HC Deb 20 October 1966 vol 734 cc540-7
Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 27, line 31 to leave out: 'or a part of it'.

Mr. Speaker

With this can be taken Amendment No. 52, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'and around'.

Amendment No. 53, in line 37 leave out 'wholly'.

Amendment No 54, in line 38 leave out 'the metropolitan district' and insert 'Greater London'.

Amendment No. 55, in line 38 leave out, from 'lie' to end of line 39 and insert 'outside Greater London'.

Amendment No. 56, in line 39, at end insert: 'and any county district in which a salary or wage rate has at any time either before or after this Act been fixed by any recognised salary or wage fixing body equivalent and by reference to a similar rate payable in any part of Greater London or of any area now included in Greater London'. and Amendment No. 57, in line 41 leave out from 'with' to end of line 42 and insert: 'any administrative county adjoining Greater London'.

Mr. John Hall

The object of this group of Amendments is to enable a supplementary payment to be payable to any of the Home Counties adjoining Greater London, whether or not part of the county happens to be within the Metropolitan Police District. Amendment No. 56 was tabled as a rather less satisfactory alternative to the rest of the group of Amendments, but, of course, it is directed to the same aim.

These Amendments are rather similar to those which were debated in Committee when there was a rather short debate on them which took up about two columns of the Official Report, and the arguments at that time were rather cursorily dismissed by the Parliamentary Secretary, not out of any lack of courtesy—we have become accustomed to considerable courtesy from the hon. Gentleman—but because, I think, he did not fully appreciate the problem which faces some of the Home Counties, and perhaps in this respect I might say particularly Buckinghamshire. I want to use Buckinghamshire as an example, because it illustrates the problem which has been created for some of the Home Counties by the Bill in its present form.

Buckinghamshire is probably one of the most rapidly expanding counties in the country. The estimated increase of population in the four years ending March, 1955, was about 3½ times the rate of expansion of the rest of England and Wales. One would have therefore imagined that in the Bill special attention would be paid to the problems of these rapidly expanding counties, problems which some of us know only too well.

As it happens, under the new system now proposed by the Bill, as the Chairman of the County Council Finance Committee has said, relative to most other counties Buckinghamshire will be worse off than under the present system. When this information became known to the ratepayers of Buckinghamshire, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it was very badly received, because this is a county where between the years 1951 and 1961 the rate increase was three times the average over the country as a whole.

Paragraph 10 of Schedule I provides for a supplementary payment if the area of an authority or part of it—and I stress the words "or part of it"—lies within the Metropolitan Police District. This means that Hertfordshire, a neighbouring county also rapidly expanding and facing similar problems, but which is fortunate enough to have a few acres within the Metropolitan Police District, receives an increase of the appropriate percentage applied to the whole of its basic payment, whereas Buckinghamshire which, like other similarly placed Home Counties, faces exactly the same sort of pressures of costs and problems as face other counties in close proximity to London, gets nothing under this paragraph.

After failing to persuade the Government to make proper provision for the financial problems of these rapidly expanding counties, for Buckinghamshire then to be denied the benefit of the London weighting which is provided by paragraph 10 is rather rubbing salt into the wound.

Those who live in the Home Counties do not need me to emphasise the effect on costs of all kinds of living in proximity to the Greater London area. The Chairman of the Finance Committee has pointed out in a letter which he wrote to me recently the general effect which is suffered by counties such as Buckinghamshire because of this. He says: The most direct example of higher costs due to the common boundary with the London area is shown by wages, where the scales laid down by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities (Manual Workers) recognise the requirements to pay higher wages within the Borough of Slough, and London zone rates are paid. This applies to all manual workers in that area of the county and, for example, represents an increase of something like 6⅔ per cent. on the wages of various types of Education employees such as caretakers, groundsmen, cleaners, gardeners and the like, and 5½ per cent. so far as ambulance drivers are concerned. On the boarding-out of children, the costs in this county are considerably higher because of our proximity to the London area. … the proximity of London has resulted in salaries in Bucks being higher to attract staff to an area"— as I know from my own personal experience— where the cost of housing and living is high". He points out that as far as costs go, the London rate does not apply to Slough. In the surrounding areas of Buckinghamshire its effect is much the same. In parenthesis, I would say that, in general, most tenders for work done in the county are submitted by London firms who use London rates and who certainly do not provide lower costs or tenders because they are tendering for a county outside of the metropolitan area.

He goes on to say: In addition, there are many other fields in which expenditure in the south of this county is considerably higher than in regions further away from London, due to nearness of that city and competition with it. The cost of land is very high in what is now largely a dormitory for London—for example, in places such as the Chalfonts, Beaconsfield, Burnham and others, where land costs are the same as, say, in Uxbridge. The result of this is that we have incurred heavy expense with resulting high debt charges in order to purchase land bought at these high prices. Those are just some of the ways in which Buckinghamshire and counties like it feel the effect of living close to London. I know that the Minister may reply that in drafting paragraph 10 of the First Schedule it was necessary to draw the line somewhere. What I am suggesting is that he has drawn the line in the wrong place and created unnecessary hardship and injustice. I am suggesting that the line should be drawn in another place and in a different way so as to obviate this.

Mr. MacColl

I appreciate the skill with which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has moved this Amendment and made the case which, from the point of view of those who are fortunate enough to be represented by him, is one of considerable importance. He answered the argument by saying that one has to draw the line somewhere.

By custom, the line has been drawn round the Metropolitan area. It is now proposed to include other areas and this includes Hertforshire, although one would not have thought so to hear the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) complaining earlier about the difficulties there. Kent is not included, and neither is Berkshire, nor would they be under this proposal. It would not help Sussex, a county which, I would have thought, had many of the aspects of metropolitan life.

The difficulty is that once one starts going beyond this rather clear test it is difficult to know where to stop. One immediately gets counties further away saying that their problems are precisely the same as others which are included. One would get into the difficulty of being asked, "What about Birmingham?". Birmingham is a great conurbation, with many of the features of metropolitan life, and it would be difficult to defend having a special weighting for Buckinghamshire if one does not have it for Birmingham and surrounding areas, and Manchester and its surrounding areas.

I am forced to the conclusion that while one can make a case for saying that there should be no metropolitan weighting at all, because of the spread of population, there is not a case for widening the existing boundaries of the Metropolitan area without creating as many injustices as this proposal would remove.

Mr. John Hall

I am grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, but I am sure that he would not expect me to say that I am in the slightest bit satisfied with it. I find it very disappointing indeed, but in view of some of the things that he has said I do not propose to press this to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Greenwood

I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 29, line 10, to leave out 'by regulations provide' and insert: ', after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, provide by regulations'. This is one of the Amendments tabled to fulfil undertakings given in Committee about consultation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 29, line 16, at the end to insert: 'or, (iv) in providing, for persons who suffer from any disability of mind or body, education by special methods appropriate for persons suffering from that disability;'. This Amendment deals with the pooling arrangements. The Bill provides that certain types of local authority expenditure can be made the subject of pooling arrangements. They cover, for example, certain aspects of remand homes and other services which are provided by one authority for the benefit of a fairly wide area.

The object of the Amendment is to extend that to cover expenditure on the education of handicapped children. This is something which is desired and which has the support of the C.C.A. and the A.M.C. I think that it will commend itself to the House as a useful way of financing these very important institutions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 30, line 17, to leave out 'two-fifths' and insert 'one half'.

The purpose of this Amendment is to make a small change in the weighting for sparsity of population in the resources element. The difficulty arises because it is found that the sparsity proposal in the Bill would produce results which would prejudice a certain number of very deserving counties, mostly, if not all, in Wales. All that the Amendment does is to restore the status quo by raising the weighting from two-thirds to a half. It will produce virtually the same result as has been obtained under the existing proposals. The local authority associations have not made any objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Temple

I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 31, to leave out lines 35 to 45 and insert: 2.—(1) The amount of the domestic element payable to a local authority for any year shall be the proportion of the aggregate amount of that element which the aggregate domestic rateable value of the authority bears to the aggregate of the domestic rateable values of all local authorities. (2) In this paragraph 'domestic rateable value' shall be ascertained by adding:—

  1. (a) the aggregate rateable value of dwelling-houses and mixed hereditaments within the area of the local authority as shown in the valuation list on the first day of April in the relevant financial year.
  2. (b) the aggregate rateable value of dwelling-houses and mixed hereditaments on the first day of April in the subsequent relevant financial year
and dividing by two. (3) The Minister may by regulations provide for the variation of this paragraph for years subsequent to the year 1967–68.

Mr. Speaker

We can take at the same time the Government Amendment No. 62, in page 31, line 36, to leave out from 'be' to end of line 43 and insert: 'determined in the manner provided by regulations made by the Minister after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'.

Mr. Temple

I can move the Amendment very briefly. It arises from a discussion which we had in Committee when I criticised the extremely complicated Government proposals for calculating the domestic element. I suggested that there were three ways which were much simpler than the way proposed by the Government for calculating the domestic element and I recommended the formula proposed in the Amendment. I believe this to be a straightforward formula. It is acceptable to the local authority associations. It has the blessing of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. In fact, it comes from a first-class stable.

I have every confidence that if the Government accept the Amendment they will be taking a great step forward in helping local authorities to cut out at least some of the extra administrative work being thrown on them at present. I hope very much that the Government will find it in their power to accept our proposal.

Mr. MacColl

I said in Committee that this was not a matter of great principle, and that we were anxious to do whatever would help the local authority associations. We have had consultations with them and as a result we have found that they think the matter is better dealt with by way of Regulations than by the insertion of a provision in the Bill. They agree that for the first year the distribution should be based on rateable values, much on the lines of the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), but they are not so certain that after a year or two, when they see how the thing is working out, they might not have different views about it. They would therefore prefer to have the matter left more flexible, so that it can be altered if necessary. Therefore they think—and we are anxious to help them—that the best way to proceed is by way of Regulations.

Mr. Temple

In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary I am exceedingly glad that he will bring forward these Regulations, and in the first year or two deal with the matter very much in accordance with the proposals I have put forward. We look forward to the Regulations and will study them closely.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 36, leave out from 'be' to end of line 43 and insert: 'determined in the manner provided by regulations made by the Minister after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable'.—[Mr. MacColL]