Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Richard DraxMonday 23rd January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Local Government Finance Bill 2016-17 View all Local Government Finance Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am sorry that the shadow Minister’s glass is half empty. He said that the Bill had the potential to create a much better situation, as I think it has, but also seemed to be emphasising that he thinks things are going to be far worse. I am glad he is at least not going to be voting against the Bill’s Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to a once in a generation reform; I can recall my involvement as a Minister during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, when I took forward the uniform business rate, among other matters. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has retained the principles of the uniform business rate, which was introduced to prevent Labour councils at the time—for example, in Liverpool—from so attacking their own businesses that they drove them out of town and, in so doing, drove the jobs away as well. I am glad we are not going to be allowing councils the freedom to destroy jobs which they had prior to introduction of the 1988 legislation.
I welcome the emphasis on certainty and predictability, in which context I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to set out a bit more clearly how the reforms that he says are going to be brought into effect in 2019, including the new funding formula, are going to interact with the four-year settlement, which, as I understand it, will still be there in 2019-20. For example, we have heard from the Government that councils can increase their adult social care precept by an extra amount in the next financial year and the year after, but in the third of those years, 2019-20, they will not be able to. How are those arrangements going to interact with my hon. Friend’s laudable objective of introducing all these reforms in 2019-20?
Clause 4 is very relevant to matters of local government reorganisation. The nine councils in Dorset are meeting this week and next to decide whether they wish to go down the road of a local government reorganisation. Two of those councils, Poole and Bournemouth, seem to be supporting the idea of creating a new unitary authority with Christchurch, in the belief that were the Secretary of State unwise enough to approve such a proposal and the unitary authority was set up, on day one the residents of Christchurch would be paying £200 more in council tax at band D than the people resident in Poole or Bournemouth.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister responded to my written question to confirm that it is not possible for an individual principal authority to levy council tax in one part of its area at a level different from that in another. That is an important principle. I hope that my interpretation of clause 4 is correct when I emphasise that were there to be a unitary authority covering Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch, from day one the people of Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch would all pay exactly the same level of council tax.
The idea of excessive levels of council tax has often been interpreted as being about excessive levels of increase, but, as the explanatory notes on clause 4 make clear, the clause will allow
“the Secretary of State to make a statement of principles for determining whether council tax is excessive covering a number of years, rather than just one.”
Am I correct in my assumption that were there to be a new unitary authority for Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch, the Secretary of State could use the powers in clause 4 to say that there should be one set level of council tax for the authority, starting from day one? I ask because later this week, in both Poole and Bournemouth, councillors are going to be invited to support the proposal for a unitary authority in the mistaken belief that they will continue to be subsidised by the residents of Christchurch for 20 years, under an equalisation/harmonisation regime. If they were disabused of that and told that from day one they would be liable for an increase of up to £200, I think minds would be concentrated and there would not be quite so much enthusiasm on the part of councillors in Poole and Bournemouth for what is being proposed, which is hotly contested by councillors not only in Christchurch but in other parts of rural Dorset.
I hope I can get some clear answers to those questions. The essence of the provision in the Bill is that if councils impose excessive levels of council tax on their citizens, there should be the safeguard of a referendum, but what is proposed in the name of local government reform in Christchurch, Poole and Bournemouth is that people in Christchurch should be expected to pay extra council tax but will not have the chance of a local referendum to decide whether or not they wish their council to be abolished and absorbed into a new one. If we can have referendums on the levels of council tax, why can we not have referendums on whether a council is to be abolished? It seems that something is rather out of sync.
In responding to this debate, will my hon. Friend the Minister be a little bit clearer about the pooling arrangements? Why are the Government taking the power to introduce mandatory pooling arrangements, and how will they work? Can all nine local authorities in Dorset be regarded as a pool for the purposes of business rate income and distribution? I do not see any problem with that. In fact, it might be quite desirable, but why must it be imposed by the Government, rather than agreed to locally?
My next point came out in the response of the shadow Minister. I am concerned that, as a result of the powers being given in this Bill, some businesses may find they are in a minority in an area and subject to significant extra supplements on their business rates. How will we ensure that a minority of businesses are not oppressed by the majority? In east Dorset, there is a business improvement district centred on a Ferndown industrial estate. When it was set up, there was concern among some businesses that they might end up paying extra for things that were of no use to them. Can my hon. Friend spell out the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that significant increases in supplements or additional business rates are not imposed on hard-pressed businesses?
I turn now to clause 9 on public conveniences. Christchurch Borough Council has been privileged to win the Loo of the Year award on many occasions, and it has a really good selection of public conveniences, as befits its age profile and its reputation as a very important tourist destination. Meanwhile, much to the consternation of the local people in Poole, Poole Borough Council has decided to close half its public conveniences. Some councils are now thinking outside the box and saying, “Why can’t we enter into joint arrangements so that public buildings can be made available for the provision of public conveniences?” [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister is acknowledging that. On reading clause 9, it seems that there will be no relief from council tax or business rates for a building that partially consists of a public lavatory but that offers other facilities as well. It is difficult to speak to clause 9 without puns, but I hope that the gist of my point has come across. Why would we wish artificially to restrict a relief such as this and say that it will be available only on a free-standing, dedicated public lavatory?
Richard Drax
The matter of public conveniences of course raises some humour, but let me make this point. When I attended an Age UK event some years ago, I was told that there are 2 million people in this country who can be no more than 10 minutes away from a loo. If there is not one available, they cannot leave their house. This is a serious issue, and money is needed to provide this vital service.
Navitus Bay Wind Farm
Debate between Christopher Chope and Richard Drax
Richard Drax
I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. The wildlife is important, and millions of people travel to enjoy our beautiful wild coastline because of the unspoilt view. It is one of the reasons for the world heritage designation.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Government have said that they wish to give a say to local people in relation to onshore wind farms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be ironic if they were not giving a say to local people in relation to offshore wind farms, which can have an equally dramatic impact on local communities—as will the 26 mile corridor of cables across my constituency?
Richard Drax
I entirely concur. I am very glad that the Minister is sitting in her place. I know she will be listening intently to every single word that we utter and take our concerns back to her Department to ensure that the right decision is made. My only concern is that, because the Government have put less emphasis on onshore, it might mean there is more likelihood of something happening offshore. I hope the Minister does not think that and that that is not the situation.
Although the risk of losing the designation has been played down, the threat is clearly there. Objectors include the National Trust, the New Forest national park, English Heritage, the Jurassic coast world heritage site steering group, numerous environmental groups, recreational and commercial sea users, Dorset County Council, Christchurch, Purbeck, and Bournemouth Councils, Poole Conservative councillors, local MPs and, of course, thousands of residents—an impressive list.
Natural England has concluded that there would be
“significant effects on designated landscapes”
and the Campaign to Protect Rural England agrees. Both organisations say they are unable to undertake a thorough review of the second submission because it was submitted so late in the process. The National Trust has also complained of the “lack of transparency” in allowing both applications to run in tandem, describing it as “contrary to the spirit” of the process.
For most local councils, the effect on tourism is the greatest concern. John Beesley, leader of Bournemouth Borough Council, wrote in a recent letter to the Prime Minister:
“Navitus Bay offshore wind farm would be highly visible from land and dramatically alter and damage the intrinsic appeal and beauty of what is currently a natural and untouched seascape…The industrial-scale turbines would be classed as permanent structures and fall into the highest category of harm in terms of visual assessment.”
A report commissioned by the council found that nearly 7 million visitors to Dorset raised £1 billion in revenue and supported 24,000 jobs, and visitor and business surveys, commissioned by Navitus Bay itself—interestingly —predict a drop in tourism of between 32% and 20% during the construction phase alone. Using the lower figure of 20%, the wind farm, over its 30-year lifespan, could cost Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch and Purbeck up to £6.3 billion and almost 5,000 jobs. The developer does not accept these findings.
Meanwhile, UNESCO has criticised the in-house environmental impact assessment used by the developer, saying that a more genuinely independent report should have been commissioned. Certainly schemes to mitigate this eyesore are on occasions ridiculous. For example, local residents are described in the report as “principal visual receptors”—I am not making this up—and what effect the wind farm has on these so-called receptors depends on whether they are sailing, walking or cycling, which is a very strange way of judging it. Interestingly, environmental concerns were assessed and graded, while, suspiciously, the visual impact was downplayed.
To be fair—it is only right because the developers are not here—I will say what is potentially good about the project. The developer says it would create up to 1,700 jobs during the construction phase; one of three ports—Poole, Yarmouth or Portland—would be chosen as a base for operations and maintenance; the preferred supplier for the turbine blades would secure 200 jobs on the Isle of Wight; and if the foundations are concrete rather than steel, hundreds of jobs would be created on Portland. Some £15 million has been promised to negate the impact on tourism, and a further £8.6 million would be spent in schools and colleges and developing a supply chain with regional businesses.
That is the sweetie shop, and of course I welcome the potential benefits, but they are dependent on the green light, which we hope the Government, whom I know are listening tonight, will not give. However, the longer-term risk to the tourism industry and the desecration of this unique part of the country’s coastline would far outweigh the advantages. The crux is that there are plenty of other places where this wind farm could and should be sited.