| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. I have already said that the increase in that block grant is greater than it has been of late. I recognise that that grant has been starved for many years. Over the past couple of years, we have tried gradually to increase it, and it will increase further over the next three years. I understand that some local authorities have had real problems, and that is one of the reasons for implementing the floor.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): The Minister said, and obviously believes, that spending for local councils had increased under this Government, but not under the previous one. Will she review the huge injustice done to Rochford council, to which the Government's allocation of money has been exactly £3.21 million for each of the past three years, with no increase for inflation. That compares with £4 million allocated by the previous Government. Is there not a case for a special procedure by which the Government could investigate cases of great injustice in relation to councils such as Rochford, which have obviously had a rotten deal and been unfairly treated, and whose special needs and demands have not been taken into account?
Ms Armstrong: I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for Rochford this year, he will be pleased to see that it has been given a reasonable increase for a district council, which does not have to bear the expense of major services such as education and social services. The Government's priorities--and local government's priorities--lie in those areas, and that is where the bulk of the investment has gone. However, the overall allocation for the other services block, from which shire districts largely benefit, has increased. I have also referred to the substantial increases that local government as a whole has received during this Parliament.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Will the Minister comment on her discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on the cost of homelessness, especially in London? She seemed to suggest that there would be an increase of 2.7 per cent. in the forthcoming year, which is rather less than the floor increases that she has announced for other services.
Will she also give an indication as to when the Government expect to make an announcement on future housing investment? Does she concede that the terrible housing crisis faced by many in inner London can be adequately solved only by a large public investment in good-quality homes for many of the poorest and most dispossessed people in this country?
Ms Armstrong: As I have already said, I am in discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister about homelessness costs in London so I shall not repeat my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
This year, in the spending review 2000, a substantial increase was announced by the Government in capital spending for housing. That is the largest increase for many
years and builds on the £5 billion that the Government are spending as a result of the capital receipts initiative. We understand the particular problems in London; that is reflected in our handling of the settlement.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): Can the Minister confirm that the introduction of floors and ceilings of the type announced today will mean that my authority, which would have benefited this year from an extra £1.5 million as a result of the data changes, will receive less than that? As a consequence, it will be faced with an even bigger funding gap, resulting in higher council tax increases but more cuts in local services.
Ms Armstrong: I have made it clear that, in order to ensure that some authorities do not suffer excessive loss in grant, every other authority must contribute. Although there is a small contribution from the hon. Gentleman's authority, it will none the less receive a 6.1 per cent. increase--even with the floors and ceilings. In any settlement, I suspect that there would have been a damping mechanism--so the overall amount allocated to his authority would have been less. The redistribution on which we are engaged means that those who do well from the settlement have to contribute a little to those who do not do so well.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her good sense in agreeing to set a funding floor and ceiling. Is that a recognition of the logic of the position taken by the Government in their Green Paper--to reduce disparities between local authority settlements? Is it also an acknowledgement that applying the existing formula untrammelled would have added further injustice to those who have suffered for the longest period?
My right hon. Friend said that she will hold consultations on a permanent system of floors and ceilings. I understand that, but is it her intention that floors and ceilings will continue temporarily until the new settlement is finalised?
Ms Armstrong: I have announced floors and ceilings for this year's settlement as a consultation exercise.
I cannot predict what will happen in future years. Consultations on the Green Paper continue. Obviously, I think the proposals offer a sensible way forward, otherwise I should not have made them today, but that does not mean that I am pre-empting the long-term solutions, or indeed what we shall do next year.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Does the Minister recall that the Leader of the then Opposition, just days before the last general election, told the Cambridge Evening News that a Labour Government would review the area cost adjustment with a view to implementation in 1998-99? Will she therefore confirm that this is the fourth successive year in which the Government have failed to keep that promise? How much longer will the Government continue to do that? In this context, stability means continuing unfairness, especially for an authority such as South Cambridgeshire district council, whose labour costs and population are high and rising. The unfairness will grow if data are incorporated in the area cost adjustment for those authorities that benefit from it as compared to those that do not.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat disingenuous. He knows that we announced three-year stability in methodology changes and we are keeping our word. Perhaps he finds it unusual when a Government are prepared to keep their word.
Cambridgeshire county council is receiving a 3.9 per cent. increase this year. We have reviewed the ACA, but we are unable to achieve consensus on any of the 21 options proposed. Through the local government finance Green Paper, we are considering other changes. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's constructive contributions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Orders of the Day
Freedom of Information Bill and Countryside and Rights of Way Bill (Allocation Of Time)
5.10 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill:--
Lords Amendments
1.--(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on that day.
2.--(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith--
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith--
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has--
(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |