| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): Will my right hon. Friend drive home the fact that this year, for education in Devon, there is an increase of more than £17 million--10 per cent. more than the average increase of 5.3 per cent.-- and that that means that, on a rough calculation, there is more than about £140 per pupil in Devon extra for the Liberal county council to distribute to the schools instead of keeping it, as the council did last year, to distribute elsewhere? Will he therefore consider whether certain councils should have the SSA ring-fenced to ensure that they get the money to the schools rather than keeping it for the county?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is right. He will notice that Liberal Members are busy trying to pretend that that money is not coming to them, because Liberals want to do again this year what they did last year, which was to starve the schools in order to blame the Government and to use the money for something else.
We know how the Liberals operate. They will no doubt try to operate in that way again this time, but, with a settlement of more than 5 per cent., as my right hon. Friend says, if that money does not get to every school in Devon, I am sure that he in his constituency and his colleagues in other constituencies will ensure that every parent and governor knows that the reason why the money has not got there is the Liberals at Devon county hall.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
Does the Secretary of State accept that increasing the standard spending assessment for education by 4.5 per cent. does not give local authorities a penny more because Lancashire county council, for example, is already spending 108 per cent. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his statement that the real increase in local government expenditure was only 2.8 per cent. Is that not the crux of the issue?
Mr. Gummer:
The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that Lancashire county council can increase its budget by 3.2 per cent. By concentrating on education, which represents a significant part of its budget, the council can significantly raise the amount spent on schools. The hon. Gentleman knows that; any attempt by him to suggest otherwise demonstrates that he is in league with Lancashire county council--one of the least satisfactory county councils in the country--in trying to excuse the fact that the council has not given the money to the
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have frequently questioned Ministers on the Floor of the House about the allocation of resources to Cheshire--my constituency is in that county--especially in relation to personal social services and education. May I thank my right hon. Friend for the additional allowance of 5.1 per cent. for education--that is more than £17 million--and for the additional sum of £1.25 million for personal social services? I know that that will be welcomed by those who run Cheshire county council, and by my constituents.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point, however?
The Minister of State has launched an inquiry into the area cost adjustment. When the committee or commission that conducts that inquiry has reported, will its recommendations be implemented without delay? If Cheshire is to benefit, will the adjustment be implemented retrospectively to cover the current year, or will it apply only to the next financial year?
Mr. Gummer:
I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive words, but I should have known that there would be a sting in the tail. I fear that the adjustment will not be retrospective; but I promise that as soon as we have the report and are able to consider it, we shall seek to implement its recommendations as far as is possible, certainly in the next financial year. We are talking not about this year, but about the next settlement. This is the last settlement under the present system, given that the recommendations stand up and are different from the current arrangements.
Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East):
Is it not rather misleading to concentrate on the increase in the education part of the revenue support grant? It is only one element in a larger single sum. What percentage change in the non-education element does the right hon. Gentleman propose?
Mr. Gummer:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that I have used the increase in the total budget in all the figures that I have given. Some hon. Members have referred to education, but I have given the total sum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the increase in spending permitted in Newham will be more than 2 per cent.
Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge):
I am pleased to learn that Hillingdon's education SSA is to increase by £4,865,000, or 5.5 per cent., in the coming year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that nothing in the capping arrangements which have existed in the past, and which have been revived this year, will prevent Hillingdon borough council from passing the money on, particularly to grant-maintained schools in my area?
May I also express my gratitude, on behalf of the Uxbridge police, for the element in the statement relating to pensions? That is a great improvement, which will be welcomed by the Uxbridge police.
Mr. Gummer:
I thank my hon. Friend for his second point, and I can give him the assurance that he requires on the first.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East):
Will the Secretary of State drop the smokescreen with which he
Mr. Gummer:
Only if every council decides to spend to the full increase in the SSA and nobody makes any savings whatever. In other words, Labour councils will no doubt force this upon their electorates, but sensibly run councils can make savings and start there. The hon. Gentleman is right only if he assumes a badly run Labour council.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the extra resources that he has announced for education are extremely welcome? What can be done to ring-fence that money to ensure that it actually reaches the schools? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to publish a list showing each school in each constituency and how much their budgets would increase if the SSA percentage were passed on to them?
Mr. Gummer:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is here and will have heard my hon. Friend's comment. In his county, we will not have much difficulty in ensuring that the money goes to the schools, because he has a well-run council that seeks always to find savings in order to improve what it can do with education. Elsewhere, we will have to keep a beady eye on what happens.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield):
Does the Secretary of State accept that he cannot claim to be increasing the amount available for education when he is screwing down the overall level of support for local authorities in the way implied by his statement? Is he aware that every £1 million not allowed to Birmingham threatens 200,000 hours of home care; or four libraries and four community centres; or four elderly persons homes; or 100 places in special schools? Which would he cut--or would he put taxes up?
Mr. Gummer:
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he complains about the settlement by saying that unless we can make savings, we might have to increase council tax. On the other hand, he says that he wants to spend more. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question that Opposition Front Benchers have not answered: if there were a Labour Government, by how much more would they put up taxes in order to make the settlement what they would call adequate? They will not answer that question because they have been told to say both that the settlement is inadequate, and that they would not increase taxes in order to meet the inadequacy.
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes):
May I add my thanks to those already extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) for the amount made available to East Sussex?
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend about manners in local government. How can he stop local government carrying on the sort of pseudo-consultation exercise that East Sussex county council has performed on the basis of an anticipated increase in education funding of 0.5 per cent., which was ludicrous months ago and has been proved absolutely ludicrous today?
Mr. Gummer:
Although the rough and tumble of party politics is perfectly reasonable and most of us rather enjoy
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |