| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I am sorry to take the Minister back to the issue of the shares that England and Wales will receive. She gave us--strangely--the figures that the Chief Secretary failed to give in a written answer today. Will she explain why that information is available for her speech, but was not available to the Chief Secretary? Will she also explain, or perhaps confirm, that the Bill and the allocations represent extra money for housing in England and Wales but not in Scotland? Can she give us a figure for Scotland?
Ms Armstrong: I suspect that I would be out of order if I strayed too far on to the subject of Scotland, but--as I have already said--the amount allocated by the Chancellor last week covered England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I have not announced any
new figures today and I am concerned that that has not been reflected in the written answer. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a copy of the question, I shall respond to him on another occasion. I suspect that the problem lies in the nature of the question that was asked.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: I have already offered to respond to the question on another occasion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
Ms Armstrong: No. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I have not seen that question. I cannot be expected to give a response at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): That is what the hon. Lady is paid for.
Ms Armstrong: It is not what I am paid for: I am paid to be honest and straight with Parliament. I must have proper and appropriate discussions with colleagues. Hon. Members earlier accused me of being frivolous, but I was not. I was trying to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that they had not read the consultation document. They should have the decency to deal with questions properly. I am seeking to do that, and you are saying, "Oh no, you don't need to do it properly, you can give me a quick answer across the Dispatch Box." That is not the way I work. I shall come back to you with an answer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she is continually using the word "you".
Ms Armstrong: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was getting carried away.
The people of Wales want parity and fairness. The Bill will give them the fairness that the previous Government were not prepared to give them, because they did not deal with the real needs of the people in Wales. This Government are prepared to face the problems of housing need that were so neglected by the previous Administration. I hope that, having been given straight answers to his questions, the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause. If he does, we will resist it.
Mr. Evans:
The Minister began by saying that there were no Welsh Members of Parliament in the Labour party.
Ms Armstrong:
I said that there were none in the Tory party.
Mr. Evans:
Hansard will no doubt help the hon. Lady, but that is what she said. Perhaps she was pre-empting the next general election. We shall see.
The hon. Lady also said that the new clauses would do down Wales. That is not our intention. We wanted to discover whether the Government were intent on doing down Wales. No one has done more to assist Wales in the past 18 years than the Conservative Government, as can
be seen from the figures for expenditure per head of population and from inward investment into Wales. I have no reservations about our commitment to Wales.
We wanted clarification on the Barnett formula, because it was not clear in the document. It is amazing that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) received a non-reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier today, yet the Minister can give us the exact figures. I am quietly bedazzled by that, but perhaps she will consider the matter and tell us later why the Treasury Minister was unable to answer the question that she has just answered.
We want clarification on a number of points. The Government have clarified one matter, but I am still not happy about the definition of housing need. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Chope:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An important issue arose in that debate. When the Budget was announced, a press notice said that the allocation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland of the £200 million for housing would be announced shortly after the Budget. I tabled a priority notice question for written answer today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I received an answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying that he would write to me shortly. The hon. Lady has now given a partial answer to that question, which is extraordinary.
Mr. Win Griffiths:
The hon. Gentleman should think himself lucky.
Mr. Chope:
That is my point of order. Are the House and the Opposition entitled to obtain information by seeking answers to parliamentary questions, or are we to be given information as and when the Government deign to give it to us?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The content of parliamentary answers is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Chope:
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 21.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end add
Mr. Chope:
We discussed clause 2 in Committee at considerable length. The Opposition have grave suspicions about the clause. We were worried that it would be used to enable local authorities to capitalise their revenue expenditure, so that they would capitalise the money that they needed to spend this year and impose a burden on future generations through a debt that would be paid over a period of more than seven years.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), was unable to give a specific example of a local authority that had asked the Government for a special dispensation for a period in excess of seven years. In the light of that, the Committee divided. The hon. Gentleman said that it was reasonable for a period of more than seven years to be allowed for the specific category of old loan charge debts. Accepting that, we have now tabled an amendment that would apply the seven-year rule to all categories of debt other than old loan charge debts.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because it would deal with all the points discussed in Committee. If they cannot accept it, our suspicions will be roused to an ever greater extent than they have been already by the Government's shilly-shallying on this issue. It is a short, simple point. If any more local authorities are pressing to wrap up their revenue expenditure in capital and repay it over a period in excess of seven years, let us hear about them tonight. We should be open about this issue, and if no local authorities are pressing for that, the Government should accept this reasonable amendment.
Mr. Raynsford:
As I said to the hon. Gentleman in Committee when we debated this matter, he is making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a relatively minor issue and certainly does not justify his paranoia about widespread financial consequences for local authorities. It is not like that at all.
The two amendments are contradictory: one would leave out the whole of clause 2, and the second would make a specific amendment to the procedure. The hon. Gentleman accepted that there could be an appropriate arrangement for amortisation of old loan charge grants. That makes the point that amendment No. 3 is inappropriate, because it would remove the flexibility to make such arrangements.
We do not believe that there is a case for amendment No. 3 under any circumstances. At present, supplementary credit approvals are issued in respect of capitalisation directions in limited circumstances. The only example of that being done routinely--I stress, routinely--is for the commutation of loan charge grants. That is a small, uncontroversial programme, for which about £4.5 million to £5 million a year is available. All we are seeking is for Ministers to have the discretion to specify an amortisation period appropriate for the particular expenditure and the circumstances of each authority.
Although I gave an example to the hon. Member for Christchurch of the commutation of loan charge grants, that is not the only circumstance in which supplementary credit approval might be given.
Mr. Chope:
Can the Minister give some more examples?
Mr. Raynsford:
I can. Thurrock--the local authority which most recently made representations to the Department--is seeking assistance with the capitalisation of the cost of local government reorganisation. That is an issue where there might be a case for provision for capitalisation and for repayment over a longer period than
6.15 pm
', but no period so specified shall exceed seven years, except in respect of old loan charge grants.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |