---

Point of Order

3.31 pm

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I have given notice to you and, by telephone and letter, to the hon. Gentleman involved. Last week, I received a letter from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), threatening me with legal action arising out of a speech that I made in the House 10 days ago, when I suggested or argued that he and other right hon. and hon. Members supported policies that would lead to the detachment or withdrawal of Britain from Europe. He now threatens me with legal action if I repeat those remarks. In no way did I question his personal honour, probity or integrity. I myself have been accused of being a Euro-federalist, which is a lie. Madam Speaker, is it in order for one hon. Member to threaten another with legal action on an important area of public policy debate?

Madam Speaker: I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He knows, as does the House, that nothing said during proceedings in this House can possibly give rise to action in the courts. If, of course, one hon. Member takes legal action against another for something said or done outside this House--whatever it may be--it is not a matter for the Chair.

Local Government Finance

3.32 pm

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997-98 (House of Commons Paper No. 203), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

That the Special Grant Report (No. 23) (House of Commons Paper No. 204), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.


That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1997-98 (House of Commons Paper No. 205), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

Mr. Gummer: On 27 November 1996, I issued my proposals for the 1997-98 local authority finance settlement for consultation. They included the provision for local authority spending, the level of central support for that spending and my proposals for calculating standard spending assessments. I also announced provisional capping criteria.

Since then, my colleagues and I have received written representations from 210 local authorities and have met delegations from 79 authorities. We have carefully considered all the points that were raised with us during consultation. Our final decisions in respect of grants and notional amounts are embodied in the reports before the House today.

As I made clear when announcing the provisional settlement, all public expenditure programmes have to be examined rigorously each year, and local government spending, accounting as it does for a quarter of all public expenditure, is no exception.

Bearing in mind the Government's objectives for the economy as a whole, I have looked hard both at the pressures on local government spending and at the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within local authorities. The days of rolling forward last year's budget and adding a wish list to that are long gone.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): When the Secretary of State considered the pressure on local authorities' resources, did he also considered the pressure on services? Because of the strictures of past years, the policy on funding local authorities is biting harder this year. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect on services? Even libraries, schools and old people's homes are suffering because of the tightness of the budget provision. Will he give some assurances that he will undertake a review, as some authorities are having to impose restrictions on services, which are beyond the pale and not what they were set up to do? Will he give the provision of services some consideration?

Mr. Gummer: I always take into consideration what the hon. Gentleman says and I think that he will agree that I have dealt with a number of specific cases. I hope that he will take into consideration the words of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who said that if a Labour Government came to power,

3 Feb 1997 : Column 677

they would stick to the figures that we have in front of us and to the capping regime, not only for this year but for next. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that the pressures that we are discussing are now supported, at least nominally, by his party. I do not think that Labour would stick to them, of course, and I shall say something about that later. The hon. Gentleman should say what he has to say in the context of the fact that the Labour party is committed to supporting the figures that we have in front of us for this year and next.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage): As my right hon. Friend will recall, the Government kindly agreed that Oxfordshire faced particular problems last year and provided an extra £3.5 million in this year's settlement. It is my view and that of the Conservative group on Oxfordshire county council that the difficulties persist. I look to my right hon. Friend for an assurance that he will continue to look seriously into the case that is being put to him.

Mr. Gummer: As I have always told my hon. Friend, if new facts or a different way of looking at things emerge and the council wants to talk to me about them, I shall listen--my Ministers and I have always sought to listen. Last year, we had that situation--one does do that--but there are also difficult positions elsewhere.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I may get on to the meat of my speech.

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) rose--

Mr. Gummer: I will move on a little, but I shall remember the hon. Gentleman and shall not miss him in a moment or two.

The announcement on 27 November proposed total standard spending for England for 1997-98 of £45.66 billion. During consultation, we adjusted that figure slightly to reflect accurately the funding arrangements for the nationwide introduction of nursery vouchers. The final TSS figure for England for 1997-98 will be £45.67 billion, which represents an increase of £1.13 billion--2.5 per cent.--over the adjusted 1996-97 figure.

At a time of low inflation, that is a substantial increase and it reflects the importance that the Government attach to the services that local authorities provide and, in particular, to education, law and order, the fire service and social services. We have provided for a 3.6 per cent. increase for education, a 3.4 per cent. increase for the police and a 4.2 per cent. increase for the fire service, as well as a £325 million special transitional grant for new community care responsibilities.

Sir Anthony Grant (South-West Cambridgeshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the extra £6 million for education in Cambridgeshire, the Lib-Lab coalition is proposing an across-the-board cut for schools of £8.8 million? Is not that yet another example, and an awful warning, of the dangers of Liberals getting into bed with Labour or vice versa?

3 Feb 1997 : Column 678

Mr. Gummer: We have concentrated on education because we have good reason to believe that the majority of people feel that it should be a priority. That is as true in Cambridgeshire as elsewhere. If a local authority does not passport through the money, as is provided for, it will be for the electorate to ask it whether it shares their priorities. If it does not, they will no doubt know what to do when the county council elections come along on 1 May. I confidently expect that Cambridgeshire will be returned to sensible hands that will do the job properly.

Mr. Illsley: The Secretary of State said at the outset of his speech that the total amount of funding available had been agreed by Labour. Rather than talking about providing extra money for local government, will he consider a fairer distribution among the local authorities?

Mr. Gummer: We do that all the time, and we listen carefully to the views of the Labour-controlled associations of local authorities. From what I say later on, the hon. Gentleman will see that I have followed their views in some of the changes that we have made, and in the changes that we have not made. If he is referring to what John Humphrys the other morning called the "mathematics of the madhouse"--I refer of course to the mathematics of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)--I shall have a good deal to say about that later.

I think it only fair to give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), whom I did not mean to ignore earlier.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. To return to the subject of Cambridgeshire for a moment, is he aware that the £6.5 million that has been allocated for Cambridgeshire's education has been swallowed up by £8.4 million in inflation and an extra £1.3 million merely to stand still, because of the extra children in the county? That is hardly a fair deal, when we already have class sizes approaching 40 in some of our primary schools.

Mr. Gummer: What an amazing admission from the hon. Lady. She means that Cambridgeshire is so perfect that it can make no savings at all. She does not mention any possibility of anybody running anything better. What public company could begin to argue, year on year, that the next year it had to do everything as it did it before, or could constantly talk only about extra money and extra means?

The hon. Lady must realise that she no longer has the confidence of her Front-Bench spokesmen, because her party is committed to no increase. If she wants any extra money, she must say from which councils she wants to take it. No doubt she will soon tell me which counties, districts or metropolitan councils she wants the money to come from. Otherwise, she is running against her party's policy, and I know that she is committed to the Trappist vow never to do that.

---