HC Deb 02 December 1981 vol 14 cc220-2
3. Mr. Spearing

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities and the organisations who have written to him opposing the suggestion for new rating proposals in response to the technical memorandum issued by his Department on 30 September 1981.

12. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about his proposals to change the financing of local government; and if he will list these representations in the Official Report.

Mr. King

My Department has received many representations from local authorities and other bodies about our proposals for new rating procedures—too many to list. While a majority of them expressed opposition to our specific proposals, many representations have urged the Government to take action to reduce the level of rates.

Mr. Spearing

Why has the Minister not mentioned the figures? Will he confirm that the memorandum states that it is up to the Secretary of State to determine the level of spending of local authorities? Is he aware that while the level of local authority expenditure over the last few years has remained more or less the same, Government spending has risen by about 5 per cent? Now that the Government have adopted the maxim "The man in Whitehall knows best", why does he not change his criterion on overspending and allow local authorities to spend up to the 5 per cent. increase of Government expenditure?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman's question contained most of the distortions that are prevalent about our proposals, and it is clear that there has been considerable misunderstanding of them. Some of the propaganda that has been issued, much of it at the ratepayers' expense, is a total distortion of what we said. I have with me a leaflet published by a Labour-controlled council, which states: If you are a housewife you can expect rubbish piling up outside your door because bins may be emptied only twice a month. That was its interpretation of the measure, and it bears little resemblance to the truth.

Mr. Roberts

Does the Minister not accept that in Staffordshire the Tory Opposition is in complete agreement with the Labour-controlled county council in its opposition to the proposals because it believes that they will destroy the essence of local government? In view of that all-party opposition, will the Minister now abandon these absurd suggestions?

Mr. King

I am aware that there has been considerable misunderstanding about our proposals, and I am also aware that there are reservations on both sides of the House about certain aspects of them. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I undertook to examine and consider alternative proposals that hon. Members might wish to put forward. We are now considering those suggestions.

Mr. Squire

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the time that they are taking to consider the submissions from both local authorities and Conservative Members? May I continue to assure him that solutions that rely on greater centralisation are unlikely to be the best solutions in the long term?

Mr. King

I am not sure whether I should accept my hon. Friend's congratulations. He will know that my right hon. Friend and I always like to consider these matters carefully before reaching well measured conclusions. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that the proposals that we put before that House did not depend on a central solution to the problems, but, ultimately, left the resolution of them to local people. For that reason, he will understand that. I support his central tack and believe that, as far as it is possible to do so, decisions should be reached locally by local people, who are best able to decide.

Mr. Ennals

Is it not a fact that local authorities, far from misunderstanding the Government's proposals, have understood them very well and, whether they are Tory or Labour-controlled, have opposed them strongly? Is the Minister aware that Norfolk county council almost unanimously rejected the proposals? Is he further aware that representatives of local authorities throughout the country are coming to London tomorrow to express their strong opposition? When will he tell the House that he is withdrawing these absurd proposals?

Mr. King

I do not believe that the proposals were properly understood. I take a measure of responsibility for perhaps failing to explain them as fully and clearly as we should have done. Many of the representations and much of the opposition were based on fundamental misunderstandings.

Mr. Heddle

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would have been no necessity to publish the technical memorandum if the Labour Party, when in Government, had grasped the nettle after the publication of the Layfield report and undertaken a root-and-branch reform of the rating system? Does he recognise that there is widespread support for a move to iron out anomalies in local government financing by bringing forward rating reform as a matter of considerable parliamentary priority?

Mr. King

I well understand that. The attitude of the Labour Party, if I may coin a mixed metaphor, was to chicken out of grasping the nettle because it was a sacred cow. The attention that has been given to the rating system and the problems that it poses has been real. As a question that appears later on the Order Paper will elicit, we have proposals that will shortly be put before the House.