European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes the perfect case, and it is the case I have made in a report in which I set out how we can achieve that and manage it positively. We need to use technology and to engage with European member states across the water. After all, customs arrangements and the accounting of customs are not done by Brussels; they are bilateral. We can have bilateral discussions with the French and with the Belgians at the port of Zeebrugge. We must realise that there is no need to have a search point at the border and that the border is a tax point. That is the essential point, and it is the same in Northern Ireland.
That is why I am personally confident that we can and should invest in this. That means investing properly in the road infrastructure on the way to the channel ports and investing properly in computer systems. It means investing in systems to ensure that checks can be carried out away from the border. It is no-regrets spending, and that is why the Government should be making that investment now, not waiting for whatever the deal is to do it.
Caroline Flint
Since the referendum, the debate has often been polarised in this place and outside it between hard-line Brexiteers who feel that we can walk away without a deal and walk off a cliff edge, and hard-line remainers who do not accept the result of the referendum and want to find whatever way possible to stay in the EU. That is why I am not supporting Lords amendment 51. The essential choice for Parliament is whether we accept the outcome of the referendum and the article 50 process and agree that the UK leaves the European Union in March 2019, or whether we seek to subvert that process. Perhaps the Norway option—the European economic area—suits that purpose.
The EEA agreement helped three small countries that could not persuade their people to adopt EU membership and that accepted having no say in return for single market membership. They accepted the role of rule takers, not rule makers, with second-class membership of the European Union. Much has been said about Michel Barnier saying this morning that he will give us membership of the EEA plus the customs union. Of course he would—he would bite off the Prime Minister’s hand for that deal, because apart from leaving without any deal, it is the worst deal for the United Kingdom.
Finance Bill
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint
That is correct.
I was hopeful for my June amendment, because since the 2015 general election, the Government had, on a number of occasions indicated their support for public country-by-country reporting, and I welcome that. I am grateful to the former Financial Secretary, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as his approach was always constructive as we sought the best way to proceed.
At the debate in June, four days after the EU referendum, the Minister and others were concerned that introducing my amendment at that time might put UK multinationals at a competitive disadvantage for reputational reasons. I have no doubt that a number of the businesses to which my amendment would apply have already suffered reputational damage and more transparency could actually enhance their standing. To the Government’s credit, the UK was the first to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership, and others followed. Backing public country-by country reporting is an opportunity to show leadership again. Indeed, it is a pro-business measure. This kind of reporting already exists within the extractive sector and in financial services. Some companies are ahead of the curve and have started to publish this information. I am talking about companies such as SSE, the energy supplier, and the cosmetics retailer Lush, which operates in 49 different countries. The Government also said that, although they supported the principle, they would prefer to move ahead with others rather than alone.
As the Government make plans to leave the European Union, which may not be all smooth sailing, I do appreciate Ministers’ caution. I am grateful to the new Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for the constructive dialogue that we have had over the past two months. I am grateful, too, to my colleagues from the Public Accounts Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills)— for their advice and support during the recess, and I thank all those who have signed amendment 145.
I hope that the Government will regard this amendment as a friendly proposal. If it is passed today, the Commons will enshrine in law support for the principle of public country-by-country reporting with the power for the Government to introduce when the time is most appropriate. That sends a very powerful message, confirming the UK’s leading role in addressing tax evasion and avoidance and providing the Government with the tools to move quickly, when the time is right, without the need for primary legislation.
Last week, the European Commission served a €13 billion tax bill on tech giant Apple. Although the rate of corporation tax in Ireland is low at 12.5%, the Commission concluded that Apple had, in effect, paid 1% corporation tax from 2003 and a tiny 0.005% in corporation tax since 2014. I am afraid that that implies that even low corporation tax rates are no guarantee that a country will collect its rightful share. In this case, €13 billion is equivalent to paying £50 of tax on every £1 million of profits. Apple is entitled to defend its position, but the case highlights the need for more transparency in multinational business affairs.
Finally, having listened to the Government’s concerns and shared with them my arguments for today’s amendment, I hope that the House can come together and make UK public country-by-country reporting a matter not of if, but when.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the House for an unduly lengthy period of time, because I know that everyone wants to get to bed before midnight. I want to set out why country-by-country reporting is so very important, and why the whole culture of tax avoidance by big business and multinationals is something that we cannot condone or tolerate.
People ask what is wrong with an organisation such as Apple organising its tax affairs to its best possible advantage. After all, is that not the principle of taxation—that there is no equity in taxation and that only the literal taxation rules should apply? However, my concern is that the conduct of Apple is unacceptable for three key reasons. If a big business organises its tax affairs so that it basically pays no tax whatsoever, then it is inevitably warping the free market, because it is getting an unfair tax advantage, or a tax advantage that gives it a competitive advantage over other enterprises that are paying tax on their profit. For me, that is a really serious issue.
The other issue with Apple in Ireland is that to have a special deal for one business that does not apply to everyone else is counter to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, which is that everyone should be treated the same—be they a cleaner at Apple or Apple itself. What is offensive is if a cleaner in the office is paying more in tax than the massive, profitable enterprise whose offices they are cleaning.
Let me continue with the case of Apple. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made a powerful point. If it has created all this intellectual property, he asked what was wrong with its not being caught in the UK tax net. My answer is that that intellectual property was in fact created in Silicon Valley, but is the organisation paying tax in Silicon Valley? Is it paying tax in America? No, it is not. It has set up a clever structure. Early in its evolution as a business—some 10 or 20 years ago—it sold its outside American intellectual property rights for $1, or some other small sum, to a Bermuda company, which would then have a conduit through Ireland to invest across the rest of Europe.
The company then checks the box for US tax purposes in respect of everything below Bermuda so that, from the Internal Revenue Service’s point of view, it looks as though the Bermuda company is the trading company, and because it is a trading company and the only enterprise that there is for US tax purposes, it is not caught by subpart F of the controlled foreign companies regulations, meaning that no tax can be deemed to have to be repatriated to the United States. As a result, the Bermuda enterprise becomes a cash box for reinvestment across the European theatre. Therein lies the unfair competitive advantage.
Energy Prices
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the policy of the Opposition to freeze energy prices until 2017, ensuring that prices can fall but not rise; and calls on the Government to bring forward fast-track legislation immediately to put a statutory duty on the energy regulator for Great Britain to ensure that energy suppliers pass on price cuts to consumers when wholesale costs fall, if suppliers fail to act.
Last week, in a remarkable U-turn, the Chancellor complained that energy companies were not passing on falling wholesale costs. Of course, he did not say that he would actually do anything about it, but for the first time in nearly five years, he at least accepted there was a problem. Now, it is time for him and all Government Members to put their money where their mouths are, because today’s motion is a very simple one.
Wholesale prices have fallen substantially and over a sustained period. With the exception of those for people with E.ON, which reduced its gas price by 3.5% yesterday, consumer bills have not fallen. We think they should, and we want all consumers to see the full benefits of reductions in wholesale costs. Today’s motion thus proposes that if energy companies refuse to cut their prices, the Government should act by giving the regulator the power and a legal duty to force energy suppliers to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall.
Caroline Flint
I will give way shortly.
That brings us to the second question that the House needs to consider today. Have those savings been passed on to consumers? Yesterday, E.ON announced a price cut of 3.5%. Of course, any cut to anyone’s energy bill is to be welcomed, but E.ON is just one company, and it has cut the price of only one fuel—gas. Electricity prices remain unchanged, and it just so happens that E.ON has more electricity customers than gas customers. Moreover, it has cut its gas price by only 3.5%, which must be set against falls of between 20% and 30% in wholesale gas prices. Even if we allow for the fact that wholesale costs make up only half the energy bill, that suggests that, after cutting its price, E.ON has still pocketed most of the savings from falling wholesale prices. The idea that we are
“winning the war on energy bills”,
as the Secretary of State told The Northern Echo last week, is about as far from reality as the right hon. Gentleman’s chances of becoming leader of his party—much though some of us relish the prospect.
Some of the energy companies collude with the Government in perpetuating the idea that bills are falling. According to a press release issued on Sunday by Energy UK, the trade association for the energy companies,
“Energy suppliers are already passing on price cuts to customers.”
Apart from E.ON, none of the suppliers—notably the big six, which have millions of “sticky” customers on expensive tariffs—have cut the price of their standard variable tariff, which is the tariff that most people are on. What they are doing is offering cheaper tariffs in order to acquire new customers, but offering cheaper deals to a small number of new customers is completely different from passing on savings to existing customers. The obvious question to be asked is this: if companies can afford to offer cheaper deals—often hundreds of pounds cheaper—to acquire new customers, what is preventing them from reducing bills for the rest of their customers? That is the second fact that we have established this afternoon: wholesale costs have fallen, and the savings have not been passed on to consumers.
Charlie Elphicke
I am proud that this Government have rolled back the green levies by £50, and I note that, not so long ago, the shadow Secretary of State was talking about green taxes as being “only” £113. I note, too, that the Leader of the Opposition wants to increase green levies and put more greenery in our electricity bills, driving up the cost of power. We know that the Opposition have set out that policy and that we have taken action to safeguard the interests and position of consumers. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State wants to make an intervention, I would welcome it.
Caroline Flint
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Government let the energy companies off the hook, this meant 400,000 fewer households got insulation, and that a huge amount of the benefits going to the energy companies was never passed on to their customers?
Charlie Elphicke
It is pity to hear that from the shadow Secretary of State who served in a Government who allowed the sort of integration in the energy market that permitted generators to integrate vertically so that providers at the downstream end were able to have an unnecessary and wrongful monopolistic position.
That brings me to the key point that switching is a really important part of a competitive market. It is a real shame that the Opposition have sneered at switching and mocked its importance. They seem to want some kind of monopolistic Leviathan of energy oligopolies that they had when they were in office. I think that is wrong and that we need to encourage competition and switching. When I switched, I made a substantial saving and all Members should encourage people to do the same. We should be there for our constituents as consumers, helping them by urging them to be aware of how to get the best possible deal.
What we have seen in today’s debate is complete chaos in the Labour party’s position on the energy market, just as we have seen complete chaos when it comes to their economic policy. Time and again, and so close to an election, the Labour party is simply all over the place when it comes to the kind of policies that go to the heart of how our consumers, our constituents and our people will live. That underlines the fact that we need a long-term economic plan, which Government Members have, and that this Government’s longer-term planning on the energy market is clearly the right way forward, getting consumers the best deal.
Jobs and Growth in a Low-carbon Economy
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the achievements of the previous administration and cross-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008 underpin the attractiveness of the UK to green investment; notes this Government’s promise to be the greenest Government ever; regrets that under the present Government investment in clean energy, particularly wind power, has declined and the UK has fallen to thirteenth in the world for investment in green growth; further regrets the delays to the Green Investment Bank, the lack of clarity over financing of the Green Deal, the uncertainty surrounding funding for carbon capture and storage, the chaotic mismanagement of the cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power, and the undermining of zero-carbon homes; further believes that the effect of these policy failures, mixed signals from the Government and open hostility from Government backbench Members to action to cut carbon emissions have exacerbated investor uncertainty, hit small and medium-sized businesses, and reduced the UK’s ability to attract, retain and increase investment; rejects the idea that the transition to a low-carbon economy is a burden and believes it has the potential to be a major source of jobs and growth for the UK; and calls on the Government to bring forward an active industrial strategy for low-carbon growth by providing a stable policy framework to unlock private investment, improving public procurement, developing a low-carbon skills strategy, rebalancing the economy to support growth in the regions and encourage manufacturing, and engaging communities in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to his new position for our first exchange at the Dispatch Box. We would have met sooner, but he chose not to come to the House to defend his Department’s shambolic mismanagement of cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power, which, according to the Government’s own estimate, will see at least 5,000 people lose their jobs this year. The right hon. Gentleman was missing from the Commons because he was opening the world’s biggest offshore wind farm in Walney, Cumbria, where he said:
“Britain has a lot to be proud of”.
Indeed we do. The North West Evening Mail reported in 2008, under the previous Labour Government, that permission had been granted at Walney,
“helping to give the UK the highest operating offshore wind capacity in the world.”
The legacy of Labour’s active support for renewable energy is taking shape and we share his pride in the foresight of the previous Labour Government.
Nearly 1 million people already work in environmental industries in the UK, with the potential to create 400,000 more jobs. We are concerned that Britain is being left in the doldrums, however. We must get on board or risk missing out on growth, job creation and a revival of Britain’s manufacturing sector. Today, we have an economy without growth, inflation still at 3.6%, unemployment at a 16-year high, borrowing that will be higher every year for the next five years and a Government who are strangling growth and destroying jobs. Where other countries see a market that is already worth more than £3 trillion and opportunities for new industries, new skills, new supply chains and—yes—new energy sources, the Government just see burdens for business and blots on the landscape.
Under Labour, Britain was open for green business. When we left office, the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green business, investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached £7 billion, energy generated from new renewable sources doubled, the UK’s global lead in offshore wind had been achieved and the Climate Change Act 2008 had been a world first with cross-party support. Even the Prime Minister did his best in opposition to detoxify his party’s brand and establish new green credentials. Who could forget the photo of the Prime Minister hugging a husky—or was it a hoodie? It was probably both, as there was a lot of hugging going on in those days. Who could forget the fanfare that greeted the wind turbine installed on the Prime Minister’s roof—only to be taken down later—or the Prime Minister’s much-heralded pledge that his would be the “greenest Government ever”? Where did it all go wrong?
The Secretary of State is new to his post, but he should know that on this Government’s watch the UK has fallen from third in the world for investment in low-carbon businesses to 13th, behind China, Germany, the United States, Italy, Brazil, Canada, Spain, France, India, Japan and Australia. On his first day, the Secretary of State declared that there would be
“no change in direction or ambition”
but unless our ambition is to fall even further, a change is exactly what we need.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The right hon. Lady waxes lyrical about the importance of a low-carbon economy, but is it not the case that under the previous Labour Government, emissions barely changed at all and were rising when her party left office? Does not the fact that there are so few Labour Members in the Chamber today show how little commitment her party has to this issue?
Caroline Flint
I am very proud that we not only met our Kyoto target on reducing carbon emissions but exceeded it. I am also proud that we set in train a number of initiatives that the coalition Government have in some ways had the sense to follow. It is a good thing that this country got agreement on our targets for reducing carbon emissions because business investors say it is important for them to know that there is coherence in countries’ party political structures on this matter. It is a shame that the legacy that has made this country a favoured one for investment is now moving away—partly because of the mixed messages coming from Government Front Benchers. For example, what the Secretary of State has to say might be in conflict with what others say and might not tally with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says at his party conferences or elsewhere.
Caroline Flint
That is correct, I hear from the right hon. Gentleman.
Labour is clear that nuclear has to be part of energy provision. I am merely saying, in a constructive way, that we know from projects overseas that often such projects—63 are under way worldwide—are not delivered on time and come in over budget. We must ensure that not only our civil servants but our industrial partners are seeing what lessons can be learned to avoid our repeating some of the risks that have delayed projects elsewhere. I think that it is helpful to offer that to the debate and to assure the Government of our support for developing energy in this field as part of the diverse mix that we need.
Caroline Flint
I will make a little more progress.
In government, we recognised that at a time when public money is in short supply, a green investment bank could leverage in private investment. That is extremely important to our ambitions for the next level of energy generation that we want our country to achieve. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor boasted that he had funded the first ever green investment bank. Now, however, the Government are set to borrow a staggering £158 billion more than they planned a year ago, and the green investment bank will not have full borrowing powers until 2016 at the earliest. The Government’s claim that the green investment bank is part of a strategy for growth looks somewhat thin—like the rest of the strategy—if it is able to deliver any real investment only at the tail end of this decade.
The green deal is yet another example of a policy that we set in train in government but now appears to be headed for a car crash. Originally, the Government claimed that the scheme would create up to 100,000 insulation jobs by 2015, reaching 14 million homes by 2020 and 26 million homes by 2030. Now, sadly, the jobs forecast has been downgraded by nearly half. Transform UK believes that the green deal will reach only a fifth of the number of households that the Government expect, while the number of those in fuel poverty could reach 9 million by 2016. We still have no detail on the interest rates that will be charged, which is significant for whether anybody will be willing to take up the green deal.
As well as having a coherent strategy to improve the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock, we need new homes to be built to the highest standards. The Government could have ensured that a new gold standard was created with the code for sustainable homes, which I launched as Housing Minister, but they have fudged and watered down the commitment on zero-carbon homes. We should add to that reports that the Government, in the form of the Secretary of State for Education, are planning to undermine the green building code for schools. That worries me because, yet again, the Government’s role in stimulating new building methods and making new markets appears to be overcome by short-termism and lack of vision.
We need an active industrial strategy to bring about the energy industrial revolution. First, to unlock the £200 billion of private investment, we need clear signals and clear intent from the Government, unsullied by the voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer playing to the gallery at the Tory party conference. Secondly, we need better procurement to ensure that public money is spent in a way that supports the low-carbon economy. Housing benefit is one example of that. In our manifesto, we said that we would consider regulating parts of the private rented sector because of the way it acted, which we felt was inappropriate to its tenants and not a shining example of the best that we could expect in that part of the housing market. Unfortunately, however, the Government have set their face against any regulation of the private rented sector, even though housing benefit is paid towards 40% of private rented tenancies and homes in the private rented sector are the least energy-efficient. I have suggested that we use housing benefit to drive up energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. That would also create a supply chain for installers delivering the products and small businesses manufacturing them, and it could save tenants as much as £488 a year on their energy bills.
The third part of an active industrial strategy is skills. New industries cannot survive with an ageing work force. I am sure that Ministers are as aware as I am of some of the problems in different parts of the energy sector, including nuclear, in this regard. We hope that the modernisation of our energy infrastructure will happen in the next decade. The people who will do that are already in our education system, and we have to make sure that they are prepared for the future in terms of our energy security.
Amendment of the Law
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint
I am afraid that if the Chancellor gets his way, nobody will be consulted.
No community can thrive if the system is biased against change. Every community must look to create new homes, workplaces and jobs. A planning system that is devoid of obligations to provide for the future and that just protects the present is destined to fail, but a fair and open planning system that involves local people, and that leads to better decision making and greater consensus on development, is important. Although the Government promise to give local people more of a say, their policies do exactly the opposite. Ten months in, their record on planning is one of incompetence and broken promises. Government Members who represent our green and pleasant land must be in mourning, for although existing controls on green belt will be retained, the Chancellor made it very clear that the Government
“will remove the nationally imposed targets on the use of previously developed land.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 956.]
Forgive me for putting that in plain English. More developers will be given a yes, but as there will be no obligation to develop brownfield sites, by definition, more greenfields will be developed. I do not hear any cheers from Government Members for that one.
We can add to the chaos in the planning system the fact that plans for more than 200,000 new homes have been dropped. Under Labour, more than 2 million more homes were built in England, including 500,000 affordable homes; 1.5 million social homes were brought up to a decent standard; 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000 new bathrooms and more than 1 million new central heating systems were installed; 1 million more families were able to buy their own homes; help was provided to more than 130,000 first-time buyers through shared-ownership schemes or equity loans; and even in the teeth of the recession, the previous Government were building 55,000 new affordable homes, which is more than this Government will build in any of the next four years.
Charlie Elphicke
On a non-partisan basis, I caution the right hon. Lady against many of those numbers, because many of them apply to flats, which are quick and easy to build, but which left us with a shortage of family housing.
Caroline Flint
They still had people living in them. The hon. Gentleman should come to the constituencies of Labour Members to see the investment in social homes, and the partnerships that were developed with the private sector to ensure that we had social homes alongside private developments. The previous Government were putting an end to the division whereby social homes were in one part of the community and private homes were built in another. That is the Labour way, and I am very proud of it.
Local Government Finance
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
We have heard it all this afternoon. We have heard every possible excuse and cop-out, but we have not heard a single word of apology to the thousands of councillors up and down the country who give up their evenings and weekends, and much else besides, to make their community a better place to live and who are now being forced to implement the Secretary of State’s cuts. We have heard no apology for the fact that this Government have chosen to impose huge front-loaded cuts on local councils the length and breadth of the country. Those cuts will be deeper and faster than those made by almost any other Whitehall Department, and they will fall hardest on the poorest places. They will cost jobs and threaten vital front-line services.
Today the Secretary of State has tried to pull a fast one, but he has not convinced our own Labour councillors, or even many Tory or Liberal Democrat councillors. In fact, I do not think that he has convinced anyone at all. Once again, he has come up with a whole host of reasons why this finance settlement—which, by common agreement, is the worst funding settlement for local government in living memory—is not as bad as it sounds, but he is not fooling anyone.
Over the past few months the Secretary of State and his team have given us reasons why local authorities should not have to tackle difficult decisions about front-line services in their communities. They have told us that there are other ways in which local authorities can make savings. We have heard that councils are sitting on piggy banks with £10 billion-worth of reserves, yet 70% of that money is already reserved for specific projects, so the figure is nowhere near as high as £10 billion.
More to the point, the cuts to local councils go so deep and fall so heavily that three quarters of single-tier and county councils have less in their reserves than the cuts to this year’s funding. Even if they took up the Secretary of State’s suggestion and spent all their reserves trying to mitigate the damage the Government’s cuts have caused, it would still not be enough. And when next year came, councils would face an even worse funding crisis—but this time with no reserves to call on. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
“the economics of the madhouse”.
Those are not my words; they come from a letter from the Conservative leader of Derbyshire county council, Andrew Lewer, who chastised the Secretary of State for peddling “misleading” myths about council reserves. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about bins, but when even his own colleagues tell him that he is talking rubbish, perhaps he should sit up and listen. If he will not listen to them, he should at least take note of his Front-Bench colleagues. However loyally the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) nods his head in agreement this afternoon, we know what he really thinks from a private letter he sent to Liberal Democrat councillors. He freely admits that in some cases the figures quoted by the Department for Communities and Local Government were rejected as inaccurate. As I mentioned earlier, another quote from the letter reveals the Under-Secretary’s disappointment that so little has been put into the pot, despite the representations of his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Another area Ministers have looked at is how to plug the gap by dealing with executive pay. Councils were told that if they could not use their reserves, they could cut executive pay. If they did that, they were told, it would be enough to protect jobs and services. I have made it clear time and time again that local councils have a duty to find the best deal for council tax payers—and that includes ensuring that council executives are not paid over the odds and cutting down the size of management teams at the top of councils. In fact, we have gone further than the Secretary of State’s proposals on pay and transparency in the Localism Bill, and I urge him again to include consultants and contractors hired by local authorities when pay details are published.
The suggestion, however, that simply trimming executive salaries by a few thousand pounds here and there is enough to plug a funding gap of £6.5 billion is just fanciful. If every chief executive of every local authority took an immediate 50% pay cut, it would yield less than 0.5% of the savings that need to be found. Even if the entire senior management team of every council in England reduced salaries by 25% overnight, 97% of the cuts would still need to be made.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not simply a question of excessive pay, but of excessive pay-offs? Nottingham council was mentioned, and a brief piece of research shows that Sallyanne Johnson received a £250,000 pay-off, Michael Frater £230,000, Adrienne Roberts £500,000, and Tim Render £200,000—all in recent times. Will she condemn the administration of Nottingham council for wasting that money?
Caroline Flint
We can all trade examples, so let me provide the hon. Gentleman with one from Hammersmith and Fulham council—one of the Secretary of State’s favourites. Is it acceptable to hire for £1,000 a day a consultant who has already been retired, on a £50,000-a-year pension, on grounds of ill health from another council?
Value for money and accountability for senior pay are important, which is why we supported those elements in the Localism Bill—but we are going further than the Government suggested, and we hope to gain support for that. However, the reality is that for all the grandstanding on this issue, it does not make a dent in the amount that councils have to find to deal with the front-loaded cuts that the Government have chosen to impose on them.
Localism Bill
Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Caroline Flint(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint
I will give way again in a little while.
Let us look at Islington council, of which Labour took control in May. The previous Liberal Democrat administration appointed a chief executive on a salary of £220,000. The Labour council cut that salary by £60,000—a significant sum and a good example of a Labour council delivering value for money. However, that is a drop in the ocean against the £40 million-worth of savings that Islington has to find. The Secretary of State knows that the Bill does nothing for councils up and down the country that are struggling with the most difficult finance settlement in a generation. It is not localist to cripple local councils with devastating cuts and to stop them delivering the essential services on which local communities rely.