Local Government Finance Bill

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Absolutely not, and to see that the hon. Gentleman has only to think about two things, the first of which is planning policy. Any planning application has to be in accord with the planning policies that are set out—both in the local plan and in our new national planning policy framework—which give protection against ideas such as he mentions. Secondly, we cannot create a market and demand where there is none, although perhaps he does not get that fact, and so neither of the things he mentions would occur. Our approach enables and incentivises local authorities to work much more closely with their business communities on an ongoing basis.

It is very surprising to hear such a degree of criticism from Labour Members, because they need only look at what is done in most of the United Kingdom’s competitor countries to see that, in general, a closer alignment of local funding mechanisms with local business growth advantages the local economy. That is a basic proposition and they just do not seem to want to take it on board.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Unfortunately, this debate seems to have got muddled and become a discussion of two lots of dates. One relates to the retention of business rates, a move which I wholeheartedly support; I believe that we should get on with it as fast as we can. However, we also need to address the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about the implementation of systems to provide council tax benefit. Hon. Members from all parts of the House, and those in local government, have genuine concerns about that implementation and about the ability of local authorities to develop the systems to provide the localisation of council tax benefit. Will the Minister give an answer on that issue?

[Robert Neill]

I shall deal with both those points and give a little detail as to why the suggestion that we are rushing is not well-founded. It is worth remembering that the Government consulted widely on this proposal, and let me deal first with the point about business rate retention.

Last year, we set out a detailed consultation document outlining our proposals, and the local government information unit has recognised that we have amended a number of our proposals on tariffs, set-asides and top-ups to reflect those matters. We issued eight highly detailed technical papers, to which we received some 461 substantial responses. The idea that there has not been very full engagement with the local government sector simply does not hold water. Indeed, there have been collaborations and discussions between officials of my Department and the local authority organisations throughout the process. To deal with the design of the systems and the regulations that go with them we have set up an official-level working group, which includes representatives of the Department, the Local Government Association, the Society of District Council Treasurers, the Society of County Treasurers and the other financial bodies—so the point is specifically being worked on. The timetable is challenging, but the ability to return a proportion of the business rates to local government is a really important tool, not only to give local authorities greater resilience in their funding streams, but for ensuring national growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience of local government and was a distinguished leader of a council in north, not south London. However, no one could tell that from the comment that he has just made. As to my fiddling the figures in the local government formula, my goodness, many people say that Labour should have learned many more lessons more clearly from the extent to which the Tories did that before 1997.

[Bob Blackman]

Before the previous intervention, I think the right hon. Gentleman was comparing council tax raised in the London borough of Brent with that in the unitary authority of Barnsley. Has he got figures for looked-after children in those two boroughs? I assure him that the London borough of Brent includes some of the most deprived areas in the whole country and, sadly, huge numbers of looked-after children.

[John Healey]

The very point that I am making is that the current system, complex as it is, takes account of resources—an area’s capacity to raise revenue, especially through council tax—as well as the needs of the population in that area for the essential services that local authorities provide. The formula covers both and is based on the principle that I outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have recognised that in part through their proposed levy, but it will not compensate for all the unfair growth. We believe that it would be fairer and better if the local and central shares were decided on the basis of all the things listed in the amendment, especially an assessment of need.

[Bob Blackman]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s explanation of the amendment. It suggests a whole series of different factors that the Government would have to take into account in deciding how much money a local authority would be given. Who would conduct that assessment? Would it be the Government, some independent body, the Opposition or the whole House? Otherwise, the amendment would simply put into the Secretary of State’s hands the power that she is accusing him of taking already in the Bill.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as an independent assessment would be a good idea. However, assessments of local authority need are already done by the Department for Communities and Local Government, so I see no reason why they should not be done in future. As he will hear when I move on in my speech, we have tabled further amendments requiring the report to be laid before the House so that it can be debated.

Amendments 37 and 38 would require the Secretary of State not only to announce central and local shares for each authority for a year, but to give indicative totals for the following year after consultation with local government. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, the Bill is a hugely centralising measure, as the Opposition have said several times. We are seeking to mitigate that by inserting a requirement that the Secretary of State consult local government before making his decision, which seems fair and proportionate and reflects the fact that what we are engaged in is a partnership between central and local government.

Amendment 37 would require the Secretary of State to give an indicative announcement for the subsequent two years to allow local councils to plan their services and make the right preparations, rather than working from year to year. Recently, all parties seemed to have accepted that it is much more sensible for local government finance announcements to cover a number of years. The previous Government introduced three-year settlements, and even this Government announced a two-year settlement, knowing that they expected to change the system.

Amendments 37 and 38 simply attempt to introduce a little more certainty into a very uncertain system. They would not change the power of the Secretary of State to decide the shares and they seek only indicative shares, not shares set in stone. In our view, that would produce better governance in local authorities and help them to plan. As it is, the Secretary of State can change the shares from year to year with little warning for local authorities. As we require local authorities to deliver statutory services, as has been said, we ought to allow them to plan the support that their community needs. Local authorities are constantly lectured by Ministers about the need to manage their resources, yet how can they manage their resources properly without any indication of how their finances will change from year to year?

Amendment 36 is merely a probing amendment. It is designed to tease out an explanation for the wording in the Bill. The Government intend to determine the baseline for non-domestic rate income in an authority by using the total that would be payable if it had “acted diligently”. We would like clarification from the Minister of what is meant by that. We all accept that an authority has to have an efficient collection system and that it should pursue debtors vigorously. However, what happens if an area finds itself in difficulty and its businesses are struggling because of the Government’s policies? Many businesses are in that position now and are finding it difficult to pay their rates. Is an authority expected to pursue such businesses to the limit? Will a council be penalised if it offers more discretionary reliefs? We would like clarity on that. We would also like clarity on the position of councils generally in offering discretionary rate relief. For example, will a council be penalised if it offers rate relief to too many non-profit organisations? Will “too many” be defined somewhere by the Secretary of State? What will be the position on hardship relief, which is also discretionary? Will a council in a difficult situation that tries to help local businesses be penalised because its baseline is set much higher than its actual income?

If I move on to amendment 39, I might be able to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We believe that it is vital that the Secretary of State not only makes an assessment of need before setting the central and local shares for each authority, but publishes that assessment and lays it before the House. That would bring transparency and openness to the system. We want the debate on the local governance finance report in the House to be informed by information on the level of funding for local authorities and the level of need within them.

There are, of course, variations in services because there are variations in circumstances. The main difficulty in dealing with local government finance is the belief held by many people that they should get roughly the same from certain services wherever they are because, as they see it, they are taxpayers and ratepayers. Elderly people who need care in their own homes have a reasonable expectation that they will get a certain standard of care wherever they live. If anybody was told that they could not have that standard of care because businesses had not grown enough in their area, we would soon hear from them. It cannot be right for looked-after children in Middlesbrough to receive a different standard of care from children in another authority.

By requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report, the House would be able to take account of the needs of groups that are not the most vocal, especially children and the elderly. Those groups do not always have access to journalists to argue their case. When they are written about, it is sometimes as if they are a different species. Many such people do not come to our surgeries or write to the local newspaper. After all, a society is judged not by how it treats its most affluent people but by the way in which it treats those most in need and those without a voice. We tabled amendment 39 to ensure that those matters are debated, and we hope that the Government will accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have explained the thinking behind the amendments. It might be useful if I notify you now, Mr Robertson, that we will seek Divisions on amendments 19 and 39. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Bob Blackman]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones).

The key issue is that local government finance has changed radically and dramatically in the past few years. I congratulate the previous Government on introducing three-year settlements. Having served in local government for some 24 years before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know that the certainty that gave local authorities was extremely welcome. However, the financial arrangements have changed dramatically and will do so again.

I can speak for London authorities. The average London authority has £1 billion in revenue going though its books. It has discretion over probably only a quarter of that because roughly a third goes on housing benefit and 40% goes on education spending—schools and colleges. Now, that 40% for education passes through with the local authority doing virtually nothing but act as an agent of the Government in putting the money into the hands of the schools. Equally with housing benefit, under the proposed change to universal credit, local authorities will no longer administer that money. However, there will still be the surfeit of discretionary or statutory services that local authorities provide and that need to be funded by them. There will be different streams of income—council tax, other charges that local authorities levy for their services and, importantly, the business rates.

The key issue, which the Opposition have not started to understand or appreciate, is that there is a deliberate and perverse incentive for local authorities to retain deprivation in their areas. If there is deprivation, money flows from Government for that particular purpose.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way in a second. I will cite an example from the past few years, when the previous Government decided to change the rules on the amount of money that was given through the formula for local authorities with large concentrations of black and minority ethnic communities. All of a sudden, funding for local authorities throughout the country with large BME populations would have been decimated because it was one of their great income streams. Huge lobbies took place and the Government backed down.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he give a specific example of a council anywhere, irrespective of its political persuasion, that has wanted to turn prosperity away from its area?

[Bob Blackman]

The key is not that local authorities turn away business or prosperity; I am pointing out that there is an in-built presumption that areas of deprivation follow extra grant from Government. As a direct result, there has been hardly any change in areas of deprivation across the country. Despite the fact that local authorities—of all political persuasions—with areas of deprivation have had huge amounts of money put in over 30 or more years, those areas of deprivation remain the same.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the implication is that local councillors and local authorities want to maintain deprivation in their areas because they get more money into their coffers. Is he really saying that? In my experience, local authorities and local councillors do the jobs they do because they want to make the lives of the people whom they serve better; they are not interested in getting money into their coffers to serve their own purposes.

[Bob Blackman]

I am not saying that councillors, council officers or local authorities of any persuasion deliberately decide that they want their areas to be deprived. I am saying that there is a perverse incentive for those areas to be deprived. The Bill changes that presumption. It will be for every local authority where there is deprivation to encourage and promote prosperity and businesses to set up in their areas, so that there is a deliberate move to create economic growth in areas that have been unfairly deprived for far too long.

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way on that point. I realise that he is under a lot of pressure given the comments he has just made. Does he accept that what we actually see in deprived areas is better partnership working between local authorities and businesses? That is certainly the case in Lancashire. Relationships and partnership working between the business sector and councils are not as good in west Lancashire, which is an affluent area. Councils in the east of Lancashire have an exemplary record, because there are deprived areas that need business. The answer in those deprived areas is not grants from the Government, but businesses, which is why those local authorities pursue that avenue.

[Bob Blackman]

I recognise that partnership working has almost been forced on local authorities. Some embraced it; others were forced.

[Graham Jones]

I was talking about deprived areas.

[Bob Blackman]

That did not happen only in deprived areas. I come from somewhere that had areas of great deprivation and which formed local strategic partnerships and other such organisations. However, those areas still have huge deprivation and are among the most deprived parts of London and the country, even though they have had huge amounts of money pumped into them by Governments of all persuasions. The key issue remains: there has been no incentive for economic growth in those areas.

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a self-defeating point, because he reminds the Committee of local strategic partnerships, which were mandated only in areas of deprivation, and to which the previous Government handed out grants. His point is that the previous Government instructed local authorities in deprived areas to work, through LSPs, with the business community and the private sector, and the supply and education chains.

[Bob Blackman]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we have to consider cause and effect. I do not decry what the last Government instructed local authorities to do, but the key point is that it failed. The areas of deprivation then are still the areas of deprivation. This Government are trying to introduce a direct incentive to business growth and economic growth in those areas and right across the country. They are giving local authorities an opportunity to change their view and see the direct incentive to have economic growth. Local authorities will keep the money, which they can then invest in the local services that people need. That does not mean that there is not a need for national investment in local areas when infrastructure improvements and regeneration are needed, but that is very different from creating economic growth.

[Mr Betts]

There is a danger that we will get locked into a discussion in which we simply assume that the current system has always been in place. Prior to the poll tax local authorities kept all their business rates, yet since 1945 and probably before, the difference and disparities in deprivation have continued to grow. Local economies in different parts of the country have performed very differently, despite local authorities having had the incentive of business rate retention prior to the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman’s argument therefore lacks a little if it is taken beyond the particular complications of the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

One of the key historical points is that local authorities used to set their own business rates, but then pressure from the House changed that situation for the simple reason that large local authorities saw the opportunity to milk businesses and set exorbitant rates, because business did not have a vote. They could then keep local tax low because they had increased business rates to milk businesses. That was why the national business rates were introduced.

I do not believe that there is an argument for changing the position so that local authorities determine the level of business rates, but there is a very strong argument, which the Government are advancing, for their retaining the money that is collected locally. I believe that the Government are being a bit timid in their approach, because I would like more money to be retained locally, possibly with a slightly less complex formula to make it more transparent. However, I recognise that the Government are taking the first step along the way.

[Mr Betts]

I intervene briefly on a factual point about what happened prior to the poll tax. Probably one of the reasons why it was brought in was the very large rate increases made by some authorities, such as the one in Sheffield of which I was a member at the time. It is not true that authorities sought to pile all the pain on businesses and keep their other taxes low. Actually, the domestic and non-domestic rates were linked and could be increased only in line with each other. It was not possible to increase one without increasing the other. Domestic ratepayers had a vote, of course, and in many cases were prepared to vote for large increases to protect services.

[Bob Blackman]

That, of course, is local democracy—if people want to pay higher taxes, they are welcome to do so. I am personally a great advocate of annual elections to local authorities instead of referendums, so that if councillors want to raise local taxes exorbitantly they will be voted out at the ballot box. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman has argued that incentives have not previously existed for local authorities to stimulate economic growth in their area. He is a distinguished former leader of a large London local authority, Harrow. Given that those incentives did not exist, did he not do anything in his time as leader to stimulate the local economy in Harrow?

[Bob Blackman]

I was actually the leader of Brent council, not Harrow, but I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was the chairman of a city challenge company that was part of the London borough of Brent, and for five years we had Government money flowing in. We retained every job that we had and expanded the number of jobs in the area, but by the end of the five years unemployment in the area had increased, not reduced. We had had huge amounts of money but, perversely, unemployment had risen, which meant that we could go back to the Government and say, “We need more money.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Was not one problem that there was almost an incentive for a whole band of an officer class to prove deprivation rather than an incentive to prove and create success? That is how we ended up in this appalling game in London of trying to prove who was the poorest borough.

[Bob Blackman]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I return to my central argument, which is that there was a perverse incentive for deprivation to continue. Here, in the Bill, we are taking the first step—it is not perfect by any means—towards saying, “Instead of failure, success will be rewarded.” That is the approach that we seek to take, and it is the right approach to take.

I ask the Minister to consider two final points. First, there is concern about how the scheme will be administered and about its fairness and transparency. It is right that we consider the elements of the scheme and undertake to conduct a review to ensure that it is working appropriately, fairly and transparently, so that not only the House but every local authority in the county can say, “Yes, this system works.”

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous in giving way. I thank him for that. He referred to success. What does he mean by “success”? Does it mean a local authority that leans back in its chair as a large employer turns up, or a local authority—presumably like the one he ran in Brent—that fights to defend and save jobs? There might not be growth, but an awful lot of work goes in to maintain the position. Which model would he describe as successful?

[Bob Blackman]

That is exactly my second point. In large parts of the country, particularly in suburbia, there has been a gradual leakage of businesses, as business land—areas designated for business land and investment—have been turned over to housing. There is an incentive for local authorities to do that, because it increases the council tax base and makes it easier for local authorities to get new homes bonus money. It does, however, reduce the business rate income. At the moment, those local authorities suffer no penalty for doing that.

Under the new system, there can still be a leakage of land and employers. I am talking not about a catastrophic failure where one major employer closes down—that would obviously be a huge loss to the local authority—but a gradual process, over a number of years, under which industrial land has been turned over to housing, resulting in a leakage in business rate income. Has the Minister considered that point? How will it be looked at in the round? I raised the matter on Second Reading but so far we have not had an answer.

Finally, one thing that will be true in this brave new world is that there are risks associated with both the income and expenditure of local authorities. We know that there are huge numbers of demand-led services that every local authority must provide—they have been mentioned already: adult social care, children’s care, and so on—and I recognise that. It is also the case that income levels can sometimes be unpredictable. The more predictable they are, the better. However, there is the pooling approach. I wonder whether the Minister can say what directions will be given if certain local authorities just sit back and say, “We’re alright, Jack. We’re fine. We’ll just keep the money. We’re not going to pool our risk. We’re not going to pool our opportunity. We won’t co-operate with our neighbours.” That is an important point, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised. How will the Government direct local authorities to pool resources, in order to spread risk across a number of authorities?

[Mr Betts]

I want to speak about set-aside—the principle and the calculations—and, in particular, to draw attention to my amendments 44 and 45. This is the first opportunity that I have had during the Committee stage to talk about the new, simplified system of local government finance that the Government are proposing. [Interruption.] Is that a smile from the Minister? We have to have a laugh about the terminology, but it was the terminology that the Secretary of State used when introducing the consultation proposals. He called it a simplified system, but I do not think that anybody, even—