Ai
aking the :rleuts
id b tc lodes Boyson,MP lit, HE Greater London Council (Money) Bill r, W before the House of Commons aims to elve the GLC power to spend £56 million in 0. ,e'rder to municipalise property both inside '11c1 outside London. It is a reminder that ig ehxcessive public expenditure and inflation b. 'aVe both been fired by rising local govern11 rtnkent expenditure which has risen even faster lc 'tan that of central government. e „ There is also increasing evidence that the as a “e‘v huge local government boundaries were ; h retrograde step. Now the fashion for size 4 ti.s.Passed we shall have seriously to consider 'st Leif. breaking into the smaller units from 0 T_Willch they were constituted. Perhaps the -uridon Government which mouths the word id134t.r, icipation could inaugurate this move. le us 4 he rate-support grant for 1974-5 fixed by )f s' Conservative Conservative Government, even after in;$ rfing on a cut in capital expenditure of 20 a 1;`„r cent and of revenue expenditure excluding e:using, salaries and loan charge of 10 per ci e'nt, allowed an increase in local government tii ,i)(Penditure of 21 per cent in real terms. The )) c'hiestic ratepayer after increased govern)r iherlt subventions Was intended to have ti. crcreases of only 3 to 9 per cent while in r,t1,strY and commercial firms were to receive ic e'Le demand increases limited to 20 or 30 per 01 ent. ri. a The local authorities ignored this advice )f ti!ld the rate demands of many authorities on domestic ratepayer will be increased by 25 0 t„, cent or more. The Greater London Council te 0-lite is up by 45 per cent, the London Borough id Orent's rate is up by 35 per cent and the a. 390don Borough of Hillingdon budgeted for a + t Per cent increase. County areas such as 1 t„ssex, East and West Sussex and Northamp n"nshire face large increases. Such increases I tleilt only act as a stimulant to inflation but li in eY are a severe disincentive to business 1 v,estment.
e‘,1Jrastic action is necessary if local authority tr^Penditure is ever to be brought under con°I. Already under Phase HI local authority 0 nu'ahual workers accepted an offer of a 121 per i wellt increase in wages. The pressure of $ ih`11-GO and the teacher unions for a special ease in London is also intense. he new authorities which took over much be the country in April have in many cases ecrl lavish if not profligate in their new 1,!'fing standards. The experience of Greater trdon should have warned any government eyat the new larger authorities would be more ta-,Pe,nsive, probably less efficient and cerp;r1IY less democratic than their smaller rr;eclecessors. Not only are senior staff paid si,(Ire but the total number of staff engaged e''0Ws an increase of about 21,000 or 6 per tieillt over the numbers of those employed by i,e Previous authorities and the ultimate aim 1; a staff increase of at least 10 per cent. Some 20; authorities have taken on more than Per cent more staff. One wonders if they Leea.11Y need their highly-paid Directors of d %tire. The attendance rate of up to £10 a e„aY Paid to local Councillors from April I will tre.ourage some councils to expand their acrZties further so that there will be more 7,,tirigs and committees. diltne Conservative Government was in a irnrria. It wanted reduced expenditure yet it `sisted on local authorities fulfilling more ,„tcl more statutory duties and departmental :Fklhisters advocated more and better services. fiue Party in opposition will have to return to '1.8t. principles and will have to consider
whether it is really the job of local authorities to provide free libraries and heavily subsidised swimming baths and whether the refuse ser vice might not be much more efficiently and cheaply organised by private enterprise on a tender basis, especially at a time when the cost of chemicals and plastic and glass should encourage reclamation of many products. When Ottawa put its refuse disposal services out to tender to private contractors there was a saving of 20 per cent. A saving could probably be made if two or more private companies were licensed in each district to sign on customers for their refuse disposal. This could also mean that more waste entered the vehicles and less papers were scattered round the streets by council dustmen rushing to finish their allocated duties before they did a second job in the afternoons. The golden cows of education and housing provision will also have to be tackled. Should the state finance anything beyond basic education and should local authorities provide any housing beyond special units for the handicapped and perhaps the aged? Isn't is the council bulldozer which has caused the shortage of cheaply rented accommodation in our cities and wasn't it the municipal councils which built those huge tower blocks which no one really wants to live in and where more harm may be done to the child and the family than was done by anything erected at the time of the Industrial Revolution?
Net expenditure on housing by local authorities is scheduled to increase by 46 per cent plus a further £350,000,000 yet London's housing shortage seems to increase with every extra pound the London boroughs spend. The Greater London council and the London boroughs are busily buying up privately rented and owned houses and they apparently aim to turn the whole of the capital into one huge Labour municipal housing estate with a dire effect upon social mobility, personal pride and Conservative seats.
The Greater London Council is aiming to spend up to £75,000,000 a year in buying up privately rented property and the Brent Council last year spent over £6,500,000 in buying up private houses including fifty £25,000 two-bathroom Georgian houses at a cost of £1,250,000. The interest charges on each of these houses must be over £50 a week and tenants will pay rents at probably a tenth or a fifth of this figure. A young couple in Havering were unable to buy their first house for £11,400 because they were gazumped by the Labour-controlled council, who paid another £900 to complete the deal. Such municipal purchases do not add one house to London's housing stock but simply act as a support price to keep the price of houses above that which young people can afford. Other local government expenditure must be controlled by putting a limit on permissible rate increases and by fixing expenditure in cash terms with no permission for supplementary estimates. Since 60 per cent of local government moneys now come from central government and successive governments have intervened to make sure the rates do not pinch the household elector the old control mechanism of fear of electors reacting against the rate burden no longer disciplines the local councils.
Such forecasts are about as useful as the study of the entrails of chickens but far more dangerous.One reform which could be applied to both local and national public expenditure would be to insist that projected expenditure was limited to an increase below that of the previous year's gross national product instead of expenditure, being based upon over-optimistic forecasts of future output. This could at least be a start, in bringing lower-government expenditure under control for we are rapidly reaching a state of public opulence and private poverty which could threaten the stability of our social system. In the long run, however, the Conservative Party will have to reassess and cut back the role of both local and national government. Unless each village and town is incited to take over its own self-government in this age of so-called self-determination the problem of the size of local government units will also have to be reopened. Recent reorganisation has simply made them huge, expensive, bureaucratic and certainly not local.
Previous page
