asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to use his powers under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as amended.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total reduction in local authority planned expenditure he now expects to achieve in the financial year 1983–84 as the result of the use of his powers under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as amended.

My right hon. Friend initiated action against five local authorities on grounds of excessive and unreasonable expenditure. After considering their representations, he decided to take no further action against Shetland Islands council and proposed rate reductions lower than he had originally proposed for the remaining authorities as follows: Lothian regional council, 6p, Glasgow district council, 3p, Kirkcaldy district council, 2p, Stirling district council, 2p. No authority was prepared to make a voluntary rate reduction. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend laid reports before the House on 7 July. If the House approves the rate reductions proposed, the total reduction in planned expenditure by the four authorities will be £18·8 million.

Are not the Minister and the Secretary of State hell-bent on attacking the democratically elected local authorities and their elected representatives? Are not the authorities that the Minister has listed acting within the law and have they not been freely elected to pursue the policies that have brought about the situation of which the Minister is complaining?

No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend assessed whether expenditure was excessive and unreasonable on a number of criteria, following which he accepted a written submission from the councils and either he or I met the councils, and listened to their representations. In the light of those representations my right hon. Friend made the reductions that I have just mentioned.

Does the Minister stand by his written answer to me on 30 June in which it was shown that expenditure on services in Glasgow between 1979–80 and 1983–84 remained almost the same in real terms and that if we exclude certain items that the Minister now accepts should have been excluded we see that the expenditure has fallen quite sharply? If he stands by those figures, in what sense could the record be described as excessive and unreasonable?

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the debates on the orders to discuss these matters in full. I assure him that where the figures in the submissions that were made to us by the councils were found not to be relevant expenditure, allowance was made for that in the reductions that my right hon. Friend made.

Now that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity fully to consider the representations made to him by the Shetland Islands council and appreciates the difficulty faced by that authority with regard to oil development and remoteness, will he consider bringing forward proposals to reverse the order earlier this year which derated external plant and equipment in Orkney and Shetland, which resulted in a considerable loss of rating revenue for both authorities and will lead to a great increase in rates for both authorities?

I do not think that that issue arises out of the original question.