| Home Page |
Column 261
Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, earlier today, I gave written notice to your office that I intended to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of debating a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely, "the failure of this Government to respond to the democratic wishes of the people."
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member is being a little unfair. I have already considered his application and he knows my decision. The matter has been considered very seriously and he should not now raise it on the Floor of the House. I hope that the hon. Member will leave the matter there because he knows my decision and our procedures.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
Mr. Canavan : I have not even raised my point of order. I realise that you, Madam Speaker, have absolute discretion in whether such an application is accepted or rejected. However, your staff informed me that there was no way in which you would even listen to my application. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue, which is important to the people of Scotland, that is an attack on the rights of Back Benchers to raise legitimate points on the Floor of the House.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, please to explain which part of the Standing Order No. 20 I fell foul of. On my reading of the Standing Order, I stuck by the rules that it lays down. I kept to the 12 noon deadline and I put in written notice, yet I am deprived even of the opportunity to state my case on the Floor of the House.
Madam Speaker : Standing Order No. 20 allows me to hear applications for debates on
"a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration."
To qualify for consideration, a matter must contain some new element of urgency that distinguishes it from other important issues of long standing. I cannot allow this valued opportunity to be endangered by improper use, and I shall continue to decline to hear applications that do not meet the basic criteria. The hon. Gentleman's application falls into that category, and I can hear nothing further about it.
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not what happened this afternoon symptomatic of the contempt for Scottish questions shown by Conservative Members? Three Conservative Members were called by you to ask questions : you had to rebuke the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) for speaking for too long and not coming to the point ; the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) asked about Scottish local government ; and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) asked two questions, one of which you declared to be wrong. Shortly after asking their
Column 262
questions, all three Members left the Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross weaving his way unsteadily from the Chamber--Madam Speaker : Order. I need no colourful or picturesque descriptions. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would come directly to his point of order.
Mr. Galloway : The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross is unlikely to need colourful or picturesque descriptions from me. I am stating the truth as people saw it on television. He did stagger from the Chamber--
Madam Speaker : Order. Please come to the point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Galloway : Is there no basic requirement on Members who ask questions to stay in their places until the end of Scottish questions? Is it just a big game for Conservative Members? Are they swept off the Terrace to come here, do their job and then leave?
Madam Speaker : Order. I have already made my views known on this. We must extend various common courtesies to each other, not only during debates but at Question Time. I remind the House that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and when Members rise and show an interest, and when they have questions on the Order Paper, I have an obligation to call them.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), Madam Speaker. You said that there was no new element of urgency and that that was the reason for your decision. However, following last month's Scottish questions, I gave notice to you that I intended to raise on the Adjournment of the House the question of a referendum, only to be told that I was not allowed to do so under the Standing Orders of the House because it involved legislation or expense. That ruling was given to me only yesterday.
Is not that a new element of urgency, because it is important that the House has an opportunity to hear the case for a referendum on a Scottish Parliament? It may not be especially urgent for hon. Members who represent English constituencies because this is an English Parliament--[ Hon. Members :-- "No".]--but Scotland does not have the Parliament that it wants--
Madam Speaker : Order. There is nothing new about the rules governing the Adjournment of the House. I must work according to our rules and procedures, and I am sure that the entire House wants me to continue to uphold those rules and procedures.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard on many occasions in the House assurances from Ministers that they were doing all that they could to safeguard the INMOS jobs in Newport. Today's Electronic Times contains a report by Michel Carpentier of DGXIII saying that the Department of Trade and Industry has never been in touch with him on that matter. He believes that it is stupid to transfer the jobs from Newport to Italy and that money is available. Have you, Madam Speaker, been asked to allow the appropriate Minister to make a statement or a confession?
Madam Speaker : I can give a very short answer to that question : no, I have not.
Column 263
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to spend time calling for a referendum in Scotland when, during the general election, they said that they were against a referendum?Madam Speaker : That is not a point of order for me, and it only lengthens the time spent on points of order. I have heard bogus points of order, but that one really went over the top.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened with respect to your ruling on the request of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for a debate under Standing Order No. 20. I find it exceptionally difficult to understand the justification for saying that the proposal contains no new element when the arguments have not been heard. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman would have been able to raise relevant new elements during the debate. Are you, Madam Speaker, saying that when we apply for a Standing Order No. 20 debate we have to write our full speech in advance so that you and your staff may decide whether it contains a new element?
Madam Speaker : I think that the authorities of the House and I know when there are any new elements. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not seeking to challenge my ruling.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government to make a change in the Government's programme to allow the introduction of legislation to protect pension funds? I ask that in view of the fact that£2 million has been taken from the Bellings group pension fund. The matter is becoming a scandal and the Government need to take action to protect pension funds in this country.
Madam Speaker : I have nothing to add : I have received no request for a statement to be made.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : Further to your ruling, Madam Speaker, in respect of the application made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr Canavan), will you explain what evidence you require to be submitted to you before your officials rule that a matter is unsuitable for debate? It is my understanding that, in the past, supporting evidence has normally been heard in the House, not in the Speaker's office.
Madam Speaker : I think that the hon. Gentleman is raising with me what I regard as a classic hypothetical case. I said that to qualify for consideration a matter had not only to contain a new element of urgency to distinguish it from other important long-standing issues, but had to be on a specific and important matter that needed urgent consideration. I do not believe that our business today or tomorrow should be changed in order to discuss the subject raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I hope that hon. Members will not continue to challenge my ruling.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Special Grant Report (No. 4) and the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1992 are on today's Order Paper for debate. It appears that it is your intention that we should debate the two reports together. If that is
Column 264
so, it is a break from the custom of the House, which is to have a separate debate on Welsh rate support grant orders. With great respect, may I suggest that we should keep to the usual form of proceeding so that Welsh Members may have a better opportunity to contribute to the debate and we have more chance to hear Welsh Office Ministers?Madam Speaker : I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and understand it, but it was agreed last Friday by the House that the two items should be debated together within a three-hour period.
Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The most important item on today's Order Paper is question 8 on local government reform, which will affect the life of every councillor in Scotland. I could not understand why you allowed only one Opposition Back Bencher to ask a question on the subject. I think that was absolutely disgraceful.
Madam Speaker : I have a broad back, and I am developing a thick skin.
Mr. Canavan : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no wish to challenge your right to accept or reject an application under Standing Order No. 20. However, for future guidance, if in future an hon. Member decides to make a written application to you for a Standing Order No. 20 emergency debate, should he or she outline in the application any new evidence that he or she thinks should be brought to your attention there and then or will there be a further opportunity to present the new evidence on the Floor of the House?
Madam Speaker : That is certainly not necessary. I want to be helpful to the House and to individual Members, and if Members think that it helps me to come to a judgment by putting new evidence before me, it will always be very welcome and I shall look at it most carefully.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not in any way challenging your ruling. As you are probably aware, the Procedure Committee recommended some years ago that any application under what was then Standing Order No. 9 should be put to the Speaker in his office. That recommendation was considered by the House and, I am glad to say, it was rejected in 1979. You will also know that in 1977- 78, in the last couple of years of the Labour Government, there were usually three or four applications per day under Standing Order No. 9. It is my understanding--and you will correct me if I am wrong--that until quite recently, although the Speaker may well have deprecated some of the applications, he decided to hear them.
It seems that there are two problems to overcome. Under "Erskine May" and the appropriate Standing Order you decide whether an application on the Floor of the House is to be successful. If it is, you will grant a debate. However, it now seems that even before the application is made on the Floor of the House you will consider whether it should be made at all, in the same way as your predecessor did--I doubt whether his predecessor followed the same course. In effect, that means that we have to convince you that there is a case even though if the application is made on the Floor of the House there is no guarantee that you will grant it.
Column 265
Madam Speaker : I am not changing the practice. I cannot hear applications that I regard as not getting to first base. On occasions I will hear an application, but I have to determine in the first place whether it gets over the first hurdle. There is no change whatever in procedure.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Apart from the problem of irritation caused by English Tory Members flitting in and out during Scottish Question Time, may I appeal to you once again about the problem of Ministers giving over-long answers to questions? I am sure that that practice deprives two or even three Back Benchers of the opportunity to put spontaneous supplementary questions.
Madam Speaker : I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point. At the risk of being rather too curious and too observant, may I say that I have noticed that he too popped out after his question.
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONSFOR FRIDAY 10 JULY Members successful in the ballot were :
Mr. Paul Murphy
Mr. George Howarth
Mrs. Jane Kennedy
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.], That the draft Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Column 266
Disabled Persons (Services)
3.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid Kent) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to make certain severely disabled persons accountable for expenditure on their care plans.
This is a modest measure designed to assist the Government to solve a problem that has caused them embarrassment more by an accident of history than fault of their own. The problem is that some men and women who are severely physically disabled, with relatively little control over their bodies but with their minds entirely unimpaired, want to remain in charge of their own lives to as great an extent as possible. They want to be able to decide for themselves when they get up in the morning or go to bed at night, decisions which for most of us are part of normal adult life. Yet under present arrangements, whereby local authorities have to provide the domiciliary care staff that are needed to allow disabled clients to live in the community, it is impossible to guarantee such freedoms. Take, for example, the case of Ms. C, who has a senior position in a company running training and education courses throughout the country. Sometimes she has to ask her care assistants to arrive at 5 am to ensure that she is up in time for a meeting. Sometimes she has to stay away overnight and take a personal assistant with her. No local authority provided service can offer that degree of flexibility and control. Yet until recently Ms. C has been able to make her own arrangements because the local authority has been paying directly to her the part of her total care budget that is needed for domiciliary care. She has recruited, trained and deployed the staff that she needs and accounted for the money to the local authority. Why "until recently"? I am sure that you can imagine the shock, Madam Speaker, which went through the system when almost the first guidance issued by the Department of Health under the new community care legislation was to warn local authorities that by allowing such arrangements they were breaking the law. The National Assistance Act 1948, echoed in the national health service Acts of 1968 and 1977, makes it illegal for local authorities to make cash payments to individuals, and the Government have no choice but to remove from some of the most disadvantaged people in Britain the one freedom which they most treasure. That is the problem which the Bill seeks to address.
As you would undoubtedly be quick to remind me, Madam Speaker, a ten-minute Bill may not stray into territory such as giving local authorities the power to make direct payments, ideal though in my judgment it would be if they could. It is a severe limitation. I am proposing a device to improve the present position, but I know that it is very much a second best.
The limitation is well shown by the case of Mr. A. His local authority allows him to employ staff and manage them on a day-to-day basis, but the authority pays them and they are subject to the employment practices of the authority. The effect of its shift systems, for example, is that he cannot choose when he will go to bed. Nor can he suddenly alter the arrangements to fit in with an unexpected change in his schedule.
What a contrast with the case of Mr. F. He receives about £15,000 a year. It is paid into a separate bank
Column 267
account and out of it he meets all the payments for his personal assistance. The account is open to the local authority to inspect at any time and at the end of each year Mr. F presents an audit of his account to the local authority. It is a simple system that is cheap to administer. It retains the statutory responsibility of the local authority and makes it easy for the authority to assume direct control if Mr. F, for whatever reason, found that managing his affairs in this way was too much for him, but affords him the dignity and independence that we would all seek for ourselves.My proposition is, by contrast, inferior but is all that I can propose in the context of a ten-minute Bill. I propose that such disabled people as are assessed as able and willing to shoulder the responsibility of recruiting and employing their own staff should be allowed to do so up to the financial limit decreed by the local authority. They should then arrange to have the bills paid by the local authority, but the responsibility for the staff contracts would be theirs.
We have a parallel in the House. The office costs allowance is available to Members to make such arrangements as seem best to them to meet their needs and those of their constituents. The bills are handled by the Fees Office, which exercises some scrutiny over the payments to ensure that they do not depart from the rules that have been laid down. In this way we are in charge of our own offices, but the interests of the taxpayer are safeguarded. For the few clients that I envisage it is an unnecessarily cumbersome system, but is better than the position that we are left in by the recent guidance from the Department.
The Bill is modest, but the principle that it enshrines is fundamental to community care. Community care is partly about enhancing the dignity of those who need public care. It is also about enhancing choice, developing personal responsibility and encouraging the growth of personal capacity. It must, therefore, be right to allow those disabled people who have the capacity and the desire to take control of the most personal part of their care arrangements to do so.
Column 268
When the National Assistance Act reached the statute book 44 years ago, the relationship between those who needed care and those who gave it was very different from what it is now. I know that Ministers know that. Nobody who listened to Ministers, hour after hour, in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill Standing Committee has any doubt about where their hearts lie. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who is on the Treasury Bench today, shares their views.My Bill aims to take the first step towards enabling disabled persons to cut off the shackles imposed upon them by long-dead Acts of Parliament and to restore to some severely disabled persons the dignity of making their own decisions in an area of their lives where no public authority, no matter how benevolent, can hope to treat them as well as they can treat themselves.
I hope that the Government, who have done so much already to increase the control that disabled people have over their own lives and who have introduced the citizens charter to carry that work forward, will give my Bill a fair wind or, even better, go the whole way and allow direct payments in carefully selected cases. When I worked on the Social Work (Scotland) Bill 25 years ago, we wrote into it section 12, which allows cash payments in special circumstances to be made by local authorities to people in their care. I feel that that is a better precedent in 1992 than the National Assistance Act of 1948.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Tom Clarke, Sir John Hannam, Ms. Liz Lynne, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.
Disabled Persons (Services) Bill
Mr. Andrew Rowe accordingly presented a Bill to empower local authorities to make certain severely disabled persons accountable for expenditure on their care plans : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
Column 269
Local Government Finance
3.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire) : I beg to move
That the Special Grant Report (No. 4) (House of Commons paper No. 61), which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved. Madam Speaker : I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate at the same time the second motion on the Order Paper :
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1992 (House of Commons Paper No. 80), which was laid before this House on 19 June, be approved. Mr. Squire : I think that I should be marginally exaggerating if I suggested that the country, or the majority of Members of Parliament, were on the edges of their seats because of the nature of what I am about to say on these reports, despite the fact that their provisions will affect nearly every household in England and Wales and despite also the fact that the sums involved are substantial. The purpose of the two reports is to provide grant support to billing authorities in England and Wales towards revenue expenditure incurred in the financial years 1991-92 and 1992-93 on preparation for the council tax. The grant underlines our firm commitment to helping authorities with the smooth implementation of the new tax and to ensuring that they are ready to issue the first bills by 1 April 1993.
For the convenience of the House, it might be helpful if I outlined briefly the advantages of the council tax, which is the subject of the preparations that we are considering. We believe that the council tax is fair and straightforward. It introduces a system of finance which will bring stability to local government.
The new tax is fair. It recognises that no household should have to pay an excessive amount towards the provision of local services. It makes provision for single adult households, and it is only right that they should pay less than households with two or more adults. It ensures that people on low incomes and vulnerable groups are helped through generous rebates of up to 100 per cent. of their liability. Owners of property that is no one's main residence will have to pay only 50 per cent. of the tax for the area.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : In preparing the legislation and the rules that will enable a 25 per cent. reduction to be given to single- person households, will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of applying those rules to give a similar reduction for water charges which could be based on the same register?
Mr. Squire : I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, but I suspect that he is trying to lead me into matters that are rather wider than the reports. However, his question has been heard and I am sure that it will be noted by those who are considering such matters.
The council tax is straightforward. We firmly believe that it will be easier to administer than the community charge, and it will be more easily understood by the public. There will be approximately half the number of bills. Many people who are now liable for the community charge will have their liability removed under
Column 270
the council tax. The new bills will be based on properties, and collection difficulties should therefore be minimised.The council tax also has the considerable advantage for local authorities of not requiring them to compile and maintain a register of those who are liable to pay-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) expresses doubt from a sedentary position, but I am sure that he will develop his ideas later. Most households will receive and pay a standard bill. The local authority does not need to concern itself with the number or status of adults in each household. All it will need to know is the name of the liable person, and we have given authorities sufficient powers to ensure that they gain that information.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) rose --
Mr. Squire : May I make a little more progress and then I shall willingly give way.
There is abundant evidence of market prices for most property types, and capital values are easily understood by most people. The council tax builds on those advantages and adds to them the benefits of a banded system. Banding will ensure that an excessive burden does not fall on a minority of properties, as happened under domestic rates. Banding also reduces the administrative task involved in maintaining a local finance system by obviating the need for precise valuations. With no attempt at such precision, the likelihood of disputes and appeals is greatly reduced. Capital values are related to ability to pay, but we recognise that it is not a perfect match which is why there is a 3 : 1 ratio between bills of properties in the highest and lowest bands.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : What are the Government doing to speed up the extensive delays in outstanding appeals? When the new council tax is introduced, I envisage a string of appeals to local appeals tribunals and the delays will be substantial. What will the Government do to reduce the number of appeals?
Mr. Squire : I do not necessarily accept the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question about the number of appeals, but, as he knows, the independent body that runs the tribunals is aware of its responsibilities. The Government have recently stressed that we wish appeals to be settled as quickly as possible. The most recent figures that I have seen show that there has been a pick-up in the number of appeals being resolved.
The discount system is straightforward. Authorities will have a duty to try to establish the discount entitlement of each household in their area, but if that information is not forthcoming, authorities will be able to assume that the household is subject to a standard bill and it will then be up to the household to claim a discount and to supply the local authority with the necessary information to verify that claim.
The council tax will provide stability for local authorities. The tax base will remain fairly constant from year to year. The number of dwellings in any area is not usually subject to significant change. As the House knows, movements of people are far more volatile and they will not have such a great effect as under the community charge.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Should not the Minister be a little more hesitant in praising the virtues of
Column 271
the council tax? He will remember that when the poll tax was introduced he was a Back Bencher and, indeed, a critic. The Ministers who introduced the poll tax told us that it was excellent and that Labour was exaggerating the problems. We were told that it would work well, but we all know what happened.--it destroyed Mrs. Thatcher. Would not it be wise for the Minister, who was one of the few long-standing critics of the poll tax on the Tory Back Benches, to be more hesitant about the council tax's virtues and to bear in mind some of the criticisms that will be heard from the Labour Back Benches--and certainly from our Front Bench-- about some of the defects of the new tax?Mr. Squire : I shall take the hon. Gentleman's words of warning to heart--although I must add that a detailed study of the comments on local government finance of every hon. Member on both sides of the House over the past 10 years would prove an indigestible meal for anyone who chose to confront it.
I shall now deal with the preparations and the grants before us. My Department commissioned an independent firm of consultants--CSL Group Ltd.- -to estimate the additional costs to local authorities of preparing for the council tax. It estimated that local authorities would need to spend £165.3 million in 1991-92 and 1992-93.
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Will the Minister assure us that clarification will soon be issued on the treatment of the software costs of implementation of the council tax? I understand that CSL assumed that software costs could be capitalised, which would not be in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Local authorities urgently need clarification.
Mr. Squire : I shall try to cover that issue in my speech, but if I do not do so, I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is to reply, will be able to supply the detailed answer that the hon. Lady seeks.
CSL estimates that, out of the sum that I have mentioned, English authorities would need to spend £156.1 million to introduce the new tax. That amount is divided between £114.6 million for revenue and £41.5 million for capital. CSL estimates that Welsh authorities would need to spend £9.2 million--almost £8 million in revenue expenditure and £1.24 million in capital expenditure. The Government have accepted the consultants' recommendations in full.
The special grant report authorises a grant of £85.97 million to English authorities to cover 75 per cent. of authorities' revenue costs. That amount is outside the total aggregate external finance set for local authorities in 1992-93. The grant is to be distributed on the basis of the number of domestic properties in each area, with an allowance for higher costs in the London area. The Welsh report authorises a grant of £5.985 million.
The number of dwellings used for that purpose is based on information supplied to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, which has been validated with local authorities. Annex A of the English report and appendix 2 to the Welsh report detail the amount to be made available to each authority.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : Will the Minister give way?
Column 272
Mr. Squire : I am giving way rather a lot, but I shall still give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Carlisle : Will the Minister confirm that the grant will cover 75 per cent. of the revenue costs of the change and none of the capital costs, which may involve, for example, computer software? Bearing in mind the fact that, even viewed in the most charitable possible light, the poll tax was a Government mistake, why do the Minister and his Welsh counterpart think that local authorities, which have already been severely punished by the wasted costs of the poll tax, should now have to pay any part of the revenue or capital costs of the change?
Mr. Squire : I shall clarify the position. The Government will make available supplementary credit approvals to cover the full cost of the capital expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I have just said, but I am not yet sure whether that fully answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I shall return to the subject later.
The remaining 25 per cent of the revenue funds needed by authorities for council tax implementation will be supported through revenue support grant. If the House approves the report, a payment of 66 per cent. of an authority's grant will be paid on account on 1 November 1992 to authorities in England. Welsh authorities will receive 90 per cent. of grant in 1992-93 through three equal instalments in June 1992, November 1992 and March 1993. The remaining grant payable in 1993-94 in England and Wales is conditional on submission of a claim form by the authority. The CSL report identified a preference among Welsh authorities to fund computer-related costs from revenue sources. That has been taken into account in the Welsh payment arrangements.
The amount to be paid to each authority in respect of preparation costs cannot exceed the amount that the authority has spent on preparation. As a result, it is possible--if a little unlikely--that an authority will be entitled to receive less than the amount shown in the table at annex A and appendix 2 of the reports.
For the purposes of the reports, revenue expenditure is defined as expenditure which a billing authority incurs or has incurred in the financial years 1991-92 and 1992-93 solely for the purposes of preparation for the council tax, and which is not expenditure for capital purposes within the meaning of part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
My Department will be issuing authorities with supplementary credit approvals totalling some £41 million to cover the cost of capital works. That answers the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The SCAs are not subject to a special grant report. They will be issued after 31 March 1993, on the basis of claims submitted by an authority and certified in the same way as the revenue claim form. It may be possible to issue higher SCAs to authorities spending above their allocations if claims from other authorities show spending below allocation. We shall consider the basis for doing that if it becomes clear that overall there is a significant underspend of the total allocation of £41.5 million. The SCAs for Welsh authorities in respect of capital expenditure were issued on 10 March this year.
Both my Department and the Welsh Office have liaised closely with the local authority associations about the level of grant and its method of distribution. The associations
| Next Section
| Home Page |