§ 4. Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he received the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance.
§ 18. Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Report of the Layfield Inquiry into Local Government Finance.
§ 19. Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Layfield Inquiry into Local Government Finance.
§ Mr. CroslandI expect to receive the report in the next few weeks. It will be published as soon as practicable thereafter.
§ Dr. MarshallIs there any particular reason why the Layfield Committee was unable to meet its original deadline of reporting before the end of 1975? Will my right hon. Friend give a little more assurance to the House by specifying an exact date on which he expects to receive the report?
§ Mr. CroslandI cannot specify an exact date. There is no particular reason for the delay. The general reason is, not surprisingly, that this is an incredibly complex problem. It has not been systematically studied in this way for 50 years. 365 It is a problem to which there was no consensus solution when the Committee was set up. I was surprised that the Committee was willing to accept the original deadline. This is the hardest working committee of which I have had knowledge in Government, and I do not grudge it a few extra weeks to prepare a thorough report.
§ Mr. JesselAs rates are such a heavy burden on householders, will the Government act with reasonable speed on receiving the report to reform the system and replace it by something more equitable? In particular, will they consider taking the cost of education, which is the biggest single item of local authority expenditure, off the rates and putting it on to the Exchequer?
§ Mr. CroslandI cannot say with what speed I shall act until I know what the report recommends. The policy of the Opposition, which was stated by the Leader of the Opposition, is to abolish the domestic rating system. Unfortunately, they have utterly neglected to say what area of taxation they would increase to make good the loss of revenue.
§ Mr. MorrisIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of ratepayers would prefer the Opposition's policy of abolishing domestic rates? As the right hon. Gentleman has now waited over 18 months for the report, will he be more forthcoming and tell ratepayers in what sort of time span he will react to this report?
§ Mr. CroslandI cannot say how I shall react to the report until I know what it proposes. That seems reasonable, elementary common sense. I do not doubt that all domestic ratepayers would welcome the abolition of the domestic rate. The question is whether taxpayers would welcome the increases in tax which they would have to pay to make good the loss on domestic rates.
§ 7. Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish proposals for reorganising the method by which local goverment is financed.
§ Mr. CroslandNo, Sir. I am awaiting the report of the Layfield Committee on Local Government Finance.
§ Mr. MorrisonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing bitterness among ratepayers about the method by which local government is financed? Is he further aware that his earlier answer will not give very much hope to domestic ratepayers? Will he assure us that, whatever the Layfield Committee says, the Government will ensure that in future local government is financed on a more equitable basis?
§ Mr. CroslandOf course there is dissatisfaction among ratepayers, although there is probably less militancy on the subject now than there was at this time last year. Indeed, there is dissatisfaction with taxation of any kind. I cannot give an assurance about what will come out of the Layfield Inquiry, but if the Layfield Report proposes a system that is clearly more equitable than the present one naturally I shall be extremely sympathetic to it.
§ Mr. George CunninghamIs my right hon. Friend aware that inner London authorities are grateful that their rate support grant next year will more nearly reflect their intense needs? Is he aware that there will be great resentment if that advantage is offset by a big increase in the inner London surcharge under the London rate equalisation scheme, a surcharge that operates as a straight subsidy to rates charged in outer London?
§ Mr. CroslandI am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. We have all noted the decision of the GLC as reported in the Press today. As for what the ILEA might or might not do, that is something on which I do not think I should comment.