Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at our manifesto, he will see that we committed to devolving £30 billion of additional spending from Whitehall to local government.

The Government like to pretend that it is simply ineffective management that stops councils providing key basic services, and that those local councils that are not making cuts to such services are managing their resources effectively. The former Prime Minister David Cameron, perhaps inadvertently, exposed the delusion best when he wrote to the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council in 2015:

“I was disappointed at the long list of suggestions…to make significant cuts to frontline services—from elderly day centres, to libraries, to museums. This is in addition to the unwelcome and counter-productive proposals to close children’s centres across the county. I would have hoped that Oxfordshire would instead be…making back-office savings and protecting the frontline.”

That lack of understanding of the consequences of his own Government’s actions received the response it rightly deserved from the council leader, who wrote back to explain that some 2,800 council employees had already lost their jobs, that the remainder had experienced pay freezes or below-inflation pay increases for a number of years, and that assets had been sold off to fund revenue costs.

[Bob Blackman]

Will the shadow Minister help the House by clarifying one Labour party policy? There is currently a cap on the amount by which local authorities can raise their council tax. If councils wish to raise it further, they have to call a local referendum. Does he support that cap, and does he agree that there should be a referendum if local authorities wish to raise their council tax further so that we can get the democratic view of local people?

[Mr Thomas]

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s interesting question in the context of Surrey County Council’s announcement last week that it will hold a referendum on a 15% increase in council tax. I wonder how he or Ministers in the Chamber will be advising people who live in Surrey, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to vote in that referendum.

Perhaps one can sympathise with Surrey county councillors after not a single penny of new money was put into local government to help to tackle the social care crisis. Few people in local government think that the Secretary of State’s statement last month on local government finance will stabilise the care market, enable the recruitment of extra frontline care workers, ease the pressure on NHS hospitals, or ensure that all families with loved ones who need help will see them getting the level of care they actually need.

One reason why Surrey’s decision is so striking is because it has been able to increase spending on adult social care by more than 34% since 2010-11. Some councils have had to decrease spending on adult social care by almost the same proportion over the same period. In fact, only two out of the 152 social care-providing local authorities have been able to increase their spending on social care by more than Surrey, so if Surrey says that it cannot cope with the demand for social care, where can?

Although even Oxfordshire and Surrey have been unable to protect frontline services, the impact of local government cuts has been disproportionately felt across the country. The Bill offers no guarantee that the situation will get any better. The poorer an area, the greater its needs and the more it relies on public services, which are often funded by the revenue support grant, yet this Government’s cuts have hit the poorest areas the hardest.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated that those councils

“among the tenth which are most grant-reliant have had to cut their spending on services by 33% on average, compared to 9% for those…councils among the tenth which are least grant-reliant.”

We cannot even call that a postcode lottery. It is true that postcodes matter, but it is not luck or chance that determines the quality or quantity of local services; it is the actions of this Government and their decisions taken in Whitehall. That is the context in which we must consider this paving Bill today.

Before any Government Member again tries to advance the idea that local councils are set to get a significant stream of new funds from keeping 100% of business rates, Ministers have always made it clear that what they give, with great fanfare, with the one hand today, they will take away on another day—probably when fewer people are looking—with the other. The Bill will apparently be fiscally neutral.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. Unaccountably, I must apologise for the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is unable to be with us this afternoon; he is no doubt very active in his constituency, regaling his constituents with festive wishes.

The theme of my introduction is thinking about those who are less fortunate than we are. First and foremost, I want to place on the record what I believe is the view of the whole House in expressing our horror and revulsion at the events at the Berlin Christmas market. Our thoughts are not only with those who are fighting for their lives, but with the relatives of those who have sadly lost their lives. It just shows what can happen and the horrors that can ensue at a simple Christmas market where law-abiding people are going about their business. We do not yet know who was responsible or what their motives were. However, our sympathies are with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and equally with those who have been severely injured.

Secondly, let us express our thoughts, as a whole House, for the people of Aleppo, who are in a parlous condition at the hands of a brutal dictator, and a brutal army that is basically eliminating anyone and everyone that stands in its way. I trust that there will be a resolution of this terrible conflict in the new year, and that people will be able to return to their homes in peace and harmony.

Thirdly, this is the first Christmas that Jo Cox’s family will experience without her. Members on both sides of the House have been touched by the brutal murder of a colleague who was just doing her job on behalf of her constituents. The best thing we can all do—even if we are not used to downloading tracks—is to download her single and help to make it the No. 1 for Christmas. That would be a fitting tribute for a late colleague whom we all mourn.

I want to move on to another set of people who are far less fortunate than we are—the homeless and rough sleepers. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know all too well that my Homelessness Reduction Bill is making its way through Parliament. I am delighted to say that it has all-party support. It had an unopposed Second Reading on 28 October, and we have pursued the Bill in Committee, where I am pleased to say that we are more than halfway through its 13 clauses. I am told that it is the longest ever private Member’s Bill, and it will probably end up as the most expensive for the Government to fund.

Equally, the Bill is very important. The number of people who are homeless in this country is a disgrace, and the number of people who will sleep rough tonight is a disgrace. We owe it to them to make sure that we deliver a radical solution. First and foremost, that is about increasing the supply of housing so that people can have a decent roof over their head, but it is also about transforming local authorities to make sure that they look at the reasons why people are homeless and provide help and assistance at first hand.

I want to thank some of the people involved. I place on the record my thanks to Crisis, St Mungo’s and Shelter for all the work they do to assist people who are homeless at this time of year. I also thank them for giving me tremendous support in producing the Bill, together with the National Landlords Association, which has also given me exceptional assistance.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that it is Christmas and that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of housing, will he take this opportunity to join me in praising Harrow Council for beginning to build council houses—for the first time in 28 years, there will be new council homes in Harrow—which is surely a key part of tackling the housing crisis that affects both our constituencies?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for raising that issue. It is important that affordable housing is developed right across London and right across the country. To me, the form of tenure does not matter too much; what matters most is that housing is provided for people at a price they can afford. It is good to see Harrow Council doing something right under Labour control. That is very rare—I have a whole catalogue of its errors. But in the spirit of Christmas, let us thank the council.

May I also place on the record my concern and that of more than 216 Members of Parliament about the plight of Equitable Life policyholders? It is a long-running scandal. Although the Government have now closed the compensation scheme to new applicants, the issue is far from over. The Government rightly provided £1.5 billion in compensation to people who suffered from the scam, but the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), made it clear that the total sum owed to those people—as a result of saving their money, as was their right, for a reasonable retirement—was £4.3 billion. More than 1 million people have received only 22% of the compensation they are due. A great deal of money still needs to be found to compensate those applicants. That is without dealing with the most frail and vulnerable—those with pre-’92 trapped annuities, who deserve help on compassionate grounds. I am glad that the new Economic Secretary has agreed to meet a cross-party delegation in the new year to discuss the next steps.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Bob Blackman

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the process in the other place has taken some time, and there were various applications to the Opposed Bill Committee for consideration of amendments, which is why the promoters of the Bill have amended it to allow those who objected to it to see changes that would benefit the overall process.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. It would allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver significantly better value for money to the paying public, which is a laudable aim, and one with which I am sure we all agree.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my colleague from Harrow for giving way. I recognise that he has lived with the Bill for a very long time, whereas I am coming to it fresh. Is there anything in it that might give hope to my constituents, and perhaps to one or two of his, who use Harrow-on-the-Hill station and are waiting, and who continue to wait, for improved access arrangements there? Might the Bill help to sort that out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am wary of straying too far from the principle of the revival of the Bill, because I know full well that there are transport improvements across London that we would all like to see. The key point is that ensuring that TfL has the ability to maintain its finances efficiently and effectively means that the improvements that my honourable colleague and neighbour would like to see can be brought to fruition. There are some improvements that I would like to see brought to fruition in my constituency, because, as I will say shortly, there are provisions in the Bill that would allow TfL’s finances to improve, so there would be more money for the transport improvements we all want.

[Mr Thomas]

My colleague will forgive me for being a little uncharitable and suggesting that his answer about Harrow-on-the-Hill station was a tad vague. I know that Stanmore station is a significant issue for him, so I will happily make common cause with him if he will use the influence that he undoubtedly has with TfL, having been asked to be the promoter of the Bill, to ensure that it brings forward improved access arrangements at both Harrow-on-the-Hill and Stanmore as a matter of urgency.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my colleague for stressing the point about Harrow-on-the-Hill station. I know from my use of the Metropolitan line that that is a vital aspect of the improvement that needs to take place. I will use the opportunity with TfL and others to ensure that we get the improvements we all want to see in Harrow, including at Stanmore and Harrow-on-the-Hill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am going to move on to the key points about the Bill.

The Bill has only four substantive clauses. None the less, it is of great importance to TfL because it would enable it to deliver better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public. Since the Bill was deposited, TfL’s operational funding from central Government has been cut by 25%, and the Government’s aim is to reduce that funding over time to zero. TfL is required to deliver £16 billion of savings over the period to 2021. The Bill would assist in that regard.

In summary, clause 4 gives TfL subsidiaries the ability to access cheaper finance, subject to the consent of the Mayor and, in respect of core operational assets, the consent of the Secretary of State, so clearly there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to have oversight of such proposals.

Clause 5 allows TfL to form limited partnerships. Following scrutiny by the Opposed Bill Committee, the clause was amended to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order to be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, on the principle of transparency of the limited partnerships, which I know was one of the particular concerns raised by objectors, the sponsors of the Bill have given way and ensured that there will be full public debate over such arrangements.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman talks about oversight by Members of this House. Does he acknowledge the concern that there ought to be more regular oversight by ordinary Oyster card holders in London and that the governance of TfL as a whole needs reform, partly to oversee the arrangements in this Bill but also to give people in London more of a stake in the big decisions about TfL’s future on asset sales, fare rises, and other big calls that it has to make?

[Bob Blackman]

There is clearly oversight by the Mayor of London, the Assembly and the Assembly’s transport committee. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who set up the arrangements for London in 2000, so no doubt somewhere on the record he has expressed the view that this should have been done, but I do not recall that that was being said at the time. The key point as regards oversight and transparency is that there will be an opportunity for the limited partnership arrangements, in particular, to be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament.

Libraries (Harrow)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of libraries in Harrow.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time in this Chamber, Sir David.

I want to set out the case for the continuation of public libraries in the London borough of Harrow, part of which I am privileged to represent. Over the past 25 to 30 years, I have had great involvement in libraries in both Brent and Harrow. When I was first elected as a councillor in the London borough of Brent, the Labour administration in the borough at the time tried to close libraries. That attempt was overturned after a long campaign by the community.

When I became leader of Brent Council in 1991, we invested in public libraries and turned them into assets that were used to the ultimate. In fact, I was almost considered a revolutionary because I opened Willesden Green library on Sundays so that students could study. Sadly, in 2010, the Labour administration in Brent decided to close four libraries and create a new civic centre library. That resulted in a long community campaign that eventually led to a community library in the ward that I used to represent reopening as a community-run library. That demonstrates how much the public want libraries to continue.

In contrast, in the London borough of Harrow over the same period, only one library has closed: the Gayton Road library. I will return to that later, because it is important in the current context. Over the past five years, the library service has been put out to tender and various aspects have changed, resulting in the diminution of the services provided to library users. When the budget process started last year, the Labour administration in Harrow claimed that it needed to find £75 million in budget savings over four years. That would have been okay, but the next day it reinstated its chief executive position, with a salary of £160,000 per annum. It then went further by rehiring the same chief executive whose post had been deleted some six to nine months earlier. It could have saved £1 million over four years—quite enough to fund all the borough’s libraries. The council has changed its view and now says that it needs to find savings of £83 million. We are not sure whether the figure is £75 million or £83 million.

As part of its saving drive, Harrow council proposed the closure of a swathe of public facilities, including Harrow’s only arts centre and Harrow museum. Of course, there was a huge backlash. I joined forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) to prevent the closures, and I am pleased to say that the council has backed down on closing the arts centre—temporarily, at least—and alternative funding arrangements are being made. Nevertheless, the urgency of the situation is demonstrated by the fact that from 5 pm on 13 June, four of Harrow’s 10 public libraries—the Bob Lawrence, Hatch End, North Harrow and Rayners Lane libraries—will be closing their doors, despite the local protests.

Harrow Council undertook a consultation on the current proposals between 24 November 2014 and 19 January this year, and found that 71.48% were against the closure of the libraries. Of course, that has not stopped Harrow’s Labour-run council from wanting to close them. In fact, the consultation was flawed, because it specifically suggested that, as alternatives, library users in Edgware could use Kingsbury library in Brent or Burnt Oak library in Barnet. I am not sure whether the council tax payers of Barnet or Brent would welcome Harrow’s council tax payers using their libraries free of charge, but there is also another issue: Barnet council is currently consulting on the closure of Burnt Oak library. The consultation was therefore completely flawed. There is a strong feeling locally that the decision had been made before Harrow council’s consultation started and that the process has just been one of rubber-stamping the council’s decision.

All campaigns against the current situation are being ignored. There was an excellent campaign in Edgware to preserve Bob Lawrence library. Campaigners gathered a petition with more than 5,000 signatures from people who want to keep the library open. Both my hon. Friend the Minister and the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), visited Bob Lawrence library to see how it is used and the good work done there. It is not only a centre for reading and lending books; it is a place where young people study. Students and young people at school who do not have facilities at home can go to the library to do homework and project work. Indeed, members of the public visit the library for various community events.

The local community put together an excellent business case for keeping the Bob Lawrence library open and fully funded, with a revenue stream, and identified a number of income streams, including social enterprise funding. They even proposed taking over the library as an organisation under the community right to bid. Sadly, the problem is that the council decides whether such a bid is allowed to proceed. Surprise, surprise, the council rejected the business case without giving any specific reason—it just said that the case did not pass muster.

Those currently running Harrow Council want to place the blame at the Government’s door, but that is disingenuous. It is worth pointing out that, thanks to the work put in when Harrow council was run by an Independent Labour and minority Conservative administration, the council had a balanced budget for 2013-14 and 2014-15, and delivered savings of £22.8 million over those two years. That shows that it is possible to achieve savings without closing public facilities.

In March, the Prime Minister came to Harrow and this subject was raised with him directly. He made the point that, actually, Harrow council had spent less than its budget envisaged and its budget for 2014-5 was higher than it had been the previous year. The council has reserves—it has the capability to fund the libraries if it so chooses. There is no need for libraries to be closed on this scale.

The council has recently announced a new library for Harrow town centre, with

“state of the art facilities and self-service technologies”.

That proposal is currently being considered, but, on closer inspection, the site has not yet been redeveloped and no planning permission has been granted. The planning application is extremely controversial, because the proposed building would be very tall. There is a lot of local opposition to the consideration of the planning application itself, let alone to the setting up of a new library. The site under consideration is that of the old Gayton Road library—the proposal is merely to replace the library that was closed with a new state-of-the-art library.

According to the council, as of April 2014 total library membership in Harrow was 146,661 people, about 40% of Harrow’s population. That, I suggest, means that the people of Harrow greatly value their community libraries and do not want to see them close.

According to demographic information completed at the time of joining, in August 2014 46% of active borrowers were under 18 years old and 13% were aged over 60. Given that the Office for National Statistics states that 20% of people in Harrow are under 16 and 14% are over 65, those figures represent huge levels of use from both age groups. Libraries are vital resources that must be retained for schoolchildren, older people and all groups who want to use computers but do not have them at home.

Furthermore, Harrow Council’s own data in 2013-14 show that there were 1,104,846 visits to Harrow libraries and that 1,147,630 items were loaned. Harrow is always ranked in the top quartile of outer London boroughs for book loans and it is ranked fourth out of 18 for that period. Local residents want to use their libraries for study purposes, recreation, computer access, social activities and, importantly, to access council information. It is vital that those facilities are provided and that that continues. One of my concerns is that if the Bob Lawrence library were to close, the nearest library to it, the Kenton library, is some two miles away, which would be a long journey on foot for elderly people and a challenge for younger people as well. There is also no direct bus or train service between the two.

It is quite clear that Harrow Council cannot blame the Government for its decisions on cuts and spending. The Government commissioned the independent library report, led by William Sieghart, to advise on the future of libraries and one of its central recommendations was to increase the number of libraries with internet and wi-fi. As a result, £7.4 million was allocated in the 2015 Budget to deliver that. The Arts Council, supported by Government funding, has also allocated £6 million to help libraries increase the range of facilities they provide to visitors. Some libraries have chosen to stage exhibitions of paintings by local artists to increase the number of visitors, which shows that entrepreneurial spirit can make a difference.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Harrow neighbour, for giving way. He is making an interesting argument and, similarly, I hope that North Harrow library can be kept open. I think he went a tad too far in suggesting that the Government cannot be held to account at all, given that potentially Harrow Council will be hit with £83 million of cuts over a four-year period. That inevitably means that, on the tough decisions that it has to make, it is between a rock and a hard place.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my neighbour, for that intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Harrow Council seems to want it both ways: it cannot seem to make up its mind about whether it faces £75 million or £83 million of reductions. If it cannot make its mind up about £8 million of savings, the council must have a really serious problem at its heart. If it offers, I will take up the challenge of reorganising its budget, but that is another matter.

As has been demonstrated, local authorities can make efficiencies without closing community facilities. The council received two community takeover proposals, which related to the Bob Lawrence library, which I mentioned before, and North Harrow library, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I believe that the North Harrow library proposal is still being considered, but the Bob Lawrence library proposal has been dismissed out of all regard. I wonder whether there is a political reason for that, because while the proposal for the North Harrow library is being led by a former leader of the council who was also a notable Harrow Labour councillor, the Bob Lawrence library proposal is led by a former mayor of the borough who has fallen out with the Labour group on Harrow council.

Libraries provide a vital service, offering people the opportunity to gain knowledge and skills and opening up new possibilities in work, education and culture. Harrow is a rapidly growing area, so we will see greater pressure on school places, at primary school level in particular, and we need additional public knowledge facilities that our children and elderly people can access.

The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 says:

“It shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”.

The Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to

“superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries conferred on them as library authorities by or under this Act.”

Given the large number of people using the services, the extreme dissatisfaction with the consultation phase and the apparent unwillingness to look at alternative strategies, there is a case for reviewing the decisions made by Harrow Council to ensure that those statutory requirements are being met.

I would be grateful for confirmation that the Secretary of State will pursue that. I have written to him today on that subject, inviting him to call the decision in and to ensure that the libraries do not close next Saturday. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our reasoned arguments.