| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Brand: I appreciate the Minister setting out exactly how the new arrangements were arrived at, but he has just described the difficulty that has been created for the Isle of Wight, which had one county and two districts and would therefore have qualified for some £65,000 under the new arrangements. How can he claim that civil defence has been enhanced by a cut in funding? The island is unique. Powys is similar as it has a unitary county authority, although it is not cut off by the sea. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Isle of Wight
should be one of the unitary authorities for which Winchester receives an extra grant? That is not our understanding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his intervention.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Isle of Wight's status, with which I am familiar, in a moment. No doubt particular problems are associated with island status, but my experience is that no matter which council comes forward, it will identify the local difficulties that it has to face, which it says are unique, in the hope that the Government will identify the area as worthy of special treatment.
Let me continue the point about the Bellwin scheme. The use of that scheme acknowledges some relationship between population size and the work load of emergency planning teams in large areas. The new mechanism provides funds to all eligible councils. To ensure protection for areas in which grant is reducing, the impact of the new mechanism is being phased in during the current financial year.
Under the previous grant distribution system, each county council was entitled to £140,000 in its own right with a supplement of £14,000 for each district in the county area. That gave the Isle of Wight £168,000 in 1993-94, which was reduced to £153,216 by 1998-99. It was agreed with the local government associations that grant would be ring-fenced by county area as an interim measure until the new grant distribution mechanism was in place. When the Isle of Wight became an all-purpose authority after the merging of the county and two district authorities, it received far in excess of the £35,000 provided to similar authorities. The Home Office acknowledged that that anomaly should be addressed in the new grant distribution mechanism.
On 3 August 1998, the then head of the Home Office emergency planning division wrote to the Isle of Wight to say that we intended to reduce its grant for 1999-2000 to £70,000 in a move towards equalising the grant available to each all-purpose authority. Following representations from the Isle of Wight about that reduction, a Home Office emergency planning unit official visited the island on the 11 November 1998 to discuss how the reductions would be made with minimum effect on emergency planning arrangements. Subsequently, to acknowledge that the reductions would significantly affect the emergency planning funding arrangements for the island and to assist it in managing the inevitable further reductions--it was made clear that those reductions were inevitable--it was agreed that the allocation for 1999-2000 should be £90,000, not £70,000.
On 26 May 1999, the Isle of Wight was advised that, as a result of the new grant mechanism, its allocation would be £63,000 for 2000-01 and £53,546 for 2001-02. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we have to consider other areas with different problems. For example, in the context that I have described, it might be argued that the allocation of £168,000 to the Isle of Wight up to 1996-97 was excessive. Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield each received only £35,000. Obviously, all those authorities would say that they had particular problems in terms of emergency planning, given the size of their areas.
The local authority in the Isle of Wight argued that it should be given special consideration, for two reasons. First, it said that the status of the island was misunderstood. It maintained that, while the council was a unitary authority, it was also a unitary, or all-purpose, council. In its view, that means that, while other unitary authorities are located within areas that offer them strategic support from county councils or fire and civil defence authorities, the Isle of Wight has inherited both the strategic functions of the county council and the functions of the former borough councils. I do not accept that argument. Many other unitary authorities are in a similar position, with no county council or fire and civil defence authority.
Dr. Brand: It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would write to me listing the authorities that he has just described.
Mr. O'Brien: I will do that with pleasure.
The position of the Isle of Wight will have no effect on the level of its grant under the new arrangements. In 2001-02 it will receive, as a unitary authority, £45,000 as a basic allocation, plus a Bellwin element of £8,546. If it were treated as a county, its allocation would be identical, because it no longer has any constituent districts.
Secondly, the Isle of Wight has argued that its circumstances are special because it is an island. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman advanced that argument. However, the Home Office does not believe that the Isle of Wight is unique in its responsibility for civil defence, or that it should be allocated significantly more grant than other authorities with broadly similar responsibilities.
When my predecessor with responsibility for emergency planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), met a delegation from the Isle of Wight on 26 July 1999, those points were made. A paper was submitted by the hon. Gentleman, presenting the island's view that it was in a unique position and had been disadvantaged by the new grant distribution formula.
As I have said, I have found that almost all councils can come up with some unique element. I well remember, on occasion, arguing the case for unique elements in my county council.
Dr. Brand: When the Minister lists unitary authorities that are similar to Isle of Wight, will he list other English constituencies that are surrounded by water?
Mr. O'Brien: I think the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I would have some difficulty in doing that. I also think he must take my point that being surrounded by water is not the only basis on which an authority can claim to be unique. There are all sorts of bases on which authorities have been known to claim a level of
uniqueness--for instance, their population, income distribution, demography and communications. While I think it fair to say that there is a uniqueness in the fact that the Isle of Wight is surrounded by water, I am afraid that that uniqueness does not distinguish it sufficiently from other councils that may also claim to be unique.
Dr. Brand: Does the Minister acknowledge that being surrounded by water is just about the only criterion that does not appear in any of the grant allocation formulae?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall have to look at that and write to the hon. Gentleman. He may well be right: it may well not be one of the criteria in the grant allocation formulae. At the same time, other councils do claim particular problems, not perhaps unique, but sufficiently uncommon in relation to communications, demography, the ability to plan or the nature of establishments--nuclear and other--in their areas that unusual emergency planning is required.
Whether risks and hazards should form part of the distribution mechanism has been explored in depth many times. I am of the view that any attempt to set one type of risk against another would be controversial, with little prospect of successfully agreed outcomes among local authorities. Any ensuing mechanism would be unduly complicated and costly to administer, given the funding involved. As I said in opening, the grant is only a contribution towards civil defence expenditure.
The Government allocate funds largely by negotiation with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may argue that our allocation should be greater, and we could debate the extent to which the taxpayer should fund different areas. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell me that we could use an extra penny on taxation--
When the Government are asked to treat an area uniquely, the decision lies not only with the Home Office or the Government. In practice, we discuss these matters and negotiate with the local authority organisations. There is some compromise and agreement over allocation of the formula.
Dr. Brand: Having conceded that being surrounded by water is a unique factor, does the Minister recognise that it is unlikely that the Isle of Wight will ever receive support from local authority associations on having that feature introduced as a unique factor?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Many other authorities--
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |