Region cleared legally for water vote as Tories question the point

authority control are set to go ahead after a favourable ruling from

legal advisers.

The lawyers said that the region did indeed have the power to seek

public views on a council service and how it should be run, so a special

committee will draw up detailed proposals for the referendum.

The cost of such a test of public opinion, which eventually could

become a country-wide one, is put by the region at between #600,000 and

#940,000. The fact that the Government stopped short of privatising the

service, or indeed the small problem that Strathclyde itself is soon to

be abolished as a council, is not deterring the Labour group.

Council leader Bob Gould defended the referendum scheme yesterday by

stating that the Government's proposals were intended to prepare the

ground for privatisation in two or three years' time, and that the whole

country should have the chance to express a view.

The Conservative group leader on the council, Mr Iain Drysdale, was

less than enthusiastic, describing it as a ''waste of time and a waste

of money on something which will produce a meaningless result''.

He continued: ''I just hoped they would have seen sense by now. They

spent in excess of #600,000 on a Save Strathclyde campaign which noboby

supported. They got 8500 replies to that, which, when you consider that

105,000 people work for Strathclyde, is a paltry result.

''Then there was #60,000 for a parliamentary lobbyist, and that's the

last we've heard of that, and probably the last we've heard of our

money.

''And now they're talking about this referendum even though the

Secretary of State has announced that water will stay within the public

sector, so what's Strathclyde got to complain about?''

The Scottish Office's proposals are for water and sewerage to remain

publicly owned, but to be run not by councils but by three water

authorities with their members appointed by the Secretary of State.

Councillor Des McNulty, who chairs Strathclyde's policy and resources

sub-committee on the reorganisation of local government, argued

yesterday that the Government had dressed up its plans to give the

impression that water was being retained in public ownership when the

reality was that the people of Scotland would not have a say in the

running of water and sewerage services.

He described the proposed new water authorities as ''unelected quangos

responsible, not to the people of Scotland, but to the Secretary of

State alone''.

For the Conservatives, Councillor Drysdale said that Mr McNulty's

comments were typical of the uninformed debate Labour politicians were

involved in as a prelude to an unnecessary referendum which would come

up with no sensible answer.

With the cost of a referendum approaching #1m, Councillor Gould says

the region is considering setting up an independent trust so that

organisations and individuals can make donations towards the cost.

His Labour group would also be willing to listen to any meaningful

offers of practical help in organising such a huge administrative task.

Discussions will continue with the Convention of Scottish Local

Authorities about the possiblilty of it being expanded into an

all-Scotland ballot.

The wording of the question or questions on the referndum has still to

be worked out by Councillor McNulty's sub committee. It is expected,

though, that the ballot will be held within the next three months.

So far the Scottish Office has avoided making pronouncements on the

referendum. Officials there have said that in the past that it was a

matter for Strathclyde to satisfy itself as to the legal and financial

propriety of such an exercise. The legality of the situation, if it was

in doubt, would be a matter for the courts.