Clive Betts
Main Page: Clive Betts (Labour - Sheffield South East)Local Government Finance Bill
Clive Betts Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is very easy to talk about resets here and now as an academic exercise, but when the time comes to do something that fundamentally alters the tax take of different authorities up and down the country, Governments of any persuasion might think twice. We should perhaps think of the history of council tax revaluations. They are not easy, but they have an impact on individual councils, and they are sometimes dismissed.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is really saying that we have not had a council tax revaluation. The problem he describes is a problem for any Government, but Governments will experience a similar problem with business rates as a result of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we have to consider cause and effect. I do not decry what the last Government instructed local authorities to do, but the key point is that it failed. The areas of deprivation then are still the areas of deprivation. This Government are trying to introduce a direct incentive to business growth and economic growth in those areas and right across the country. They are giving local authorities an opportunity to change their view and see the direct incentive to have economic growth. Local authorities will keep the money, which they can then invest in the local services that people need. That does not mean that there is not a need for national investment in local areas when infrastructure improvements and regeneration are needed, but that is very different from creating economic growth.
Mr Betts
There is a danger that we will get locked into a discussion in which we simply assume that the current system has always been in place. Prior to the poll tax local authorities kept all their business rates, yet since 1945 and probably before, the difference and disparities in deprivation have continued to grow. Local economies in different parts of the country have performed very differently, despite local authorities having had the incentive of business rate retention prior to the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman’s argument therefore lacks a little if it is taken beyond the particular complications of the current system.
Bob Blackman
One of the key historical points is that local authorities used to set their own business rates, but then pressure from the House changed that situation for the simple reason that large local authorities saw the opportunity to milk businesses and set exorbitant rates, because business did not have a vote. They could then keep local tax low because they had increased business rates to milk businesses. That was why the national business rates were introduced.
I do not believe that there is an argument for changing the position so that local authorities determine the level of business rates, but there is a very strong argument, which the Government are advancing, for their retaining the money that is collected locally. I believe that the Government are being a bit timid in their approach, because I would like more money to be retained locally, possibly with a slightly less complex formula to make it more transparent. However, I recognise that the Government are taking the first step along the way.
Mr Betts
I intervene briefly on a factual point about what happened prior to the poll tax. Probably one of the reasons why it was brought in was the very large rate increases made by some authorities, such as the one in Sheffield of which I was a member at the time. It is not true that authorities sought to pile all the pain on businesses and keep their other taxes low. Actually, the domestic and non-domestic rates were linked and could be increased only in line with each other. It was not possible to increase one without increasing the other. Domestic ratepayers had a vote, of course, and in many cases were prepared to vote for large increases to protect services.
Bob Blackman
That, of course, is local democracy—if people want to pay higher taxes, they are welcome to do so. I am personally a great advocate of annual elections to local authorities instead of referendums, so that if councillors want to raise local taxes exorbitantly they will be voted out at the ballot box. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Bob Blackman
That is exactly my second point. In large parts of the country, particularly in suburbia, there has been a gradual leakage of businesses, as business land—areas designated for business land and investment—have been turned over to housing. There is an incentive for local authorities to do that, because it increases the council tax base and makes it easier for local authorities to get new homes bonus money. It does, however, reduce the business rate income. At the moment, those local authorities suffer no penalty for doing that.
Under the new system, there can still be a leakage of land and employers. I am talking not about a catastrophic failure where one major employer closes down—that would obviously be a huge loss to the local authority—but a gradual process, over a number of years, under which industrial land has been turned over to housing, resulting in a leakage in business rate income. Has the Minister considered that point? How will it be looked at in the round? I raised the matter on Second Reading but so far we have not had an answer.
Finally, one thing that will be true in this brave new world is that there are risks associated with both the income and expenditure of local authorities. We know that there are huge numbers of demand-led services that every local authority must provide—they have been mentioned already: adult social care, children’s care, and so on—and I recognise that. It is also the case that income levels can sometimes be unpredictable. The more predictable they are, the better. However, there is the pooling approach. I wonder whether the Minister can say what directions will be given if certain local authorities just sit back and say, “We’re alright, Jack. We’re fine. We’ll just keep the money. We’re not going to pool our risk. We’re not going to pool our opportunity. We won’t co-operate with our neighbours.” That is an important point, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised. How will the Government direct local authorities to pool resources, in order to spread risk across a number of authorities?
Mr Betts
I want to speak about set-aside—the principle and the calculations—and, in particular, to draw attention to my amendments 44 and 45. This is the first opportunity that I have had during the Committee stage to talk about the new, simplified system of local government finance that the Government are proposing. [Interruption.] Is that a smile from the Minister? We have to have a laugh about the terminology, but it was the terminology that the Secretary of State used when introducing the consultation proposals. He called it a simplified system, but I do not think that anybody, even—
Robert Neill
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I was smiling just to say how pleased we are to see the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government among us.
Mr Betts
It is very nice of the Minister to say so, so I will smile in return. However, even he could not rise now and say that this is a simplified system. It is a new system—it is a radical departure—but it is certainly no less complicated than what went before it; rather, it is complicated in a different way.
Let us talk about transparency. By that I mean the possibility that when a development is put forward in part of a local authority area, it is possible to say to residents, “If that development is granted, these will be the financial consequences.” There is no chance of that happening with this piece of legislation. It will be very difficult for local authority treasurers to explain to their members collectively what the implications of the new legislation are, let alone for a local councillor to tell residents looking at a planning application, “These are the financial consequences of accepting this proposal.”
I have no problem with the principle behind the Bill; indeed, I think there is a shared principle across the Committee. We all realise that there must be more incentives in the system to reward local authorities for encouraging and promoting growth in their areas. There is no problem with that principle at all. The difficulty, which is reflected in the responses to the consultation on the legislation that we are considering today, is that the authorities with a relatively high business rate base, or the potential to develop one and grow their business rate relatively easily, are obviously all arguing for lower tariffs and top-ups, whereas those that have lower business rate bases and more difficulty in attracting growth to their areas, perhaps including those with the greatest need, are arguing for more top-ups and tariffs.
As I said on Second Reading, the Government have a fundamental problem. Because of the effective removal of Government grant to local authorities from 2013-14, they are now trying to use the business rate to do two potentially contradictory things. They are trying to use the business rate as a mechanism to encourage growth and development, rewarding authorities by allowing them to keep the business rates that are raised from development and growth, but they are also trying to use it as a method of redistribution to help authorities that cannot achieve development and growth easily, and that have problems of deprivation. The Government are trying to do two things with one tax, which is a problem. That is why we have such a complicated arrangement.
If there was a separate element of Government grant that could be used for redistribution and if authorities were then allowed to keep their business rates, separately—as was the case with the old system, which we have just discussed with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—that would be relatively easy. There would be a business rate that was an incentive and a Government grant for redistribution. The fact is that we do not have the second of those; complications thus arise.
Some of us can remember the GREAs—the grant related expenditure assessments—the SSAs or standard spending assessments and other complicated arrangements like regression analysis that used to be done on all these matters. On every consultation, local authorities in various parts of the country would have different views about the allocation of resources and the finance system—of course they did, and the same applies on this occasion. What the Secretary of State and this Government have managed to do this time, however, is to unite the whole of local government on one fundamental issue—a feat that I do not think has been achieved before by any Government or any Secretary of State in relation to local authority finance.
Every local authority association and every local authority in the country has united against the principle of set-aside. They all view this as central Government putting their hands into the local authority pot and taking money out of it for themselves. When we used to debate local government finance, as we still do, most people rightly assumed that it was a debate about finance for local government. Now the debate is going to be about finance from local government, as local government will be contributing to national Government and the national Treasury. We will no longer talk about a business rate that is collected locally and distributed nationally, but a business rate that is collected locally and spent nationally. That does not strike me as a terribly localist move.
The Government have created a fundamental problem for themselves with set-aside. One can see the Secretary of State sat in his office, snaffling local government resources and getting into the Chancellor’s good books by passing those resources over and saying, “Look, I’ve done it again, Chancellor. I’m the good guy in all this; I’m giving you lots more money to spend.” Perhaps it is more like good cop, bad cop. We generally see the Secretary of State coming along to join the Minister for these debates, with the Secretary of State doing the broad sweep and the Minister knowing the detail. Perhaps they will go along to the Local Government Association in future when the pantomime season is in bloom. The Minister will go along as the wicked uncle, describing how much the set-aside is going to be worth in that year and how much is going to be taken away, while the Secretary of State will come along as the fairy godmother to say, “Look at all the goodies I’m going to give you back when I spend the set-aside. The problem is that when I wave my magic wand, what you get might not be what you thought you were going to get, because the money is going to be spent on things for which you would previously have had a grant.” This is the delusion being created.
The reaction on the part of local government is obvious. It says, “You are asking us to accept 28% cuts to Government funding over a four-year period and to cut our fundamental services.” Despite what the Minister said to the Select Committee today, there is not a local authority in the country that is not having to cut social services and social care. That is what is happening. At the same time as local authorities are being asked to make profound cuts to front-line services—it is happening to authorities of all persuasions up and down the country—the Government are saying, “By the way, we are now going to take away from local government resources that could be spent on local services, by means of the set-aside.”
All this explains why I tabled the amendments. Amendment 44, for example, is an attempt to make the point that something must be wrong when a Government say that they are going to take the set-aside away—irrespective of the real needs of local authorities, which they are clearly unable to meet in the current financial situation.
Graham Jones
On the same argument, would my hon. Friend add to that the housing benefit and council tax cuts, which are on top of the 28% and have a disproportionate effect on deprived areas? Does this not mean that we are talking about cuts of 28% plus—and they are growing rapidly?
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at the totality of the effects of the cuts on local authority budgets. Before the Secretary of State takes this set-aside from local authorities, he should look at what is happening to social care and with council tax increases, which authorities will have to impose after the freeze or deferment comes to an end. He should look at what is happening to concessionary travel for young people, which gives them their independence and mobility, and to care for the elderly and to road safety schemes, which cannot now go ahead. He should look at what is happening to proper protection for private sector tenants from rogue landlords, which authorities will probably not be able to fund, or at the diminishing possibility of providing weekly bin collections across the country—something close to the Secretary of State’s heart. Before looking at set-aside, surely the Secretary of State ought to consider how far local authorities have been able to meet such needs.
Annette Brooke
As a genuine point of discussion, let us imagine a situation in which set-aside is used for reasons that everyone could sign up to, and directed to local government services—an ideal world, I admit. Despite our desire to march towards localism, would not holding back on full localisation in the first few years be a prudent approach that would reduce uncertainty?
Mr Betts
I am not sure, because how the set-aside ends up being used is fundamental. Will it simply go to the Treasury, and we never see it again? Alternatively, will Department for Communities and Local Government or other Ministers say, “We used to fund certain council services, and now we will use set-aside for that.” It will save central Government money. A classic example is the requirement on local authorities to fund 10% of the cost of council tax benefits in the first year—that will almost certainly rise if unemployment rises. What will stop Ministers saying in future, “We have already established 10%, so next year it will be 20%, 30% or 40%”? That will bring no benefit in council services or to local taxpayers or councils; it is just a saving to the Treasury. From a Minister’s point of view, however, it is a neat way of linking two parts of the Bill together.
Graham Jones
Another Treasury or DCLG idea could be to use the set-aside to pay for wasteful weekly bin collections.
Mr Betts
It could be; we are not sure where that funding is coming from. In future, a whole variety of things, such as police grant, could be paid for out of set-aside. Things that Government would have paid for through another source could be paid for out of set-aside, saving the Treasury money. We do not know, because the Bill does not contain the detail. All that we can say is that there will be no power at local level, or among local government collectively, to decide such things. Will there be any power in the Chamber to decide such things, or will it all be up to Ministers?
Mr Ward
The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. We discussed earlier the uncertainty around incentivisation—we do not know what that will lead to—but we can completely remove the uncertainty around the levy account and the safety nets in the central share if the Minister makes a clear statement about what they will be used for.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. We just do not know. All the power and the decision making are going to Ministers in a completely opaque way. We have a right to ask certain questions.
The Government initially introduced the principle because the comprehensive spending review, in placing limits on local government spending as a whole, created a problem for them. It was and is quite possible, with the rise in business rate linked to inflation, for the business rate and council tax collection after 2013-14 to amount to more than the spending control totals. The Government had to find a way of dealing with that problem, but there is no reason why it need continue after the current comprehensive spending review round. In future, the Government could make an assessment of the likely increases in business rates on the basis of their new system and accommodate that within the spending control totals, thus removing the need for set-aside altogether.
I understand the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into in the current spending round, but why continue the principle after that? In amendment 45, I have tried at least to raise the possibility of not allowing the set-aside to become an ongoing, potentially increasing amount of money that is decided by Ministers for ever and a day.
Heidi Alexander
London Councils describes the existence of the central share beyond the current comprehensive spending review period as
“a cynical attempt by the Government to limit the extent to which local government can benefit financially from the growth it will drive through its economic development activity and engagement with the business community.”
Does my hon. Friend consider that to be a fair assessment of what the Government are doing?
Mr Betts
What the Government are doing is twofold, because two problems are being exacerbated by the set-aside. By limiting the amount of money in the local government system, they are reducing not only the incentives for councils but their own ability to do some redistribution. If they did not use the set-aside and allowed more money to remain in the local government system, they might be able to resolve the conflict caused by their attempt to do two things with one tax. The less tax that they have in the system and the more restrictions they impose, the more that conflict will come into play—the conflict between the retention of money to encourage investment and more growth, and the need for redistribution and the mechanism enabling it to take place.
George Hollingbery
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being extremely generous with his time.
A number of Members have pointed out, both today and on Second Reading, that there is a relatively limited amount that local government can do to encourage business growth. It occurs to me, from a more philosophical viewpoint, that economic growth can be a public good, and that Government investment elsewhere in the economy can allow that growth to go ahead. Is it therefore entirely unreasonable for central Government to keep some of that business rate growth?
Mr Betts
I think it would be considered so by a localist who wants it to be possible for money that is raised at local level to be spent at local level. The complicating factor is that there must still be some element of redistribution. In the past that would have been dealt with by means of a Government grant, but it is now being dealt with through business rates. If central Government take away any element of that business rate growth, by definition they are reducing the incentives to encourage development and reducing the amount of money available for redistribution, thus worsening the problems that they are creating for themselves.
Let me issue a challenge to the Minister. Will there be any limits to, or criteria for, the determination of set-aside in a future comprehensive spending review, or will the Chancellor simply come up with a figure? Will business rates grow according to the level of the RPI, and will the difference between them constitute the set-aside? Will no more thought be given to it than that? Will there be any criteria on the basis of which the Government may review the system annually, or will the Secretary of State simply say, “I am not giving enough to the Chancellor this year, so we will have to amend the set-aside arrangements”?
I return to the question asked the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Will there be any criteria governing what the money can be used for? Will it be possible for it simply to go to the Treasury, or will there be some understanding that it will be spent on local initiatives? Will there be some understanding that if it is transferred back to councils to do certain things, they will be given power to do them? It may well be that there are things to be done by local government in the future that are not being done now. We have seen no evidence that any of that will happen.
Will we be given an assurance that the set-aside will not mean a further dispensation of largesse from the Secretary of State and the Minister in the shape of more specific and ring-fenced grants? The Government have almost completely abandoned ring-fenced grants, and I support that as a principle. May we have an assurance that the set-aside will not be used as a mechanism enabling the Secretary of State to say, “Look what I am giving you: more ring-fenced grants and more specific grants”—thus providing a photo-opportunity for a Minister to draw attention to what good things are being done with them by every council in the country?
May we also have some assurances that the Local Government Association and local government in general will be properly consulted on this each year? They should be consulted about the criteria, the proposals and the arrangements by which set-aside will be used and the amounts will be determined. Will there be transparency about where set-aside funding comes from and how it is spent across the country and which local authorities will benefit?
Finally, will we have assurances that this will not be simply a Government matter? This is the House of Commons of a sovereign Parliament. The annual decisions about set-aside and how it will be spent must be subject to discussion, debate and a vote in this House. We must have assurances that the ultimate power will remain with Members of Parliament, not Ministers.
Robert Neill
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He refers to the council tax, which is a separate part of the income stream from the business rates. Of course, we have ourselves removed capping and substituted the ability, even under current circumstances, for a local authority to go to its voters by way of a referendum, which is a move in the direction of giving greater flexibility. It is the authority’s local call. In relation to the business rates element of its income, I restate that it is our desire to ensure that there is flexibility for the future. This is not intended to be a system that lasts for two or three years. I am in favour of multiple-year funding settlements, which I think we all agree on, but our system is intended to last for a much longer period. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for the slight reassurances about his thinking on the future of the set-aside, but will he reflect on the fact that many countries manage a different relationship between central and local government with more flexibility for local government? Can he think of any other advanced western democracy where local government taxes are used by central Government for their own purposes, rather than for those of local authorities?
Robert Neill
It is perfectly fair to observe that the local government finance system in this country is highly centralised, and many of us have often said that we want to make it less so. The Bill will do precisely that. I am reminded of the old phrase, “Half a loaf is better than none.” As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Lyons inquiry into local government, which the previous Government established, found that the system was too centralised, but Opposition Members conveniently ignored that when in government. We are doing something about it, so his ambition is being met at least in part.
I will say something about how this will operate. The central and local shares will have to be set out in the annual local government finance report. We will consult local government on the draft report, as we currently do, which will then be laid before the House and subject to the rigour of parliamentary scrutiny. A statutory consultation, as proposed in amendment 38, is unnecessary, as that will happen as a matter of course. We do not envisage that the shares, once they have been set at the outset, will be changed from year to year. That gives certainty that the uprating for the top-ups and tariffs will be protected until we come to a reset. We have already debated what will be the most appropriate period before a reset. That is why amendment 37 does not give any greater clarity.
The Government’s intention is that the money that comes into the central share will be returned in its entirety to local government, as currently required by the Finance Act 1988. We will do so by funding local government by grant that is outside what is currently formula grant and will now be in the rates retention scheme. There are plenty of examples of localised grants that are made in that way—for example those relating to neighbourhood policing and homelessness grants. The suggestion, from the authors of the current system, that that is centralising should win the award for chutzpah of the year so far, although it is only 18 January.
These changes are an important step towards localisation. There is a great deal of detail and we have undertaken to consult on the regulations, and I assure hon. Members that they will be subject to the scrutiny procedures of the House. As I said earlier, we have set up a working group at official level to talk through the details with the local government sector.
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who is no longer in his place but, for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that amendment 46 is necessary to achieve a degree of fairness in the system. It would have a perverse effect, as it would prevent any of the central share money from being used to fund transitional protection arrangements under the transitional rate relief scheme. Schedule 1, as drafted, permits that, which means that transitional payments under the rate relief scheme would not fall on local government. Central Government would be in a position to pick up the cost if disparities arose. Under the amendments, the costs would have to fall on local government, which is not his intention. I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment before we come to vote.
I will turn briefly to the two Government amendments in the group. They relate to seriously technical parts of the schedule. I apologise for that, but they are important. First, they increase the amount that can be debited from the main rating account to include payments received in respect of central list contributions and payments that are made as contributions in aid. Those payments are made directly to the Secretary of State.