HC Deb 13 June 1984 vol 61 cc899-902
6. Mr. Loyden

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations representing the aged and the mentally handicapped about the Government's plans for rate-capping.

Mr. Waldegrave

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the Rates Bill, including letters from Mr. Brian Rix, secretary-general of the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. My right hon. Friend has replied to them and, with permission, I will arrange for the text of his replies to Mr. Rix to appear in the Official Report. Mr. Rix has thanked my right hon. Friend for his letters.

Mr. Loyden

Does the Minister agree that as a result of the Government's policies virtually no section or group of society is protected against the vicious and relentless attack that is taking place on those authorities which provide such services? When will Ministers fight their own corner and say to the Prime Minister, "Enough is enough. Attacks on local authority services will endanger the most vulnerable groups in society which need the assistance of local authorities now and will need them in the future"?

Mr. Waldegrave

The corner that Ministers in this Department and others will fight is to ensure that the power and compulsion involved in taxation and rating are not wasted on frivolous expenditure. We stand for value for money and that is the corner that my right hon. Friend and all his colleagues will fight.

Mr. Alan Howarth

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in present circumstances, rate-capping has proved to be a regrettable necessity to prevent the abuse of power by some Labour-controlled authorities which have imposed enormous rate increases, with destructive effects, on their local economies? It is the disadvantaged in society, such as the aged and the mentally handicapped, who suffer from such practices, as well as from the inflation that is a consequence of excessive public expenditure.

Mr. Waldegrave

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Local accountability is clearly not delivering a responsible balance whereby those who must pay have a sufficient say about spending. That is why central Government have had to step in to right the balance.

Mr. Wareing

Is the Minister aware that in a recent report commissioned by the Disablement Income Group it was found that it cost £61.50 a week in terms of care and loss of earnings for the average family to cater for a mentally handicapped person? To care for a mentally handicapped person is penalty enough. Is it not about time that the Government felt some compassion and ensured that the first people to benefit from the disregard are those who cannot cater for themselves and the families who have to cater for these poor, mentally handicapped people?

Mr. Waldegrave

The case that the hon. Gentleman makes shows why the Government have substantially increased the benefits for disabled people.

Mrs. Currie

Has my hon. Friend noticed that Derbyshire county council has increased the rates by 13 per cent. this year, and is apparently so flush with social workers that it can send one of them, from the most important emergency duty team, to Greenham common? Strapped for cash, it nevertheless managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to put up, "Peace be with you" notices at the entrance to the county. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with better husbandry and a more careful choice of priorities, the elderly and the mentally handicapped would not suffer?

Mr. Waldegrave

I agree that when there are real needs, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) described, such frivolous expenditure is irresponsible and wasteful beyond belief.

Following is the text of the replies.

2 MARSHAM STREET
LONDON SWIP 3EB
01–212 3434
My ref: J/PSO/13479/84
Your ref:
17 May 1984

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your letter of 30 April.

I can confirm and assure you that there has been no change in the Government's policy towards services for mentally handicapped people. We continue to see the protection of services for the most vulnerable as a priority. "Care in Action", which was published in 1981, remains the general guidance to authorities on national policies and priorities in the health and personal social services, and all health and local authorities in England know that.

For its part, the Government has extended the scope of joint finance within the "Care in the Community" arrangements, to allow greater flexibility and continuing payments from health authorities to facilitate the movement of patients out of long stay hospitals. This should benefit services for mentally handicapped people.

At the local level, it is for the local authorities themselves to decide relative priorities between their various services within the need to restrain their overall spending, as I explained in my previous letter. They are best placed to judge local needs and none of us would want to change that. We expect them, in making their decisions on services, to have regard both to their statutory obligations, and to the guidance of national priorities I refer to above. I am confident that they have done and will continue to do so.

With kind regards
Yours ever
Patrick
PATRICK JENKIN

Brian Rix Esq CBE MA

2 MARSHAM STREET
LONDON SWIP 3EB
01–212 3434
My ref: J/PSO/12948
Your ref:
25 April 1984

Dear Brian,

I was very concerned to read your letter of 6 April, about the Rates Bill. I know that a number of voluntary organisations have been told that their funding, and the services they provide to the vulnerable people they serve, are at risk. It particularly saddens me to hear of Directors of Social Services talking of serious effects on services for mentally handicapped people.

Perhaps I should first explain what the Rate Limitation provisions of the Rates Bill set out to do. A small number of local authorities have been spending far more than we have allowed for in our public expenditure plans. It is an important part of the Government's policy to restrain public expenditure in the interests of low inflation and the creation of a better climate for genuine economic recovery. We believe that only in this way can we afford to sustain the services which we would all like to see for all of those who need them. The present level of overspending by some local authorities, and the excessive rate increases which result, are a serious concern for us in meeting our objectives.

The rate limitation process will enable us to select about 12 to 20 of the highest spending councils and put an overall limit on the rate or precept they can raise.

Those who oppose this policy for a variety of reasons have sought to foster important misconceptions about the consequences. Firstly, they have suggested that the rate limited authorities will be forced to make excessive reductions in their present spending levels. Secondly, they have argued that the only course open to authorities in making savings is to cut into essential services.

Both these allegations are unfounded. The reductions in spending we shall be looking for will be reasonable and attainable in a single year. The Association of Directors of Social Services seem to have argued that we shall be looking immediately to bring authorities down to the level of their Grant Related Expenditure. I have to say that is not our intention.

As to the implications for services, we have to remember that we are talking of authorities who are spending relatively much more than other authorities providing a good standard of service — including active support of voluntary organisations — at lower cost to the ratepayers. They have plenty of scope for savings. There will be no question of their putting statutorily required services at risk.

Furthermore, many of the authorities we are concerned with have a recent history of significant increases in expenditure—even allowing for inflation. They have been recruiting more staff and inventing totally new activities unrelated to their statutory responsibilities at a time when other authorities have been making significant savings; and, at the same time, they have been protesting about shortage of funds for their essential services. There is no reason why these authorities should not be able to make significant savings, not least through increasing efficiency, without in any way cutting into the essential services they provide.

I know there is also concern among some voluntary organisations that rate capped authorities may seek to make their economies by cutting back on support for the voluntary sector. Certainly decisions on where savings are to be achieved within the overall rate limit set must be for the local councillors to decide; they are best placed to take a view on priorities. But we, in the Government, are convinced of the value of voluntary organisations in providing flexible and cost effective services for the local community and in giving the opportunity for people to make a contribution to those communities; our record confirms that. I know that many local authorities take the same view. My own belief is that, once the heat of the argument over this Bill has died down, the selected authorities will settle down to make the necessary economies without destroying essential services. When they do so I am sure they will want to continue to recognise the benefits which a constructive programme of support to the voluntary sectors offers to that process.

With kind regards
Yours ever
Patrick
PATRICK JENKIN

Brian Rix Esq CBE MA