§ 1. Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reduction, in percentage terms, would have to be made in expenditure by district and regional councils, respectively, if they adhered to the guidelines for 1983–84 as against the budgets of 1982–83 adjusted for inflation on the basis assumed for the current rate support grant settlement but allowing no increase in spending.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)As the settlement is in cash, its implications for the level of services provided by local authorities will depend on the rate of inflation. Provision in the 1983–84 rate support grant settlement for relevant current expenditure is 9 per cent. more than in the 1982–83 settlement.
§ Mr. DewarDoes the Secretary of State accept that COSLA's figures show that if we assume budgets at a standstill level and take the basis of inflation on which the rate support grant was calculated, it means a reduction in expenditure of 7.2 per cent. for regions and 11.8 per cent. for districts? Will there not be severe and savage cuts in services if these artificial guidelines are to be met?
§ Mr. YoungerWhat is artificial is that the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Comparing the settlement of last year with the settlement for this year, there is an increase of 9 per cent. in what the Government have provided. By any terms that is reasonable.
§ Mr. AncramIs my right hon. Friend aware that Lothian ratepayers are looking for a further substantial reduction in their rates this year, based on the expenditure plans of the Conservative group on Lothian council? Will my right hon. Friend assure ratepayers that their aspirations will be protected, if necessary by the legislative powers available to him, and that spending in the Lothian region will be kept within reasonable, not excessive, bounds?
§ Mr. YoungerI fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about the matter. Before taking selective action I should have to be satisfied that planned expenditure was excessive and unreasonable, after taking into account the statutory criteria, which include the burden on ratepayers, to which my hon. Friend referred.
§ Mr. GrimondI understand from the Government's expenditure plans that they expect local government expenditure in 1983–84 to exceed the guidelines and are making available in extra £1.3 billion in that year. By how much do the Government expect the guidelines to be exceeded in real, not percentage, terms?
§ Mr. YoungerI hope that local authority spending will be brought under better control this year and be much nearer to the guidelines, and I gave £120 million extra to what the settlement would have been to make it easier for them.
§ Mr. George RobertsonIs the Secretary of State aware that the only consequence of further cutting back the expenditure of local councils will be to reduce further the services for the weakest people in the community and to drive even more people out of work? If this is all part of the Prime Minister's belief in the Victorian ethic, when shall we see the return of the workhouse?
§ Mr. YoungerThat sounds grand until one bears in mind that local authorities have not yet succeeded in making any real reduction in spending. Local government expenditure in 1981–82 at constant prices was still above the level of 1977–78. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman then saying that services were cut to the bone.
§ Mr. HendersonIs not education the largest single item in a local authority's budget? As school rolls are falling, should not local authorities, particularly regional councils, have substantially more to spend this year than in any of the years of the Labour Government?
§ Mr. YoungerEven with falling school rolls we are still able, in the rate support grant settlements, to allow for better teacher-pupil ratios than before.