Mr Michael Spicer (Worcestershire South)

I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister say that the Bill would not provide some relief to the rates. If the amendment were accepted the Minister's statement would be true, because the Bill would not then provide very much relief.

It is also true that this modest Bill will not substantially affect the crisis in local government revenue. My constituency is very much aware of this crisis, which we shall be debating at length next week. We have reached the stage at which there is a real possibility of ratepayers refusing to pay the rates.

There are four ways in which one could do something about the situation. First, one could transfer expenditure incurred locally to the national level. Secondly, one could increase the rate support grant. Thirdly, one could cut local expenditure. Fourthly, one could introduce measures to increase the revenue of local authorities.

I am not saying that the Bill will substantially increase local revenue. We shall next week have an opportunity to discuss other measures that will affect substantially the amount or revenue that can be collected locally, but I believe that in its unamended form the Bill will make a useful contribution to local authority finance. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).

I do not follow the argument about the iniquities of gambling. I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, had knocked that argument on the head when, in a previous incarnation, I believe, you introduced the Premium Bond concept which subsequent Chancellors of the Exchequer have not been particularly chary about increasing. Unamended, the Bill will make a modest contribution to the problem. Amended, it certainly will not do so.

See this speech in context