Local Government Finance

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Clive Betts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I will make a little progress and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

There are major issues. Why are local authorities singled out for bigger cuts? Within local government, why have the deprived communities had the largest cuts? Ministers could make a logical, rational argument. They could say that the authorities with the biggest grant might lose the most grant in cash terms. I might not agree with the argument, but I can see a logic to an argument that says because authorities have so much more money given to them historically, they are likely to lose more when cuts are made. Can Ministers sustain an argument that says authorities historically receiving the most grant, the most needy authorities, should therefore have the biggest percentage cuts? What is the logic for that? It is one thing to argue the biggest amount, in cash terms, should come from authorities with the most cash given to them, but why should they have the biggest percentage cuts? What is the logical argument for that? How can it possibly be right that over the period of this Parliament, between 2010-11 to 2015-16, Sheffield’s spending power—I will use the Minister’s own definitions —has fallen by £230.60 per head and Wokingham’s has fallen by £2.29 per head, only 1% of Sheffield’s fall? How can there be any rational, reasonable justification to explain that cut? How can there be?

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and incisive point. Does he agree that this bears down particularly badly on those unitary authorities, such as my own in Blackpool, which have above-average needs in big spending areas such as education and social services, but find themselves subject to precisely the phenomenon he describes?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. As I say, Ministers can make an argument that those who have had the most grant might lose the most cash, but not that they should have bigger percentage cuts. They are the areas in greatest need. In two years’ time, we will have the ridiculous situation where Sheffield and most of the northern cities, such as Liverpool and Manchester, will have a lower spending power per head than Wokingham. Can anyone on the Government Benches justify that? It is simply not reasonable.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), an ex-Minister, said he suspects a future Labour Government would find surreptitious ways to redistribute money back to Labour authorities. I think we can be open about this: this Government have not been surreptitious. They have done it blatantly. They have taken money away from the most needy and given it to the most privileged. That is what they have done, to the point where the spending power of Wokingham in two years’ time will be greater than the spending power of Sheffield on a per-head basis. Sorry, but that is just not reasonable and no one can justify it.

The impact is there for all to see. I went around my constituency last weekend and met people. We talk about the need to join up social care and the health service—of course we need to. Sheffield had a wonderful in-house care service provision called “Care for you”, which dealt with some of the most needy people who were in their own homes and required extensive support. Sheffield ended that service because it was cheaper to go to a private supplier that had lower overheads, mainly because it does not train as well and pays the minimum wage at best. I then met a constituent on Saturday whose elderly father’s carer missed four appointments. After 36 hours his father was found collapsed on his bedroom floor and, of course, was admitted to hospital. Why was he admitted? The care package had failed. Why had it failed? The authority was having to make cuts because of the budget cuts. That is the reality of how things are in local government at present. That is not a bad authority trying to do it on the cheap, but an authority trying to reduce spending, because of the massive cuts it is facing, by another £60 million next year. In the end, much of that will have to fall on social care, the biggest budget.