---

7.3 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forthe Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his success in securing the Adjournment Debate this evening and on his powerful advocacy of his county council's case. He has put a strong and eloquent case, and I acknowledge his concern for the interests of his constituents and others in the county.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that my reply will inevitably reiterate many of the points that I made to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) during last week's debate. We are considering broad principles concerning the operation of local government finance that apply equally to Somerset and Oxfordshire county councils.

First, I shall make some general points about the new relationship between central and local government. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned in his speech, last week we signed the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government. That is a clear pledge of the Government's commitment to forging a new and constructive partnership with local government at home. Local government has a central role to play in tackling the neglect and mistakes of the past 18 years.

We recognise, and believe in, the importance of local government as an independent democratic institution. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that

12 Jun 1997 : Column 1338

encourage increased democracy, with local people having more say in the affairs of their council; increased autonomy, with more freedom for authorities to take their own decisions; increased accountability, with elected representatives being more visibly accountable for their actions; and increased partnership between central and local government and between local authorities and people, businesses and groups in their areas.

Within that framework, local authorities have important roles as commissioners and deliverers of a wide range of local services, of which education--which the hon. Gentleman described in considerable detail--housing and social services are often seen as the most important. Authorities are responsible for assessing service needs, balancing priorities, procuring delivery of services and providing them directly, monitoring standards, reviewing performance and acting on complaints.

However, local authorities are concerned with more than simply ensuring the delivery of high-quality services. We want to see local authorities develop their roles as leaders and champions of their areas: identifying local problems and areas of concern and developing strategies to address them; bringing groups, businesses and agencies together; and being the voice of local communities in dealing with Government, Europe, investors and other interests.

Local government is at the sharp end of the fight against deprivation. The Government will join local government in a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline--social exclusion, unemployment, bad housing, crime, poor health and environmental problems. Good local government can play a key part in tackling those serious and deep-rooted problems.

Equally, we recognise that poor local government will stifle improvements not just directly in terms of the services that an authority provides, but by imposing an excessive cost burden on the community and creating a vacuum of community leadership. We therefore need to work with local government to ensure that people receive good-quality services from the whole of the public sector.

We also need to work together in developing our policies for local government. It is essential that we work together to create systems that work, and have detailed discussions about policy and implementation before we enact legislation. We want to forge close links with local government and related organisations that can make a real contribution. We want to see practical experience and knowledge brought to bear at the early, formative stages of policy development, and not left to the end of the process, when minds are made up and the scope for change is limited.

We have all had too much experience recently of central Government legislating in haste, and local government having to live with, and sort out, the problems that followed. We must now start to work together on future legislation. We must examine ways in which we can develop pilot studies on a wide range of issues including best value, a new approach to regeneration, community planning and partnerships with other agencies and democratic innovations.

We must--and intend to--work together to assess the scope of the new duty on local authorities to promote economic, social and environmental well-being in their areas, and on ways in which we can strengthen local

12 Jun 1997 : Column 1339

authorities' community leadership role, facilitate innovation, and encourage local partnerships in the delivery of services. Of course, we must work closely with local government in order to implement our manifesto commitments on local government finance.

As to this year's settlement, all public expenditure programmes must be examined rigorously each year, and local government spending--which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure--is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must take account of the pressures on local authorities and of the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within those authorities.

As I have stressed on other occasions, we have inherited this year's local government spending plans and are clearly committed to retaining them. Although we are committed to reviewing the local government finance system in future years, for this year at least we must work within the current spending plans.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater) rose--

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber. He cannot expect me to give way when he has not heard the opening speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and has had little opportunity to listen to my comments. I have made it quite clear that we inherited the local government spending arrangements.

Mr. King rose--

Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that I am not prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was not present for the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that this debate is entitled to run until 10 pm? The fact that the Government's business has collapsed does not affect that, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on that fact. I want to make only a brief intervention and I had already asked the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) whether I could intervene. I happen to be a Somerset county Member. It would be unfortunate if the Minister, who is aware that the debate could continue until 10 pm, chooses not to allow me to make my brief intervention. I hope that he will feel able to accommodate me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether hon. Members give way is not a matter for the Chair--it is entirely a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made it clear to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that I am not giving way, and I shall explain why. He knows that this is a short debate and he is aware of the convention on Adjournment debates. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had the courtesy to tell me, before the debate began, that he had received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber for this debate, I would have been happy to

12 Jun 1997 : Column 1340

agree to that. However, he was not here. He did not have the courtesy to come to the Chamber and listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Instead, he has come here 20 minutes after the start of the debate and expects to intervene, even though he has not listened to any of the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and shows no interest in listening to what I have to say. I consider that to be a considerable discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman, who has many years of experience in the House, should know better.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome introduced the debate in an intelligent, sensible and courteous way. He made a number of points about standard spending assessments. Since 1990-91, Somerset's overall SSA has increased broadly in line with the average increase for English authorities. For 1997-98, its SSA has increased by 1.9 per cent., which is only just below the average increase for shire counties and is well above the average 1.5 per cent. increase for English authorities as a whole.

The hon. Gentleman reasonably raised the question of the education SSA. He made a valid point, because Somerset's education SSA is relatively low compared with that of other counties--it is 33rd out of the 35 counties. It was an entirely proper point for him to make. However, what he did not say was that, on a number of other SSAs, Somerset does relatively well--for example, on highways maintenance it comes fourth out of the 35 counties, on other services 11th, and on social services 15th. We acknowledge that the case he made on education is valid, but it is only a partial case that relates to only one service; it does not take account of the broad range.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that the framework for SSAs involves assessments of the need to spend under various headings. Those needs vary from authority to authority. Authorities will do well on some, but less well on others. That reflects the circumstances in their areas and the need for them to spend in relation to other authorities. That is why it is possible for an authority to score relatively low in relation to other authorities on some indicators, but to score relatively well on other indicators. That is the case with Somerset.

---