| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we have an urgent statement from a Foreign Office Minister, so that the House can express its revulsion and anger at the pernicious and disloyal way in which Commissioner Kinnock is trying to undermine the policy of the British Government on overturning the beef ban?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman may ask, but he knows that it is not within the power of the Chair to call for such a statement. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his request.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer):
I beg to move,
The House will recall that the total standard spending for England for 1996-97 is £44.93 billion, an increase of 3.3 per cent. over the 1995-96 figure. That was a substantial increase and it reflected the importance that the Government attach to education and the care of the vulnerable and elderly. We provided for a 4.5 per cent. increase in provision for education and 6.9 per cent. for social services, including further transitional community care special grant.
It is, of course, for each local authority to set its budget and decide its spending priorities. My capping principles for 1996-97 were devised to give authorities the flexibility to make use of the additional resources that we provided for education, social services, fire and police in the settlement. We did that by ensuring that an authority's permitted increase under the capping rules was at least as big as the total of the increases in those blocks of the authority's standard spending assessment. We called that passporting. I am therefore more than a little surprised, given the demands last year for additional funding for education, that some local education authorities have chosen not to pass on the 4.5 per cent. increase in education standard spending to schools. I am especially sad that my county council has failed to do that, but has used the money elsewhere and thus denied schools the money that they should have had.
For county councils and shire unitary authorities, the permitted increase was at least 3 per cent.; for metropolitan districts, outer London boroughs and metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, it was at least 2 per cent.; for inner London boroughs, 1.5 per cent.; and for police authorities, 3.5 per cent. Shire district councils were able to increase budgets by 0.5 per cent. Authorities that budgeted more than 12.5 per cent. above standard spending assessment would be subject to a cash freeze. Capping always allows an authority to spend at the level of its SSA.
Most local authorities have set affordable budgets and council taxes this year within their capping limits. That meant that when I confirmed my capping principles on3 April, I was able to propose cap limits that required only two authorities--Cambridgeshire county council and Oxfordshire county council--to reduce their budget requirements. By contrast, my initial cap limits last year would have required nine authorities to reduce their budgets.
In a moment I shall set out my final decisions on Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, which are the subject of this order. Before I do so, I should deal briefly with the
four other authorities that I formally designated under my capping rules on 3 April--Essex county council and Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear and Merseyside fire and civil defence authorities.
In the cases of Essex county council, Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority and Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority, designation was purely technical. I had agreed in advance with them that they could set budgets above their caps by specified amounts. They are not required to reduce their budgets or to incur any additional costs, and the process is already complete.
Merseyside fire and civil defence authority set a budget requirement for 1996-97 of £52.78 million. The authority argued that a lower budget would lead to its being in breach of statutory minimum standards for the fire service. That view was backed up by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate. I therefore designated Merseyside fire authority at its original budget. As with the other three authorities, it does not need to make any further budget reductions this year and the capping process for it is now complete.
Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire were the only local education authorities seriously to exceed the provisional cap indicated by my capping rules. That was in spite of permitted increases of 3.7 per cent. for Cambridgeshire and 3 per cent. for Oxfordshire--both of which were greater than the average LEA permitted increase of2.9 per cent. I designated both counties for capping on3 April and set maximum amounts for them at the level indicated by the capping rules. Both counties challenged those caps and have argued that they should be allowed to confirm the higher budgets that they have set.
In reaching a view on the final capping limit for those authorities, I must take account of the specific local circumstances of each authority. I have, therefore, considered each county's case carefully, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has met delegations from each authority to hear its case in detail.
Cambridgeshire's problems stem, in its view, from the fact that it used up all its available reserves last year. However, Cambridgeshire would have been aware last year that its reserves could be used only once and should have budgeted accordingly. It would not be right for us to allow authorities to top up their reserves every time they ran out, not least because the local taxpayer would foot the bill.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Gummer:
If I may finish the next paragraph, I am sure that the hon. Lady will find it helpful.
In fact, Cambridgeshire's total reserves stand at£53.8 million--about 13 per cent. of its proposed net revenue expenditure. It admits that some of its reserves are available to support revenue spending this year. It also admits that a budget at cap is achievable as it has not yet passed on the additional resources to the relevant services. Against that background, I believe that there should be no relaxation in Cambridgeshire's proposed cap, and that the cap is reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the authority. If the draft order is agreed
by the House, it will result in a reduction of council tax in Cambridgeshire of £25.26 for a two-adult band D household.
Mrs. Campbell:
Does the Secretary of State accept that, in the view of the district auditor, Cambridgeshire's reserves are now down to six days' spending, not the amounts that the Secretary of State just announced? Does he accept that Cambridgeshire's reason for spending reserves in such quantities last year was that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration promised that the area cost adjustment was being closely scrutinised and said that Cambridgeshire might well expect something from that in this financial year?
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1196), dated 30th April 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
That the draft Food Safety (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
Question agreed to.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
That the draft Deregulation (Industrial and Provident Societies) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.
That the draft Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on22nd April, be approved.
That the draft Deregulation (Resolutions of Private Companies) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.
7.13 pm
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on20th May, be approved.
In reaching my decisions on total standard spending for England and the capping principles, I looked hard both at the pressures on local spending and at the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness in authorities. Individual authorities must be equally thorough. They should always be seeking ways to deliver better value for money to their local taxpayers. That means taking a rigorous approach to pay and efficiency and making a realistic assessment of their spending priorities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |