| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [MONEY]:
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
Ordered,
(a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;
(b) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act.--[Mr. Allen.]
Question agreed to.
That--
Ordered,
(i) at its sitting on Monday 1st February, the Scottish Grand Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and
(ii) in respect of that sitting, paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) shall have effect with the substitution of the word "nine" for the word "ten".--[Mr. Allen.]
That Dawn Primarolo be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mrs. Barbara Roche be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Allen.]
12 Jan 1999 : Column 211
Local Government Finance (Buckinghamshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
10.26 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The parliamentary day began with questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and we continued with the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill. I shall conclude tonight's proceedings by raising the crucial issue of the local government finance settlement for Buckinghamshire and its implications. I am delighted to do so in the company of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and, last but not least, for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney)--all of whom represent Buckinghamshire constituencies and share my concern about the prospective fate of the county council's finances.
The reality is that although, nationally, the revenue support grant settlement might appear to many people to be reasonable, locally in Buckinghamshire it is undoubtedly a bad deal, bad news and is being badly received. As a result of the Government's announcement, the average increase in social services standard spending assessments this year is 5.8 per cent, but Buckinghamshire is due to receive only 2.8 per cent., or £1.5 million. Yet the authority calculates that, in order to retain existing service levels, an increase of 9 per cent.--or £5.5 million--is required. Therefore, we are immediately faced with a shortfall of £4 million.
That shortfall is exacerbated by the Government's regrettable decision this year not to roll forward to the financial year 1999-2000 the £2.5 million in special transitional grant. If that sum of money were rolled forward--as we wished and expected--it would be possible for Buckinghamshire county council both to take on and to pay for long-term care commitments. The threat to that process is a matter of genuine and cross-party concern.
My hon. Friends and I welcome the Government's proposed new grants for promoting independence. I say that without hesitation to the Minister. As yet, the conditions attached to the use of those grants are unclear, and we expect an announcement on that point by the end of January. I simply observe to the Minister and the House that, if the Government allow flexibility in the use of those grants so that Buckinghamshire, for example, can use them to pay for long-term care commitments, the local authority will have more flexibility in setting its council tax level.
If, however, there is not an announcement soon, or if the Government announce that they will not allow flexibility in the use of those independence-promoting grants, Buckinghamshire county council will be in a serious quandary. It will have to decide how to bridge the £6.5 million gap. It can do so only by raising council tax or by underfunding education.
This year, as a result of an especially severe financial settlement, the county is not spending at the level of its full education standard spending assessment, for fear that if it did so, intolerable damage would be inflicted on
other services provided by the county. Next year, Buckinghamshire county council intends to spend at the full education SSA, as the Government intend, as parents and teachers wish and as the needs of our children demand. However, Buckinghamshire also wants to retain the level of social services provision.
On present reckoning, if there is not better news from central Government, Buckinghamshire county council concludes that a budget of £329 million will be required, necessitating an increase in council tax of 13.9 per cent. That is undesirable. Whether it is unavoidable is not yet clear. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be gracious enough in his reply to acknowledge that if the county council were forced to make that increase, £1.5 million of the revenue raised would go to the standards fund, £1.5 million would go to secondary schools and £400,000 would be devoted to the reduction of class sizes at key stage 2. That would be welcomed by hundreds of parents and teachers who have written to me on the subject, not least those representing the Edlesborough county combined school and the Cheddington county combined school, which are confronted by class sizes of 47 and 43.
Of course, the situation is unsatisfactory and we should prefer a better alternative. In pursuit of such an alternative, a cross-party delegation of county councillors came to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on Tuesday 5 January. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman gave a courteous hearing to the delegation, for which I thank him and for which I know all the councillors were grateful.
The delegation consisted of five county councillors. It was led by the chairman of the council, Ken Ross. It included David Shakespeare, the chairman of policy and resources; Mark Greenburgh, the leader of the Conservative group on the council, who is listening intently to the debate; Councillor Pam Crawford, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group; and Councillor John Huddart, the leader of the Labour group. It was greatly assisted by an admirable duo of officials: the chief executive of the county council, Ian Crookall, and the head of finance, Sean Nolan.
It is important to understand that the delegation was cross-party and sentiments were expressed in a non-partisan fashion. Councillor Crawford said:
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
As a former member of Buckinghamshire county council, on which I had the misfortune to serve a few years ago, I am confused by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Perhaps he can enlighten me. When the disaggregation between
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. That is quite enough.
Mr. Bercow:
I blame myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Invariably, as my hon. Friends will testify, my generosity in the House gets the better of me. First, if the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) wants to pursue the question of the future borrowing powers and financial arrangements of Milton Keynes unitary authority, he is welcome to do so with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Secondly, it is a trifle cheeky for him to criticise the record of Buckinghamshire county council and my support for it, given that this year Buckinghamshire county council is spending only 0.3 per cent. under its education SSA, whereas Milton Keynes, as he knows to his discredit--apparently he supports this arrangement--is spending 8.9 per cent. less than its education SSA. That is a matter for him, his conscious, his party and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
"It was important to explain the full impact of the loss of grant for Social Services . . . there are real pressures on the budget for older people. It is vital that we meet the pressures on old people's and children's services."
To his credit, Councillor Huddart said:
"The cross-party delegation demonstrates everyone's commitment to protecting our services."
Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors, as I hope the Under-Secretary will acknowledge, are in touch with, concerned about and determined to promote the interests of their constituents. To that end, they have reached a consensus on the proposals that the county has made.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |