I shall deal in particular with the period covered by the No. 2 Order—namely, 1972–73. That is a period which has been affected by the rate support grant which was debated exactly a year ago. I must echo what the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), said about the contributions which were made by the late Martin Maddan to our debates. He took part in the debate of a year ago and made a valuable contribution.

Last year's order was affected by the counter-inflation legislation which started its passage through the House in January of this year. It is important that we consider the effect of the rate support grant orders and the counter-inflation legislation.

The Chancellor of the exchequer talked yesterday about local authorities which flaunt the national interest. Unconsciously he chose the right word. That is what is done by local authorities. The national interest is the welfare of the people of the nation and not a commitment to what a Prime Minister, a Chancellor or even a Majority party which was elected several years ago thinks is the right thing at the right time. It is not in the national interest that the House or the country should accept without question all that a Government say.

In the rate support grant debate a year ago I welcomed what the Minister said. He told us that the Government are anxious that the level of rates should be held down as an act of deliberate policy in the national interest. If that is the Government's policy, as it is, obviously the Government have to come in to assist in keeping the rates down to a reasonable level. The Government's immediate policy with regard to rates is to keep the overall rise in rates to a level compatible with the Government's policies on prices and incomes while recognising, of course, that local variations will be inevitable. He went on in words which could be echoed by us all: In value for money, rates really are the best buy. Think of all the services which one gets for the rates one pays—roads, schools, sewerage, refuse collection and disposal, street lighting and a host of other services. Therefore, in bringing rates down we must not bring down the quantity or quality of those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 1439.] I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that rates are our best buy. The Government had a choice between cuts in public expenditure and cuts in private spending. They have chosen cuts in public expenditure, and I do not think that at heart the right hon. Gentleman can agree with what the Government have done. Public expenditure is the basis of the welfare of our people, and I believe that that is the national interest.

In last year's debate I pointed out several anomalies that had grown up in the rate support grant system which particularly affected large cities and industrial urban areas. I shall not weary the House with a recital of the numerous debates we had in December, January and February of last Session on that problem. The Government now accept that there were anomalies, and they have tried to do something about them in future rate support grants.

The trouble is that during 1973–74 inflation has further exaggerated the problems of those cities. The cost which they have to bear is greater than the cost which the rest of the country has to bear, and the proportion of the increase in rate support grant which they receive is less than that which other areas receive. So the problems have become even more pronounced. Is there no way under existing legislation by which an adjustment can be made to help them? Their rates last year were very high, and they are now faced with the tremendous problem of passing on that burden to next year.

Towns particularly were placed in a difficult position by the Counter-Inflation Act. Hon. Members will recall that the former Secretary of State for Employment explained Clause 13 of the Counter-Inflation Bill in this way: I should also refer to Clause 13. This is the new provision under which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned—for the Environment, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—may obtain information from local authorities about rate demands. The clause will enable the Government to consider whether a rate increase seems unnecessarily large and, if so, to ask the local authority to reconsider the matter. Although the clause contains no powers to compel local authorities to make a new lower rate in place of the one questioned by the appropriate Secretary of State, its provisions make such an alteration possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January 1973; Vol 849, c. 964.] I am sure that the Minister realised at the time the difficulties in which that clause placed him.

Faced as they were with essential and large increases in expenditure, towns and counties tried hard to reduce their expenditure. We had the spectacle of 12 men in the Department of the Environment trying to monitor the rates of hundreds of local authorities. What does the Minister think of the monitoring system? Does he propose to continue that same system under the Counter-Inflation Act in future?

Although reorganisation does not take place until next April, many of the initial costs of new staffs will already have been expended and other expenses will be placed on this year's rates. A fair rate of increase for administration is set out in the order. Will this sum be large enough?

The cost allowed for by the Government was £396·7 million and the increase in the grant within the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order is £237·3 million. This means that £159 million must be found from the rates, and this sum has not been allowed for and was not included in last year's estimates. The Government did not anticipate this expenditure and have not taken it into consideration. The present order envisages an increase of 8 per cent. compared with last year's estimates.