| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Revenue Support Grant
9. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the representations which he has received on the 1996-97 revenue support grant settlement. [20944]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We took into consideration all representations received from English local authorities and their associations during the statutory consultation period on the 1996-97 local authority finance settlement.
Mr. Jones: Why did the Government construct a settlement that puts so much pressure on local education authorities? Will not 25 per cent. of councils impose real-terms cuts on our schools, and will not taxpayers pay more and get less under the present Government?
Sir Paul Beresford: The only reason for which I can conclude that the hon. Gentleman might be right is the incompetence of local authorities. Their standard spending assessment for education has risen by 4.5 per cent.
Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local authority settlement provided sufficient extra money for education, community care and the police? Is it not up to local authorities to get their priorities right, and stop wasting money on politically correct initiatives such as equality units--as Labour-controlled Croydon council has, at a cost of nearly £250,000--and paying councillors more in special allowances? Is that not a disgrace?
Sir Paul Beresford: I entirely agree. I have a similar interest in that council, which is proving to be as notorious as any other Labour authority.
Ms Armstrong: May we have the truth from the Minister? Is not the truth that local authorities received only an additional 1.2 per cent. in money, that the SSA did not relate to the money that it actually received and that the Government have deliberately pushed money into council tax because they want to impose yet another Tory tax on people throughout the country? People are paying more and getting less, and the Government want to shift the blame to councils. That is the truth, is it not?
Sir Paul Beresford: No, it is not the truth. The funding is more than adequate.
I am interested in the way in which the Labour party seems to be attacking the figures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) adapted them to apply Westminster's funding to all other local authorities. Labour's figures seem to be completely fictitious: I have not been able to work out how they were arrived at, and nor has anyone else in the Department. If we employed the same fictitious method, using Tower Hamlets as a base, we would be giving each council tax payer in Westminster £204, in Wandsworth £1,290 and in St. Helen's £1,681. The problem is that Labour Front Benchers do not understand the figures.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of getting £5 million more than it expected under the revenue support grant, Ealing Labour council--[Interruption.] Yes. It is at it again. It is cutting disability grants, travel passes for disabled people, and travel allowances for children to school--thereby preventing choice of school. Many other deplorable policies are being introduced in Ealing, on disgraceful and dogmatic grounds, to the detriment of our community. We will throw the council out for its wickedness.
Sir Paul Beresford:
I agree with my hon. Friend and, of course, if the effort that was put into providing those dramatic blows was put into efficiency, those services could be provided at lower cost.
Capital Challenge
10. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning capital challenge. [20945]
Mr. Gummer: The Minister for Local Government and Housing met them on Monday 18 March.
Mr. Livingstone: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds available will be top-sliced from existing capital programmes and that there will be no additional resources? The whole thing is just a con.
Mr. Gummer: The fact is that, by having a challenge system, we ensure that those who use the money best and get the best value for money get the money they need. I am pleased to see that the borough of Brent--now under new management, and not the worst borough in London as the hon. Gentleman once called it--is in favour of that system. That is because the council has seen how successful the system is, and that is why the council is so good.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the people of Denton in the borough of Gravesham are delighted with the challenge fund, because they have waited for the improvements in Denton for many years and they have not had any progress out of the Labour-controlled councils? It is only the Government's challenge fund that is turning that project into reality.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the Labour party cannot take seriously that which has given a great deal of help to many people in some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. The great advantage of the challenge fund is that councils do not get the money just because they have the need: they get the money just because they can meet the need. The Opposition cannot meet the needs of those who are most in need.
Mr. Vaz: When will the Secretary of State realise that the competition that he is proposing in capital challenge is exactly the same in principle as that proposed for the single regeneration budget? He will know about the disastrous bidding process that led to numerous complaints about the way in which that process operated. Is not capital challenge just another cynical attempt by the Government and the Secretary of State to reduce further the ability of local government to make decisions locally, free from his interference and that of his ministerial colleagues?
Mr. Gummer: The all-party Select Committee on the Environment praised that system. The local government organisations have seen how successful it is, and it will mean that local government has much more say over what it does. All local government has to do is show that it will use the money properly. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with his own members in the country. If he travelled around and met a few sane Labour members--there are a few--he would realise that what he has said has no connection with what they say.
Home Energy Conservation Grants
11. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of senior citizen households over 60 years of age who will not now be eligible for home energy conservation grants because of the introduction of means-testing. [20946]
Mr. Griffiths: When fewer than one in 10 senior citizens are able to claim those grants and when up to 6 million of them live in houses without proper home insulation, is it not despicable that the Government are abolishing the non-means-tested insulation grants for pensioners? Is that not a cynical betrayal of the Government's promise to help pensioners with the VAT that they have imposed on heating and cooking?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that we are abolishing the grants. Since they are continuing to be paid, he is clearly talking rubbish.
Mrs. Peacock: How many such grants have been given since 1991 and what amount of money has been involved?
Mr. Jones: Close on 2 million people have benefited and that is an important contribution to ensuring that the fuel-poor have a higher standard of living in the future.
Ms Ruddock: Surely the Minister is not denying that the criteria for eligibility for the scheme have been changed. Indeed, the consequence of cutting the budget by one third and introducing new criteria is that 200,000 desperate households have applied and are on a waiting list. Is the Minister aware that three quarters of those people who have applied for the grant in the past quarter will not get their work done until the new financial year?
When they get it done, they and their applications will use up half the budget for that financial year. Does that not make complete nonsense of the Government's energy conservation policy and of their commitment to so-called sustainable development?
Mr. Jones:
As I have said in the House several times, £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the second stage of value added tax, which was rejected by the House. Therefore, the VAT compensation package was altered. Of course I understand the hon. Lady's point about those who are better off edging out the fuel poor. It is rather deplorable that some organisations in society are currently deliberately promoting the scheme to those people, thus disadvantaging the people whom we most wish to target. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that pressure for amending the scheme so that it did not extend to those who were much better off came from neighbourhood energy action and others.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Minister has not mastered his brief and has perhaps inadvertently misled the House, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |