§ The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards)I beg to move,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)With this, it will be convenient to take the second motion:
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
§ Mr. EdwardsI shall deal with the reports in turn and it may be convenient for the House if I deal fairly quickly with the supplementary report before going on to the main report for the 1982–83 settlement.
The supplementary report is primarily a mechanism for adjusting the rate support grants for the present financial year to take account of certain costs and factors which were uncertain or unknown when the main report was made. The supplementary report therefore takes account of the latest information on rates of interest for loan charges and subsidies within the housing revenue account and the addition to relevant expenditure to take account of the additional costs of the September 1981 police pay awards. The supplementary report also "close ends" the grant—that is, it ensures that the grant payments to individual authorities in aggregate equals the total amount of grant available. The necessary adjustments to grant entitlements have been made by a method agreed with the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The report also takes account of more up-to-date factual information affecting grant entitlements; for example it uses rateable values as at the mid-point of the grant year and data changes arising from local authority area boundary changes made in the year under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.
This supplementary report can be regarded therefore as essentially a tidying-up process. Its most significant aspect probably is that it reflects my decision not to reduce the total amount available for local authority grants in the current financial year. Here the position differs from that in England. Although authorities' budgets suggested that the current expenditure would exceed the overall expenditure target, I accepted the Welsh local authority associations' view that that excess was likely to be eliminated by various means, including the normal process of budget drift during the year. In taking that decision, I placed my trust in the local authorities. However, I have made it clear to the local authorities that I will have to look at this decision again when I have firmer information about actual expenditure in the current financial year. If an excess remains I may have to reduce the grant by means of a further supplementary report. At this stage, I must reserve my judgment.
I turn to the main Welsh rate support grant for the next financial year. The report gives effect to my decisions and determinations in respect of local authority grants for next year. Before dealing with the report itself, I would like to set out briefly the background against which my decisions have had to be taken.
The year 1981–82 was, of course, the first year of the separate Welsh rate support grant system. As I said in last year's rate support grant debate, the settlement is a matter of major importance, not simply to the local authorities 236 concerned but to the Government and the country as a whole. That statement is as relevant today as it was then. Public expenditure has to be kept at a level that the nation can afford. Local authority expenditure accounts far a substantial proportion of total public expenditure and it cannot be exempt from that fundamental requirement.
Within that inevitable and necessary constraint the Government's main objectives have been to recognise the relatively good performance of Welsh authorities in seeking to meet our aggregate expenditure target and to do everything possible to help industry and commerce. Clearly, it makes no sense to set expenditure level reductions that are unattainable. In arriving at our decision on the appropriate level of expenditure we have taken fully into account the need for realism. We have set authorities an aggregate expenditure target that they can achieve.
There has been a recognition in local government circles that, though there may be differences on certain matters, the settlement overall is fair and indeed generous. I have increased the relevant local authority current expenditure to £1, 126 million, an increase of £94 million or about 9.1 per cent. over last year's settlement figures. Total relevant expenditure on which grant is paid and which reflects the additional provision for loan and other capital charges arising from the substantially increased capital allocations I have been able to make is increased from £1, 187 million to £1, 300 million.
The aggregate Exchequer grant is at a level of support of 72.5 per cent. of relevant expenditure and amounts to £943 million, an increase of £72 million over the 1981–82 total or about 8.3 per cent. Of this total, specific grants total £96.62 million, transport supplementary grant—capital only—£30 million and the national parks supplementary grant £1.69 million. That leaves for the rate support grants themselves—that is the domestic rate relief grant and the block grant for local authorities—£814.69 million.
As I have said, this is a fair, indeed generous, settlement. The level of current expenditure provision is such that it implies for Welsh local authorities as a whole virtually the same level of services as envisaged in the 1981–82 settlement. If, of course, pay and price increases exceed the levels allowed for in the settlement, authorities will be expected to make compensating savings within their budgets. That discipline applies to local authorities as it does to the Government.
Local authorities must realise that they have a choice of options in that situation. Some are making statements—and are determining rate levels—on the assumption that any excess should simply be loaded on ratepayers. That is not so. They have a choice of cutting costs and manning levels, of reducing services or of putting up charges. It is wrong for them to argue that there is no room for further improvement in efficiency Every ratepayer will know that that is rubbish.
The marginal percentage reduction in grant of 0.9 per cent. is considerably less than the percentage reductions in England and Scotland. The relevant expenditure to which it applies has been substantially increased, so that the volume of central Government support is higher than a year ago and some £7 million more than would have been the result if we had applied last year's grant percentage of 73.4 per cent. to the planned expenditure figure in last year's White Paper. Some local authority spokesmen refer only to the percentage figure without any reference to relevant expenditure. The two have to be looked at 237 together. The Welsh authorities are in a much less difficult position than their English colleagues. They look like coming close to achieving the overall expenditure level that I set last year so that they do not have to make up lost ground, and they actually start with more Government grant for this year than they might reasonably have expected a year ago.
Before leaving the question of grant, it is useful to put the totality of grant into perspective. Last year, out of the total amount of grant available for England and Wales as a whole, the Welsh share was a little above the average share of grant for the period 1975–76 to 1980–81. This year, following a review of the procedures for allocating grant to Wales and to England, that share has been increased again, and is some £43 million higher than it would have been had the historic share applied. I think that that factor alone, if nothing else, is more than adequate justification for a separate Welsh rate support grant system.
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)Before my right hon. Friend leaves this aspect of the matter, can he assure me that in assessing the rate support grant he has taken full account of the special needs of areas such as the county of Clwyd? Because of decisions taken not by market forces but by governmental agencies such as the British Steel Corporation, Clwyd has found itself suddenly confronted with about 10, 000 additional unemployed people at extremely short notice. It has, therefore, special requirements in the need to attract new industry. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that has been taken fully into account in assessing the rate support grant?
§ Mr. EdwardsThose factors have been discussed in great detail with local authority associations and the consultative council. Some aspects of the GRE formula have been revised and somewhat greater account has been taken of unemployment than was the case in the last settlement. As I told the House yesterday, in allocating capital, particularly for the urban programme, I have paid particular attention to the need to help new industry and the social problems that arise in areas of high unemployment. I think that I can, therefore, give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
As I have also stated elsewhere, I have shown that we can now insulate Welsh authorities from events taking place in England and decisions of English authorities. This is another advantage of a separate Welsh rate support grant system. We can treat them on the basis of their own performance and not tar them with the brush of Mr. Livingstone or anyone else.
I was anxious in my settlement to recognise the Welsh authorities' relatively good performance in a way that would help industry and construction and therefore employment. I have done this in two ways. First, the Government have significantly increased the provision for local authority capital expenditure next year. Including the urban programme that I have just mentioned to my hon. Friend, we are allocating £279 million for capital expenditure, which is an increase of £46 million or about 20 per cent. above the amounts allocated in 1981–82. The increase includes an additional provision for local authority roads, housing and the urban programme. Although this is not directly part of the rate support grant settlement, the increase in capital expenditure reflects the 238 Government's view of local authorities' overall spending performance. I think that this demonstrates as clearly as anything that there is a trade-off between capital and current expenditure. If current expenditure is constrained, it enables resources to be made available for worthwhile capital projects—something that we all want to see.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)I listened to the Secretary of State's remarks about the capital allocations to local authorities during yesterday's Question Time. In view of his remarks now, how does he explain that for the county of Gwynedd the capital allocation is down 5 per cent. in cash terms, which is presumably equivalent to 15 per cent. or more in real terms? That has decreased the allocation to £6.5 million, which means being unable to proceed with vital road projects.
§ Mr. EdwardsThe allocation of those projects is not done on some formula basis of distribution but on particular projects, which are geared to essential infrastructure to attract jobs. We must make decisions on those. They must also be fitted into the context of other major infrastructure improvements occurring in North Wales. For example, Clwyd made the same complaint but also issued some publicity material drawing attention to the excellent road links created there.
That emphasises the importance of local authorities coming forward with specific relevant proposals directly related to this sort of requirement. The matter has been dealt with in that way and not on a formula basis related to individual authorities. Some authorities will not do as well as others because particular projects seem important to us now and we have given them the go-ahead.
I yesterday announced the details of the urban programme, which supports many very worthwhile projects all over Wales to which local government attributes great importance. The total of £15.3 million is 47 per cent. higher than the amount allocated last year and more than double the programme in 1979–80.
Second, I reduced the level of domestic rate relief from its present 36p to 18.5p—the same level as in England. This means that industry and commerce will pay a little less of the total rates call in Wales and domestic consumers a little more. As hon. Members will know, the rate support grants proper comprise two elements; the domestic rate relief grant, which is a direct subsidy to domestic ratepayers, and the block grant itself which is paid to local authorities in respect of their expenditure on the services that they provide. Last year, I kept the level of domestic rate relief grant at 36p in the pound because I did not think it appropriate to reduce this level in the first year of operation of the new and separate block grant rate support system in Wales. However, hon. Members should understand that the differential between the levels of domestic rate relief in England and Wales—amounting to 17.5p in the pound—has become increasingly hard to defend. Whatever the justification for this differential in the past—of course I acknowledge that it has been of help to domestic consumers—I simply do not believe that it can be justified in the present circumstances. One has only to compare domestic rate bills.
In 1981–82 the average unrebated domestic rate bill in Wales was £153 compared with an average unrebated bill of £239 in England. Even allowing for factors such as lower rateable values in Wales, or income levels, there is 239 no justification for maintaining this discrepancy at the expense—that is what it means—of industry and commerce.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the historic link between this higher domestic rate relief and higher water rates in Wales? Given the figures we just heard about higher water rates from the Wales water authority, can he now say that it is time to reduce by half the domestic rate relief?
§ Mr. EdwardsI shall say two things. First, even if one adds on the water charges on the revised basis, it is still true that the totality will be a good deal less than in England. Secondly, I can repeat the values given by the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) on 16 March 1977., when speaking on this subject in the debate on the Water Equalisation Bill 1977.
He said:
In the settlements for 1976–77 and for 1977–78 there is no question of water charges being taken into account by the Government in their decisions about the levels of domestic relief. Those decisions that were taken for the years 1976–77 and 1977–78 were based solely on the likely effects of changes in the levels of relief on local authority domestic rate poundages and had no relevance whatsoever to the level of water charges in Wales or in any other part of the United Kingdom. They had no connection with them.The right hon. Gentleman continued:However much one sought to alter the level of rate support grant, it would not affect the level of water charges.He added:I assure him that the water charges are not taken into account and were not a factor in deciding the level of the domestic element." [Official Report, 16 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 568.] That has been the position under successive Governments for a number of years and it was spelt out by the right hon. Member for Rhondda.As I was saying, this is not the time to maintain such a discrepancy at the expense of industry and commerce. The favourable settlement provided the opportunity to reduce domestic rate relief without unduly penalising domestic ratepayers. I recognise of course that this reduction in domestic rate relief will mean that domestic ratepayers will have to pay more than would otherwise be the case. But the amount involved is not the 17½p reduction in the rate but, on average, about 9p. This is because the amount of money "saved"—about £23 million—has not been taken away from the rate support grant's total but has been added to the block grant going to authorities. This of course has the effect of reducing the general rate poundage which benefits both industrial and domestic ratepayers so that domestic ratepayers will have to find only about half of the absolute reduction.I make no apologies for the change. No one likes to see domestic rates increased, but we must balance the increase against the substantial help that this change will give to industry and commerce and, of course, to employment. Just as I was concerned to see capital expenditure increased so, for the same reasons, I want to give the maximum help that I can to industry and commerce in the Principality and thus help them in their efforts to overcome the recession.
At the end of the day rating decisions depend entirely upon the decisions taken by the local authorities themselves—I have no control over those decisions. However, I am sure—at least I hope I am sure—that all authorities in Wales will be as anxious as I am to see that the maximum benefit accrues to industry and commerce 240 from this move. I look to them to keep their general rate poundage down to the lowest possible level, which, of course, will benefit all ratepayers.
I want to avoid too many technical details, but I trust refer to the block grant mechanisms. They remain virtually as last year, the only changes being those to the power of the curve above the threshold and to safety nets. I shall try to explain. As regards the former, I have increased the power of the mysterious thing called the curve from 1.35 to 1.45 so that authorities spending substantially in excess of GRE will suffer a slightly greater percentage reduction in grant on such expenditure compared to last year—in other words, the ratepayers will have to fund slightly more of very high levels of expenditure compared to GRE. As for safety nets, for this year I have decided that I will have only a single stage 5p safety net at the ratepayer level, with 4p going to the counties and 1p to the districts. In other words, there will be a 5p maximum change at the ratepayer level. But the safety nets will protect only against changes to GREs and the residual effects from moving to the new block grant system and not from authorities' expenditure decisions.
§ Mr. Tom Hooson (Brecon and Radnor)I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will comment on a factor that is of considerable importance to the rural areas of Wales, and that is the evaluation of the sparsity factor. Is he satisfied with the situation when there has been no progress in making allowance for the problems of rural areas in the first year during which the formula has been under the control of the Welsh Office?
§ Mr. EdwardsThis matter has been discussed in great detail in the consultative council in an attempt to obtain the fairest possible treatment for all areas, including the rural areas. The present formula was agreed with the local authority associations. In so far as changes are produced, there will be safety nets to protect individual local authorities. I have always undertaken, as my hon. Friend is aware, to examine this matter to see whether improvements can be taken into account. My hon. Friend can rest assured that sparsity and other factors have been taken into account in the settlement.
Before concluding, I should like to say a few words more about expenditure. I have already referred to the fact that, unlike what has happened in England, I have decided not to withhold grant this year because of the potential current expenditure excess.
Similarly, unlike the position in England, I have not set individual authority expenditure targets. I would like to make it perfectly clear and repeat what I have said on other occasions. I do not want to be driven down the road of setting individual authority expenditure targets. No matter how carefully these are constructed, a degree of imprecision is inevitably involved, which can be unfair for individual authorities. As local authorities know, my concern is the aggregate expenditure target and I and they accept that, if that is achieved, some authorities with similar characteristics may be spending at different rates.
I am, of course, determined to see that my overall expenditure target is met. As I have explained, the settlement provision for next year should enable broadly the same level of service to be provided by authorities as in the current year. This means authorities in aggregate will have to constrain their cash expenditure within my target. Again, as I have already remarked, if pay 241 settlements and prices move differently from the Government's assumptions used in the settlement, local authorities will have to absorb these increases by increasing efficiency, reducing manpower, cutting services or some combination of these methods. The alternative would be to push up rates and require all ratepayers—both domestic and non-domestic—to bear the brunt of a level of expenditure not justified in our present economic circumstances. If this happens and expenditure exceeds my target, I will have no alternative but to withhold grant.
I must say to local authorities that some of the early decisions on budgets that I have heard of do cause me to fear that they are relaxing their efforts to reduce costs. If some authorities push the total of local government expenditure over the target then others, which have made efforts, may find themselves suffering in the inevitable cutback. I might be forced to introduce individual targets to protect authorities that have made an effort to reduce expenditure.
There should be no misunderstanding. If there is an overspend next year and, indeed, if the current expenditure overspend this year is not substantially reduced from the present level, I shall have to withhold grant.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not operate expenditure controls for particular authorities. Within the document there is published the grant-related expenditure overall for each authority. The right hon. Gentleman also publishes the GRE unit for each factor. Yet the same document states that the figures
do not form a basis for calculating a notional allocation of either grant-related expenditure or grant to individual authorities for any particular service.Why does he not publish such information? It would be useful to hon. Members in examining the performance of authorities and would also be useful to his Department.
§ Mr. EdwardsOne reason is that I do not wish to dictate to local authorities their own priority decisions and their own choices. The local authorities themselves. I believe, would be unhappy to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman suggests. As he has put the suggestion, I shall consider it and perhaps return to it if I am able to reply to the debate.
By any standard of comparison—by comparison with previous settlements, by comparison with the English and Scottish settlements—and on the simple basis of what it will enable Welsh authorities to do next year this is a fair and reasonable settlement.
However, I am shocked by reports that in Cardiff rates for industry may go up by 14 per cent. and domestic rates may go up by 42 per cent. In the Vale of Glamorgan a general rate increase of 18 per cent. has been proposed with an increase in domestic rates of 45 per cent. Between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of rate bills arise from the county precept. Therefore, the prime cause of these astonishing propsals seems to be the intention of South Glamorgan to impose an increase in its general rate of 21p over its main rate last year and 15p over its supplementary rate.
The proposals of the Labour-controlled county council seem extraordinary. The effect of reducing domestic rate relief is to increase block grant, which means that the 242 general rate should be 8½p in the pound less than would otherwise be the case. In those circumstances it is hard to conceive of a financial circumstance confronting the council that dictates an increase of 21p over its original main rate last year.
Let us look at what other counties have done. Where the average increase is not 21p but less than 2p. Three counties are not increasing their precept at all, and one—Gwynedd—is proposing to reduce its precept by 5p in the pound. If South Glamorgan cares at all about its ratepayers, job creation and the health of its businesses I hope that it will reconsider its proposals. If Labour Mid-Glamorgan, for example, with its social problems, can hold its rate, it is very odd, to say the least, that Labour South Glamorgan cannot exercise more restraint.
Of course, the effect on domestic ratepayers of my decision to reduce the level of domestic rate relief is an increase of about 9p, or 7 per cent., in the domestic rate, but that is a very different picture from the massive increases reported in South Glamorgan. I accept that there are bound to be some variations in domestic rate increases around this figure. But what ratepayers should clearly understand is that domestic rate increases over double figures are the results of decisions that are made by the local authorities themselves and over which I have no control. Such increases certainly do not arise from my decision to reduce the level of domestic rate relief.
The contrast between what is apparently happening in South Glamorgan and what is happening elsewhere is stark. Other local authorities have proved that on the basis of this settlement rates can be held down, although I appreciate that it will require a considerable effort by them to do that and maintain services.
Manpower levels, cut by about 4.6 per cent. over two years, will need to continue to fall. But if they do, and if every effort is made to keep costs down, there should be on average little or no rate increase for industry and commerce, and increases for domestic ratepayers should be less than those of recent years.
I look to Welsh local government to maintain its responsible approach and to seize the opportunity that this settlement undoubtedly gives it.
§ Mr. Alec Jones (Rhondda)After listening to the Secretary of State's speech, I am beginning to think that his contribution to local government in Wales has been so great that he must recently have been awarded the medal of honour by the Welsh Counties Committee or by the Council for the Principality. But when the rate bills, the rent increases and the increased water charges all come tumbling through the letter boxes, the people of Wales will feel the full impact of the settlement that we are discussing—both the financial effects and the continuing worsening of local authority services.
The key elements in the settlement are as follows: first, a further reduction in Government financial assistance to local authorities; secondly, false assumptions built into the settlement about the likely levels of inflation; thirdly, the most punitive increases in council rents; and, fourthly, the most unfair settlement yet devised for domestic ratepayers.
I was grateful to the Secretary of State for his technical explanation of the safety net, the power of the curve and matters of that nature. I assumed that having got away 243 from regression analysis, we were moving into simpler times, but that must have been a mistake which quite a few of us made.
This is the second separate Welsh rate support grant settlement. It is satisfying that the Secretary of State has introduced two new criteria which are important and will improve matters—one dealing with concessionary fares and the other the new method of dealing with unemployment. Both those affect the levels of expenditure by local authorities.
This is not just the second settlement: it is the second settlement with a reduced level in the grant percentage. The Secretary of State may say that it is only a small reduction, 0.9 per cent. in Wales. But how little is it in cash terms? The Secretary of State reminded us that the total relevant expenditure was £1, 300.8 million, 0.9 per cent. of that is £12 million. So the first good news from the settlement is that Wales loses that £12 million of Government grant.
In the settlement for 1982–83 there are two assumptions which are completely unrealistic. They are as unrealistic as is the Secretary of State's understanding of the problems facing Wales today. First, there is the assumption that wage and salary rises can be restricted to 4 per cent. for settlements between September 1981 and March 1983. That has already gone by the board. Local authority manual workers accepted pay settlements ranging from 6.3 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. Lest someone thinks that they behaved in a dreadful way, let us remind ourselves that their bottom basic rate, including the increase, is £63.65 and the top rate is £78.10 per week.
The second assumption is that all other costs can be contained within the 9 per cent. figure. The Government's record on inflation, which is running at 12 per cent., hardly gives credibility to the 9 per cent. figure. Most local authority members do not believe it, nor does any prudent council treasurer. The council treasurers will wisely have advised their members that neither the 4 per cent. ceiling on wage increases nor the 9 per cent. ceiling on other costs is realistic. They will have budgeted accordingly.
Let me quote from a newspaper report of what the chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee had to say about it:
The inflation assumption of 6 per cent"— that is taking the 9 per cent. and the 4 per cent.—was totally unrealistic, … and to adhere to their spending limits Welsh local authorities would have to reduce services by at least 3 per cent.That is what the assumptions behind the settlement will lead to.There will be increasing pressure for further redundancies in local authority staff. The phrase now is not redundancies but "cutting manning levels". That may well suit the Secretary of State for Wales, but with unemployment running at 176, 000 in Wales we need more unemployment as much as we need a hole in the head. Already local authorities have taken a fair share of cuts. In the year ending September 1980 they have lost 4, 439 workers, a cut of 3.8 per cent. in their work force. In the year ending September 1981, they sustained a further loss of 3, 242, a cut of 2.8 per cent. There have been further losses since then.
That cutting of staff cannot continue year after year without seriously affecting both the quality and the quantity of local authority services, which are needed by the people of Wales. If we consider education as an 244 example, the year ending September 1980 saw a reduction of 174 in the number of lecturers and teachers employed. In the year ending September 1981 there was a further reduction of 999. Since last September, there have been further reductions. Whatever may be the merits of the argument of falling rolls, few educationists would accept that the loss of those teachers has had no serious effect on our schools and their pupils.
Built into the Secretary of State's settlement—a matter to which he referred at length in the Welsh Grand Committee, and I understand why he did not refer to it this evening—is the decision that there should be an increase in the local contribution to the housing revenue accounts of £2.50 per dwelling per week. That is a polite way of saying that council rents must rise by that sum. Council tenants may not be the most loved members of society by the Government, but they have had, and are having. an especially rough time from the Government. In 1979–80, the average weekly unrebated rent was £6.50. In 1980–81, there was a 24 per cent. increase, pushing it up to £8.09. In 1981–82 there was a 41 per cent. increase, pushing the rent up to £11.41 a week. For 1982–83, we are told that the settlement proposes a further 22 per cent. increase, pushing the average weekly unrebated rent up to £13.91. Of course, that is nearly the minimum. There would be extra increases in some authorities. The Vale of Glamorgan will be increasing its rents by £3 a week and Swansea by about £2.60. However, taking only the £2.50 on which the settlement is based, it means that council tenants are faced with a rent rise of 114 per cent. since the Government took office.
§ Mr. HoosonAre not the increases of the past two years simply a catching-up on the process of unrealistic adjustment of the rents by the Labour Government?
§ Mr. JonesWhatever the hon. Gentleman may believe, I find it impossible to accept that it is reasonable or proper to increase council rents by 114 per cent. in four years and to view it in such a way that 18 out of the 37 housing authorities in Wales now have a surplus on their housing revenue accounts. That surplus can be transferred in whole or in part to the general fund, so that we could find that council tenants are subsidising other council services. I know that the Secretary of State has said that he does not expect that to happen, but if it does happen what can and will he do to prevent this gross injustice to council tenants?
Last year the Secretary of State was rather proud of his achievement in maintaining the domestic rate relief at 36p in the pound. Today we heard a very different story. In the debate last year, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) said how much the retention of the domestic rate relief at 36p in the pound should be welcomed. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome this year's decision to cut domestic rate relief almost by half to 18.5 per cent? If the domestic ratepayers of Wales had received some magnificent gesture, bonus, benefit or blessing during the past year, one could understand it. The reduction of the domestic rate relief, according to the Welsh counties, should lead to an average rent increase of 9½p in the pound. It is true that we do not yet have the full picture, because, even when I spoke to some local authority people today, treasurers and councillors were wrestling with the impossible task:
I do not often quote the Western Mail, but I do so on this occasion. It said: 245
The Secretary of State was expecting single figures rises for domestic ratepayers.I tried to get some idea of the effect that this settlement will have on domestic ratepayers. I found that in West Glamorgan it is expected that domestic rates will rise by 15 per cent. In Gwent the expected rise is 13 to 15 per cent., Mid-Glamorgan 12½ per cent., as long as there is no other increase in any district council, and in South Glamorgan 14.6 per cent., again excluding any district council increase. It is not easy to find what the situation is with district councils, but I understand that the Ceredigion council rate will rise by 17 per cent.I agree with my old statement, which was read by the Secretary of State. I did not accept then, and I do not accept now, that there is a direct link between water charges and rates. However, it is strange that this year, above all, he should choose to surrender the domestic rate relief advantage that Wales has. This year householders are facing a double bill. They are asked to meet not just the rate increases but the massive increase in water charges.
§ Mr. Nicholas EdwardsI challenge the word "surrender." It seems to imply that the money has been lost to Wales. It has not. It remains with local government in Wales, for the benefit of the people of Wales. However, the priority at the moment is industry, commerce and jobs, about which the right hon. Gentleman has a lot to say, but about which he is not prepared to do anything.
§ Mr. JonesThe right hon. Gentleman is obviously touchy on this issue. It is a surrender, for the domestic ratepayers in Wales are being asked to subsidise jobs when that should properly be the responsibility of the Government.
Welsh householders are being asked to pay not only the increased rates directly brought about by the withdrawal of the advantageous domestic rate relief but an 18.3 per cent. increase in their water charges. It is no good saying that this is a matter for the Wales water authority. The Government threw away the advantages of the Water Charges Equalisation Act, which would have been worth £3 million to the water authority.
The hon. Gentleman knows that to be true, and a press release yesterday from the Wales water authority made the same statement. Thus, householders are being particularly heavily hit by the Government, first, by rates which are likely to be increased by about 15 percent., and, secondly, by the increase in the water rate of 18.3 per cent. Many of the householders are on the dole queue, while those who are fortunate enough to remain in work are asked to accept this level of water charge and rate increase, but a wage increase of only 4 per cent.
The Secretary of State justifies the sell-out on the domestic relief because it will give a boost to employment. I do not think that there is any Welsh Member who rejects or does anything other than welcome a boost to employment—although there has not been a great deal of that since the Government took office. However, there are other, better and fairer ways of boosting employment than by penalising the householder.
Next month we shall have the Budget. That should be the proper vehicle to boost employment. Then we can judge the Government's efforts in attracting jobs to Wales. At that stage they could act on proposals put to them, even 246 by their friends, to reduce or abolish the national insurance surcharge. That would do much more to boost employment than the way that they have chosen, of penalising the domestic ratepayers.
This squalid treatment of domestic ratepayers is like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and not all the Pauls who will receive the benefit need a boost. The non-domestic ratepayers who will benefit most from this order include the banks. I do not believe that Barclays Bank needs much of a boost. They also include building societies and bookmakers. Indeed, there is a whole range of non-domestic ratepayers. Certainly the Secretary of State's action gives a boost, but it gives a boost to the unworthy and worthy alike, and at the expense of Welsh domestic ratepayers.
The support that this order gives to Welsh local authorities is miserly. The order is woefully optimistic about inflation, and it is shamefully discriminating against both council tenants and domestic ratepayers. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it tonight.
§ 11.6 pm
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) had a lot of fun, claiming that the limitation of rate increases to industry would benefit the banks and the bookmakers. I must tell him that I have had many complaints from some well-heeled people in my constituency that the burden is being transferred from industry to the private ratepayer. It is an issue that sorts out the men from the boys, because if, as the Labour Party never ceases to tell us, we should give overriding priority to the creation of jobs, we should have the guts to limit the burden that we put on industry.
We in the Conservative Party believe in the importance of creating jobs, and we are prepared to pay the price to get them. All the eyewash of the Labour Party, which is prepared to back every strike that threatens jobs in Wales, will not wash when people really think about who is making the efforts to create jobs in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a terrific job in fighting for the Welsh interests in the Cabinet. The settlement that he has secured is obviously not as good as we should have liked. We should all like to have had massive support by the British taxpayer for the Welsh ratepayer. However, he has secured a settlement which, by any standards, is a good one.
The chairman of Clwyd's finance committee—he is a member of the Labour Party, but he is a fair-minded man—went on record as saying that
thanks to the additional help from the county resulting from the general determination in Wales to meet Government restraints, they have been able to recommend an unchanged rate precept".It is an example of a county council that does not have a Conservative majority, but which has adopted intelligent policies, by and large, going along with the Government, and co-operating with them in maintaining its precept this year. At the same time the council is keen to have—and why not?—an increase in its capital allocation. Hence the brief intervention that I made in my right hon. Friend's speech.Having said that, I ask my right hon. Friend not to be tempted to think that the anger about the domestic rate level is something that will die down. The Conservative Party gave a pledge a long time ago that it would abolish the domestic rating system. Quite candidly, I am not at all 247 sure that that was a wise promise to give. I believe that some element of property taxation—of a rating system—should be preserved. Apart from anything else, it encourages the proper occupation of house space by penalising over-occupation and it is a cheap tax to collect. However, it has reached a level at which its unfairnesses become totally unacceptable.
I would not like to think that the Bill that is at present going through Committee will be taken by my right hon. Friends in the debate tonight as representing any excuse for a slackening in their zeal and determination to carry out that fundamental reform of the rating system that they are constantly promising us. Back Benchers will make sure that they live up to their word in that respect.
I hope that this debate will be, if not the last, at any rate the penultimate debate that we have in the House on the rate support grant in its present form. I hope that ways will be found— perhaps by transferring large blocks of expenditure from the rates to general taxation—to bring about that fundamental reform in the rating system that we have so often been promised.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Never have local authorities felt more under seige from a hostile Government than now. I see the expression of disbelief on the face of the Under-Secretary of State. However, I advise him to look through the pages of local authority journals, to look again at the Government's unsuccessful attempts to introduce a referendum before rate increases, at the attempts to curb supplementary rate increases and at the attempts to impose an average rent increase on local authorities as a whole. Local authorities generally feel battered and faced by a Government who are hostile to local democracy.
There are, however, some brighter features to this rate settlement. The Welsh share of the combined total of the English and Welsh settlements has increased, as a result of the separate rate support grant settlement, from 7.4 per cent. to 7.6 per cent. The cuts in the proportion of the total local government spending provided by central Government are lower in Wales than in England. The figure is 0.3 per cent. in Wales, compared with 3.1 per cent. in England. But that is still a cut at a time when there are increasing pressures on local authorities as a result of the Government-inspired recession and the ageing population that makes greater demands on our social services. Cuts at the margin affect, for example, the bus services that depend on the transport supplementary grant and the county grant from that. As we saw during the recent snow crisis, the reserves available to our local authorities are at historically low levels.
As has been pointed out, in setting the cash limit ceilings the Government have set totally unreal limits—the 4 per cent. pay suggestion from September 1981 until March 1983 and the 9 per cent. for other costs—that bear no relationship to the projections made by outside and objective forecasters on the likely level of pay settlements or for the course of inflation over that period. Those figures of 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. compare with 6 per cent. for earnings and 11 per cent. for prices in the last settlement. Given such totally unrealistic figures, one can feel only that the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment have been infected by the optimism affecting Treasury Ministers. They continually talk about inflation falling as surely as day follows night. Inflation has been 248 bumping at about 12 per cent. for the past few months. Inflation is high in the United States of America and all the Government's forecasts have been way off course. The projections made and the limits that have been set must appear unrealistic. Ultimately, the ratepayers will have to pay. The element of choice that the Secretary of State claimed does not exist.
As a result, domestic ratepayers will suffer. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said, with his usual objectivity, that in 1974 the Prime Minister gave a pledge that she would abolish the rates. That pledge was repeated in the 1979 manifesto, but in a somewhat muted form. Given the parliamentary timetable, there is no way that those two clear pledges can be implemented before the next election. That remains true, however much the hon. Gentleman may say that he and his colleagues will do their best to remind the Prime Minister of those oft-repeated pledges.
After that pledge in the 1979 election, the increase in average domestic rate poundages in Wales in 1980–81 was 30.7 per cent. compared with the previous year. Following that pledge, in 1981–82 there was an average rate increase in Wales of 19.1 per cent. Thus we face the paradox that despite the general election promises in 1974 and 1979, the Government have added to the burdens of domestic ratepayers. In the process, they have made it more difficult to abolish domestic rates. They have made the domestic rate yield so large that the task of abolishing rates is even more herculean. Domestic rate relief has been halved and, despite what has been said, that used to be billed as compensation for Wales for the high water charges. As a result, the Swansea ratepayer in 1982–83 will face a 15.8 per cent. increase in domestic rates. Because of the abolition of domestic rate relief there will be an increase of 3.5 per cent. for industrial and commercial users. Nevertheless, water rates are certain to rise by about 18.3 per cent.
Given the high rate of unemployment, there is a case for a bias in favour of industrial and commercial users. However, as has been said, the Secretary of State's bounty falls on the unjust and the just. Surveys of small businesses in Wales show that an abolition or reduction of the national insurance surcharge would he far more beneficial than a rate reduction.
§ Mr. Nicholas EdwardsDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that the criticism made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) about the indiscriminate nature of the help given to banks and others applies equally well to the national insurance surcharge?
§ Mr. AndersonIf one accepts that point, the survey suggests that the overall benefit, accepting the capricious way it falls, will be greater for small businesses as a result of the national insurance surcharge reduction.
The Government have raised expectations about the abolition of rates. They have done nothing about it. It is clear that nothing will be done. It would be helpful to have a Welsh Office estimate of the average increase in domestic rates this year. We know that the abolition of rates proposed in the 1979 general election was just another promise. Like "Labour isn't working", it was another con trick.
§ Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)In Wales we have been a little more fortunate than in England. That is 249 entirely due to the fact that, following the concessions made in 1980, Wales has been given separate treatment, a move that has long been advocated by Welsh Liberals. We have been given more cash than might otherwise have been expected under the old system, which was entirely dominated by London. Thus, local councils have been able to cope better with the financial stringencies currently in force.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on making a genuine attempt to consult the Welsh local authorities, in contrast with the attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment and his dealings with the English authorities. That shows the wisdom of devolving power, although Welsh Liberals are not entirely happy that the power should reside with the Secretary of State for Wales; rather it should reside with a Welsh Assembly.
We should like to see the present two-tier system of local government revised, if not abolished altogether, as over the past few years it has added considerably to the expense of running local government. Liberals would also like to see a radical reform of the rating system.
However, tonight, as we have only a few minutes left, it is wiser for me to ask the Secretary of State to answer the following simple questions. What effect will the new proposals have on rural constituencies such as Cardigan? What effect will they have on local services? Will they affect unemployment in Wales? Will there be a reduction in the staff of local authorities?
My final question is important. Does the Secretary of State believe that the increase of 18.3 per cent. in domestic water rates in Wales is reasonable or fair? Clarification on those points and answers to those questions would be gratefully received not only by hon. Members, but by the Welsh electorate.
§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)The Ministers on the Front Bench, who are devotees of reactionary monetary policies, are responsible for the total collapse of local government morale in Wales, from the chief executives in county borough districts to community council clerks. Elected representatives will stand for re-election only because they hope for the early return of a Labour Government. Why? Because the autonomy that they once had has been relentlessly and ruthlessly torn from them. The service that they give freely and happily to the public to administer local government and to meet the real needs of the people has slipped right out of their hands and back to this place, where administration is so tied up with tradition and red tape that it takes a constitutional genius to get 10 minutes to discuss a major disaster.
Let us examine briefly what the Conservative Administration have done to local government. It has shackled it so tightly to central Government that it is practically impossible for local authorities to find funds to maintain existing facilities. Local authorities have slashed labour forces, not because they are not needed but because the authorities have no funds to pay them. Education has been slashed, not because authorities wished to do so but because they were threatened by the rate support grant axe wielded by the Secretary of State for Wales.
From playschools and playgrounds to parks and playing fields, paths and pavements, from school transport, school meals and school books to school teachers and in some 250 areas even schools themselves, all have had to be slashed. Transport in Wales is in a mess, housing is in decline, and health and social services a disaster area. Lollipop ladies, school dinner ladies, school cleaners and social workers have been thrown out of their jobs. Meals on wheels for the elderly are becoming a treat from the past and home helps are once again becoming the charladies of the rich. It is not just the return of unemployment to the 1930s but the return of school leavers to domestic service and the return of the workers to serfdom—all brought about by two and a half years of Thatcherism.
The Government have squeezed local government finance to such an extent that the pips are past squeaking—they are howling. Local government finance measures of this kind are designed to take away from local government in Wales all pretence of local democratic decision making on finance. The level of rate will be fixed and assessment of standing needs by the Government based fundamentally on grant-related expenditure, plus some margin also prescribed by the Secretary of State. Industrial, commercial and business ratepayers will be marginally better off, but the domestic ratepayer will suffer. With water rates, gas charges, council house rents and price escalation coupled with a 4 per cent. limit on pay increases, it is no wonder that mental illness is increasing and marriage breakdowns multiplying. To add insult to injury and to rub salt in the wound, Tarzan himself, the Secretary of State for the Environment, is not now threatening to throw the Mace at hon. Members but he told Young Conservatives at Harrogate last weekend about the evils of unemployment in the following terms:
I see lack of work and denial of achievement as a corrupting force beyond measure.He claimed to feel a deep sense of concern and continued:Where do you go on rainy days, how do you persuade children to respect Society that appears to have rejected their parents and in the end, upon what rock of faith do you take your stand?That is hyper-hypocrisy from one who has caused hundreds of thousands of those parents to be kicked out of work in local government, and with the measures just agreed and these proposals for Wales designed to throw even more out of work. The Secretary of State for Wales, his ministerial colleagues and all the lackeys on the Conservative Back Benches agree that there is no turning back now. The Tory Party chairman stated last weekend:If we fudge now we shall earn nothing but the electorate's contempt.I have news for the Secretary of State, the Government and Ladbrokes. The electorate's contempt is seething and must be expressed. If the Government are so sure of their fate and so sure that they have the electorate's confidence, why do they not test it and put it to the vote? I call on my colleagues to vote against these further restrictions on local government. I invite councillors throughout the Principality to read the result of the vote tonight so that they know who and where their friends are.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why has it not been possible to call every party's representative on a matter which is of vital importance to every party in every part of Wales?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair.
§ Mr. WigleyFuther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is totally unreasonable that the Chair should not make it possible for every view in the Chamber to be expressed. It is impossible for members of my party to retain confidence in the Chair if that cannot be accomplished.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI can assure the hon. Gentleman that the best is done on all occasions.
§ Mr. WigleyI must insist, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder, order.
§ Mr. WigleyWe are squeezed out of debates in the Chamber——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder, order.
§ Mr. WigleyWe are——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder, order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
§ Mr. WigleyIt is not possible for us to express our viewpoint. We shall not accept——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
§ Mr. WigleyIt is totally unreasonable.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The only thing that I can do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber.
§ Mr. WigleyIt is totally unreasonable.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI ask the hon. Member to leave the Chamber.
§ Mr. WigleyI do so under protest.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThere is no protest.
§ Mr. WigleyI do so under protest on behalf of my party at the inability of this Parliament to give Wales fair play.
§ Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)The Opposition have two main objections to the rate support settlement. We are anxious about the support given to the domestic ratepayer in the settlement, which is being reduced. We are also concerned about the increase in council house rents.
The level of support to the domestic ratepayer is to be reduced from a relief of 36p to 18½p in the pound. If there is a shortfall in local authority spending requirements, the burden of meeting that shortfall will have to be met by the domestic ratepayer.
The Secretary of State when announcing the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83, said that he thought that the rate increases in Wales flowing from the settlement should be much lower than in recent years. He went on to say that the reduction in domestic rate relief, with the corresponding increase in block grant, would provide an excellent opportunity to boost employment in Wales.
That sounds fine, provided that there is no problem with wage settlements being kept at 4 per cent. and that there is an inflation rate of no more than 9 per cent. There has been a chorus recently—and the Secretary of State was part of it—claiming that rates paid by industry and commerce add to the unemployment total. That claim is advanced without the evidence to support it. Many 252 economists challenge that view. They believe that if there is less than full employment an increase in public expenditure should take place. They believe that local government expenditure should be increased to improve employment.
We should not forget that local government is a large and direct employer and that the spending power of its employees helps to sustain demand for private sector products. Cuts in rates would mean cuts in spending, both by local government directly and by those it would employ. That would lead, in turn, to job losses in industry and commerce.
Mr. Steve Hughes, the principal officer of the AMA, wrote in the October 1981 issue of Municipal Review that the latest figures showed that rate payments in 1978, represented only 0.7 per cent. of total manufacturing costs. When we compare rates with wages and salaries in manufacturing and construction industries for a more recent period, we find that rates were about 1.9 per cent. of the wage and salary bill in 1975 and 1980 and somewhat less in the intervening years.
Since 1975 rates have grown less quickly than the price of manufactured goods, the retail price index, the cost of materials and fuel bought by manufacturing industry and average earnings in manufacturing industry. A significant item in the discussion is the increase in interest charges, which rose by 94 per cent. between 1978 and 1980, while rates rose by only 48 per cent.
As for the relief being given by the Government to non-domestic ratepayers, Mr. Frank Othick wrote in the Local Government Review in December 1981:
It is inequitable, unjust and unreasonable that the non-domestic ratepayer should be treated more generously for property rating purposes than those who do not enjoy tax and trading privileges. Selective, not blanket relief, could, however, be justified in cases of business hardship.Clearly, the category of non-domestic ratepayer needs close attention, particularly in the light of the Government's treatment of the domestic ratepayer.My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) mentioned the position of banks, building societies, off-licence operators and other nationally known firms including bookmakers, in our high streets. He said that they will benefit from the better treatment given to them in preference to the domestic ratepayer. We are also concerned about the increase in council house rents and we believe that we are right to call on the House to divide against the motion.
§ Mr. Nicholas EdwardsThe hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) seemed to think that rates are not important to industry. That is not the view of industry. One of the main points put by the CBI representatives who came to see me a week or so ago was that the reduction in the rate burden was a top priority.
In answer to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who raised a point at the start of the debate, I confirm that GREs are established for the purpose of block grant and are not hypothecated. It is the desire of Welsh local authorities that the figures that he requested should not be published, but the information on comparative costs is available in the CIPFA publication and that is probably the best material for his purpose.
We heard suggestions from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for 253 Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that local authorities were under siege. The answer to that suggestion was rather effectively given by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who said that the separate rate support grant arrangements for Wales, which I introduced, meant that more cash than otherwise might be expected had gone to Wales than under the old system. He congratulated me for making a genuine attempt to consult the Welsh local authorities.
The hon. Member for Cardigan spoke about effects on his local authority. I am pleased to see that Dyfed is apparently proposing no change in its precept. I hope that that will lead to a low increase, certainly for the industrial ratepayers in that area.
The hon. Member for Ogmore made a remarkable speech and I find it hard to believe that the inhabitants in his constituency are all now in domestic service, which seemed to be the impression he attempted to give. He suggested that local government "slashed", to use his word, its labour force when reducing it by 4.6 per cent. over two years. During that period the Welsh Office numbers were reduced by 13 per cent., not through redundancies as suggested by one hon. Gentleman but through natural wastage.
Perhaps the best answer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) who said that it was all "eyewash". The real answer is found in the unchanged rate precepts of many local authorities. The fact that they have been able to proceed on an unchanged rate precept basis suggests that the whole case advanced by the right hon. Member for Rhondda—that we were asking them to do something impossible and unreasonable—was absurd.
In suggesting that the reduced percentage of grant cost Wales £12 million—the right hon. Member for Rhondda wrote his speech before mine—he carefully ignored that I had increased current expenditure. As I told the House, the volume of central Government support is higher than it was a year ago; it is now £7 million more than if we had maintained the grant percentage at the original planned expenditure levels.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the reduction in teacher numbers. He failed to say that there was a fall of about 50, 000 in pupil numbers since 1977–78 and that the pupil-teacher ratio in Wales was at an all-time best level. There was no mention of that from the right hon. Gentleman.
I debated the rent issue recently in the Welsh Grand Committee and I do not propose to go over that ground again, except to remind the House that 46 per cent. of all Welsh local authority tenants receive rent rebate assistance. That ought to be considered when making a judgment on the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda and other hon. Members referred to water charges. This is not the time to debate those issues, but it is worth saying, since the 18.3 per cent. increase in water charges was mentioned in this context, that if the water equalisation measures had still existed the effect would not have been more than about 2 per cent. on that. It did not occur because of the abandonment of that curious scheme—which had the effect of giving help to many areas where the charges were low and taking it from many where the charges were high—but because the Wales water authority failed 254 sufficiently to reduce its manning and expenses and to adjust sufficiently to the changed circumstances in which it had to operate.
A case cannot be made out for basing domestic rate relief in Wales on the assumption of water charges when, after all, that was expressly repudiated by the right hon. Member for Rhondda when he was in Government. I make no apology for transferring the domestic rate relief to industrial and commercial users.
I cannot see the justification for maintaining domestic rate levels at such a substantially lower level than in England when surely the priority in Wales should be to give the maximum help to those engaged in industry and commerce. The fact that we are able to hold rate levels for industry and commerce this year at a level that will be nearly unchanged will make a real contribution to job creation.
What really matter now are the local authorities' decisions. It has been argued that the Government's inflation assumptions may not turn out to be right. It is not impossible for local government to reduce manning on the scale that it has been reducing it over the past year or two, or even to do rather better than that. If it does that and holds its costs, there is no reason for local government to burden ratepayers at this time. It should look to its priorities and remember that the protection of its ratepayers, especially its industrial and commercial ratepayers——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business):——
§ The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 208.
258| Division No. 69] | [11.45 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Bruce-Gardyne, John |
| Alexander, Richard | Bryan, Sir Paul |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Buck, Antony |
| Alton, David | Budgen, Nick |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Ancram, Michael | Butcher, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Cadbury, Jocelyn |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) | Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E) | Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul |
| Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone) | Chapman, Sydney |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Churchill, W.S. |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) |
| Beith, A. J. | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Benyon, Thomas (A 'don) | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Cockeram, Eric |
| Best, Keith | Colvin, Michael |
| Bevan, DavidGilroy | Cope, John |
| Biffen, RtHonJohn | Corrie, John |
| Biggs-Davison, SirJohn | Costain, Sir Albert |
| Blackburn, John | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Blaker, Peter | Critchley, Julian |
| Body, Richard | Crouch, David |
| Bonsor, SirNicholas | Dean, Paul (North Somerset) |
| Boscawen, HonRobert | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bowden, Andrew | Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ. |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Dover, Denshore |
| Bright, Graham | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward |
| Brinton, Tim | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon | Durant, Tony |
| Brooke, Hon. Peter | Dykes, Hugh |
| Brotherton, Michael | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Eggar, Tim |
| Elliott, Sir William | Latham, Michael |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Eyre, Reginald | Lee, John |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | LeMarchant, Spencer |
| Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Faith, MrsSheila | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Farr, John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Fell, Sir Anthony | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Loveridge, John |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Luce, Richard |
| Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Forman, Nigel | MacGregor, John |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Fox, Marcus | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Fry, Peter | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Major, John |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Marland, Paul |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Marlow, Antony |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Goodhart, SirPhilip | Mates, Michael |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Gorst, John | Mawby, Ray |
| Gow, Ian | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Gray, Hamish | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Greenway, Harry | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Grieve, Percy | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St.Edm'ds) | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Mills, Peter (West Devon) |
| Grist, Ian | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Grylls, Michael | Moate, Roger |
| Gummer, JohnSelwyn | Monro, SirHector |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Moore, John |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Morgan, Geraint |
| Hannam, John | Morris, M. (N'hampton S) |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Hastings, Stephen | Mudd, David |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Murphy, Christopher |
| Hawksley, Warren | Myles, David |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Neale, Gerrard |
| Heddle, John | Needham, Richard |
| Henderson, Barry | Nelson, Anthony |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Neubert, Michael |
| Hicks, Robert | Newton, Tony |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Normanton, Tom |
| Hill, James | Nott, RtHon John |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
| Hooson, Tom | Osborn, John |
| Hordern, Peter | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Howell, RtHonD. (G'ldf'd) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk) | Parris, Matthew |
| Howells, Geraint | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Hunt, Jobn (Ravensbourne) | Pawsey, James |
| Hurd, HonDouglas | Penhaligon, David |
| Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Percival, Sirlan |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Peyton, RtHon John |
| JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey | Pink, R.Bonner |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Pollock, Alexander |
| Joseph, RtHon Sir Keith | Porter, Barry |
| Kaberry, SirDonald | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Prior, RtHon James |
| Kimball, SirMarcus | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Kitson, SirTimothy | Raison, Timothy |
| Knight, MrsJill | Rathbone, Tim |
| Knox, David | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Lamont, Norman | Renton, Tim |
| Lang, Ian | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Langford-Holt, SirJohn | Ridley, HonNicholas |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) | Thompson, Donald |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Roper, John | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Rossi, Hugh | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Rost, Peter | Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath) |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Trippier, David |
| St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Trotter, Neville |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | van Straubenzee, SirW. |
| Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Viggers, Peter |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Waddington, David |
| Shepherd, Richard | Wakeham, John |
| Shersby, Michael | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Silvester, Fred | Walker, B. (Perth) |
| Sims, Roger | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Smith, Dudley | Waller, Gary |
| Speed, Keith | Walters, Dennis |
| Speller, Tony | Ward, John |
| Spence, John | Warren, Kenneth |
| Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) | Watson, John |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wells, Bowen |
| Sproat, lain | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Squire, Robin | Wheeler, John |
| Stainton, Keith | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Whitney, Raymond |
| Stanley, John | Wickenden, Keith |
| Steel, Rt Hon David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Steen, Anthony | Wilkinson, John |
| Stevens, Martin | Williams, D. (Montgomery) |
| Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Stokes, John | Young, SirGeorge (Acton) |
| Stradling Thomas, J. | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Tapsell, Peter | |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Mr. Carol Mather. |
| NOES | |
| Abse, Leo | Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h n) |
| Allaun, Frank | Dalyell, Tam |
| Anderson, Donald | Davidson, Arthur |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L' lli) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Davies, Ifor (Gower) |
| Ashton, Joe | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) |
| Atkinson, N. (H'gey,) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Bagier, Gordon AT. | Deakins, Eric |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Dewar, Donald |
| Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) | Dixon, Donald |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dobson, Frank |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Dormand, Jack |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Douglas, Dick |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dubs, Alfred |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Dunnett, Jack |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Buchan, Norman | Eadie, Alex |
| Callaghan, Rt HonJ. | Eastham, Ken |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) |
| Campbell, Ian | English, Michael |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
| Canavan, Dennis | Evans, loan (Aberdare) |
| Cant, R. B. | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Ewing, Harry |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Field, Frank |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Flannery, Martin |
| Cohen, Stanley | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Coleman, Donald | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Ford, Ben |
| Conlan, Bernard | Forrester, John |
| Cook, Robin F. | Foster, Derek |
| Cowans, Harry | Foulkes, George |
| Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) | Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) |
| Crowther, Stan | Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Cryer, Bob | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
| George, Bruce | McKelvey, William |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Golding, John | McNamara, Kevin |
| Graham, Ted | McTaggart, Robert |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | McWilliam, John |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton) |
| Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Hardy, Peter | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Martin, M (G'gow S'burn) |
| Haynes, Frank | Maxton, John |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Meacher, Michael |
| Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) | Mikardo, lan |
| Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| HomeRobertson, John | Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride) |
| Homewood, William | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Hooley, Frank | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. | Morton, George |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Moyle, Rt Hon Roland |
| Huckfield, Les | Newens, Stanley |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Palmer, Arthur |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Park, George |
| John, Brynmor | Parker, John |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Parry, Robert |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) | Pendry, Tom |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Prescott, John |
| Kerr, Russell | Race, Reg |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Radice, Giles |
| Kinnock, Neil | Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) |
| Lambie, David | Roberts, Mberl (Normanton) |
| Lamborn, Harry | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Lamond, James | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Rooker, J. W. |
| Lestor, Miss Joan | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) | Rowlands.Ted |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Ryman, John |
| Litherland, Robert | Sever, John |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Shearman, Barry |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| McDonald, DrOonagh | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
| McElhone, Frank | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| McGuire, Michael (lnce) | Silverman, Julius |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Snape, Peter | Welsh, Michael |
| Spearing, Nigel | White, Frank R. |
| Spriggs, Leslie | White, J. (G'gow Pollok) |
| Stallard, A.W. | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Stoddart, David | Whitlock, William |
| Stott, Roger | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Straw, Jack | Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W) |
| Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton) |
| Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
| Thorne, Stan (Preston South) | Winnick, David |
| Tilley, John | Woodall, Alec |
| Tinn, James | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Urwin, Rt Hon Tom | Wright, Sheila |
| Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Wainwright.E. (Dearne V) | |
| Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Watkins, David | Mr. Hugh McCartney and |
| Weetch, Ken | Mr. Austin Mitchell. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
§ Resolved,
§ That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]