Local Government Finance (Hansard, 19 January 1994)

§ 1. Ms Eagle
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

§ 8. Mr. Litherland
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

§ The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry)
We have received many representations on various aspects of local government finance since July. These have included representations from 150 authorities about the provisional local government finance settlement.

§ Ms Eagle
Is the Minister aware that my authority, the Wirral, is expected to make £12.5 million-worth of cuts in its expenditure this year, which is in addition to the cuts of £53 million that have been demanded of it over the past four years? Is it credible for the Minister to maintain that cuts of that magnitude demanded by the Government do not mean that there will be cuts to front-line services when that is clearly not the case? Our services in local government are being decimated.

§ Mr. Curry
The hon. Lady has got it wrong. The only possible meaning of a cut is that the budget that her local authority will set for 1994–95 is less than that set for 1993–94. That is not true. Wirral local authority will be able to increase its budget by 1.25 per cent. What it will have to do is cut the budget that it would like to have had. It will have cut its wish budget, which is entirely different from its actual budget. Wirral is not an authority which has to cut its budget in real terms. Only seven authorities are in that category.

§ Mr. Litherland
Did any of the representations query how vast amounts of public money could be found for prestigious projects, such as the Manchester Olympic bid, which bring kudos and publicity to the Government when, at the same time, vicious cuts for local authorities mean the closing of school playgrounds, swimming baths, pets corners and other leisure amenities? Does not the Minister think that there is a stench of hypocrisy?

§ Mr. Curry
I do not recall that. However, I recall that a report commissioned by Birmingham council stated that 874 Birmingham had indulged in some prestige buildings when it should have spent its money on education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think about that one.

§ Mr. Pickles
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 375, which refers to local government finance? Does he agree that all hon. Members must lead by example? Does he believe that Opposition Members who preach about local government finance are handicapped by the behaviour of the councils of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy? Does my hon. Friend look forward with me to the days when good local government returns to Derbyshire county council and to Monklandsgate?

§ Mr. Curry
The lesson is that Opposition Members should be careful before they start hurling accusations about councils. There has been a pattern of accusations against authorities. There have been local authorities in respect of which the auditor is not yet satisfied with the accounts, and those include a large number of Labour councils. People should cast the motes out of their own eyes before they level accusations elsewhere. We have a common interest in making sure that local government acts with probity. The sooner we recognise that common interest, the better it will be for everybody.

§ Mr. Bates
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to improve local government finance is to have unitary authorities? Will he accept the thanks of my constituents for the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday to abolish Cleveland county council? Will he join me in condemning the decision by Cleveland county council to challenge that decision in the court, at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to council tax payers, in a vain attempt to save its own neck?

§ Mr. Curry
If Cleveland thinks that it should spend its charge payers' money by going to court, that is a decision for Cleveland. We implemented the proposals and the provisional and final recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The district councils made strong, articulate representations about how they would carry forward the business of that region, and they were extremely convincing. That is why we implemented the proposals. We will judge every case on its merits according to entirely objective criteria based on the needs of the local electorate and charge payers.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
May I, as the original objector to the sale of the Westminster cemeteries, which led to Mr. Magill's first report, and one of the objectors to designated sales, ask the Minister what action is being taken to ensure that Westminster council no longer wastes ratepayers' money? Do the Government have power to send in a commissioner to make sure that our interests as ratepayers are protected by those Conservative councillors?

§ Mr. Curry
If we had, we would have done so in respect of Lambeth a long time ago.

§ Mr. Congdon
Does my hon. Friend agree that those who criticise some local authorities would do better to direct their concern at authorities that waste money, overspend disgracefully, do not collect council house rents, leave houses empty and do not collect their council tax, and that most of those authorities are Labour controlled?

§ Mr. Curry
Yes.

§ Mr. Henderson
Let me refer the Minister to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) about real cuts. Is he embarrassed by the comments of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in May 1993, when he wrote to the Treasury saying that, in the financial year 1994–95, a 5.2 per cent. increase in total standard spending was necessary to protect—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing and not quoting.

§ Mr. Henderson
Indeed, I am, Madam Speaker, and I am about to paraphrase even more in my final paragraph.
Comparing that figure with the 2.3 per cent. increase in total standard spending which is allowed in this year's Budget, will the Minister admit that he has surrendered to the Treasury or say that he needs a "back to basics" course in arithmetic?

§ Mr. Curry
The hon. Gentleman is clearly in fine form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It took a long time to get that one from Opposition Back-Bench Members, I have to say.
The settlement that we have put forward is fair and reasonable and, in the economic circumstances, one with which local government can cope if it is sensible. That is the reflection of independent commentators such as Mr. Tony Travers on the matter, and that is a perfectly reasonable position.