Rate Support Grant (Hansard, 21 May 1986)

§ 11. Mr. Corbett
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the "Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report" for 1986–87.

§ Mrs. Rumbold
My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government announced to the House on 10 April our intention to seek to place beyond doubt the issues raised over the Secretary of State's powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to determine block grant multipliers. Until the legislation, which we shall shortly introduce to the House, has passed all its stages and received Royal Assent, we have been advised that it would not be appropriate to make any further supplementary reports. The Secretary of State will therefore lay the first supplementary report for 1986–87 before the House for its approval as soon as he is able.

§ Mr. Corbett
Will the Minister think again about the answer that she has just given to the House and undertake that the Secretary of State will obey the decision of the court, which found that the city of Birmingham had had about £7 million stolen from it, on top of about £508 million in the last five financial years? In short, will the Minister say that the Government will obey the law rather than seek to change it retrospectively?

§ Mrs. Rumbold
It is a fact that had Birmingham pursued the court case that it intended to pursue there would have been the most incredible turmoil from 1981 onwards for all authorities, including Birmingham. All that the Government have sought to do is to put matters right within the House to bring about a situation which all authorities, as well as local authority associations and Opposition Members, had always understood to be the case.

§ Mr. Yeo
When my hon. Friend is considering rate support grant issues, will she pay particular attention to the outstanding record of Suffolk county council in keeping within Government guidelines? Will she also urge her colleagues to give Suffolk county council more favourable treatment under the rate support grant in future?

§ Mrs. Rumbold
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. That is a matter that my right hon. Friend will consider in the next block grant assessments.

§ Mr. Haynes
Having listened to all the waffle at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, I am afraid that my local authority in Ashfield will suffer another serious reduction in rate support grant for the next financial year. I do not know with whom the Minister can have a word, because apparently the Secretary of State is moving on and I do not know who is taking over. Will the Minister have a word with whoever takes over about releasing the money received from council house sales so that we can provide better services for our people in Ashfield?

§ Mrs. Rumbold
Wiser people than I have avoided speculating at this Dispatch Box.

§ Mr. Straw
Why does the Minister not come clean about the disreputable nature of the Government's actions? Will she confirm that Birmingham was not pursuing its case, but had won it, and that the Government are now seeking to overturn a decision in Birmingham's favour which was lawfully arrived at in the high court of justice? Will she also confirm that the delay in introducing the Bill is because of major drafting problems, and that the net result of the series of decisions is to deprive Birmingham and other authorities of millions of pounds to which they are entitled, and to create further uncertainty for every local authority in the land?

§ Mrs. Rumbold
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that a number of Labour authorities would stand to lose if we were to pursue the course that he has just set out. Birmingham is not likely to lose and, indeed, no authorities are likely to lose. The practice that was followed is commonly understood and has continued during the past few years, and we shall continue to use it. The legislation is simply to achieve what was thought to be the position.