| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker : Order. This must be about next week's business.
Mr. Porter : It is indeed, Mr. Speaker. The Government have accepted that in Scotland the lenders, that is the banks and building societies, cannot represent the borrower, although that is not the case in England. May we have an early debate on that, either tied up with a debate on English law or within the context of the Scottish Bill, I care not which? The principle is exactly the same.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The debates in the first week of our return from the recess should provide an opportunity for those issues to be raised.
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : Would the Leader of the House consider the fact that between now and our return from the recess local authorities will try to come to terms with poll tax capping and will have assessed the damage to local authority services and to our constituents? Does he agree that it would be wise to have a debate as soon as we return so that the House can look at the assessment of that damage and at any litigation that has taken place as a result of the statement later today by the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not propose to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.
Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that any
Column 1181
alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement must have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that criterion and the fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement as at present enforced does not have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, is not it about time that the House had a full-scale debate on the agreement?Sir Geoffrey Howe : The House had an opportunity to consider closely related questions during the full-day's debate on Northern Ireland the week before last.
Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : Will the Leader of the House be more than his usual charitable self, and tell us whether on any--and preferably on which--of the four days available for debate next week the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement on community care and the proposals for the community charge, or will we have to accept a written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? If we are to discuss how to run a business properly, could we have a little more respect for hon. Members, especially those in opposition, and have some clear answers to our questions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : For the third time this afternoon--and it may be that on the two previous occasions the hon. Gentleman was talking too much to listen--
Sir Geoffrey Howe : Once again, the hon. Gentleman cannot stop talking long enough to listen to my answer. I say for the third time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement on that very topic--
Sir Geoffrey Howe : Before the House rises.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : May I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for legislation to enable local authorities to become unitary authorities--not to force a uniform change of local government across the country, but to allow areas that wish to choose a form of unitary authority to do so? There is a great deal of sense in that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : Without commenting on the case for unitary authorities, I acknowledge that there has always been a good case for a more discriminating and variable pattern of approach to local government reform, of the sort originally available under the Local Government Boundary Commission, but which dis-appeared towards the end of the 1950s.
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : Following last night's decision on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, supported by 200 Conservative Members, and the dramatic effect that that will have on the coalfield communities, will the Leader of the House find time before the House rises for its summer recess for a full and frank debate on the needs of those communities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not anticipate an opportunity arising for a debate of that sort, but the Bill has been extensively debated in the House over many months.
Column 1182
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Reverting to the earlier question on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which will be debated in the week that we return, my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that loyal supporters of the Prime Minister and her policies were also opposed to the divorce proposals. They were not Government proposals, but those recommended by an outside body. Have not we saved the House a great many problems by having those proposals removed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I dare say that that point can be made during the debate in the week that we return.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : The Leader of the House outlined the timetable for the further deliberation on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. May I point out that, as a member of the Standing Committee, I have been deeply concerned about the poor management of the Bill? It has meant that four new clauses that I tabled, which had as their objective the better protection of children in sexual or physical abuse cases, will not now be heard. Does he agree that we need a debate on the protection of children when they are giving evidence in such cases?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : It is not my business to agree on the merit of that proposal, but there will be up to two full days for discussion of various aspects of the matter when the House returns in October.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : When the Leader of the House replies to the Adjournment debate on Monday, will he refer to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid on Monday of this week, which suggested that he was about to be sacked?
Mr. Speaker : Order. The question should be about the business next week. Please concentrate on that.
Mr. Skinner : Next week, the Leader of the House will be answering the Adjournment debate. I am asking whether he intends to reply to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid. I want to give him some advice. If ex-Cabinet Ministers are sacked, they obtain fewer directorships than those who leave on their own accord for family reasons. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to get a directorship, he should go now.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is not about business next week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I shall answer the debate and not newspaper articles, least of all those that attract the attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : After visiting Glenfield district hospital in my constituency this morning, I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate on the disastrous crumbling of the national health service in Leicestershire, where wards are closing, staff are struggling to provide services and some patients are waiting more than two years for an appointment with a consultant. As that hospital has a reduced budget of less than £26 million and it needs £3.6 million just for maintenance, surely that scandalous situation should be debated in the House, where hon. Members of all parties take exactly the same view.
Column 1183
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because he has raised the matter on more than one occasion, that the allocation of money to the Leicestershire health district is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The district received significantly more money this year, amounting to a real terms increase in its budget of nearly 3 per cent. I have no doubt that he and/or some of his colleagues will find an opportunity to return to the matter in the Adjournment debate next week.Column 1184
Adjournment Motions
Mr. Speaker : I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 26 July, up to 10 Members may raise, with Ministers, subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
Column 1185
Local Government Finance
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten) : With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the local authority financial settlement for England for 1991-92 and about the review of the community charge. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be making separate announcements about the arrangements in those countries in due course. I apologise at the outset for the inevitable length of my remarks.
In recent years there has been substantial growth in local authority spending. In the current year, local authorities are planning expenditure of £36.4 billion. That is an increase of 13 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1989-90, and that came on top of a 9 per cent. increase over the previous year. So spending has grown by very nearly one quarter in only two years.
Local authorities, like other public sector bodies, should play their part in restraining expenditure if we are to maintain economic progress and limit the burden of national and local taxation. As part of the settlement, the Government have to make an estimate of the total amount which it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend. That figure is known as total standard spending. From it is derived a standard spending assessment for each authority, representing the amount it should cost to provide a standard level of service.
For next year I propose to set total standard spending at £39 billion, compared with £32.8 billion for this year. This is over 7 per cent. more than likely expenditure this year. £39 billion should adequately fund local authority services next year, taking account of the additional pressures and burdens local government will face, and the scope for improved efficiency. Spending above that amount should not be necessary.
Most local authority spending is financed by Government grants and the business rate. This year those funds, known as aggregate external finance, were set at £23.1 billion, compared with about £10.5 billion from charge payers after allowing for rebates and transitional relief. I propose that the amount of aggregate external finance for 1991-92 should be £26.050 billion. This is an increase of very close to £3 billion or 12.8 per cent. above the amount being provided this year. This significant increase will necessarily mean that less can be afforded for other Government spending programmes next year. I expect authorities to pass on the benefit to their charge payers in their bills, rather than increase spending too much once again. As I shall make clear shortly, I shall be prepared to use my capping powers to ensure that that happens.
Proposals for the distribution of grant, including any changes which may be made to the methodology for standard spending assessments, will be announced in the autumn in the usual way. Earlier this year, I made it clear that I would be willing to consider new evidence about the way the standard spending assessments are calculated.
This year, with many councils overspending, the average charge after capping was £357. That, alas, is the position from which we will start next year. If local authorities play their part, as we have played ours by
Column 1186
increasing external finance by nearly £3 billion, the average charge next year should be close to the community charge for standard spending of about £379. The majority of areas have charges below that figure this year, and many will benefit because no authority will have to pay into the safety net next year. Efficient authorities should be able to set charges below this figure, as should authorities who will still be receiving grant from the safety net. Those local authorities which are not prepared to budget sensibly should know that I shall be prepared to make vigorous use of my powers for charge capping next year. As Secretary of State, I have power to cap in two ways. I can cap a council's excessive budget, or cap excessive increases from one year to the next. This year it was impracticable to use the latter power. Next year, I shall not hesitate, where authorities budget above the standard spending assessment--or SSA--for 1991-92, to use either or both powers to protect charge payers.In deciding what is an excessive increase in an authority's budget, I propose to distinguish between those authorities which budget well above their SSA and those which spend above SSA by a smaller margin. I would expect to see smaller annual increases for the higher spenders, because the more profligate the authority the greater the scope for savings. As it would be the first time that authorities were capped on the basis of excessive budget increases, I have decided specifically for this year to give an advance indication of the proposed criteria for capping so that local authorities may take them into account in reaching their budgeting decisions.
In summary, while I would expect most authorities to budget at or below their SSAs, I intend to use my powers to protect charge payers. I want to ensure that the substantial amount of extra money contributed by national taxpayers to local government is not wasted in much higher spending but helps to keep charges to reasonable levels.
I now turn to our review of the community charge. The basic principle that all local people should make some direct contribution to the cost of local services through a charge levied on almost all adults has been accepted increasingly widely, but it would be surprising if a change of this magnitude did not require some adjustments in its second year of operation.
We have received many constructive suggestions from hon. Members and others. My proposals concern the standard community charge, non-domestic rating, the area safety net, the transitional relief scheme, the administration of the charge and improvements in accountability.
An issue which has given rise to a great deal of concern is the standard community charge. This charge applies where domestic property is no one's sole or main residence. It is right that owners of such properties should contribute towards the cost of local services. We have given local authorities a wide discretion in setting multipliers for the various classes of standard charge payer for the year ahead. It is disappointing that many have not used this discretion sensibly. There are many people, for example, who are required as a condition of their job to live in a particular property. They quite naturally wish to maintain another property which they would regard as their home, even though it is not their sole or main residence. The law allowed local authorities to set out a different approach to these cases, and I regret that many local authorities did not do so.
Column 1187
I therefore propose a number of changes for next year so as to reduce the maximum standard charge which local authorities can levy in a number of exceptional cases. Among those who may benefit are people such as clergy men, service men and some teachers who are required as a condition of their job to live in a particular property ; people who have houses with an empty "granny flat" ; people who find themselves paying a standard charge when their home is empty following repossession ; people who have an empty flat over a shop which it would be difficult to let for security or other reasons ; students who face a reduced personal charge, but who can face a double charge if they own a home elsewhere ; people whose homes are empty because they have gone to look after a relative or friend, or to be looked after ; and farm owners who have empty dwellings on their land which, because of planning restrictions, can be occupied only by agricultural workers.We are also proposing to help people who are having difficulty selling a property, either on a move or after they have inherited it, by extending the period during which it is subject to a zero charge. Full details of all these changes are set out in a consultation paper published today.
These and other proposed changes will, I hope, be widely welcomed. Subject to consultation, we propose to bring forward regulations which will come into force before the end of 1990 so that authorities can give effect to these changes from 1 April 1991.
There has been concern about the position of owners of small businesses who live "over the shop". They pay rates on their business property, but they are, of course, also liable to pay the community charge. That is not in fact an anomaly : all adults have to pay a personal charge irrespective of where they live, and rates are paid on all business property. It would therefore be inappropriate to change the fundamental liability for either the community charge or the business rate for people who happen to live on their business premises. Like other businesses, they may qualify for transitional protection against large increases in rate bills and, like other former domestic ratepayers, they may be eligible for community charge transitional relief. However, I recognise that this group of businesses may need more time to adapt to the higher bills which they face under the new system and I propose to amend the business rate transitional arrangements, for what are called small composite hereditaments, so that from 1991-92 annual increases in the business rate will be limited to 10 per cent. in real terms instead of the current maximum of 15 per cent. That will help the occupiers of 95, 000 properties in England.
There has also been concern about the liability for non-domestic rates of people who provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation in their own homes. The present exemption for people who make accommodation available for fewer than 100 days a year has caused some difficulty. We therefore plan to change this rule from 1 April next year. We will shortly issue a consultation paper canvassing a range of options based on the amount of accommodation which the household proposes to make available rather than the time for which it is available. These are the main changes to the community charge and non-domestic rates. I am also proposing a number of minor changes, designed for the most part to improve the administration of the charge by local authorities. These are also included in the consultation paper which is being sent to local authorities today. Copies are in the Library and the Vote Office.
Column 1188
I also have in mind improvements to the community charge bill. The contribution of individual authorities to high charges is not clear enough on the face of the bill, and charge payers are inclined to think the council whose name appears on the top of the bill is responsible for the whole of any excessive spending.-- [Interruption.]Mr. Speaker : Order. Many hon. Members are interested in the statement and are anxious to follow it. It is difficult to hear when hon. Members make comments from sedentary positions.
Mr. Patten : I shall therefore be proposing changes to ensure that the respective contributions of precepting and charging authorities to over or underspending are shown much more clearly. This will increase accountability. I propose to make--
Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : This would not be necessary if it was not for you lot--
Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is shouting and pointing across the Gangway, that it is very bad behaviour. He should know better.
Mr. Douglas : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Douglas rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is no reason to raise a point of order, just because I have called the hon. Member to order. Please desist.
Mr. Douglas : He is sponsored by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Mr. Patten : I propose to make an alteration to the area safety net. The safety net is designed to protect charge payers in those areas where the ending of cross subsidies under the old rating system caused the largest changes.
As the House will know, in 1991-92 gaining areas will not have to contribute to the area safety net, and this will enable 20 million charge payers to benefit by up to £75. I expect the authorities concerned to ensure that this benefit is passed on to charge payers, and is not swallowed up in higher spending. For those people in areas receiving the most support from the safety net, which is paid for from the Exchequer, I propose that support should be withdrawn more slowly than previously proposed, at a maximum rate of £25 per adult per year. This will help almost 3.5 million people living in 25 areas where the support received in 1990-91 was more than £100 per adult. This could be worth up to £28 a year for the charge payers affected. Finally, I propose a substantial increase in comunity charge transitional relief in 1991-92. The transitional relief scheme was designed to help former ratepayers, and pensioners or disabled people who were not ratepayers, who faced significant increases in their bills as a result of the change to the new system.
I do not propose, as some have suggested, to change the basis of calculation to take account of actual charges set by local authorities. That would merely channel extra help to the areas where authorities have increased spending fastest. I propose changes which will, none the less, help those most affected by the switch from the rates to the community charge--typically, people who lived in a property with a low rateable value.
Column 1189
The improvements will more than double the amount of relief to be given in 1991-92 from the planned level of £260 million to £570 million. This is an increase of £310 million. I propose to distribute this extra help by requiring authorities to calculate relief in 1991-92 so that most households face no more than an increase of £2 a week because of the structural change from rates to the community charge. In other words, the threshold will be cut from £3 to £2. I also propose to postpone the phasing out of the relief for two years and to extend the scheme by two years to 1994-95. In all other respects, the scheme in 1991-92 will be unchanged. It will continue to be based on assumed charges for 1990-91, and will apply where people stay in the same home.These changes will mean that every household receiving transitional relief at present will not only keep that relief in full next year but will see it increased by £52. Pensioners and disabled people who were not former ratepayers will also have an extra £52 of relief in their own right. On top of this, postponing the withdrawal of relief will be worth up to £13 in 1991-92 to everybody already entitled to relief this year. Many couples, instead of losing £26, will gain £52. In other words, as a result of these changes they will be £78 a year better off than they would otherwise have been. About 7.5 million people will gain in this way.
Furthermore, the lowering of the threshold will bring almost another 4 million people into transitional relief for the first time. These are people who lost between £2 and £3 a week as a direct result of the change to the new system. They will gain up to £52 a household. These changes will require amendments to the regulations which will be brought forward in the autumn. My officials will be discussing the administrative implications with the local authority associations.
The settlement I have proposed envisages 12.8 per cent. more support from Government grant and business rates towards local authority spending. That is generous by any measure, reflecting a substantial increase in real terms. If authorities budget sensibly, the average community charge in England should be close to the community charge for standard spending of about £379. But I can assure the House that if they do not I will use my powers to protect charge payers from excessive demands. I expect local authorities to set prudent budgets, so that the extra grant being provided goes to help charge payers through moderate charges, and not to boost spending.
The changes I have announced to transitional relief will benefit an extra 4 million people on top of the 7.5 million who already receive relief. They will represent a further £310 million of help on top of the previously planned £260 million for the relief scheme in 1991-92. Among those who will benefit will be elderly and disabled people who qualify for extra help under the current scheme. Almost 3.5 million people will benefit from the changes to the safety net. Many individuals and small businesses will benefit from the proposed changes in the rules concerning second homes, composite hereditaments, and bed and breakfast.
My announcement today means substantially more relief to those who most need help in the changoever to the community charge. It means a realistic financial settlement for local authorities. I believe that we have played our part in helping to smooth the introduction of this major reform. Now it is up to local authorities to play their part.
Column 1190
Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : That statement is a double admission of failure which will disappoint many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many millions of people outside as well. It is an admission, first, that the poll tax is and has been a disaster ; and secondly, that it is a disaster from which nothing can be salvaged. The statement leaves the poll tax where it has always been : unfair in principle, unworkable in practice and fatally flawed.
Is not the message for the poll tax payer that no relief is in sight, and that for the majority, the bills will go up sharply yet again next year? Why should anyone rely on the Secretary of State's estimate of average poll tax bills, when he was so hopelessly and spectacularly wrong last time round? Is not his estimate for this year in any event more than £100 higher than his similar estimate for last year? Even the changes to the transitional relief scheme leave it still based on the same fairy-tale figures which have already meant that it is no more than a sham and a charade for millions of people. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, because the transitional relief scheme is still to be calculated on assumed rather than real figures it will provide no help to many poll tax payers who will be much more than £2 a week worse off?
Is not the message for local authorities from the Secretary of State's statement that they are again to be short-changed by the Government, that their independence is to be further eroded, and that, even after taking account of the shameful betrayal of those who pinned their hopes on community care, services will again have to be cut?
Has the Secretary of State learnt nothing from the disastrous experience of the past 12 months? Does he not recognise that it was his and his predecessor's insistence that local government spending would be £3.6 billion lower than it turned out to be which forced up the poll tax bills for this year, since every penny of that shortfall fell on the hapless poll tax payer? Why does he persist in repeating and compounding that error this year? Can he name any local authority association--including those under Tory control--that agrees with his assessment of local authority spending for 1991-92? Is not it the case that it is the hard-pressed poll tax payer who will again pay the price for the right hon. Gentleman's mistake?
What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman used for inflation--or is he too embarrassed to say, following his assertion last year that it would be less than half what it turned out to be? Will he confirm that the national non- domestic rate will be raised in line with the actual rate of inflation? What estimate has he made of the cost of new commitments imposed on local authorities by the Government, and how are those new commitments to be paid for? Will it again be the poll tax payer who picks up the total bill? What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the costs of collecting the poll tax, and of the shortfall faced by local authorities in the light of worryingly low collection levels, not least in his own constituency? Is not his hint that he intends this year--unlike last--to publish his capping criteria in advance evidence that, whatever other lessons he has failed to learn from charge capping, he now concedes that penalising local authorities for breaking rules imposed on them after the event was a serious and damaging mistake? Is not the truth that this is a paltry package that fails to live up to its advance billing and represents yet another battle lost by the Secretary of State at great cost to other spending
Column 1191
programmes? The right hon. Gentleman has squeezed out of the Treasury a package worth only a touch more than £2 billion. With that sum, he has first to try to make good the errors made last year ; secondly, to allow for inflation, now rising fast ; thirdly, to meet the cost of new commitments imposed by his Government ; fourthly, to remove the most glaring anomalies from the first year's operation of the poll tax, and, fifthly, to allow for a frighteningly low level of collection. It cannot be done.Mr. John Lee (Pendle) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I do not recollect that anything has happened that needs my immediate attention. What is it?
Mr. Lee : As the House rises for the recess next week, Mr. Speaker, would it not be possible for you to grant an extra five minutes to the hon. Gentleman--
Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order, and it delays the House.
Mr. Gould : In view of that attempted abuse of the House's procedures, I will repeat that last paragraph.
With a sum of just over £2 billion, the Secretary of State now has first to try to make good the errors of last year ; secondly, to allow for inflation, now rising very fast ; thirdly, to meet the cost of new commitments imposed on local government by his Government ; fourthly, to remove the most glaring anomalies from the first year's operation of the poll tax ; fifthly, to allow for a frighteningly low level of collection. That cannot be done : the circle cannot be squared.
The message is therefore, a grim one for local authorities and for poll tax payers alike. Happily, it is also a grim message for a Government who are uniquely responsible for the mess that they have created.
Mr. Patten : I suspect that it is conceivable that the hon. Gentleman's questions were drafted before I made my statement. He suggested --it was the first of a series of cliche s that were trooped before the House--that there was no relief in sight. There is relief in sight, in the form of more transitional relief for 7.5 million who are already receiving it. We are talking about 4 million more people receiving transitional relief, and 3.5 million being helped because of the modifications that I have made to the safety net. It is worth noting that as a result of the benefits that we provide, which are more generous than those available under domestic rates, and as a result of transitional relief, while the average community charge set for this year after capping is £357, the actual average charge paid is £286. The difference between the two is made up through benefits and transitional relief.
The hon. Gentleman said that community charge standard spending was much higher than community charge standard spending last year. He referred to the increase in total standard spending. We have had to take account of a 13.5 per cent. increase in local authority spending--an increase of almost a quarter in two years. If we had not done so, unfortunately people would have faced community charges which were much too high in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were being short-changed, and referred to a £3 billion-plus package as "paltry". That reminded me of a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr.
Column 1192
Tebbit) about a large Government subsidy. He said that, if that was beating someone to death, it was the first time that it had ever been done with a cheque book.Mr. Gould : How is it £3 billion?
Mr. Patten : I shall go through the £3 billion. The £3 billion is a £2.95 billion increase in aggregate external finance and £310 million in transitional relief. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman does not yet understand local government finance. He cannot, and I cannot, say what the contribution from the non-domestic rate pool will be until September, because we do not set the multiplier until September. Of course there will be a contribution from business rates, just as there has been in the past.
Mr. Patten : The hon. Gentleman and I cannot say until we set the multiplier. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that if the cash did not come from the business ratepayer--I assume that even under the Labour party's proposals, when they emerge, businesses will pay something--it would come from the taxpayer.
Mr. Gould : The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.
Mr. Patten : I have not made a mistake. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has shown once again that, even with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sitting beside him, he does not understand local government finance.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to local authority spending assessments. He said that at least some of the local authority associations proposed a substantially increased figure for total standard spending over what we have suggested.
The figure of £39 billion that I suggested would mean an increase of over 30 per cent. in local authority expenditure over three years. Many of my hon. Friends will regard that as spectacularly too high. The figures suggested by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would imply a 40 per cent. increase in local authority expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman has to come clean. Not only must he tell us what the Labour party would do in place of domestic rates and the community charge-- the Opposition have wriggled, squirmed and turned on that month after month and year after year--he must tell us how much more the right hon. and learned Gentleman the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that he should commit the Labour party to spend on local authority spending. Is it £1 billion, is it £2 billion, is it £3 billion? How much more than £3 billion should local authorities have next year?
The hon. Gentleman will not tell us. He cannot tell us. It is a vacuous and cynical response that the Labour party makes to our proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose--
| Next Section
| Home Page |