§ 8. Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of public sector pay settlements, he will consider further representations from those county councils who have suffered from his Department's redistribution of the rate support grant.
§ Mr. ShoreNo, Sir. Pay settlements affect all authorities and the distribution of the grant in the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement was designed to avoid excessive losses to authorities.
§ Mr. RentonMay I revert to the relevant supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? Is not it a fact that the Government first suggested a comparability study to NUPE officials at a meeting at which local authority representatives were not present and that local authorities were confronted with a fait accompli? Would it not be right for the Government to commit themselves to paying additional rate support grant to cover the cost of any differentials established by that comparability study or by others set up by the Government, such as the one on teachers' salaries?
§ Mr. ShoreIt is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that local authority associations were faced with a fait accompli with the development of comparability studies. There were many discussions with the local authority associations and the trade unions before we agreed on the proposal for a comparability study. I have already made it plain that the rate support grant cash limit will be adjusted to take account of the increase that is due to lower-paid workers as a result of the settlement.
§ Mr. Arthur LathamDoes my right hon. Friend recall that when I complained to the House about the shortcomings of Westminster city council both Tory and Liberal Members argued that the only remedy was to change the political composition of the council? Does he agree that if the electors were to return Labour majorities we might be persuaded that the counties are in favour of public expenditure? Is it not nauseating that the shire counties are in favour of increased public expenditure only if somebody else provides the money?
§ Mr. ShoreThe attitude of Conservative Members is extraordinarily insensitive to the needs of the country as a whole. Naturally, as we all do, they speak for their own areas, but the blindness that they exhibit to the needs of the cities and the great conurbations becomes apparent as each rate support grant order comes before the House.
§ Mr. MontgomeryWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the distribution of rate support grant? Is he aware that district councils such as Trafford have been clobbered for two years running in terms of their share of rate support grant? Although the Trafford council has effected as many economies as possible, Trafford ratepayers will be faced with an enormous burden this year. Is he aware that the general view is that squandermania councils seem to get the money and that councils that look after the interests of the ratepayers are those that get hammered?
§ Mr. ShoreThat is an extremely partial statement. It is not for me to comment on the rating decisions of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that we try to find the best methods of estimating need and to pay rate support grant needs element on that basis. We do our utmost to be impartial.
§ Mr. AlisonWe are encouraged by the Secretary of State helpfully saying that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the latest settlement for public sector workers. As the settlement includes a £1 payment in anticipation of that which the comparability study finally yields, may we take it that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the full and final settlement when comparability is established?
§ Mr. ShoreAccount will be taken of that. The hon. Gentleman is referring to what may emerge from the comparability study and payment from 1 August. We shall adjust the cash limit to take account of that. The local authorities impressed upon me that they would take aboard the £1 payment on account in the 22-week period between now and 1 August.