House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Feb 1997 (pt 19)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, which I do in a constructive manner. The Environment Committee--an all-party Committee--spent a great deal of time examining the current SSA system. We concluded, on the basis of all the evidence that we heard--we heard evidence from all the experts--that, although the system was not perfect, it was the best yet devised. Today I have heard much criticism of the system from the hon. Gentleman and from his colleagues, but none of them has been able constructively to tell the House how they would reform it so that it is fair to all councils.

Mr. Trickett: It seems to me, as the new boy, that the duty of the Opposition is to oppose, and not necessarily to make detailed proposals--at least not at this stage. It is up to the Government to propose a system, to live with the consequences and to face the Chamber's probing.

Another matter that I should mention in reply to the Minister's intervention is differentials between affluent and deprived areas. Wandsworth and Westminster, for example, are manifestly more prosperous than Wakefield. In children's social services, however, Wakefield receives £112 SSA per resident child aged 0 to 17 years, whereas Westminster--hon. Members may be astonished to learn--receives £554, which is almost 500 per cent. more. How can that possibly be justified, even if it were not manifestly obvious that Wakefield's needs are at least as great as those of Westminster?

The way in which all the factors are aggregated compounds the insult to the authorities forming the Webber-Craig group. If Wakefield were to receive per head the same SSA and RSG as Westminster, today a Labour group meeting would not be considering £15 million in cuts and a 9 per cent. council tax increase. If it were to receive the same amounts, we would be facing no cuts and there would be an £825 refund to every household.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is that the policy that the hon. Gentleman has advocated?

Mr. Trickett: I shall not give way again, because that was an extremely silly point. The point that I am trying to make--I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening--is that the system is operating in an entirely perverse manner. How can a system allow such a result? If Wakefield were to receive the same per capita levels of RSG and SSA as Westminster, we could give away £825 to every household in the district and provide current service levels. That demonstrates the problem.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trickett: I will not give way again, because the hon. Gentleman's previous point was so absurd that I can

3 Feb 1997 : Column 721

only presume that he will try to make another. I should also make some progress, as one of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench told me that I should not speak for more than 10 minutes. I apologise to hon. Members who are waiting to speak.

I should like to make one final point on the system's perversity. An index is used in social services which shows money allocated for children at risk, and one of the factors is the number of homeless households comprising a child and pregnant woman. In the past year in Wakefield, 26 individuals in that category have been housed. However, the consequence of that efficient management of resources and humanitarian attempt to get people back into housing has been an SSA reduction of almost half a million pounds. It is a bizarre situation, when efficiency and humanity in housing homeless women have been rewarded by cuts and vicious attacks on the authority.

Wakefield district, because of a perverse RSG settlement, might have to impose a 9.21 per cent. increase--which is £50 per household, or £1 per person per week--in council tax and £15 million in cuts. Hundreds of jobs are at risk, and individuals and families across the district are living in fear of what the council might decide. However, no one will make the mistake of attributing blame to Wakefield council, because the cuts are widely understood to be the result of central Government attacks.

6.38 pm

Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam): I follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) and note that many hon. Members from Yorkshire constituencies are present. With you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at least what we are saying will be understood.

As my hon. Friend the Minister will anticipate, I am still concerned about the funding for supertram. I have mentioned the issue before and I shall mention it again. I am convinced that, if the problems with supertram were remedied, it would assist Sheffield with its funding.

The council summons records the treasurer's report on 4 December that,

"Government grant to Sheffield has actually gone down in cash terms by £2.8 million and the Council Tax is likely to have to be increased at the capped level by 8.1 per cent."

Since then, he has recast the figure, and it could be lower.

Over the years, Sheffield city council has compared itself with many cities. There is huge rivalry--as you are well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker--between Sheffield and Leeds. Sheffield used to compare its funding with Leeds, taking into account facilities such as television centres. As soon as Leeds received less grant than Sheffield, the council moved its sights. I do not know how the council could have done this, but it then looked at Lancashire and started comparing itself with, of all places, Manchester. I thought that those on the council had taken leave of their senses. All along, Sheffield has looked around for a council that is receiving more grant and compared itself with that council.

The council summons gives the city treasurer's forecast that the city council will be £3.8 million overspent on its 1996-97 budget. As a result, it has put a stop to all non-essential expenditure, including staff overtime and many other items.

I read through the council summons report of the meeting on 29 January. It was like all my yesterdays again. Sheffield city council still carries on doing its great

3 Feb 1997 : Column 722

things. It has increased the size of the council summons, which is now up to 935 pages. It still has the attitude of a spend, spend, spend council.

As many hon. Members from Yorkshire will know, Sheffield city council used to have its own defence policy, its own foreign policy and its own constitutional policy. From my reading of the council summons, it seems that not a lot has changed.

This year, the council will have written off a further £411,000 of its housing committee debts--that is the amount of rent that it has been unable to collect. Once upon a time, the debt stood at £10 million. I have not had an opportunity to check the latest figure. In addition, it is still owed a lot of council tax and community charge.

I remember looking through the invoices not paid by the county council when I was deputy chairman of the South Yorkshire residuary body. I discovered that, in the 1980s, there were still outstanding unpaid debts from 1972-74, when the council was set up. The figures were shown in the accounts every year. I frequently wondered whether the money would have been forthcoming if the council had sold those debts. History will never let me know.