HL Deb 22 April 1982 vol 429 cc621-2
Lord Belhaven and Stenton

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their powers under Section 137(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to lower the ceiling of 2p on the rate which local authorities are permitted to raise for charitable and public service purposes, which in the case of Greater London already permits the raising of £40 million, and whether they consider that subsidies to such publications as Lesbian Line and London Gay Teenage Group fall within the purposes of Section 137 of the Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not propose to reduce the present limit of a 2p rate product on expenditure by local authorities. This section provides a useful flexibility for authorities. I accept that this flexibility may, on occasions, lead to use of public funds for purposes which many may consider undesirable or even deplorable and that is a matter on which the authority concerned will be answerable to its electorate. Ministers have no authority to rule whether particular subsidies are within the law, but I would stress that if the district auditor considers expenditure illegal or unreasonable he may initiate action at any time.

Lord Belhaven and Stenton

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the GLC has a continuing policy of giving grants to all sorts of questionable organisations and publications, and that this is scandalising the hard-pressed ratepayers of London who see their money being used for openly immoral purposes? This is a matter—

Several noble Lords

Reading!

Lord Belhaven and Stenton

—which must concern all the people in the country and not just the people of London.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am aware of the concern which exists at the present time, not least by people on all sides of local government, and I thank my noble friend for drawing this matter to the attention of the House in the way he does.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side are pleased to hear him make a categorical statement that the ceiling is not to be reduced? Is he aware also—as, evidently, his noble friend is not aware—that the bulk of the money which is spent by the GLC under this section goes to industry and commerce, and that a great deal of the other money goes to organisations such as the St. John Ambulance Brigade, tenants' organisations and legal resource centres, with a certain amount also going to servicing police and other committees? Would the noble Lord not agree that the small amount that remains must be left to the discretion of the local authorities? As he rightly said, is it not then up to the electors themselves to make their own representations?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, in fact, all the spending, on whatever purpose, is up to the local authority to decide. The point that I think my noble friend was making was whether or not it was considered to be a fair, proper or reasonable application, and that is why I made the observation that I did.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, following what my noble friend has said, are the Government also aware that a great proportion of this money also goes to help music and the arts, out of all proportion to the small peripheral publications which are mentioned in the Question?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I would give the same reply as I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. But I think it would also be proper to say that, regardless of the amount of money, there is concern on the point that my noble friend raises and, I think, proper concern.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, disregarding the issues of this Question, will my noble friend the Minister say that he does not approve of Lord Belhaven's use of the verb "scandalising"?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am not sure what my noble friend is trying to get me to say. I thought, frankly, that the use of the word in this context was not inappropriate.

Back to