable indicator of housing need.
Sir David Steel : Will the Minister acknowledge that my local authorities are not alone in reporting record waiting lists, since his own Scottish Office "Statistical Bulletin", which has just been published, shows that the number of applicants under the homeless category has increased by 133 per cent. in the past 10 years? Are those figures not an affront to the conscience of Scotland? Will the Minister recognise that last week's statement is equivalent to tinkering with the housing repair problems and that what is needed is to get the unemployed building workers cracking on a house building programme?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I am delighted to be able to announce this afternoon that we are making available, this year, an additional £7.5 million to local authorities for projects to combat homelessness. Bids will be sought by 11 December and I plan to announce the distribution of those new resources before Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that waiting lists are not the same as the homelessness application lists returned by local authorities. Households may be on the waiting list of more than one authority. Those lists include households that wish to be rehoused at some time in the future and may include households no longer seeking accommodation. However, the right hon. Gentleman's point about homelessness is well taken. We hope to have the bids for resources in from the local authorities very soon and we shall inform them about the £7.5 million allocation straight away.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Government need no lectures about out track record on Scottish housing given that, since 1979, home ownership in Scotland has risen from a paltry
Column 276
35 per cent. to 52 per cent? Does he agree also that our fellow Scots should be congratulated on that achievement and not patronised, as they are, by the Opposition parties ?Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Yes ; what is more, the home ownership programme will be greatly increased through the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which we are introducing in the Housing and Urban Development Bill, which will give each tenant the right to take up that option.
Mr. McLeish : What about the homeless ?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The answer lies with the £7.5 million allocation, which will help particularly with specialised bids from local authorities. When we asked in the past for such special bids, they resulted in 1,800 accommodation units for the homeless in Scotland, which was welcomed by those who worked in housing.
Dr. Godman : How much of the £7.5 million will be allocated to Inverclyde district council ? In Inverclyde, homelessness, that terrible social evil, is on the increase and many other housing problems bedevil or make miserable the lives of far, far too many of my constituents. I have asked the Minister over and over again to play the game by my constituents when it comes to housing.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : In the hon. Gentleman's district council and others, priority will be given to projects that aim to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people and help single-parent families. It goes without saying that the hon. Gentleman should ensure that all the relevant circumstances are put in the housing plan for his district authority because we shall announce provisional allocations for next year in due course.
Water Industry
2. Mr. Wilson : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations about the future of the water industry in Scotland.
3. Mr. Wray : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for privatising Scotland's water.
6. Mrs. Ray Michie : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce his plans for the future of the water industry in Scotland.
15. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his consultation document on the future of the water industry in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang) : I made a statement yesterday on the future of the water industry and have published a consultation paper.
Mr. Wilson : Does the Secretary of State recognise that the water industry has operated for more than 100 years in the public sector in Scotland without the need for recourse to domestic disconnections? Does he accept that we are a healthier and more socially just nation as a result of the absence of those powers? Will he give an undertaking today that, whatever the other considerations about whether water is privatised, he will not change the law as a result of that consultation to make it possible for poor
Column 277
people to have their water disconnected, with all the consequences that flow from that, which we are already seeing in England and Wales?Mr. Lang : I answered the hon. Gentleman's question yesterday. Disconnections do not affect the viability of the options laid out in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman talked about the history of the water industry. Significantly, at the end of the second world war, there were more than 200 separate water authorities. It is only since 1946 that the Water (Scotland) Act has given general powers to local authorities in that matter. Gradually, the number of water authorities has been changed and the structure of the industry in Scotland has been reformed and modernised. We now face the need to make further changes and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a submission in response to the consultation paper.
Mr. Wray : Will the Secretary of State tell the House that the Government put no money into Strathclyde Water? Under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, it is given a borrowing limit of £83 million and the revenue comes from meter and water charges of £94 million. The total running cost of sewerage services in Strathclyde is £86 million, the water debt is £170 million and the total debt of sewerage and water is £417 million ; that means that Scottish and British taxpayers pay £66 million a year. Has not the Secretary of State for Scotland the guts to ask the Government to do exactly the same as they have done in England and Wales, by wiping off £500 million? We want a tartan dowry in Scotland, like the green dowry in England and Wales.
Mr. Lang : The water and sewerage industries need capital for investment every year. The only time they were denied it was during the 1976-79 period of the last Labour Government, when water investment was cut by one third and sewerage capital investment was cut by half. Such vulnerability exposes the difficulty of relying on private sector funding when massive new capital investment of some £5 billion will be needed in the next 10 to 15 years. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that £5 billion should be taken from health, housing, roads, education or some other source, or will he look at the consultation paper and try to find a more positive approach to the problem?
Mrs. Michie : I do not think that the Secretary of State has answered that question. He is threatening the people of Scotland by implying that the capital debt will be written off only if water is privatised. Does that not amount to plain blackmail?
Mr. Lang : I do not know how the hon. Lady thinks that existing debt can be written off--it must be repaid. Although the industry needs some £600 million a year, roughly £400 million of that comes from revenues, and the remainder comes from capital. The capital expectations, which have doubled in the past four or five years, are anticipated to go on increasing in the next 10 to 15 years. That money must be found and I await the hon. Lady's submission in response to the consultation paper and her suggestions about where it can be found.
Mr. Kirkwood : On the issue of accountability, does not the Secretary of State accept that one of the unique qualities of the existing system is that local people have the ability and the opportunity to influence the priorities of their local water and sewerage services? Some of us are
Column 278
concerned about the priority given to legislative standards enforced from on high. It is important that customers have a chance to influence what the water organisations do in their name. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that whatever system is introduced, it will enshrine and retain that essentialaccountability?
Mr. Lang : The setting of standards to which the hon. Gentleman refers is something which should be done above local level--at national and European level. It is in order to meet those standards that we are inviting public consultation on the various options for the best way forward. The degree of accountability that can be derived from the options laid out in the consultation paper varies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will send in a submission underlining that point.
Mr. Jenkin : I am an English Member of Parliament and my right hon. Friend will decide whether to privatise the industry in Scotland according to his consultation process--it is not so much a matter for me. However, should my right hon. Friend choose to privatise the industry, will he reassure the Scottish people that in England and Wales privatisation has led to a huge investment programme, a great improvement in water quality and improved conditions of employment for employees of the water industry?
Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling us of his experience of the industry in England and Wales. During the 20 years to 1989, investment was below £6 billion and it is expected to be more than £28 billion over the next 10 years. That shows how the resources can be found in an imaginative way.
Mr. Adley : Without wishing to influence my right hon. Friend one way or the other--and I also declare an interest in the hotel business--may I ask him to look at that section of the legislation in England that affects infrastructure charges? Is he aware that an hotel in Leeds with which I have been associated for the past five to six years started off under the good offices of the Yorkshire water authority, which produced a quotation of £3,000 to attach the hotel to the mains? Now, the Yorkshire water company proposes to charge £208,000 for the same service. That fact does not need to influence my right hon. Friend's overall decision, but he should look carefully at the small print of anything that he introduces.
Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling us of his personal experiences with the Leeds water authority. However, I must disappoint him, as I have no responsibilities for water in England or Wales.
Mr. John Marshall : When considering the possibility of privatising Scottish water services, as most Conservative Members wish my right hon. Friend to do, will he consider the experience of Thames Water, where there has been a 50 per cent. increase in investment and where water costs 45p per house per day--a reasonable charge? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the drinking water directive would help the water industry throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling us of the experiences of Thames Water. The drinking water directive and other European Community directives set
Column 279
standards to which we want to aspire. The investment programme on which we in Scotland have embarked means that we intend to aspire to those standards.Mr. Tom Clarke : In view of the Secretary of State's self-imposed confidentiality about the Quayle Munro report, will he tell us whether Quayle Munro is free to give advice to potential buyers and precisely what Quayle Munro said to him about disconnections?
Mr. Lang : The Quayle Munro report did not address issues such as disconnections, but dealt with matters such as the viability of a range of options, which are now laid out in the consultation paper. Whether Quayle Munro later becomes involved in giving advice to individual companies is a matter for Quayle Munro.
Doctors and Nurses
4. Mr. Burns : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors and nurses there were in Scotland in 1979 and at the latest available date ; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) : At 30 September 1979 there were 9,839 doctors, including general medical practitioners, employed in the national health service in Scotland and at 30 September 1991, the latest available date, this had risen to 11,079. The number of qualified nurses in the national health service in Scotland rose from 31,931 to 43,011 over this period.
Mr. Burns : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he confirm that that shows an increase of just over 10 per cent. in the number of doctors and an increase of about a third in the number of nurses in the health service in Scotland? If my mathematics are correct, does he agree that they more than underline the Government's commitment not only to health care and patients in Scotland, but to the national health service throughout the nation?
Mr. Stewart : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures are correct and beyond dispute, even by Opposition Members. They represent an increase of 12 per cent. in the number of doctors and an increase of 35 per cent. in the number of nurses since the Conservative party came to office. That underlines the Government's real commitment to the national health service and to its improvement in Scotland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McAvoy : Is the Minister aware of the threat to the employment of doctors and nurses and to services to the public by the threatened closure of hospitals in Glasgow, especially the Victoria infirmary and Rutherglen maternity hospital which serve my constituents? There will be a consultation period, but, as Mr. Laurence Peterken has displayed his absolute determination to close the Victoria infirmary and the maternity hospital, will the Minister ensure genuine consultation by removing Mr. Laurence Peterken from office for the period of that consultation?
Mr. Stewart : The hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected in the House, does himself no good by personal attacks on a distinguished servant of the national health service. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Victoria infirmary and will know that it serves my constituency as well as his. The Government welcome the production by
Column 280
the Greater Glasgow health board of a consultation document in relation to changes in medical practice and changes in population. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be the fullest public consultation before any decisions are taken.Mr. Kynoch : I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are spending 44 per cent. more in real terms on the national health service in Scotland than was spent in 1979. I hope that my hon. Friend will take an interest in the review of acute services currently being carried out by Tayside health board and ensure that Stracathro hospital, the only major hospital between Dundee and Aberdeen for acute and emergency services, is retained. That hospital serves many of my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies.
Mr. Stewart : As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may wish to consider a trust application from Stracathro hospital. He will also be aware of the immense success story of the Aberdeen Royal hospitals NHS trust, about which I could detain the House with details for some time. However, Madam Speaker would not wish me to do so. Undoubtedly, the success of the Aberdeen Royal hospitals NHS trust shows that trust status hospitals in Scotland are working well.
Mrs. Fyfe : It seems a little odd that the Minister has to be told that information in the Library shows that the true full-time equivalent increase in nurses and midwives is only 6 per cent. Is it not true that numbers have been increasing anyway since the health service was founded? I should like to ask about future funding for doctors and nurses. How many doctors and nurses will there be if five Glasgow hospitals are allowed to close? How much income does the Minister expect to get from selling 82 acres at Stobhill or 10 acres at Victoria infirmary? How many patients will be refused treatment in his market system because the health board will not pay the costs?
Mr. Stewart : Oh dear, the hon. Lady does talk nonsense. However, I am glad to have a reassurance that even the hon. Lady--
Mrs. Fyfe : Read the statistics.
Mr. Stewart : I also go to the Library. I am glad to have the hon. Lady's reassurance that, however defined, the number of nurses in Scotland has increased under the Government, as has the number of doctors. I am glad that the Opposition have today conceded that, on any measure.
I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not think that there is a case for considering the future of acute services in Greater Glasgow. I should have thought that anyone looking at changes in medical practices and in population would concede that it was sensible to look at the options. We are moving from the stage at which we invested massively in district general hospitals in peripheral areas to a strategy of massive investment in district general hospitals in urban centres. I should have thought that the hon. Lady, representing Glasgow, Maryhill, would welcome that. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order so as to hear the Minister. Has he finished his response?
Mr. Stewart : Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : In that case, I call Mr. Oppenheim.
Column 281
Mr. Oppenheim : Does not this huge increase in the number of doctors and nurses in Scotland give the lie to the common Labour smear that we do not care about the health service? Is it not also the case that we have further committed ourselves to huge increases in NHS funding for this coming year, despite economic difficulties? Is that not in sharp contrast to the period when the Labour party was in power and got into economic difficulties, when the first thing that it cut was the hospital building programme?
Mr. Stewart : My hon. Friend is right. The Government's commitment is clear, and is shown by the figures. We are committed in broad terms to capital expenditure of £500 million over the next 10 years in the national health service in Scotland. As my hon. Friend rightly reminds Opposition Members, when the last Labour Government were in power, capital spending on the NHS was cut in real and in money terms. Under the Conservatives, it has increased and will continue to increase.
Training Provision (Autumn Statement)
5. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of the Chancellor's autumn statement for training provision in Scotland.
Mr. Stewart : Training provision for Scotland is one component of the figures for my right hon. Friend's overall programme that were announced as part of the autumn statement. It reflects a division of overall training provision for Great Britain, determined on the basis of relevant factors, such as relative unemployment. The marked improvement in Scotland's relative unemployment position since last year means that our share of overall training provision is smaller.
Mr. Worthington : In September, the Department of Employment let it be known that there was a shortfall of more than 9,500 training places for young people in Scotland, and there is a mounting level of long-term unemployment. Can the Government promise that when there is an allocation of resources to training, there will be an increase to meet that shortfall?
Mr. Stewart : I can give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that in the past couple of days I have checked with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on the youth training guarantee. It is being met and will continue to be met.
Mr. Bill Walker : Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, the Government have increased the allocation of funds for training to thousands of millions of pounds, that additional training places have always been found to meet the requirements and that this is far in excess of anything ever achieved under any Labour Government?
Mr. Stewart : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government are clearly committed to an effective training policy. It is output which matters, not input. Even on the measure of public expenditure to which Opposition Members pay such attention, in real terms this Government are spending two and a half times more on training than the last Labour Government.
Mr. McFall : Statistics on the youth training programme in Scotland show that at the end of the scheme
Column 282
year, more than 60 per cent. of young people find themselves back on the dole. With the economic slump closing 200 Scottish firms every week, and unemployment having risen 30 months in succession and touching almost 250,000, what advice does the Minister have for those youngsters? They must feel, at that early age, that there is no future for them. They followed the Government's advice, underwent training, and now find themselves unemployed and worse off than before. Is it not the case that the autumn statement holds out nothing more than the bleakest of Christmases, and beyond, for Scotland's young?Mr. Stewart : I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman undermines the effectiveness of the youth training scheme. No one suggests that everyone who undertakes training will automatically obtain employment at the end of it, but the Government's youth training guarantee for young people is given by no other European Community country.
Mr. McLeish : But it is not being honoured.
Mr. Stewart : My answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is that the guarantee is being met, though I know that he constantly issues press releases saying that it is not. I checked with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the past couple of days that the youth guarantee is being met.
Housing
7. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who he has met in the past year to discuss the supply of housing in Scotland.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with individuals and organisations involved in the provision, management and sale of housing in Scotland.
Mr. McAllion : Scotland faces a national housing crisis in terms of increased homelessness, which has risen 133 per cent. over the past 10 years, and the loss, over the same period, of 250,000 homes for rent. Does not the Minister understand that his recent spending announcements come nowhere near the sums required to meet the targets set by the Institute of Housing in Scotland of 15,000 new affordable homes for rent every year? Does he not comprehend either that people in Scotland with the most desperate housing need cannot afford owner occupation and rent-to-mortgage schemes? Most of all, they cannot afford the Minister's obsession with forcing tenure changes at the expense of the Government's failure to meet the demand for decent homes at an affordable rent.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : There is a large amount of activity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Scottish Homes allocation in Dundee has increased from £10.9 million in 1991-92 to more than £15.8 million. As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise, the remarkable transformation at Whitfield is continuing--as I know, having visited the Ormiston people's housing co-operative and Vale of Duntrune community housing association. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the £70 million extra that will be made available to Scottish Homes' enabling programme as a result of the excellent settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State managed to obtain, which will increase the programme by
Column 283
some £20 million in each of the next three years. I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's own district council's needs before we make provisional allocations.Mr. Ian Bruce : Surely the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McFall), in his question, has done exactly the reverse
Madam Speaker : Order. I am not seeking comments at Question Time. I must have questions, from all parts of the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce : Surely it needs to be said to people in all parts of the country, and particularly in Scotland, that they can afford to buy their own homes--and that by purchasing their council houses, 100 per cent. of the money raised can be spent on providing the new homes for which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House seem to be asking.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I agree. We know that 52 per cent. of Scots now own their homes, and that many more aspire to home ownership. I had the good fortune to visit the first rent-to-mortgage owner in Dundee, who works for the council. The scheme is welcomed by those who seek the right and the opportunity to own their homes, and it provides a new home ownership market which will be appreciated by those who cannot quite afford to exercise the right to buy.
Mr. Michael J. Martin : The Minister will know that there are some excellent sheltered housing complexes throughout Scotland, including my constituency. They provide high-quality housing for elderly people who are protected by wardens 24 hours a day. Why does not the Minister give more funds to the local authority, to Scottish Homes and to the housing associations, so that more good housing can be provided for our elderly people?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The extra £20 million a year over the next three years which constitutes the extra enabling programme for Scottish Homes should allow more progress to be made in that regard. We shall bear Glasgow's needs very much in mind if any supplementary allocations are made, or else when the provisional allocations are made.
Green Belt
8. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to protect the green belt.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro) : My right hon. Friend's policy for protecting green belts is set out in Scottish development department circular 24/1985. Our consistent policy has been to maintain and enhance the green belt.
Mr. Galbraith : The Minister will know that much water authority land lies within the green belt. That land is much used and appreciated by my constituents in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. Will the Minister guarantee that, in the event of privatisation, no restrictions will be placed on access to the land, and, furthermore, that it will not be released for development so that private shareholders can rip off the public sector once again?
Sir Hector Monro : The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Most of our water resources come from land that is particularly attractive--the lochs and reservoirs--some of
Column 284
which may include sites of special scientific interest. No concern should be felt about the future ownership of that land.Water Industry
9. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report by the consultants Quayle Munro on the future of water services in Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.
Hon. Members : Answer the question.
Sir Hector Monro : It is a good answer, worth waiting for. As part of the Government's review of water and sewerage services in Scotland, consultants were commissioned to give advice under conditions of commercial confidentiality for the purpose of informing policy. That advice is reflected in the consultation paper that my right hon. Friend published yesterday.
Mr. Welsh : Actually, that was not much of an answer.
Why have the Government allowed access to the local government report, but not to the water privatisation report? Have they something to hide? Surely, "commercial" sensitivities are in fact political sensitivities--the sensitivities of an isolated Government who are swimming against the tide of Scottish public opinion. Will the Minister confirm that the price of his secrecy is about £50,000, and will he now abandon this unwanted, unnecessary privatisation scheme?
Sir Hector Monro : Even after 24 hours' reflection, the hon. Gentleman is getting most of it wrong. Does he not understand that the document published yesterday by my right hon. Friend is a genuine consultation document? There are eight options, and variations may be produced in the intervening period. If Opposition Members put their minds to producing constructive reports for my right hon. Friend, they would be doing something really valuable for the Scottish people whom they represent.
Mr. Wallace : The Secretary of State said yesterday that he had engaged Quayle Munro to look into the technical aspects of water organisation. What technical qualifications--as opposed to financial qualifications--did Quayle Munro have? Do any of the commercial sensitivities relate to any French companies? Finally, is not the Secretary of State under a statutory duty, under section 1 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, to publish information relating to water services in Scotland? What is more fundamental than information that relates to the future organisation of those services?
Sir Hector Monro : I hope that the hon. Gentleman too has read the report which he has now had in his hands for 24 hours. Of course, the Quayle Munro report was valuable to my right hon. Friend for its technical and financial information. What the Secretary of State has published is a fair reflection of the position. It gives many alternatives. In fact, Opposition Members were all rumbled ; they thought that it would be a privatisation document, and it is not. It gives alternatives which the country can consider. We will look at it carefully and come to conclusions later next year.
Mr. McLeish : Does the Minister accept that it is a scandal for a company that has access to confidential
Column 285
information to be allowed to advise possible bidders in the privatisation process if the Government proceed with that crazy idea? Will he tell the House that the real reason for commissioning Quayle Munro was the cosy clique of Ministers and favoured consultants seeking private information about quotations and franchising, and had nothing to do with any of the other six options? Will he tell the House why his office is behaving in such a deplorable manner, abusing the taxpayers' money and the office of the Secretary of State? It is a scandal. When will the report be published so that we may know what is in it?Sir Hector Monro : The hon. Gentleman should count up to eight rather than to 10 and he would realise that there is a great deal of valuable information in the report. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer, he need not listen. Quayle Munro was one of a number of companies that tendered for the consultation process. There was no question of a cosy operation ; it was very competitive tendering.
Local Government
10. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will report progress on the consultations regarding future local government of Scotland.
Mr. Lang : I am very encouraged by the substantial public response to our second consultation paper on local government structure. More than 15,000 copies of the consultation paper and more than 70,000 shorter leaflets have been issued. The consultation period continues until the end of January next year.
Mr. McKelvey : The Secretary of State either forgot or deliberately did not mention subsidiarity. When he gets from the Prime Minister a definition of subsidiarity, will he relate with clarity to Charity McGarrity from Inverarity that she will not have subsidiarity, but that she, like the rest of Scotland, will have to remain in the mode of subserviarity ? Does he realise that that breeds subversivarity ? [Laughter.]
Mr. Lang : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's question was greeted with hilarity by his colleagues. I must remind him that his original question was about the consultation paper on local government reform, but his supplementary had nothing to do with that. Nevertheless, I hope that he will read the consultation paper and let me have his thoughts ahead of our decision.
Sir Anthony Durant : Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the press reports about the conduct of Monklands council which I understand is in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition ?
Mr. Lang : I do not think that I want to pry into that private grief. I am happy to leave that to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State.
| Next Section
| Home Page |