Communities and Local Government (CSR)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am introducing the debate as the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, and I shall draw heavily on the evidence session that the Select Committee had with the Secretary of State; the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark); and the Minister for Housing and Local Government on 21 December 2010. I shall try to do so objectively, and I am sure that other members of the Select Committee who are here will do the same. However, we all have to wear our political hats as well, so my interpretation might be slightly different from that of some of my colleagues.

Other members of the Select Committee, particularly from the Labour side, wished to be here, but I am sure we are all aware that two of them have constituencies adjacent to one where a by-election is taking place today. I do not know whether the rumours are true, but perhaps the major Government party has not been quite as enthusiastic about fighting the by-election as some other parties have been.

I thought for an awful minute that the Minister might be late. I thought that he might have been detained in last-minute urgent discussions with the Treasury, and that he would come here and announce a little bit of improvement on the settlement. We would have had even more to discuss in terms of helping local government through what will be a difficult period.

I do not want to get bogged down in the Government’s overall policy on deficit reduction. The Secretary of State mentioned it in the evidence session, and said that everything had to be seen in that context, which was a fair point to make. I might make a different point about the depth of the attempts at deficit reduction and the speed at which the Government are going about it, but that is not our job here today; it is to look at the impact on local government and local services.

Nevertheless, it has to be said that if the impact of the scale and speed of deficit reduction is that the economy stalls and unemployment rises, it could lead to increased repossessions, increased rent arrears, pressure on housing services and housing and benefits advice, increased social tensions in communities, and an increase in crime. All those, of course, have an impact on local government: they increase the demand for local government services and increase the need to spend money at local government level and to switch it away from other important and essential services that local government carries out. I shall say no more about that.

Yes, all right, the Government have embarked on a significant deficit reduction programme which means, in effect, cuts to public expenditure. The average cut among Whitehall Departments will be 19% over the four years. I shall raise several matters which I hope the Minister can come back on. The first is that we have not had an explanation as to why the Department for Communities and Local Government seems to have been ready to offer itself up for the largest cut of all. The central Department’s spending will go down by 68% in real terms over the four-year period.

The Government are saying that that is all right because many of the functions that the Department carries out will be passed down to local authorities—the brand of localism is at the heart of what they are saying. On the other hand, the Localism Bill, which will come to the Floor of the House on Monday, includes a great deal of work for the Department at the centre to do. It provides some 150 order-making powers that Ministers and civil servants will be involved in administering. I have concerns about the effectiveness of future work in the Department, given the scale of the cuts.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

As a matter of correction, I seem to recall from the evidence that the Secretary of State offered that the headline figure for the cuts in the central Department was 68%, but that if one took account of large amounts of direct spending that will be transferred from the Department to local government—not just administration but actual spending—the reduction is actually 33%, exactly equivalent to the Treasury cuts.

[Mr Betts]

That is still a big figure. It might be helpful to take this a stage further. Perhaps we could have at some point a note from Ministers to identify precisely where the difference between the 33% and the 68% actually goes in being passed down, because local authorities have not been claiming that they are seeing the benefit of an extra 35% in their budgets.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend gets to the substance of his remarks, would he agree that cuts in themselves are one issue, but that there is a separate issue about fairness in how they are applied? It seems from the headline figures that areas in the most need are suffering disproportionately from the cuts, while areas that one might refer to as leafy boroughs and counties are getting away with small cuts.

[Mr Betts]

I agree with that. I believe there are statistics to prove it, although other Members might come to a different conclusion when looking at the same statistics. We had a discussion with Ministers about that in our evidence session. I shall come on to that specific point, which is an important one.

Moving on from the spending for the Department at the centre to local government budgets, there will be a 28% reduction in Government grant over the four-year period. I believe that that figure is agreed; I do not think that anyone denies it. Why is local government taking a hit that is much larger than the average reduction in Government spending as a whole? There is a slight feeling that it is because it is easier to give the problem to someone else to deal with rather than dealing with it oneself. Pass it on to local government: it will deal with the difficult job and someone else might be blamed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, given that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) committed to 20% revenue reductions before the election, and that, as I understand it, the policy of the Opposition is not to ring-fence any particular Government Department, it is clear that local government would have had to take substantial reductions if Labour had been re-elected. The difference is that the reductions have never been quantified by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) or any of his colleagues.

[Mr Betts]

I said at the beginning that I do not want to get into a long debate about the overall nature of deficit reduction, apart from saying that the Labour party has a different view about the scale—reducing the deficit by half, not totally eliminating it, over the four-year period—and the pace, which would not have been as great. We would not have started the cuts in this financial year, before the economy had properly started growing. There are differences.

However, I come back to the point that, whatever the average level of cuts across Government, there still has to be a justification as to why spending on local government—the money passed on by central Government to local government—is taking a hit that is much bigger than the average for all Departments. Why is that happening, particularly when local government has a good track record in making efficiency savings? If one looks at government as a whole, it was local government that led the way, even under the previous Government: 2% year-on-year efficiency savings were built into its budgets.

If one looks at the impact of government services as a whole, the services that are provided by local government are some of the most immediate to our constituents. They include services to the disadvantaged and those in need: social services care provision, aids and adaptations. They are about the quality of life: things such as parks, libraries and sports centres. They are about essential provision for daily life from which everyone benefits, whether it be refuse collection, street cleaning, highway maintenance, street lights—the kinds of things that everyone benefits from in terms of the taxes that they pay and the services that they get. Why put those immediate services for most of our constituents at more risk than the average in terms of cuts of Government spending as a whole? The Government must answer that question.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

In fact, the figures show that revenue support for local authorities reduces by 26%, and that happens to coincide with the percentage of public sector spend that local government takes. However, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that because local authorities have forms of income other than the central Government grant—council tax, for example—the actual reduction in spending power is 14%, which is considerably less than that of central Government Departments.

[Mr Betts]

I accept what the Minister says about the different ways in which figures have been presented, and I shall come to that in a second. I am not going to complain about or disagree with how that was done, because it is important to look at spending power, but I come back to the point that I made. If central Government are looking to cut their spending, why have they cut the resources that they pass on to local government by more than the average cut in central Government spending as a whole? That seems a reasonable question, irrespective of the issue of local authorities’ spending power.

The second issue is: why have spending reductions been so front-loaded? Local government has rightly complained about that. There is no doubt at all that there is front-loading: of the 28%, 10% is in the first year and 8% in the second. Local authorities, not just the councillors but the officials, say that the immediacy of the actions they have to take means that decisions will be less well made and there will almost certainly be less opportunity for the transformation of service delivery, which we all agree can make savings without the need for service cuts. It also means that local authorities will be pushed back into the salami-slicing approach, which Ministers say they do not want. I am not making a party political point. Authorities of all political persuasions—Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in the Local Government Association—will all say the same thing: that the pressure of front-loading will lead to a less effective and less efficient use of the available resources.

The front-loading will also mean that authorities have less chance to use natural wastage to save money, and will be forced, to a greater extent, into making compulsory redundancies, which are expensive; the money used to pay people to leave and to enable cuts to be made, could have been used to provide service delivery. We know there is an argument there. In the evidence session, the Secretary of State said he thought that the LGA figure of 140,000 job losses in the next year was wrong, but we never quite got from him what the right figure was. Nevertheless, there will be significant job losses.

The Government believe that £200 million of capitalisation will be sufficient to cover redundancy costs; the LGA says £2 billion. Even if the figure is somewhere in between, local authorities will struggle if redundancy costs are of that scale, because getting rid of people in the first year might not make savings and might actually become a cost. The offer that I think the Secretary of State made, that if he had to provide another £1 billion of capitalisation he would cut the revenue grant by a further £600 million, does not seem to be the best offer that local government has ever had from central Government on such matters. Indeed, I think the rather angry response to the evidence that the Committee received from Baroness Eaton on behalf of the LGA has been circulated. In it she states that her recollection of the discussions with the Secretary of State on capitalisation was slightly different to that of which he had informed the Select Committee. She could not understand why, if local government had to make necessary redundancies and wanted to capitalise that cost further, it would be penalised by the Government’s reducing the revenue grant. It would be helpful to have some comments from the Minister, bearing in mind the LGA’s response.

There is a very big issue here of the speed of the cuts and their front-loading, and the effect of that on local authorities’ ability to digest the cuts into their systems and make sense out of them, as opposed to having to salami-slice at least an element of the cuts and having to pay quite a bit of money out for redundancy costs that would otherwise not have been necessary.

I shall now respond to the Minister’s point about how the announcement was phrased. The Secretary of State obviously tries to get the figures down in his announcements, and I happen to agree that looking at spending power rather than at simply grant allocation is the proper approach. We still should look at the grant that central Government give as opposed to what they are doing to cut spending elsewhere in central Government, but it does matter in the end how much local authorities have to spend. When we look at the figures, however, we see a difference between the 8.9% maximum reduction in spending power that any authority has to face and the 0.1% increase that Dorset has managed to receive.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) mentioned, there is a significant difference in the level of cuts and the reductions in spending power between the most and least deprived authorities. The figures that came out of the Library from the Scrutiny Unit show that the 10% most deprived single unitary authorities lost 8.4% of spending power and the least deprived 10% lost 2.2%. That is a significant difference. We have had a discussion about the Scrutiny Unit’s figures, and those figures clearly show a correlation between authority deprivation levels and how much spending would be cut. I do not think it is fair, but I accept, to a degree, that it is more difficult to protect authorities that have large grants because they are deprived, when grant cuts happen. I accept that the Government have done something, at least at the beginning of the process, with the £85 million transitional money to mitigate the problem, but whether that money will be available later in the spending round remains to be seen.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Surely, the hon. Gentleman misses a number of points. One is that he is not looking holistically at the cumulative picture over the past number of years of the grant settlement between local authorities in the south-east of England and those in the north-west and the north-east. Frankly, his Government, when in power, had the opportunity to deal with those issues through, for instance, working neighbourhoods funding, and only very belatedly disaggregated that into super-output areas to tackle the worst cases. They had that opportunity to tackle the underlying problems of social deprivation, but failed to do so.

[Mr Betts]

I do not agree. We can always have discussions and disagreements about the extent to which grant allocations are fair, and I do not think there has ever been a grant allocation about which some Member has not stood up in the Chamber and complained, saying that their area gets a raw deal. That will always be the case, no matter where we get to. What tended to happen during the spending settlements of the Labour Government was that it was Conservative Members from the leafy shires who tended to get up and complain that they were getting a raw deal and that Labour was doing too much to help deprived areas. That was the general theme of discussions. I think that funds such as the working neighbourhoods fund were, in the end, both reasonably targeted to help some areas of deprivation and reasonably effective. I accept that the Government have decided to abolish the fund and to incorporate it into the revenue support grant.

Fundamentally, this is a matter of principle: as long as a fair settlement can be obtained through the RSG, I am not against the initiative. Over the past few years, there has been a move—under the previous Government and now under this one—to reduce, and hopefully eventually to abolish, ring-fencing and I am generally supportive of that as a principle. With the proviso that the allocation is fair, it should be up to local councils, once the allocation is given to them, to determine how to spend the money in their areas. There will be certain statutory requirements, but essentially, as a move away from ring-fencing and towards a more open method of allocation, I am supportive of this.

[Paul Farrelly]

I do not wish to campaign for cuts for anyone. My hon. Friend mentioned Dorset, and I shall read out some more names: Windsor, Maidenhead, Poole, West Sussex, Wokingham, Richmond upon Thames and Buckinghamshire. They are all in line for cuts of less than 1%, yet some inner-city areas are in line for the maximum 8.9% cut. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the general public will see that as profoundly unfair?

[Mr Betts]

The certainty is that people in Sheffield will think that that is profoundly unfair. I cannot resist making a party political point here: they will tend to wonder why a party controlled by the junior member of the coalition has not fought harder for the resources of northern cities such as Sheffield. I was perhaps tempting a response, but I am not going to get one. I am sure that issue will stay around.

I return to the point that one of the problems that the Government have in trying to make the settlement fairer than it is—I do not believe that it is fair—is that the speed of the cuts and their front-loading makes it that much harder to make any sense out of them. The element of transitional funding that would have been needed to mitigate that unfairness would have been a lot bigger than the £85 million that was finally agreed with the Treasury. That is one of the fundamental problems of the front-loading of the cuts and their scale.

I shall make another party political point—they are difficult to resist—but we must put the issue in context. The Minister may use this against me and say that local government has had a lot of money over the years, and that rowing back should not be too difficult. But the increase in total grants, including police and schools grants, and excluding business rates, that central Government provided to local councils from 1997 to 2010-11 was 80% in real terms, which is a very big increase. I return to the point that local government was asked to find 2% efficiency savings year on year, and it has achieved that. Local government as a whole is now a much more efficient organisation than 13 years ago.

A fundamental point about which the Minister may want to say something and on which the Committee challenged Ministers is the amount of business rates and the return of business rates to local authorities, and the fact that by 2012-13—the Secretary of State fundamentally confirmed this—the amount going to local authorities will be less than the business rates coming to central Government. There is a legal requirement on the Government to return all collected business rates to local councils. That will happen this year, but clearly it will not happen in future if the figures—they are notional at this stage—are confirmed.

The Secretary of State said that there were likely to be changes before 2013. There is a review of local government finance, and I understand that the Government’s intention is that business rates collected in an area should be retained there. How will there be an element of redistribution in grant to areas that are deprived and do not have a large business rate base if the total amount of money that central Government give to local councils is no more than the business rates collected, but the business rates will remain with local authorities? How can we achieve any element of redistribution to reflect differences in needs and resources if that is the Government’s intention? This is a really big issue, which Ministers will have to address at some stage.

I do not demur from the Government’s objective to relocalise business rates. I would like local authorities to be given the power to set the business rate. I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention, but it has been my long-term view. At a time when total Government money for local authorities is shrinking rapidly, if business rates are all they have left to give back, but there is no money because it will stay with the local authority that collects it, where is the element of redistribution of Government funding? The cavalry is behind the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to give us an answer.

I do not know whether the Minister will defend this, but can anyone seriously say that there will be no need for cuts in front-line local government services? I am sure that all hon. Members here have been talking to their local authorities, but I do not know anyone who has been assured by their council leader that there is no need for cuts in front-line services. This is not a party political point. All parties in the LGA will say the same. I accept that there has been an extra £1 billion for social services provision, but we all know that there are democratic pressures, particularly if we are trying to keep people out of hospital with aids, adaptations and care packages. That may not even take care of the demographic pressures.

The Secretary of State has said that the Supporting People programme need not be cut, but the next day Westminster council announced a £1 million reduction in its programme. We were told that there was no need for other cuts in front-line services, and that, if local authorities shared their chief executives and a few back-room functions and HR and planning departments merged, that would be sufficient to provide savings in all authorities. That is not true, is it? No one in the Chamber believes that sharing chief executives, HR departments and planning departments will mean no need for cuts in front-line services.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sharing services can bring about real savings to local authorities—there are definitely savings to be had from sharing chief executives—which could help local authorities to deliver better services?

[Mr Betts]

I do not want to give the impression that I am against local authorities deciding to share services in the right situation. My instinct is that an authority such as Sheffield probably needs its own chief executive, but perhaps some smaller authorities could reasonably share. Authorities such as Sheffield, which has very good departments—for example, our planning department —could offer services to other authorities. There is capacity for that. My point was whether such savings would be sufficient to deliver all the necessary spending reductions with no cuts in front-line services. That is not the message that I am getting from local councils of all persuasions throughout the country.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The issue is not just about chief executives. My local authority combined the roles of head of the primary care trust and head of adult social services, which saved money and provided a co-ordinated approach to delivering improved front-line services.

[Mr Betts]

The only problem with that is that the post of PCT head will go shortly, so that saving will probably disappear. The issue is interesting. I would have liked to be much more radical and bring the functions of the PCT generally within the orbit of local authorities. One or two Conservative councils—I think Essex is one—were up for that. There could have been some more radical changes to make savings.

Local authorities know that they have areas of statutory responsibility in social services and will try to protect those as well as they can. They also know that if reductions are made—this is becoming clear throughout the country—standards of street cleaning will deteriorate, as well as highway maintenance, for which there will be a 19% cut in capital funding. It is right to protect concessionary bus fares for pensioners, but there will be a squeeze on funding for integrated transport authorities in metropolitan areas. For example, subsidies for evening and weekend services, rural services and young persons’ concessions will be hit, and that will then hit people who are more deprived and do not have a car, and who are younger or older and rely on local bus services. The services affected will be those that deliver quality of life—parks, libraries and sports centres.

The Secretary of State said that there was no need for cuts in front-line services, but Doncaster, which has an independent mayor and Labour councillors, will close 14 of its 26 libraries. I understand that Gloucestershire will close 11 libraries and have seven open for only three hours a week. Somerset will close 20 of its 34 libraries, and Croydon will close five. Those councils, which are not of a Labour persuasion, are all making cuts in front-line services. Is the view of the coalition—both parties in it—that all those cuts are unnecessary, and that those councils are maliciously ruining services for constituents and residents when they need not be cut?

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

If the situation is as rosy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why did my Labour council in north Lincolnshire increase the cost of the young people’s post-16 bus pass by 500% four years ago? Why did it have to increase council tax significantly at the rate of 12% over three years? Why have libraries been closed, and why have rural bus services been cut during the past five years—all under the Labour Government when things were so rosy? Does he not understand that part of the problem has been that, although more money came in, the Labour Government told councils such as mine where to spend it instead of giving them discretion to spend it on the services that they wanted?

[Mr Betts]

I have already said that I generally agree that councils should have greater freedom to make choices about spending decisions. In general terms, I welcome the power of general competence to give local authorities even more discretion. Having greater ability to spend but their resources cut is the ironic position in which most of them will find themselves.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am from Gloucestershire, and I have been dealing with this matter with Gloucestershire county council. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that the Labour Government left councils in a bit of mess by being so prescriptive about areas where they should spend money. The great thing about the present Government is that we will introduce so much more flexibility. Total spending power for front-line services in my area has not been cut as significantly as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

[Mr Betts]

I have given the overall figures, and I accept that some areas have done slightly better than others, but all authorities throughout the country had real-terms increases under the Labour Government. I challenge anyone to come back with an authority that did not have a real-terms increase in its spending. Generally, I support that, and I will not defend everything that the Labour Government did. Ring-fencing should be reduced, and I did not agree with separation of the schools grant. The Government have not been willing to challenge that, or give school grant funding back to local councils. If we believe in the freedom for people to spend and choose priorities at local level, perhaps that should have been done. Equally, I am not terribly happy about the free schools policy. It could take money out of local authorities and separate it from the system.

I support allowing local authorities more control over general Government spending in their area—the “total place” approach. I am a little disappointed in the Committee budgets; they are narrowly focused and down to 16 authorities, and that point was made in the Communities and Local Government Committee. However, I welcome the comments made by the Minister of State, when he said that the Government would listen to proposals from local councils if they came forward with wider or more innovative ideas about how Government spending could be better dealt with, so that councils could take the lead as accountable democratic bodies. That was a helpful comment, and I hope that we will see good examples of councils coming forward, and that Ministers will respond positively.

Finally, I would like to look at housing. I welcome the Government’s assertion that they will carry forward reforms to the housing revenue account. That places powers and responsibilities at local level, which is a helpful and welcome move. Local authorities will be disappointed—as am I—that they will not be allowed to keep all the receipts from any right-to-buy schemes, as they could under the previous proposal. I am concerned that the Government have the powers to reopen that settlement at any time. However, the Housing Minister has said that such a move would take place only in certain circumstances, and there is no general presumption that the Government would open the settlement without a reason.

I am concerned that the Government want to impose greater controls on local authorities’ ability to borrow for housing purposes—that goes against the idea of localism. Are not the prudential rules sufficient? Why do further controls need to be brought in as part of the reform? That does not seem to run with the grain of localism promoted by the Government.

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend raises the issue of housing. Does he agree that in order to tide themselves over the transition, many councils will be forced to dip into their reserves? That will clearly have an impact on future income generation. In Newcastle-under-Lyme in 2006, after transferring the housing stock, the Labour party left reserves of over £40 million. Under the Liberal Democrat and Conservative local government coalition, those reserves now stand at £24 million. At that rate of spend, it looks as if the reserves will run out by 2012. There has been no satisfactory explanation of how that situation was reached, or of whether council tax payers have gained value for money. Even though the council has been prudent in dealing with its housing stock, it could face having no reserves to dip into in order to tide it through a transition when the cuts are made.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be kept a bit shorter than that.

[Mr Betts]

It is a difficult issue. The Minister will say, “Look at all the reserves in local government. They can help mitigate the cuts to services.” They can, but reserves run out; they are spent once and cannot be spent again. During ongoing reductions in spending, reserves can help a council through a problem, but they will not permanently deal with it. Furthermore, reserves are not equally distributed and often they are found in authorities that have made housing stock transfers and have a big dollop of money from that. Some of the reserves cited come from schools and are held at the centre by local authorities, some are housing revenue account reserves with a specific use, and some are needed for the cash-flow issues that councils face on a day-to-day basis. The reserves may help during the first year, but they are not a permanent solution to the cuts.

We know that capital spending on housing will be cut by half in the spending round. We have not been building enough social housing—or enough housing as a whole—in this country, and we can argue on another day about whether the proposals for the new homes bonus and the planning changes will help or hinder that. The Communities and Local Government Committee will produce a report on that issue in due course. Nevertheless, spending will be halved and after the existing commitments to build houses at current rent levels are met, there will be no central Government funding for houses other than those with rents that are linked to market rents—that does not necessarily mean 80% of market rent, but means rents that are linked to the market in some form. Those higher rents will help provide money to build new homes in the future. However, 150,000 new homes will not deal with the waiting list, and of those, any new starts will not have rent levels that many people can afford. That is the real problem.

The decent homes funding is also going to be cut. From the figures provided by the Minister, I calculate that the amount of money for decent homes over the next four years will be just over £1 billion, and the backlog of work still outstanding is around £4 billion. Therefore, it will be about 10 years—probably longer—before all council homes in the country are brought up to a decent standard. That is an awfully long time for people to wait.

[George Hollingbery]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the plans for flexible tenancies? They will allow more social homes to be recycled through the market place on the basis of need, rather than having homes allocated for 20, 30 or sometimes 40 years, to people who may not need them. Does he acknowledge the enormous pool of assets in the social housing stock, particularly in housing associations? Those could be leveraged in the market place more effectively than presently happens. Would he approve of that?

[Mr Betts]

There is a role for different approaches to the provision of housing such as intermediate market rents, more private institutional investment in housing, or links between housing associations and private institutional investors. Those ideas are interesting, and I would welcome them if we were building social houses at existing rent levels at the same time. My concern is that the Government are withdrawing from that. The other ideas are interesting, and in some cases exciting. I support those ideas, but not to the exclusion of money for social housing or of funds to get all homes to a decent standard. I am worried about that, and my overall concern is that we are approaching a housing crisis. Levels of homelessness will rise as unemployment increases. It is not only a matter of Government funding being cut; it is about mortgage availability. With increased deposit levels, young people are not able to get on the housing ladder at present.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the availability of housing. However, in a period of substantial economic growth, the previous Labour Government managed to build no more homes over the course of each year than were built in 1926. That seems faintly unbelievable. Despite the Rugg review of the private rented sector, the Treasury never produced realistic proposals on real estate investment trusts, which have had great success in Europe and north America. The previous Government had the opportunity in a growing market to look into such trusts and remove the fiscal and legal impediments to grow that market. They failed to do so.

[Mr Betts]

I am not going to defend the level of social housing building by the previous Government; I do not think that it was adequate and I have said that many times in the Chamber and in Committee. A lot of the things that the Labour Government did, including the decent homes programme, were good, but we ought to have built more social housing. I am not sure that the Government proposals will address that matter. There is effectively a total withdrawal of funding from social housing as we know it, so that does not address the reasonable criticism made by the hon. Gentleman.

We should perhaps look harder at the tax and other impediments to real estate investment trusts. They are a good idea. Yesterday, I met with organisations that seek a more direct way of getting institutional investment linked to people who may want to part rent, part own houses. Is the Minister willing to meet a delegation to look at that? Some interesting ideas ought to have cross-party support.

I am sorry for taking up so much time, Mr Robertson, but I have tried to take interventions. My questions for the Minister are: why are local governments taking cuts that are well above the average for other Departments? Why is such front-loading necessary? It creates particular hardships, as councils up and down the country are explaining. The cuts have been large and fast. Is that why the Government have not been able to make them fairer, meaning that they hit poorest areas the hardest? If changes are made to eligibility criteria for social care, if libraries and sports centres are closed and if bus services are withdrawn, will it not be those suffering the greatest deprivation and need who are hit hardest? Is it not likely that the housing crisis that is looming large will be worsened, not helped, by the Government’s measures?

Those are my questions, and it is probably appropriate to end on them. I am sure that the Minister will have positive and good things to say in answer to all of them, although whether I totally agree with him remains a matter for doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an astute point. In fairness, one interesting success—my hon. Friend the Minister may not agree—was the Firebuy initiative. It was mixed, admittedly, but the model was that, in the procurement of equipment for the fire service—whether helmets, appliances or other kit—instead of the authorities making 46 pitches and carrying out 46 tests and experiments, there were economies of scale and purchasing power. It never quite worked, but I think it was on the right track. No doubt the Minister will consider my words when he thinks about the future of Firebuy. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is right that that side of local government function has not worked as well as it could and should.

Local government makes a massive impact in local economies in terms of people who work for local government and people who contract with local government. In fairness to the present Government, throwing open the contracting process, the tender process and the purchasing process in terms of who makes the decisions and what value judgments they make on what they are buying is being looked at by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and by others, including, I think, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, to revolutionise transparency and openness in local government, so that we know why it costs £400 for every 1,000 wheelie bins in Reigate and Banstead but in Windsor it costs only £250. People have every right to know that in this age of transparency. After all, if they know how many toilet rolls that the Member of Parliament for wherever is buying for his office, they should certainly know about and care about how their money is being spent on key services, although God help the concept of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority being involved in purchasing in local government.

[Mr Betts]

It would treble the cost, probably.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

I do not agree. Baroness Eaton is obviously doing her job on behalf of the Local Government Association, and she is doing it well, but I know from my experience as a business entrepreneur that having one’s feet against the fire is a profound stimulus for innovation and transformative change.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East said rather dismissively that a few local authorities getting together to share back-office services would not get us far. I agree that that will not plug the whole gap in certain contexts, but we must take the idea of shared services seriously. In my constituency, we are beginning to see partnership working across the political spectrum really deliver efficiencies and change, for example through new commissioning structures in local government. That must be the future, where local government does not take the role of the service delivery arm, but instead takes on more of a commissioning role. We need to look at new funding arrangements.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman described my earlier comment as dismissive, but that was not my intention. I welcome savings that can genuinely come from sharing back-office services or chief executives where appropriate, but it might not be appropriate in all circumstances. Indeed, the same is true of sharing services not only between local authorities, but between local authorities and other public sector bodies. My point was that I do not believe that could fill a 9% gap in the spending power of an authority, which is also the point that the LGA is trying to make. The Minister said that no cuts in front-line services were necessary because all the savings could be found by sharing services; I was disputing that.

[James Morris]

I do not want to get into a debate on the definition of a front-line service, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Once we have gone through the period of retrenchment that is necessary to get the country back on a stable footing, the essential challenge in local government will be to maximise the potential for collaboration, efficiency and shared services. That could be through innovative relationships not only within local government, but importantly, across the whole spectrum of local public services. I urge the Minister to take forward the idea of community budgeting and the previous Government’s work on Total Place, which I welcome, because my perception is that sharing the totality of public spending and of public services in the next wave of local government could deliver cost reductions and a much higher level of service.

The Committee reflected on a variety of evidence presented to us. It is a tough settlement, but one that presents a series of interesting questions and opportunities. It is a tough time for local government, but tough times produce change for local government, and many would argue that it is necessary change. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East touted the figure of 80% increases in local government spending under the previous Labour Government. It could be argued that public sector organisations need periods of retrenchment during which they can examine how their processes are operating. We might be looking at a period of necessary change in local government during a tough period of fiscal retrenchment across the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I will endeavour to encompass as much of this interesting, well-informed and wide-ranging debate as I can in the time available. I congratulate the Back-Bench Committee on selecting and nominating this subject for debate, and the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), on the thoughtful way in which he introduced it. He and I do not always agree about everything, but I never doubt his knowledge and interest in local government. I also pay tribute to that Committee; it does great work and a number of hon. Members who sit on it have spoken today.

Perhaps I can deal briefly with the background and then with some of the specifics in the contributions. I will not seek to make a lengthy issue of the economic background, save to say that it is the reality that no one can escape. In relation to the more partisan comments that were made, I have to say that it gives pleasure to no Government of any kind to find that they have to reduce the spending available for various services. However, as has been observed and, I think, accepted in varying degrees on both sides of the House, it was trailed well to everyone in local government and to the public that sadly, whatever the outcome of the general election, the country’s financial circumstances meant that reductions in public spending would be necessary.

When the coalition Government came to office and saw the extent of the problem, they concluded, rightly, that swift action was necessary to reduce the deficit. Otherwise, there were real risks to the economic health of the country and to the country’s international credibility. If that were not tackled and there were a serious economic downturn, which was a real risk, it would be an even greater threat to public services in the long term. A destroyed economy would make it all the harder to deliver the public services that we all want.

There may be a difference between us, but I say to those Opposition Members who criticise the speed and scale of the steps that we have taken that it behoves them—as they are, I regret to have to say, primarily responsible for the mess—to say what they would have done instead. Simply to criticise the Government, who are doing something that is starting to turn things around, is, in the circumstances, not good enough.

We have had to deal with the situation that confronted local government in a way that was fair and proportionate. I want to set the record straight on one or two matters that were raised. First, in relation to the settlement for local government as a whole and the picture compared to the rest of Whitehall, it is important to make it clear that against the 2010-11 baseline, the Department for Communities and Local Government will be making savings of some 33% on resource, but we will also be moving some £6.7 billion into formula grant. That is money that we are ceding to local authorities.

I think that it is some of those differences in the figures that produced the difference in the figures that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East was calculating. He referred to a 68% cut in the CLG budget. No, that is the combined total reduction in resource and capital funding by 2014-15. The resource funding was reduced by 33%, but we have chosen to devolve extra money by putting it into formula grant, rather than keeping it in the Department. So we have passed money down, within a tight settlement, to local government as a whole. In fact, our departmental resource support for local government will reduce by 22% compared with 33% for CLG as a whole, so we are protecting local government as opposed to the central Government elements of our spend. Similarly, although we have had to reduce capital support to local government, that reduces by a lower percentage than is the case for the CLG’s central departmental expenditure limit—the DEL, as it is called.

Against that background, we have endeavoured to support important programmes. We are putting £6.5 billion into the Supporting People programme. That constitutes a reduction of only 12% compared with the CLG’s 33% resource reduction overall. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to tell the Select Committee that we had sought, in the circumstances, to protect Supporting People.

We have sought to make the settlement itself more progressive. I shall come to the imperfections of the formula in a minute, but within the formula that we have, we have increased the weighting given to the needs element to 83%. That is an increase from where it was before and will help more deprived authorities. Also, a number of authorities with significant problems faced the loss of the working neighbourhoods fund, which the previous Government set up but were terminating because it was a three-year programme. The present Government, recognising the difficulty, set up the transitional grant that has been referred to by hon. Members, so we have helped to cushion the loss of the WNF that the previous Government proposed to impose. Therefore, it cannot be said that we have not sought to be fair in the circumstances.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who is no longer in his place, made some comments about fairness and referred to the House of Commons Library paper. I am afraid that that paper was quoted selectively. The analysis also said:

“Excluding London, northern regions will receive more grant per head than their southern counterparts”.

It confirmed that formula grant per head in the north-east is, at £696, approaching double that in the south-east, which is £374, and that reductions in formula grant for the north-east and north-west were “clearly less” than those in the south-east and the eastern regions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government have sought unfairly to discriminate against areas where, we accept, there are difficulties. I hope that that puts some of the comments in context.

Let me deal with a couple of other points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He specifically asked about business rates exceeding formula grant by 2013-14. For reasons that I shall come to, by 2013-14 the landscape will indeed look very different as a result of the local government resource review. As he knows, the review will consider allowing local authorities to retain business rates, and obviously we shall have to look at that in the context of the implications for resource equalisation and redistribution. There is a legal obligation to redistribute the business rate, and we do not intend to change that. The assumption was made that there would be a sudden pot of money and that there was no change to what the Government were doing. That is not the case: we have already announced our intention to make a change.

We are making the change because, as was pointed out in the powerful and impressive speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the formula no longer works. They all queued up, rightly, to say that.

We have recognised that there is a need for significant change to the formula and, rather than beating about the bush, we have established a local government resource review. I expect that the consultation documents will be sent out before the end of this month. We hope to do it from January through to June, and central to it is enabling local authorities to retain the business rates that they collect. Of course, there would also be an incentive for them to grow their tax base by growing their business rate base. That would enable us to rethink the operation of grant. Formula grant would no longer be operating in the same system. I totally accept the point made by hon. Members that in those reforms, it is crucial that we find something that is much more transparent than the Schleswig-Holstein question. Actually, this issue probably makes the Schleswig-Holstein question seem comparatively simple. So that is what we are doing.

[Mr Betts]

I hope that the Minister responds specifically to this question; it is an important one. Is he saying that when the Government go out to consultation on a new method of funding for local government, including local authorities keeping their business rate, they will also deal with the question of how, in that context, redistribution in terms of need and resources can also be achieved?

[Robert Neill]

It is intended to be a comprehensive review of local government resource. We shall have to consider all those issues. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the document itself. He will understand why I cannot go into detail; I am sure that we shall be laying a statement before the House about the content of the document. However, it is intended to be a comprehensive review of the resource, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with what he sees in terms of its parameters. I know that the Select Committee will certainly want to discuss with the Department the way in which we carry the review forward, and we will welcome that. Against that background, the Government have sought to achieve a balance.

I accept the points made by my hon. Friends: we must be prepared to be a little less conservative with a small c in our approach to delivering local services. I do not think that small c conservatism is generally found on this side of the Chamber at the moment. Local authorities have worked hard to produce efficiencies—I accept that—but it is clear that yet more can be done. For example, the CBI has pointed out the considerable further savings that could be made by local authorities banding together to use their procurement powers. Baroness Eaton and her colleagues are up for doing that, and I am sure they will. It is not a question of chief executive pay, for example, closing the funding gap, but at times such as these, it is not illegitimate for the Government to say that if we have to prioritise, the message that pay sends is important. It is fair and proper to look at these matters in that context.

I take on board the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who was my old comrade-in-arms in the London Assembly. Given the Mayor we had, “comrade” was probably appropriate from time to time. I also agree with a comrade from the opposite side of the London Assembly, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), about support for the voluntary sector. It is hugely important, which is why the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that in these difficult times it is important that local councils do not fall back on the usual suspects in their approach to reductions, such as salami-slicing. They get rid of the voluntary sector grants first because they are the easiest, but often it is those voluntary sector groups that deliver public services in the most imaginative and innovative manner. That is where remuneration comes in and is why we are increasing transparency for the public over remuneration in the Localism Bill—that is the right way.

I hope that a director or chief executive on a six-figure salary signing off a report for a council recommending cutting a six-figure grant from voluntary groups will not feel entirely comfortable in doing so when looking at their comparative positions. That is a legitimate point in the context of this debate. We will all have to constrain expenditure that is not directed at the front line. That is not to rubbish the work done in local government, but it is right to accept that people are surprised when they see the salary inflation at that level; people are right to question whether that is the best way to spend the money. That is how the Department has looked forward.

We are, of course, keen to assist local authorities to grow their economies and to rebalance them. That is why, as well as the Supporting People programme, to which I have already referred, we are spending more than £2 billion on the decent homes programme, and continuing to support the disabled facilities grant and to facilitate the passage of the vulnerable into work in the community. The regional growth fund of £1.4 billion taken together with the local enterprise partnerships, set up with business and local councils as key partners, affords an opportunity to refocus economies. We seek to align that regional growth with the equal sum in the European regional development fund. Work is being done to channel such resource as we can afford into areas that will make the most difference.

References were made to housing funding and the benefit changes. It is worth remembering that even with the changes, a third of homes in London will remain affordable. About 17,000 households may be affected, but the choice they will be left with is no different to the choice that the low-waged who are not on benefits face. We cannot continue with a situation in which expenditure on housing benefits has risen from £14 billion to £21 billion. It is about getting the balance right. Of course, we will continue to liaise with our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions on those issues.

I see that time is creeping round, and I know that my hon. Friends raised other specific points. With your permission, Mr Robertson, I will respond to them by letter. Detailed matters, such as private sewers, are probably best dealt with in that manner.