---

Mr. Chris Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell me where the local authority called Littleborough and Saddleworth is?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman represents the area.

Mr. Davies: There is no such local authority.

Mr. Evans: The Liberal Democrats' education spokesman visited the constituency during the by-election--I was there throughout--and had to admit that their expenditure plans amounted to 2.5p on income tax, rather than 1p. I am amazed that, given the opportunity to comment on that, the hon. Gentleman chose to make a pedantic point about the name of the constituency.

It is also a great shame that the Liberal Democrats confuse education spending with the delivery of the service. That does not add up either. We know that, in some parts of the United Kingdom where twice as much is spent on education as in other parts, the outturn is not as much as it is in those other areas. Money is not all that matters.

Since 1979, the amount spent on education has risen by more than 50 per cent. The Government are keeping their commitment, but we need to ensure that other provision remains, such as grant-maintained schooling. I understand that the Liberal Democrats, along with their friends in the Labour party, do not believe in that. My parents could not afford to send me to an independent school, but, thanks to the assisted places scheme, the parents of 60,000 young people will be able to ensure that their children enjoy the education that they consider best for them: the Government are providing the money to make the extra places available. The Liberal Democrats do not want that, however. The same applies to the national curriculum and to testing, which ensures that standards continue to rise.

We must keep an eye on how Liberal Democrats behave within their areas. They say one thing and do another. They say that they are looking after the people, that they want services to be financed properly and that the council tax should be kept as low as possible.A couple of weeks ago, the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times reported that the Liberal Democrat councillor on Ribble Valley council had suggested that we introduce car-parking charges in Clitheroe for the first time. Goodness knows at what level the charges would be introduced, but, according to the newspaper, the aim is to raise some £400,000.

I cannot think of such a devious way of introducing a new tax. Not only would local residents have to find the extra money to park their cars in Clitheroe; the charge would harm small businesses in Clitheroe. There are many small businesses in the area--not the major chain stores that operate in such villages, but smaller stores, mostly family-owned, working from early in the morning until late at night. Along with local Conservatives, I shall fight hard against the introduction of such charges.

The hon. Member for Newbury had a wonderful opportunity to say how the Liberal Democrats would improve local services with the money that was available. It is a great shame that he did not do so. There were several interventions on his speech, but he failed to give an honest answer. There is one thing that the Liberal

12 Feb 1996 : Column 731

Democrats have in common with Labour nowadays: they simply do not answer the questions that they are asked, because they dare not do so.

8.38 pm

Ms Hilary Armstrong (North-West Durham): I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The problem is that he does not know his Government's policy. The car park charging policy comes from the Department of the Environment. It is part of the manner in which the Government expect local authorities--

Mr. Nigel Evans indicated dissent.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should learn about the policy.

Mr. Evans: I am not having that.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman may not be having it, but that is the guidance--the virtual instruction--from his Government. Perhaps he should talk to the Secretary of State.

Several Conservative Members misunderstood local government finance, either deliberately or because it is difficult to understand. I am reminded of the words of Lord Ferrers, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is responsible in the other place for local government. Last Thursday, in answering a question on the current revenue support grant settlement, he said:

"My Lords, it is a fact that some council taxes in London may rise. Given that the total standard support, commonly known as the TSS,"--

I do not think that that is what TSS is, but never mind--

"has increased by more than the AEF and that SSAs in inner London are falling due to changes in the ACA brought about by changes in the NES, with consequent reductions in RSG and NDR, it is not surprising that council taxes in London may rise."

In response to that, my noble Friend Lord Stallard said:

"My Lords, I nearly said that the Minister's replies so far were NBG."

Several hon. Members would concur. Lord Ferrers later said:

"My Lords, it is a complicated subject."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 330.]

I suspect that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is in much the same position as Lord Ferrers. He clearly does not understand that more than 80 per cent. of the money that local government is able to spend is from central coffers. Changing the balance between the amount of money spent and raised locally and the amount raised centrally is of critical importance to the balance between central and local government.

I argued in a similar debate less than two weeks ago that this has been the most centralising Government this century and that there is more power in Whitehall andNo. 10 Downing street than ever before. Part of our argument is that we need to change the balance. Conservative Members and the Minister refuse to address that issue.

I agree with the Minister that the council tax works better than did its predecessor, the poll tax, on which billions of pounds were wasted, but it is also true that

12 Feb 1996 : Column 732

there is now so much central Government control that the amount that local government can raise through council tax is very limited. The gearing effect caused by the amount spent by central Government is so huge in some areas that to raise spending even to present capping levels would be impractical. Local people could not afford that amount of money. The problem is that the Government have controlled local government spending to a degree that means that it is not possible for council tax to be used even in the way in which the Government initially intended it to be used.

Mr. Rendel: I appreciate the hon. Lady's attack on centralisation by the Conservative Government, but it is fair to bring to her attention a recent notice sent to every member of the Labour group in Bedfordshire, which states:

"This letter is to give you notice that the decision taken at the Labour Group on 31st January 1996 'not to set a budget' is null and void and that we will be reconstituting the Labour group."

It goes on to show that the central Labour party is taking firm control of the Bedfordshire county Labour group.It is not only the Conservative but the Labour party which is keen to centralise control of local government.

Ms Armstrong: I do not accept that.

I argued strongly in my previous speech that there must be an honest working relationship between the centre and the localities. I have never tried to give the impression from the Dispatch Box or anywhere else that that means that central Government should abdicate any responsibility.

Some things are not acceptable. Corruption is not acceptable and central Government should do something it. Malpractice is not acceptable and central Government must have reserve powers to take action against it.We argued for that consistently through proceedings on the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I shall continue to argue it. Having a relationship does not mean that one side should abdicate responsibility. That is precisely what the Government have done. They have so tried to control local government that they have stifled any opportunity for local differentiation and determination. We want a proper working relationship that is much more balanced than at present, but we will not abdicate responsibility from the centre.

I want to deal with the problems of the current settlement and its dishonesty. We covered some of that ground during the Minister's speech. It is not honest for the Government to say that they are giving 4.4 per cent. more to education, when they know that education budgets last year were higher than the level at which they have set SSAs this year. The Minister kept saying that we have to compare like with like. He went on to say that authorities could use balances and that there were other ways--such as charges, which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley seems to think are not Government policy--through which local government could raise the difference.

The Minister seems not to have read the reports from the Treasury and Civil Service and the Education Select Committees. The Education Select Committee stated:

"We believe that it would not be possible for all local authorities and schools to draw upon reserves in future years in a way that a number of authorities managed in 1995-96".

12 Feb 1996 : Column 733

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment,in her submission to the teachers' pay review body, said:

"some schools and authorities drew heavily on their reserves to meet the cost of the 1995 teachers' pay award . . . the Review Body should consider whether reserves in some schools and authorities have dropped below prudent levels".

She would not have said that if she did not know it to be the case. The opportunity to draw on reserves is not there in the way that it was last year. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made the same point.

It is dishonest of the Government to pretend that there is money floating around in the system that can be used to meet their priority of more spending on education. Local authorities last year spent substantially more than the level at which Government have set SSAs this year. Even if expenditure were at the capping levels, it would not meet the 4.4 per cent. that the Government are talking about.

---