§ 9. Mr. Barry JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the representations which he has received on the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [20944]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)We took into consideration all representations received from English local authorities and their associations during the statutory consultation period on the 1996–97 local authority finance settlement.
§ Mr. JonesWhy did the Government construct a settlement that puts so much pressure on local education authorities? Will not 25 per cent. of councils impose real-terms cuts on our schools, and will not taxpayers pay more and get less under the present Government?
§ Sir Paul BeresfordThe only reason for which I can conclude that the hon. Gentleman might be right is the incompetence of local authorities. Their standard spending assessment for education has risen by 4.5 per cent.
§ Mr. CongdonDoes my hon. Friend agree that the local authority settlement provided sufficient extra money for education, community care and the police? Is it not up to local authorities to get their priorities right, and stop wasting money on politically correct initiatives such as equality units—as Labour-controlled Croydon council has, at a cost of nearly £250,000—and paying councillors more in special allowances? Is that not a disgrace?
§ Sir Paul BeresfordI entirely agree. I have a similar interest in that council, which is proving to be as notorious as any other Labour authority.
§ Ms ArmstrongMay we have the truth from the Minister? Is not the truth that local authorities received only an additional 1.2 per cent. in money, that the SSA did not relate to the money that it actually received and that the Government have deliberately pushed money into council tax because they want to impose yet another Tory tax on people throughout the country? People are paying more and getting less, and the Government want to shift the blame to councils. That is the truth, is it not?
§ Sir Paul BeresfordNo, it is not the truth. The funding is more than adequate.
I am interested in the way in which the Labour party seems to be attacking the figures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) adapted them to apply Westminster's funding to all other local authorities. Labour's figures seem to be completely fictitious: I have not been able to work out how they were arrived at, and nor has anyone else in the Department. If we employed the same fictitious method, using Tower Hamlets as a base, we would be giving each council tax payer in Westminster £204, in Wandsworth £1,290 and in St. Helen's £1,681. The problem is that Labour Front Benchers do not understand the figures.
§ Mr. Harry GreenwayIs my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of getting £5 million more than it expected under the revenue support grant, Ealing Labour council—[Interruption.] Yes. It is at it again. It is cutting disability grants, travel passes for disabled people, and travel allowances for children to school—thereby preventing choice of school. Many other deplorable policies are being introduced in Ealing, on disgraceful and dogmatic grounds, to the detriment of our community. We will throw the council out for its wickedness.
§ Sir Paul BeresfordI agree with my hon. Friend and, of course, if the effort that was put into providing those dramatic blows was put into efficiency, those services could be provided at lower cost.