Angela Watkinson

Conservative Party | Upminster

Standard Spending Assessment (Havering)

This speech was part of a debate in the House of Commons.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the specific financial difficulties that the London borough of Havering experiences. Local residents are alarmed that, after an increase in council tax last year of 12.5 per cent., they now face another rise of up to 23 per cent., which is what the council would have to charge if it set a budget at current approvals plus inflation. It is going through the budget-setting procedure and considering a package of cuts to try to mitigate the increase.

The formula under which the SSA is currently calculated serves Havering badly. Unemployment and benefit take-up are low in Upminster, and we have few houses in multiple occupation. Such factors do not serve Havering well. I was under the impression that green belt affected the local government settlement. Havering council believes that too, because it has said so in a succession of local meetings. I was surprised to be told by the Minister in answer to a written question:

"Under the current formula the amount of green belt has no direct effect on the level of grant an authority receives through the Local Government Finance Settlement." - [Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 714W.]

I should appreciate some clarification of that in the Minister's closing remarks.

The council has expressed its disappointment that there is no safety valve in the interim before the review of the formula in 2003. It stated:

"We would like to see the rate of Council Tax increase over a number of years as one of the criteria for eligibility of Safety Valve Grant. Havering's cumulative percentage increase in Council Tax has been 34 per cent. higher than the outer London average, despite an extensive savings programme and the use of reserves ... Poverty and deprivation are the prime cost drivers for need to spend on additional educational needs."

I have a specific anxiety about special educational needs. Havering is well served by three special needs schools. Until last September, there was a special needs nursery unit at Mead primary school in Harold Hill. Since September, no children have been referred to the unit, despite the great need throughout the borough. I am gravely worried about its future.

The council also stated:

"Consideration should be given to splitting the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block so that those services, which are driven by activity rather than deprivation, such as refuse collection, waste disposal, and Concessionary Fares, are fully reflected in the formula, thereby ensuring a fairer distribution of resources."

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, Havering fares badly when compared with neighbouring boroughs. I shall not repeat the statistics and services that my hon. Friend detailed, but I want to concentrate on education. Last week, I met a group of primary school heads in Upminster. The education budget is already running at £1.4 million below SSA, and they are worried that a further cut of £1.4 million is proposed. That means that the education budget will run at £2.8 million below SSA.

The education budget constitutes the lion's share of any council's expenditure. The lion's share of any school's expenditure is its staffing budget. The teachers whom I met told me that they are worried about losing non-teaching assistants and about the maintenance of their buildings. Given the Government's total inclusion policy whereby children with special needs are placed in mainstream schools, the need for non-teaching assistants is acute. Schools need more of them, not fewer.

Another problem is the army of carers for elderly people which the council will have to find in the wake of its phased closure of elderly persons' homes. That is another budgetary device. There is a serious delayed discharge problem in the local hospitals. Some elderly patients who are no longer clinically ill need to be discharged but are too frail to return to their homes. The absence of care beds in the public and private sector means that elderly people must be cared for in their homes, which will require a large increase in the number of carers. Havering has the lowest number of carers per head of population in London.

In a debate on the local government White Paper on 11 December 2001, I asked:

"What assistance can the Secretary of State offer ... local authorities such as the London borough of Havering, which receive a perversely low settlement under the current system? What help can he offer the council tax payers who suffered the third highest increase in the country last year - 12.5 per cent. - and who face a possible increase this year of more than 20 per cent.?

The reply was surprising. The Secretary of State said:

"As for Havering, on any judgment the settlement announced last week is obviously generous. The local council in Havering will have to explain why it is even considering a council tax increase at the suggested level. Given the funding that is being made available and, indeed, the additional funds that may be made available as a result of the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme - which will benefit a number of local councils - the council needs to consider the level of council tax increase that it should be setting. There is no good reason for that proposed increase, as we have made clear." - [Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 725-6.]

I would be grateful for an explanation of the difference of opinion between the local council and the Government.