HC Deb 10 July 1974 vol 876 cc1512-22

11.12 p.m.

Mr. David Model (Bedfordshire, South)

The title I have chosen for this short debate is "Rating and development problems in South Bedfordshire". I assume that fairly soon the Minister will be present to reply.

There have been a number of debates on rating and development problems throughout the country. Bedfordshire is no different from any other county in having experienced in the past two years considerable increases in its rating bill. That is why, in view of the present situation and the burden the county is carrying, I have sought to raise the matter.

In the past year the rates have gone up in Bedfordshire by more than 50 per cent. In these inflationary times a great worry is expressed by many people about how they will meet the bill.

I see that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is now in his seat on the Government Front Bench. I should like to thank him for seeing a delegation from Bedfordshire 10 days ago. He is having a double dose, because I am now raising the question of our rates and development problems. I should like to thank the Minister and his staff for seeing us 10 days ago. I thank him for the answers that he gave then and I hope that he will be able to answer some of my points this evening.

The biggest item making up the 50 per cent. increase in the Bedfordshire rates bill is the education budget. In 1973–74 it cost the county £30,326,000. That is adding together the old County Borough of Luton and the old Bedfordshire County Council. This year, local reorganisation having put the authorities together, the estimated expenditure on education is £35,842,000—in other words, an increase of over £5 million. In addition, 1974–75 has seen Luton County Borough and the old county council merge into the new county, bringing about an increase of approximately 3,600 pupils, an increase of practically double the national average. From what I gather the number of pupils has increased by 8 per cent., thereby adding heavily to the county's education bill. Teachers' salaries this year will cost the county £18 million.

If we take what I call the middle-way argument and we transfer part of the education budget to Whitehall—for example, a proportion which would cover teachers' salaries—the domestic ratepayer would be saved £18 million this year.

Since I last saw the Minister a further crisis in the county has arisen over its reserve fund. I quote from the Luton Evening Post of last Friday, which says: Local councils in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire are heading into desperate financial trouble. In just three months some have already spent or earmarked the whole of their reserve budgets for the current financial year … Bedfordshire County Council, for instance, is already committed to spending £1.7 million of its £2.2 million reserve fund for the year. There is gloomy talk about "retrenchment" and "cut-backs". The article continues: There has even been one suggestion, rejected for the time being, that another rate will have to be levied if things get really desperate. The crisis has deepened since we saw the Minister some 10 days ago. The reserve fund crisis has basically been brought about, so the county treasurer tells us, by the threshold agreement that the county is obliged to pay. He indicated that threshold agreements and increases in student grants have brought about the reserve fund crisis.

I briefly bracket together three topics—namely, overspill, the general growth of the county and the green belt. In South Bedfordshire the main overspill area is Houghton Regis. A point that is often put to me is that basic facilities are then required such as shops, pubs, phone kiosks, playing areas and community halls. It is argued correctly that those are the facilities that should be provided, given the increased housing development.

In Bedfordshire, though housing is still short, community facilities have not kept pace with housing development. If I may use a rather ugly metaphor, the housing horse is racing away from the community development cart.

I now turn to the growth of the county. I hope that it will be remembered that on our doorstep is Milton Keynes. That is an area that is also growing rapidly. We have special development problems in Houghton Regis. A major worry for me as the constituency Member is that community facilities are not keeping pace with the rapid housing development. Further housing development is bound up with the proposed green belt in South Bedfordshire. This was first proposed in 1960 and has never been confirmed.

What causes anguish to many people is the fact that sometimes there is development into the proposed green belt while on other occasions a person cannot get permission to build a bungalow in his garden or to build a couple of houses because he is told that they would come within the proposed green belt. There is this inconsistency which causes great upset. I hope the Minister can tell us whether we will be getting our proposed green belt confirmed. The present situation is unsatisfactory because it is half a green belt and half not a green belt for planning decision purposes.

We have recently had the report of the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis Transportation Study Group. I cannot go into the whole report now, but there are three recommendations which stand out. The first is the commitment to build the north-south A5 bypass in Dunstable, which is welcome news. That would take a lot of traffic out of the centre of Dunstable.

Equally welcome news is the abandonment of the proposed Dunstable inner ring road. Thirdly, there is the proposal for a super bus service, with a bus running every seven and a half minutes during the working day, providing a greatly improved public bus service. Given the present rating system it simply is not possible to run this expensive bus service. If we are to have such a service—and it would be welcome—it would have to be tide in with a reform of the rating system.

Earlier this year I was told that the Government were reviewing the criteria for imposing 30-mph speed limits in villages. That was welcome news because we need such limits in every village in South Bedfordshire. The villages there are not built for fast traffic flows. How far have the Government got with 30-mph limit review and how soon will they be able to publish proposals?

The subject of bypasses is very much tied in with speed limits. We need more bypasses in South Bedfordshire. I think particularly of the villages of Barton, Toddington and Leighton Buzzard, all of which are groaning under the weight of heavy traffic going through them. Leighton Buzzard in particular needs the southern access road. Road use is rising rapidly all the time in South Bedfordshire and I hope that we shall soon be moving towards a date for the construction of bypasses in these villages.

The Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973—a thoroughly welcome reform—needs to be implemented as quickly as possible in South Bedfordshire. As the onus is on the county council to provide alternative routes for heavy traffic, will there be a feasibility study of the disused railway line between Dunstable and Leyton Buzzard with a view to converting that into a route for heavy lorries only? It may or may not be possible. If it were, it would get rid of heavy traffic from the villages between Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.

I come now to the subject of the local ombudsman. The Minister for Planning and Local Government wrote to me on 27th June saying that the Government were considering how the work load of the local ombudsmen was developing. He said: It may eventually be necessary to build up to seven or eight Local Commissioners for the whole of England, but I should judge it most unlikely that a Commissioner will ever be needed for every county. I hope that the Government can get some publicity across to the people in my constituency and in the country generally about the work of the local ombudsmen. Three have been appointed. It is important that ratepayers should know more about them. I am not necessarily committed to one per county but we shall need more than three if local grievances are to be remedied, as is hoped for and laid down in the Local Government Act 1972.

I hope that we can have regional ombudsmen. We could certainly do with one in the Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire area. In South Bedfordshire we are being asked to do a great deal for ourselves and for London—for ourselves in improving our schools, roads and community facilities and for London by taking overspill. In view of the rating increases we need more central Government help and a changed rating system.

On the question of the future development of South Bedfordshire, there are four golden rules which I hope planners and developers and central and local government will always remember. First, let us not allow complete building up between South Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. We are in danger of building up from central London a long way towards Birmingham. I hope that the planners will remember that Milton Keynes, with its rapid development, is on our doorstep.

Secondly, will planners please remember the need for a balance between cars and buses. There is a great need for improved public transport in South Bedfordshire. Many of the inhabitants are car owners and many workers earn their daily bread by manufacturing cars. We could almost be regarded as a pilot area for the striking of a proper balance between the use of cars and buses. There is a vital need for improved bus services, bearing in mind that we are used to full employment and not everyone can get to work by car. I mentioned the super bus service and the problems of Houghton Regis. That area is particularly in need of improved bus services.

The third golden rule concerns the balance between village and town. So far there is a reasonable balance, but there are fears that many villages might be joined up to Dunstable or Leighton Buzzard and that the whole area will be built up. A proper balance between village and town enriches the community.

Fourthly, let the planners always remember that as the number of working hours per week drops greater onus is put on local authorities for the improvement of leisure facilities. There are few leisure facilities in South Bedfordshire and we need many more. We are used to full employment, a high level of exports, a high level of training and, on the whole, a high standard of living. We have never suffered from unemployment as have many other parts of the country. With rapid development comes the desire for improved community facilities. We are not keeping pace with the essentials that make for a more civilised life. People work long hours in arduous conditions in the engineering manufacturing industry, and when they come home after a hard day's work—or a hard night's work—they desperately want better leisure facilities. They also want their journey to work to be easier.

In helping ourselves and in helping London with its problems we need not only more Government assistance, but a changed rating system which will ease the burden on the Bedfordshire ratepayer.

11.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) for missing the first minute of the debate. I am glad, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, that we are able to have the debate before midnight and not at 3 o'clock in the morning. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the delegation which he brought to see me. My officials and I learnt a great deal from that delegation which will be of assistance to us.

The hon. Gentleman spoke first of the rate increase in South Bedfordshire. I accept that the domestic rate bill in South Bedfordshire has this year gone up by 40.44 per cent., as against an average for the country as a whole of 30 per cent., although by alteration of the variable domestic element to a fixed element the district gained by 1½p—from 11½p to 13p.

Although there have been slight variations in the amount of domestic relief, there is still basic objection to the vast increase in rates this year. We are the first Government in history to put the whole matter of rates to a completely independent inquiry which is to report next year. The job of the inquiry is to find a better alternative rating system, if one can be found.

I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman and by his delegation that the existing rate system is becoming burdensome on many people, and we have set up this independent inquiry to see whether better methods of raising local finance can be found.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the education budget. One problem arises from the formula that was adopted by our predecessors in the needs element. The key difficulty that I have found is that the formula is based on 1971–72 figures. That is all right if the authority is static, but if an authority is growing at the rate at which the hon. Gentleman's constituency is growing, working on figures that are nearly four years old results in an adverse effect on the district concerned. I hope that this year, in the work that we are doing with the local authority associations and in the sample dips with authorities, we shall consider whether we can work on this year's estimates, rather than on figures from the old, dead authorities, in fixing the rate support grant. That would clearly take away many of the difficulties that are being experienced in expanding areas such as South Bedfordshire.

The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of a supplementary rate support increase order. I appreciate the difficulties facing the hon. Gentleman's district and the county. We are discussing with the Treasury the possibility—I do not hold out a lot of hope on this—of making advances of the rate support grant early because of the cash flow and critical problems of local authority finance in this unusual year.

I understand that it is never done to say that this Dispatch Box that an increase order will be brought in, but I have never known a year when such an order was more likely to come. Having said that and thereby squared myself with the Treasury, I have to go on to say that it will meet only a proportion of the cost of the threshold agreement and the results of inflation. I advise the hon. Gentleman's authority to exercise a little patience and wait to see what we do in this direction. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of the cash flow and the critical problems of the local authorities.

The hon. Gentleman went on to mention student grants. Here I give credit to our predecessors, because 90 per cent. of student grants are met from national resources. The figure used to be 75 per cent. There may still be a problem, but it is not as great as it used to be when a greater proportion had to be met locally. The hon. Gentleman is lucky in having within his area a greater proportion of students than one finds in many areas, and therefore this may be a particular problem in Bedfordshire in general.

I now propose to say something about development within the hon. Gentleman's area. When he was dealing with Houghton Regis, the hon. Gentleman said that "the housing horse was racing away". I cannot accept that with regard to Houghton Regis. The first stage of the scheme was for 1,430 houses, and that was completed. The second stage, which began in 1970—four years ago—was for 2,500 houses, of which 430 have been completed and about 160 are under construction.

That represents little more than 100 houses a year in the Houghton Regis scheme, and neither the South Bedfordshire District Council nor the Bedfordshire County Council has complained about the rate of development of the infrastructure. It is understood that there is no problem over the provision of junior schools, although the provision of middle schools may be delayed as a result of the changes announced last December by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other respects, social provision is keeping pace with the expansion. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an all-weather sports pitch should be available by September and there is a plan for a swimming pool. It is hoped that social provisions will keep pace with what is at present not a rapid expansion of Houghton Regis at the rate of just over 100 houses a year.

The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with a subject which I know is dear to his heart, because he has regularly raised in the House, both with the previous Government and with this Government—matters affecting the green belt and developments within it. He asked me whether South Bedfordshire would be getting its green belt, and getting it quickly.

This matter started as long ago as 1960, when the proposed green belt was first envisaged. In view of the planning changes introduced by the Tory Government in the Local Government Act in 1972, we think that the strategic plan to be issued by the Bedfordshire County Council, which may well contain many of the proposals at present in existence in the half and half world of the green belt the hon. Gentleman referred to, should be a definitive document. This is a local matter for Bedfordshire to decide. As soon as the difficulties are resolved, I hope that Bedfordshire will issue the strategic plan and then the problem of what is green belt and what is not will be firm for all to see—the House, the Department, the county council, and—most important of all—the developers and the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

The hon. Gentleman went on to raise the question of roads and the bypass to the A5. The report of the Luton and Dunstable Transportation Study has only recently been received in the Department and its detailed recommendations are still under examination, so I cannot comment in detail. The hon. Gentleman said that he was delighted that there would be a plan for an A5 bypass. I understand that there are no plans to build a wholly A5 bypass, although the study recognised the limited north-south bypass for Dunstable.

There are, however, two schemes in the preparation list to provide a relief road to A505, running east-west in Luton and Dunstable. Similarly, there is a scheme in the preparation list to bypass Toddington on A5120. Under the new system of transport supplementary grant being introduced on 1st April 1975, it will be for Bedfordshire County Council to decide on the priorities and timing of these schemes.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned speed limits in villages. I am aware of the problems, both generally and in my constituency. I am aware, too, that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there is the problem of lorries carrying bricks that go on some village roads. I know that the county council and district council are well aware of this and will be taking account of the hon. Gentleman's point as to the 30 mph limit. I regret to say that at present I cannot take the matter further than did my hon. Frend the Under-Secretary in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.

The hon. Gentleman then mentioned Barton. I am not a Bedfordshire man, and I must ask the hon Gentleman whether I am right in assuming that he was referring to Barton-in-the-Clay, on the A6.

Mr. Madel

Yes.

Mr. Oakes

There is a scheme to bypass the village in the preparation pool, but again this would be a matter for the county council to resolve. It does not form part of the proposed first stage of the lorry route network, which has not yet been published, and there is little likelihood that work will start on the Barton-in-the-Clay bypass before 1980 because of the difficulties of the availability of finance for roads. I repeat that this will be a matter for the Bedfordshire County Council to consider in its transportation study.

The suggestion was made by the hon. Gentleman that there should be seven or eight ombudsmen. We have decided to follow the decision of the Conservative Government and to appoint initially three Commissioners for Local Government. If the need arises for further commissioners, more could be appointed. What is envisaged is that the three commissioners will each have responsibility for a specific region. If more commissioners are needed then they could be appointed for other regions, but it would be wasteful if it were decided to appoint seven or eight commissioners, with the necessary staff and all the rest of it, and it were then discovered that we did not need as many as seven or eight. It is better to proceed slowly and to appoint three to begin with. I would not go along with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that there would be sufficient work for county commissioners, but if there is need for regional commissioners additional people could be brought in subsequently.

I appreciate that the area in question is an intake area from London, but the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks pose a dilemma which any Government, be it Labour or Conservative, would face at present in terms of local government. This relates to the demand for better local services and on the other hand for a reduction in rates. I can well understand the hon. Gentleman seeking to ask for better 'bus services and other services in the area—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.