| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 680
Remaining Private Members' Bills
NOISE AND STATUTORY NUISANCE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.
SHOPS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was impossible, through no fault of yours, to hear which Bill you were calling. I thought I heard you call the fourth Bill on the Order Paper. I never heard you call the third Bill. I should be grateful if we could at least hear what you say so that if there are objections we know what is going on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : We are now on the third Bill. I shall put it again. The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
HEDGEROWS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Simon Hughes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it acceptable that those who object do not identify themselves? The hon. Member who last objected to the Second Reading of the Hedgerows Bill was the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Can the name of the hon. Member who objects to a Bill be recorded?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for some while. He must be alert and see who says "Object." I certainly do not identify who it is.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
WATER CHARGES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.
TRANSACTIONS WITH TAX HAVENS (SANCTIONS) BILL Ordered for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.
COAL MINES (CLOSURE REVIEW) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.
PLAIN LANGUAGE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
Column 681
HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.
UNADOPTED ROADS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
ADOPTION OF ROADS (COMPULSORY PROCEDURES) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
Mr. Simon Hughes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), is objecting, but his objections are so pathetic and feeble that I wonder whether they are serious.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order.
FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
Column 682
EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
FUEL COST CREDITS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
HOSPITAL SECURITY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February
ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), objected to my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill, but there is a very strong case for the Government to review all the cases of women in prison at the moment--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that there can be no debate at present.
Mr. Simon Hughes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker--it has nothing to do with Bills, you will be happy to hear.
A report in today's Yorkshire Post states that a National Audit Office report on the costs of the nuclear industry is being kept secret until a later date. The implication is that it will be a date after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has been able to complete its report on the energy review. Indeed, the implication is that the National Audit Office report is being suppressed until after the House will have had a chance to debate the energy White Paper and the subject in general.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly that report is germane to both other reports. Clearly the report was compiled by a public authority on a subject that will
Column 683
be coming before the House. Will you rule, either now or later, on whether there is anything that hon. Members can do to get that report into the open in time for it to play a part in the debate ?Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman should write to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Column 684
Standard Spending Assessment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
2.52 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I do not have pleasure in drawing the attention of the House to the subject of calculations for SSAs, which are better known as standard spending assessments, because to most people in local government they are a curse, most Members of the House of Commons find them difficult to grasp and to members of the public they are an invisible weapon.
Under the Government, and indeed under Governments of all complexions, there has been a natural desire to limit the public expenditure of local authorities. Of course, we do not like to see wrong and inefficient expenditure. But, in the past 10 years, we have seen a progression of measures that have put local authorities into a more or less helpless position and even now are a danger to the citizens whom they represent. I honestly believe that we are reaching a stage in the next financial year when Her Majesty's Government, particularly those who inhabit the Treasury, are not aware of the effects of formulae for SSAs.
I know that when the era of block grants came to an end and we had clawbacks, grant-related expenditure--GRE--and all the rest of it, some enlightened members of the Government did what they could to ameliorate what were clearly anti-social and sometimes semi-workable or unworkable measures. I believe that, in the past 12 years, 13 measures on local government finance have passed through the House--the Minister may correct me if I am wrong--most of which have not worked.
The Treasury's objective, reinforced by macro-economic theory about the proportion of expenditure in the country that is public expenditure as distinct from private expenditure, is to push local government expenditure down. That has not worked. Time after time, various ways round various arrangements have been found. The public, of all political parties, have objected to the manacles placed on local government.
With the system of SSAs, coupled with the capping on expenditure, a new cage has been placed round local authorities or, rather, round the public that they represent. We are now in a new era of grave injustice, particularly for inner-city areas--I note that one of my hon. Friends who also represents London is present.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) : No, my hon. Friend is thinking of my wife, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
The local authorities will be blamed for something for which they are not responsible and which appears incredible to the public. Newham is the second most deprived borough in the country according to most statistics-- Hackney beats it by a short head. I ask the Minister to refute my assertion that we are being defrauded--I use that word advisedly--of £20 million worth of services, many of them crucial. That is equivalent to about £120 per adult member of the borough. Any local authority officer knows that that extra amount, per head, would provide a tremendous amount of flexibility. We do not enjoy that now.
Column 685
How has this come about? I challenge the Minister to deny the arithmetic, even if he gives me some philosophical explanation of the new arrangements. The Government say that the SSA is based on what they think is the standard level of service that the councils should provide. I do not know whether that standard is what we would accept. The Government then calculate roughly how much those services would cost, multiply that by various types of formulae and, Bob's your uncle, that is the SSA.The assessment of services is carried out by dividing the key ones into five broad categories. The first is education, which accounts for half the given expenditure. In fact, education expenditure is divided into subgroups covering primary and secondary education. One also used to cover further education, but there is not much of that now. The other four categories relate to social services, highways, other services and capital charges.
Despite recent changes, educational costs can be broadly assessed on the number of teachers, pupils and buildings and so can all the rest. The figures are totted up. The only thing that the Government do not appear to tot up is the capital charge, which is known and reasonably predictable within a certain range, just as a mortgage payment is for a householder. It is the first charge upon a borough or a district council that must sustain borrowings. I must emphasise that those borrowings, for the most part, have been permitted by the Government.
The Minister is aware of a number of letters that I have received--I shall not quote them because time is short--in which Ministers say that not all capital borrowing has been permitted by the Government. Nevertheless, a great proportion of it has, at some time or other, been given the go-ahead by the Government. In other words, the Government have said that that capital expenditure is necessary--that is a very important moral point.
In Newham, next year's total SSA is supposed to be about £255 million- -these figures are provisional and I know that the Minister will tell me that, but it gives me some hope for the future--of which education accounts for £120 million, social services £43 million and other services, such as administration and everything else that the borough must do, £66 million. Capital charges account for £18 million.
However, the real capital charge that Newham must pay, mostly for expenditure that the Government have agreed is necessary, is about £30 million, give or take £1 million as I am dealing in rounded figures. We have a shortfall in payment of capital charges of between £11 million and £12 million.
The only way in which that sum can be obtained is by withdrawing funds from other sections of expenditure for which an SSA has already been calculated. They may not be big enough for what is required--we may think that other SSAs are not sufficient--but they must be further reduced.
The Minister has agreed that education accounts for half the cost. If there is a shortfall of roughly £10 million in capital charge deficiency--I am being very conservative--education will have to be cut by £5 million beneath the SSA which even a not very beneficent Government have agreed is necessary. That means additional cuts in education above even what the Government think is necessary. I believe that Birmingham is in a similar position to Newham. We are blamed for not doing very well and the Government say that we are not spending what they have
| Next Section
| Home Page |