Local Government Funding

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am not sure that those figures are correct. However, if that is what the hon. Gentleman says, people in Croydon should vote Labour. When combined with the new year rise in VAT, it is clear these cuts and the impact they will have on public services mean that those people with the least—especially the elderly and most vulnerable—will pay more and lose the most.

I have had sight of recent research showing the overall impact of the Government’s spending plans on local authorities, including Tameside. It calculates that from 2014-15, as my constituents make their contribution to the Government’s deficit reduction, Tameside’s economy will lose £50 million a year. It also shows that residents of working age will, on average, contribute £39.79 per person compared with the Chancellor’s constituency of Tatton, where residents will contribute only £22.62 per head, or those living in Kensington and Chelsea, who will contribute just £5.91 per head.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on defending the constituents whom he so ably represents. He can, of course, cherry-pick statistics as he wishes, but I should like to let him know what is happening in part of my constituency. East Hampshire district council—the provenance of these statistics, incidentally, is the council itself, and they are historical—has seen a 25% real-terms reduction in the grant from central Government over the past 10 years. Does he think that that is fair?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman makes the case for his area, but I would say that areas such as Tameside, which I represent, do not have the capacity to raise the money locally, so they suffer disproportionately when central Government grants are cut in the way proposed by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

What we are doing is preparing for the worst cuts for generations in areas such as Liverpool.

[George Hollingbery]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Rotheram]

I have already allowed enough interventions, as hon. Members must admit.

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank my hon. Friend. In the spending review framework, the Government committed themselves to limiting the impact of reductions on areas heavily dependent on the public sector. To meet their stated commitment to fairness, should not the Government apply the same logic to the local government settlement? I will give way if the Minister wants to answer that.

I was speaking about the Tory-led West Oxfordshire district council in the Prime Minister’s Witney constituency, one of the least deprived areas, and about Liverpool, the most deprived local authority area, getting a 38% funding cut. I mention Liverpool, as I always do, and Knowsley. As an aside, both the Labour party and the Lib Dems have had their conferences in Liverpool. I ask the Tories to do the same so that they can see our wonderful city for themselves. Maybe then they would be less likely to destroy all the progress that we have made in the past few years.

[George Hollingbery]

I have huge admiration for the passion with which the hon. Gentleman defends his constituency. I freely admit that I have little idea how the cuts will impact on Liverpool. However, he probably has as little idea how they will impact on places such as Hampshire, which outwardly may appear to be leafy, rural and wealthy, but Hampshire has suffered a loss of £45 million of formula grant since 2003-04, and expects to lose another £20 million over the next few years. Furthermore—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Not “Furthermore”; it is an intervention. The hon. Gentleman can make a speech in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who spoke with real passion for the area he represents. None of us would expect anything less of hon. Members than to defend the areas that they represent. However, there is no doubt that some cuts had to be instituted, as those on the Opposition Front Bench admitted. There would have had to be cuts, whoever was in control.

In the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined a programme of cuts and spending changes that would allow us to put the country back on a firm footing, among which were changes to local government funding. I know that my saying this is likely to arouse groans from the Opposition Benches, but there is no doubt that, as the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, if changes are to be made to the amounts paid to local government, the period in which they are granted and the amounts in each period, Opposition Front Benchers will have to identify areas elsewhere in Government they would cut. It is no good saying that there are no consequences; there plainly are.

Government Members could talk eloquently about closing hospitals and about body armour for soldiers. I shall not use that ploy, but something will have to give somewhere if we change the numbers for local government.

I shall address one or two of the points made in the document from SIGOMA. I entirely understand why an organisation of local authorities should get together to try to defend their position. Clearly, that is the right and proper role of local authorities in the current circumstances, but one of the points made in the document is about the imposition of floors. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), the former Local Government Minister, was responsible in 2002-03 for the imposition of the floors, which protected some local authorities from huge reductions in local government spending as a result of the formula having changed enormously. The floors have remained until the present day, so any disparity or inequality that might be felt across local government has been entrenched by that rule, which resulted from enormously complicated changes in local government funding rules. It is therefore very difficult at this stage to imagine that in one fell swoop we on the coalition Benches will even out the inequalities created over the past 10 years.

It is reasonable to question the funding formula itself. It has changed a great many times, as hon. Members will know, resulting in enormous confusion across many local authorities and, in my part of the world in particular, a real reduction in funding over a great many years. I have already mentioned some of these examples in the House, but East Hampshire district council saw a real-terms funding reduction of 25% from 2001 to 2010, while Havant borough council saw a 13% real-terms reduction. Havant council has almost no assets. It is not a Wandsworth or a Westminster, with a huge parking income or buildings it can rent out to third parties; it is a straightforward council that takes in council tax and receives grant from the Government, yet its funding has been reduced by 13%.

[Barbara Keeley]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to inform the House what the balance is between the formula grant and the council tax base for those councils? That is one of the big disparities, and it is not helpful to talk just about the formula grant, because many councils in places such as Surrey and Hampshire have a good, substantial council tax base.

[George Hollingbery]

I absolutely understand what the hon. Lady is saying. If I remember rightly, the SIGOMA report includes a table—I think on page 4 —of the differential rates of council tax between authorities. I cannot tell her exactly what the numbers are, but the overall band D council tax charged in East Hampshire, taking in the Hampshire county council precept and the local parish precepts, is higher than in the SIGOMA authorities. There is already a disparity in the amount that local citizens pay in my part of the world towards the funding of their councils, which is taken into account in the grant settlement, as I understand it. As I mentioned in my earlier intervention—I apologise again for making it overly long, Madam Deputy Speaker—the amount for Hampshire county council reduced by £45 million between 2003-04 and this year, and it is expected to reduce by a further £20 million over the next several years.

Those are not the only sources of funding for local government—there is the business rate and council tax. The UK Statistics Authority says that 56% of local council revenues comes from the council grant. If we apply the cut that the Government propose to that 56% and look at the totality of what local government takes in, we find that the cuts amount to about 14%, or 3.3% a year. The Government have been brave and transparent in talking about the totality of cuts to the revenue grant allocations, because the cut across local government is rather less.

Furthermore, an article in the Municipal Journal from 4 November last year said that studies of Total Place had suggested that only 5% of all spending in a local area comes through democratically accountable bodies, which leaves 95% to come from central Government—funding that can continue to be spent without the cuts applying, even though there may be cuts elsewhere. Therefore, a lot of the talk that we have heard—about fire and brimstone, a cleansing across local government, and local businesses going out of business because there is no longer any money—needs to be taken in that context. Plainly, a great deal of Government money is still spent locally.

One or two points have been made about the Government not doing anything to help local businesses. Indeed, the converse point—that the cuts will have a disproportionate impact on areas with high local government employment—has also been made. The Secretary of State did not mention it, but the Chancellor has provided for national insurance contributions holidays, which are granted to small business formations and are specifically targeted on areas with high levels of employment in local government—or, indeed, in government across the board. The Government have therefore taken into account the fact that, although there will be cuts in local government, new business formation will be important. Much as many of my colleagues in the south-east would like the NIC holiday to come to the south-east, we have at least some understanding of why it is not.

I do not for a moment misunderstand the fact that anybody who loses their job faces a difficult time, particularly in the current conditions. Therefore, I take seriously the loss of employment in local government. However, it is also worth pointing out—to use the cliché—that when it comes to innovation, necessity is the mother of invention. De-ring-fencing has allowed local councils a world of flexibility to find new ways of doing things: to work differently with partners, and to take budgets that were predicated on particular activities occurring in a certain way and use them differently.

Various representations have been made to the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, from people across the country and across many subjects, but I was particularly struck by one contribution—I think it was about Birmingham; it could have been about Manchester. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will have to forgive me—we have had many representations. Some 15 or 20 agencies were offering similar services to the local population. If we have such duplication of services in local councils—and I believe that in some of the large metropolitan boroughs we do—there are surely innovations to be made. There is money to be saved, and there are new, different ways of doing things. I commend that to local councils.

[Andrew Bingham]

For the past two or three years, the council in my constituency has shared a chief executive with Staffordshire Moorlands council, which is not only in a different county but in a different region. The councils now have a shared management team and shared services, which shows the innovative ways in which local authorities can save money and preserve local services for residents.

[George Hollingbery]

Indeed, and I will return to a couple of examples of my own in a moment.

There is a real need for local councils to work much more closely with third sector organisations in their areas. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has already made the point that we must not encourage councils to take the easy way out, which is to save money by cutting direct grants to local charities.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about reinventing local government and finding new ways of doing things. I am still a local councillor, and I agree with him, but does he agree that front-loading the cuts when we still do not have the local government settlement, but when we have had the CSR, will make it harder to do those things? Councils will have less time and will have to go for easier, quicker cuts to balance the books.

[George Hollingbery]

Indeed. It is difficult to make plans at this late stage, but we have known about the cuts for some considerable time. Most councils have known for at least two or three years that the economic times are difficult. My local councils have been planning for such changes for two or three years. Frankly, it is no great excuse to say at this stage that we do not yet know the level of the settlement. We all know—and we have known for a long time—that it will be difficult.

[Gavin Barwell]

Did not the previous Government’s 2009 pre-Budget report set out clearly that public expenditure in unprotected Departments was going to fall by 25% over the course of this Parliament? Given that local government was not one of those protected areas, any local authority would therefore have been aware that such reductions were coming, whoever was in power.

[George Hollingbery]

My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates that there is no real excuse for local authorities pretending that we cannot do anything because we do not know how big the cuts will be. Straightforwardly, we know that there will be cuts, and we know that they will be serious.

There are any number of innovative third-sector partners out there doing a fantastic job. I would like to pick just one example from my local area—although it works out of the constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban)—which is the You Trust. I recently met Nicola Youern, who runs the trust. The You Trust has a fantastic way of dealing with new cases, which Hampshire county council brings to it, of difficult-to-house young people. The trust first asks, “What can we teach you to do for yourself?” and then asks, “What can we teach your relatives and friends to do for you that will stop us having to intervene?” The trust goes through that sequence of trying to help people, before saying finally, “The only way we can deal with this is through a public sector intervention.” If there were more of that thinking across the public sector, we would get better results for less money.

I also welcome one or two changes that I think—I hope—will shortly appear in the localism Bill. The reporting changes are clearly very welcome. As the performance management portfolio holder for Winchester city council until recently, I was in charge of producing the statistics that we had to relay to central Government, almost none of which was used to create real change in the council but almost all of which were incredibly burdensome to collect.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistics rarely, if ever, matched what local residents said on the doorstep?

[George Hollingbery]

Indeed. My favourite was on the time taken to re-let a council house, whereby the better we did in re-letting a difficult-to-let council property the worse the statistic became, because of the longer average period for which we had not re-let the house. Every time we re-let a house that had been on the books for three years because it was in a poor condition, the worse our statistic became.

The work also involved a huge amount of management time. We had specialist employees dealing with just that issue and a specialist computer system just to monitor performance management, so I very much welcome rowing back the amount of information that local councils will have to report to central Government. I also became extraordinarily fed up with the number of strategies that we had to deal with, and I would very much welcome an assurance from the Minister that we will not have to do anything like as many of those, either.

I remember fondly the black and minority ethnic strategy for Winchester city council, an entirely necessary document.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about reporting by local authorities, so does he have any worries about the £500 rule, whereby anything on which a local authority spends more than £500 will have to be documented?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery]

The accounts departments already record most of that information, so I see no great difficulty in councils reporting it more widely. It is already on the books, on computers and there to be reported.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Hollingbery]

If I may, I will carry on.

Strategies were piling up and gathering dust on shelves, but the black and minority ethnic strategy at Winchester city council was, I agree, entirely necessary in small amounts. We, like anybody else, had to be held to account for what we did in that area, but, despite only 1.5% of our population having that background, we were forced to put £50,000 into employing consultants, who produced an enormous great report telling us that what we did already was okay. That is the sort of imposition by central Government to which I hope the localism and decentralisation Bill will put an end.

The wretched Standards Board for England has also accorded a vast amount of work to local government, especially to its legal employees. The board has been used as nothing more than an excuse for the petty battering of officials and parish councillors throughout the country.

We can do more imaginative work in-house, as was said a moment ago. Winchester city, East Hampshire district and Havant borough councils now have a choice-based letting arrangement. That comment has been noted by Opposition Members, but I am sure that such schemes exist in many parts of the country. The arrangement has saved our councils an enormous amount, and we have achieved a better result for our clients. East Hampshire district and Havant borough councils share a joint management tier, and the same individuals hold all the senior management roles in the two authorities: there is one team for two different councils.

Hampshire county council now sends less waste to landfill than any other council in the country, and—furthermore—it generates power for 50,000 homes by incinerating the remainder. Hampshire built itself a new headquarters entirely without cost to the public purse, managed to halve its carbon footprint and is selling other Winchester office blocks that are redundant to its needs. It recently invested with the NHS in 10 state-of-the-art nursing homes, so it is no longer fined millions of pounds for being held responsible for bed blocking—another innovation whereby the council invested to save money. On top of all that, it has made £48 million in efficiency savings—I emphasise, real efficiency savings that can be counted—over the past two years.

I leave my final words to Simon Eden, chief executive of Winchester city council, who says that

“our approach in all this has been to avoid salami-slicing, and instead…re-design services, taking into account changes…made to performance reporting and inspection, planning and in other areas. We have also used that process to look at the best way of focusing on delivery of key priorities for the district, cutting out that which might be seen as lower priority.”

I commend that approach to all local councils and hope very much that the House rejects the motion.