| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Lady confirm that I heard her correctly? Is she saying that SSAs for education should be increased to existing levels of expenditure, and is she committing the Labour party to funding local authorities up to that new level?
Ms Armstrong: I really am beginning to worry about Conservative Members. They do not seem to be able to listen. I am saying that the Government are playing a con trick on people. Conservative Members have written to schools to say that the Government have given their authorities more money to spend on education--I have copies of letters from almost every authority--which means that the schools should not need to make cuts. That is simply not true.
The Government have not given authorities more money, nor have they enabled them to meet increases. The Government know and admit that the reserves have fallen and that they were fully drawn in some places last year. There is no additional money in the system for school budgets to be increased by that amount in those authorities.
That is not the full extent of the dishonesty, however, because the Government have also admitted that there will be 86,000 more pupils in the system this year. They have approved a pay rise that is above the rise assumed when they set the standard spending assessment. They have legislated for all school transport to be fitted with new seat belts. Those changes alone--with inflation--more than outstrip the additional amount in the SSA, so it is a dishonest con trick to tell schools that there is extra money. There is not, and the Government know it.
They are undermining their credibility, but more than that, they are trying to undermine the credibility of schools, which will have to deal with all those issues because they have a legal responsibility to do so. Whether the Government are prepared to behave responsibly or not, governors need to and will do so. They know that they are being conned.
Mr. Kynoch:
By implication, the hon. Lady is saying that she and the Labour party would put more funding into education. Would she answer my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who asked a
Ms Armstrong:
I am talking about the Government's honesty. They have made pledges and commitments that they know do not stand up. It is no good trying to brush that off by asking what the Opposition would do. We are talking about the Government's revenue support grant settlement this year and about letters that Conservative Members have sent to schools, saying that this is the money that is there. Yet the Government continue with their pretence. They continue to try to blame anyone else, including people who have not had responsibility for any of the actions of the past 17 years. It is convenient to blame them, because the Government refuse to accept responsibility for anything that they do.
This Tory trick--
Mr. Nigel Evans:
How much extra money?
Ms Armstrong:
I did not know that we were in government. Would the Minister like to swap sides, so that I can take responsibility for this year's revenue support grant settlement? Then I would be in government. If they want to swap sides, let them do so. Let them call a general election. Then we will take responsibility. I am not going to take responsibility for Government mismanagement and waste this year, or for Government cons about what is going on.
Mr. Jessel:
Bring back Ernest.
Ms Armstrong:
I will not rise to that, because I might have to tell the hon. Gentleman what he would say to him.
The reality is that the Government have perpetrated that con and pretended that they have given more money when they have not. That is not the only con. We also heard from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley all that business about what it would cost in extra tax and so forth.He accused the Liberals of taking with one hand and giving away with the other in their local income tax plan. That is even more proof that he does not know or understand what has happened this year.
The Government cut income tax by 1p in the Budget. They have said that, at the most modest levels, they expect council tax to rise this year by the equivalent of 0.5p on income tax. In the Red Book, they said that, in the next three years, they expect the equivalent of 2p on income tax to be raised through the council tax. So the Government cannot tell the House that there is no balance between income tax and council tax. Given their assumptions for the development of council tax in the next three years, they know that the amount raised will be the equivalent of 2p on income tax.
We know very well that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. They are perpetrating the dishonesty that councils can raise more in tax, which will put more money into the budget. Councils will have to raise more in tax, but that is because the Government have deliberately pushed down their contribution this year and pushed councils into putting the tax up, which will be more unpopular. Once again, the Government are saying, pay more locally and get less.
The gearing effect means that councils will have to raise much more money to make up for the money that is not coming from central taxation.
The way in which the Government have approached the issue is totally dishonest. Education spending is already above SSA. To spend at SSA in the next year would mean reducing spending by the equivalent of £41 per pupil. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that council taxes will have to rise by an average of 8 per cent. to meet the Government's targets. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee questioned the ability of some local authorities to pass on additional educational provision to schools, and observed:
As usual, the Select Committee expresses things in rather modest terms, but it is an important view. The Government have been dishonest in so many ways in the settlement, and that is a consequence of the Government's wish to do down local government and of their feeling that there is no room for local government.
I noted with interest the earlier words of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. He claimed success in working with local government. That is true, and he has won the respect of many people in local government, but he has done so because he is seen as out on a limb. The Minister is seen as someone who is not at one with the rest of the Government in their approach to local government. When we remember that the Government contemplated getting rid of local government altogether soon after the Prime Minister became leader and sought ways to get rid of the poll tax, we know just how far out of touch with the rest of the Government the Minister is.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this serious debate. We all owe a considerable debt to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for introducing the debate, as it has given us an unprecedented opportunity to consider the roots of the Liberal Democrats' failure in local government. I wish to develop my personal theory as to why that failure has been so obvious and comprehensive.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
That is why we control so many councils.
Mr. Waterson:
If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I may be able to explain some of his party's present woes.
The fundamental problem is that the Liberal Democrats are a natural party of opposition. We all know that they would do anything for a vote, and all too often they take two sides of the argument on the same issue. That approach, coupled with some quite vicious campaigning techniques, means that the Liberal Democrats run, or have a part in running, a number of local authorities. Unfortunately, fantasy has now collided with reality,and making promises has collided with the need to make decisions.
A document called "Towards 1996" has been much quoted in recent weeks in the Chamber. It was produced by researchers working for the Liberal Democrat Whips Office and contains the following poignant remark:
Life never turns out quite as one plans. However, the document contains some especially interesting comments about local government. It makes the following fair point:
That is a high test to set, and we should examine to what extent the Liberal Democrats have lived up to it.
Let us take the Liberal Democrats' own words on the subject. The document continues:
Those of us who suffer with Liberal Democrat-controlled councils can agree with that. It also states:
That sounds as though the shortcomings of local government were an act of God and nothing to do with those who run it.
The sad truth is that all too often the Liberal Democrats behave as though they were still in opposition. There are three distinct features to that approach. First, they blame everything on the wicked Government, even when the blame lies clearly on a failure in the local authority.In my area, the Liberal Democrats used to blame the county council for all their woes. That is a little more difficult now that the county council is run by a Lib-Lab pact. The second feature is an apparent inability or unwillingness to make decisions about anything really important. The third feature is an abdication of decision making to the general public. The Liberal Democrats will do anything to distance themselves from the possible unpopularity and the responsibilities that flow from actually making a decision.
All those factors, I submit, can be seen at work in the recent behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in East Sussex. Some months ago, the Liberal Democrats began by trailing stories of enormous cuts in spending, long before any realistic notion of actual funding levels could possibly be ascertained. Week by week, drip by drip, they issued press releases to the local media: they spoke of cuts to the fire service; then, a week later, there was a release about cuts in the library service; then there was one about cuts in social services and old peoples' homes being shut down. They also spoke about cuts in policing and, above all, in education. The latter was perhaps the most serious scare story of all, because, next to their own health and that of their families, parents most worry about the future of their children and their children's education.
"This increase in spending does not, however, have quite the substance the Chancellor claimed for it".
"Obviously this document will have a very limited circulation."
"Due to our strong base it is imperative that Local Government is seen as an unmitigated triumph for the Liberal Democrats."
"Some of the councillors are new, politically inexperienced and potentially a liability."
"Our local government power base means that we may get blamed for some of the shortcomings of local government."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |