Christmas Adjournment

I begin by endorsing the Christmas message of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who deplored the dumbing down of Christmas by those who claim offence on behalf of others when none has been intended or taken. I have never had a complaint from a Sikh, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist or anybody else from one of the great world religions about the celebration of Christian festivals. If the politically correct mafia would focus on the values that we have in common—such as the family, the work ethic and looking after people who are less fortunate than ourselves—perhaps they would have a happy Christmas, too. I want to talk about the finances of the London borough of Havering and the local government financial settlement. Historically, Havering had a low base budget because it was an economical authority, so year on year the increases on that low base budget have been modest. This year, the London borough of Havering won a national award for the best council in the country for financial services. That was largely because of the council cabinet member for finance, Councillor Roger Ramsey, and the director of finance, Rita Greenwood. They have worked tirelessly over the past four years to put the finances, which were in a parlous state when they took over, on to a sound footing, to keep council tax increases to a minimum and to improve services to the tax-paying public. One might think that, having achieved all that last year and having introduced the lowest council tax increase for 10 years, there might have been some financial benefit or reward from the Government—but the reward was to be floored again this year. Havering council has been floored at 2 per cent., which is about an extra £1 million in monetary terms. That £1 million has to cope with inflation and a whole range of other pressures, including the extra £4 million needed for adult social services. The borough has one of the highest proportions of elderly people of all the London boroughs. All the associated costs that go with that put pressure on the council's budget. We have many classically asset-rich and cash-poor people who moved out from the east end of London several decades ago, having never earned a great deal of money. They are now living on a modest retirement income, and their care costs are escalating. The east London waste authority, which is the waste disposal authority for our group of London boroughs, is going to increase its precept by £1 million this year, so the increase in council grant could all be soaked up purely by paying for waste disposal. There has also been a staff pay upgrade of nearly 2.5 per cent. All this illustrates the impossible situation in which the London borough of Havering finds itself. London overall has done very badly, and this is the worst settlement nationally for years, yet all the boroughs that adjoin Havering have not been floored. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) is no longer in his seat to hear the fact that for the neighbouring borough of Barking and Dagenham, the figure is 5.9 per cent. For Redbridge the figure is 5.2 per cent., for Newham it is 5.1 per cent., and for Enfield it is 4.8 per cent. According to the Government, the relative needs per head for Havering and its immediate neighbours are expressed as follows: for Havering £195, for Redbridge £306, and for Barking and Dagenham, £482, which means that a person living there will have nearly two and a half times as much spent on them as someone in Havering. Finally—this is the beauty—there is a whopping £708 for everyone living in Newham. That is more than three and a half times the amount that a person in Havering will receive. Even the London average of £449 is more than double the amount allocated to Havering. How can this be? Why has Havering been singled out for such dreadful treatment? Who in the Government has such a dreadful grudge against Havering? The council is determined to achieve a reasonably low council tax increase again, but that means that services will have much less money spent on them than they need. For example, there is a £70 million backlog of road and footpath repairs. I receive letters all the time from constituents complaining about the footpath outside their house or the potholes in their road. I write back and tell them that the London borough of Havering has a rolling programme of footpath and carriageway repairs. That programme is not going to roll very far this year on the current allocation. I received a letter this week from Joe Bell, the United Kingdom Youth Parliament cabinet member for London. His letter illustrates just one example of the forced and unwelcome budgetary decisions that the London borough of Havering will have to make. Havering's central youth council has been very active, and every year it holds elections for the Youth Parliament. One of the schools of which I happen to be a governor, Gaynes school, has had pupils elected to the Parliament two years running. This year the central youth council has been told that, because of overspending on social services to meet certain Government targets, funding cuts in the youth service will have to be made. That means that there is simply not enough money to fund the Youth Parliament elections this year. The youth council was told that it could go ahead only if it funded the elections itself at a cost of £3,000, which is almost its whole budget. The youth council stands for youth democracy, and its members said that until that night, they thought that they had the support of the borough, but that apparently, that was not the case. Of course they are wrong to think that, but the decision is very unwelcome. I cannot believe that a single councillor in Havering would have welcomed the decision. In the youth council's eyes, though, it is the council that has cut its funding. The youth council wishes to register its disgust at such a disgraceful state of affairs, and I want to register my disgust as well—not with the council, but at this dreadful grant that the London borough of Havering gets every year in comparison with its neighbours and the rest of London. The youth council intends to write to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families about this, and I will be very interested hear what response it receives. Let me quote from the list of the council's priorities and objectives. One is promoting financial efficiency and providing value for money. Clearly, it is making a very good job of that, but in improving services, one of its objectives is to be positive about young people, but it will not be able to fulfil that. Another is investing in roads and pavements, and still another is developing a range of services for young people, particularly hard-to-reach young people. This settlement is clearly going to make it very difficult for the council to achieve the objectives that, because of their importance to local people, it has set itself. During the autumn, the Government published the outcome of their comprehensive spending review for the next three years. Among the highlights for local government was a value-for-money programme in which councils will be expected to make cash savings of 3 per cent. each year—and so the screw turns. The savings are expected to deliver improved, modern and personalised public services for families in need, children in care and old and vulnerable people, as well as increasing recycling of waste to 40 per cent. by 2010. The actual level of grant increase will depend on whether the existing system of ceilings, floors and damping will remain in place. Given the express intention of the London borough of Havering to limit council tax increases, it will be essential to maintain the financial prudence that, despite the absence of any financial reward from the Government, has been so ably demonstrated. There is a limit to how many more financial miracles the London borough of Havering can produce, so will the Deputy Leader of the House please pass on the message to give our borough a fair deal? In my remaining time, I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on another message to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The matter seems so trivial at first sight that Members may wonder why I am bringing it to the House's attention, but it has proved impossible to resolve. My constituency contains the Sacred Heart of Mary girls school, of which I happen to be a governor. Next door is the Sacred Heart of Mary convent school. These are separate and different schools, but they share the same postcode. I have asked the Post Office to give each school a separate postcode, because they continually receive one another's post. During term time, it does not matter too much because it is easy to exchange, but during the school holidays, post for the convent school, however urgent, goes through the letterbox and lies there for a considerable time. All my appeals to the Post Office have fallen on deaf ears. From Adam Crozier down, the responses I receive say, ““No, you can't have one,”” but no one can explain why, or back up the decision with any logical reason. Will the Minister please pass on this message to the Secretary of State? All the school wants is its own postcode; all the other schools in the borough have one, so please can this school have one as well?