Helen Jones
Main Page: Helen Jones (Labour - Warrington North)(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.
The Minister explained clearly the purpose of the amendments, but the fact that the Government have had to table so many amendments at this stage of the Bill is ample proof of how they are rushing it through the House. The amendments do not deal with esoteric issues. They are not about something easily missed. They simply deal with the situation where a revised calculation is made and an authority may move, as the Minister rightly said, from tariff to top-up or the other way around.
It is typical of this Government’s sloppy thinking and of their desire to rush the Bill through without proper scrutiny that they forgot one simple fact, which the most junior clerk in a council finance department could have told them—that if they want people to pay up, whether that is a council tax payer, a council or a Secretary of State, they must make provision for payment. The fact that Ministers did not even notice that when the Bill was drafted shows how little time they have spent reading it, a fact that was convincingly demonstrated by their performance on Second Reading and on the first day of Committee in the whole House. They are not up to speed on the measures that they are introducing.
We have no objection to the amendments. They are tidying-up amendments, but let us imagine what Ministers would say if a local authority were so sloppy. After all, in determining the baseline for rate income, they would base their figures on what a local authority would receive if it had acted diligently—a term that they have signally failed to define in answer to questions in the Chamber and in Committee. Local councils would be called to account by Ministers for such an omission, and rightly so. It is a shame that Ministers do not apply the same high standards in their own Department. They are as careless in their drafting as they are with the effects of their legislation on local communities. These amendments, straightforward as they seem, epitomise the Government’s attitude to the whole Bill: sloppy, rushed and badly considered.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am interested to hear my hon. Friend advise the Minister that he should talk to local authorities and take an example from them. Will she encourage him to take a trip to Stockton-on-Tees borough council, my local authority, because not only was it named council of the year the year before last, but for the past six years it has been recognised as providing excellent services and financial management and delivering for the people? The Government might learn something there.
Helen Jones
I am sure that it would benefit many people to take a trip to Stockton-on-Tees, as my hon. Friend suggests. There are certainly many things that the Department for Communities and Local Government could learn from good local authorities, but it has failed to do so. We do not intend to divide the Committee on these amendments, but they show what a shambolic lot those on the Government Front Bench are and how little they have thought through the Bill.
Mr Syms
I fully support the Government amendments, because what they propose is sensible when we are moving towards a new system. We are talking about some very large figures, and it takes only a small change in one figure to throw the others out. It is important that local authority finance officers have a clear idea of where they are going with this new system. If there is a recalculation, which we do not expect, will it be perfectly obvious in the information supplied to local authorities? Local authorities will have to set a legal budget, and they will do so based on figures supplied by the Government. If those figures change a little, will the system be sufficiently transparent for local authority treasurers to understand where there has been some adjustment? Otherwise, if it is totally out of the blue and they cannot see the rationale, that will cause more problems than we are solving.
Robert Neill
I take my hon. Friend’s sensible point. That is why it will be done, if it is needed, by making a report to the House so that there is proper scrutiny. Local authorities would of course be notified and the basis of any change set out. We would also seek to give any local authority affected appropriate warning informally and through the formal channels here, and there would of course be scope for Members who represent constituencies affected to raise the matter in the House and with Ministers.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) deigns to support the amendments but sorry that, in doing so, she has managed to raise churlishness to a new art form, even by her standards. I simply point out that I can scarcely remember a Government Bill in the previous Parliament that did not come with dozens of drafting amendments as it progressed. These things happen, as she knows full well. I am a little surprised and she does herself an injustice by making so needless a point.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, page 16, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8A) Where the original calculations did not show that the Secretary of State was to make a payment to a relevant authority, but the revised calculations show that the Secretary of State is to make a payment to the authority—
(a) the Secretary of State must make that payment to the authority, and
(b) the Secretary of State must make a payment to the authority of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the original calculations as falling to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State.’.
Amendment 5, page 17, line 10, after ‘(6)’ insert ‘or (6A)’.
Amendment 6, page 17, line 18, after ‘(8)’ insert ‘or (8A)’.
Amendment 7, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4A) Where the relevant previous calculations did not show that a relevant authority was to make a payment to the Secretary of State, but the revised calculations show that the authority is to make a payment to the Secretary of State—
(a) the authority must make that payment to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the authority must make a payment to the Secretary of State of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the relevant previous calculations as falling to be made by the Secretary of State to the authority.’.
Amendment 8, page 19, line 19, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where the relevant previous calculations did not show that the Secretary of State was to make a payment to a relevant authority, but the revised calculations show that the Secretary of State is to make a payment to the authority—
(a) the Secretary of State must make that payment to the authority, and
(b) the Secretary of State must make a payment to the authority of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the relevant previous calculations as falling to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State.’.—(Robert Neill.)
Helen Jones
I beg to move amendment 27, page 21, line 12, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 40, page 21, line 17, at end insert—
‘(1A) The regulations must specify the definition of a “disproportionate gain” which is used to calculate whether a relevant authority is required to make a levy payment.’.
Amendment 28, page 22, line 19, at beginning insert—
‘(1) If a calculation under paragraph 21 shows that a levy payment is to be made to the Secretary of State by a relevant authority, the Secretary of State must—
(a) notify the authority of the amount of levy he deems to be payable;
(b) allow the authority twenty-eight days to make representations either about the basis of the calculation of the levy payment or its accuracy, and
(c) give due consideration to the authority’s representations before issuing a final determination.’.
Amendment 29, page 22, line 22, at beginning insert ‘Following a final determination’.
Helen Jones
Amendment 27 is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s intentions with regard to the implementation of the scheme. The Bill states that the “Secretary of State may”—the phrase is repeated throughout the schedule—by regulations determine whether a local authority is required to make a levy payment and, if so, the amount of that payment. What we want to know from the Minister is why the Bill uses “may” in this case rather than “must”. It is clear from clause 1 that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is not clear whether the Secretary of State intends to proceed by regulation in all cases. We are advised that the use of “may” rather than “must” or “shall” implies that he might proceed in some other way. I am not sure how, although it might be by ministerial diktat, by a written ministerial statement or by a finance report, but it is important to make the situation clear, because the Committee is dealing with an enabling Bill that gives huge power to the Secretary of State, without being clear about how it will be used.
We would therefore like to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government’s plans are, because the Bill is not consistent. In several other places, it uses “must” in relation to regulations, so what is the reason for the different wording in the case before us? The Minister must forgive me if I appear to be developing a suspicious nature; it comes from dealing with him for so long on this Bill. But we would welcome an assurance from him that the regulations on this point, and on the others that we have highlighted in this group of amendments, will be placed before the House and not simply introduced through a statement from the Department.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend think that local government will feel confident that power is not being centralised if we are able to see the regulations now, as the Bill is going through Parliament, rather than being tagged on, as she suggests, once it has done so?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I, like other Opposition Members, have mentioned the Government’s failure to produce any draft regulations, and the reason why is that they have proceeded so quickly with the Bill and did not want to take it into Committee upstairs. In turn, we all know the reason for that: they simply do not have enough business to go through on the Floor of the House, because their business is snarled up in the Lords.
Amendment 40 would add new sub-paragraph (1A) to paragraph 20 of the schedule and require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations exactly what he defines as “disproportionate growth” or—the term that is often used—“disproportionate benefit”. The amendment, like many that we have tabled, is an attempt to address what my hon. Friend has just highlighted: the alarming lack of clarity in the Bill and the consequent uncertainty for local authorities.
We know the mechanism that the Government intend to use to calculate the levy. After abandoning ideas for fixed-rate and banded levies, they intend to create a proportionate levy, which in effect is an individual rate for each local authority, but not only do we have no clarity about the percentage level, but it is still not entirely clear what will constitute a disproportionate benefit.
The Government, in their response to the consultation, say that the proportionate levy will create a system to allow a local authority to retain growth in a fixed proportion to its baseline level. The levy is intended to tackle the gearing effect, whereby authorities with a high tax base gain more from the same growth than those with a low tax base, but it does not do so. It mitigates the effect; it does not tackle it. The simple fact of basing a levy on growth above a baseline level, however, leaves many questions unanswered, and amendment 40 is an attempt to get some answers from the Government, because, unless there is some certainty about the definition, local authorities will find themselves in real difficulty when deciding on future projects.
Let us imagine, for example, a rural authority that loses a large employer, one that pays a high proportion of local business rates. The authority’s business rate income goes down, and might do so before the baseline is set. It then attracts another employer to the area. When that employer starts up, the authority gets a big increase in business rates for one year; the increase tapers off after that. Is that a disproportionate gain, given that the local authority is simply replacing income that it had previously lost?
What about a town that redevelops its centre? The council would see a fall in business rates but when the redevelopment was complete, it would see an increase. Would that be treated as a disproportionate gain, given that the council might use the increase to fund the development in the first place? How would the levy then apply to a TIF 1 project—as opposed to a TIF 2 project, which would be outside the scheme?
Furthermore, the Secretary of State has given himself a Henry VIII power to reset the scheme. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) should learn that PPSs should be seen and not heard. How would the council get any certainty for future planning?
Helen Jones
I remember that exchange between my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State; he did not get a proper answer. Later, we will debate the clause about resets as they relate to TIF schemes.
The issue also applies to setting the levy. Let us say that there was significant house building in a local authority. That would lead to more employment and business rates, but would also mean that there was more demand on the council’s services. Unfortunately, in the Bill, the Government refuse to take account of service needs and service provision. Where would that leave the council? Would it have made a disproportionate gain and therefore be subject to a levy? A levy set as a percentage charge on growth simply does not deal with such issues, but the Government do not seem to wish to look at the matter. They want simplicity, but in a complex world—and that is not achievable. We have moved the amendment to get some clarity.
Amendments 28 and 29 simply seek to bring the procedure for requiring a levy payment from an authority more into line with that used for the local government finance report. As we have said, the Bill is remarkable for giving no indication of how the Secretary of State intends to exercise many of his powers. As has been said, we have seen no drafts of the regulations. The Secretary of State used fine words about the radical devolution of power in introducing these measures, but it is noticeable that that is totally inconsistent with what is happening under the Bill.
As I said, we have a concern about how the levy payments will be calculated, but the amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities, if required to pay a levy, have the opportunity to make representations about that. That happens with the local government finance report, because a copy must be sent to relevant authorities, and the Bill contains provision for what will happen if there is an amending report. However, the levy is calculated at the end of the year to which it relates and it is not clear whether levy payments will be included in the local government finance report.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a telling point. Is it not extraordinary that not even the basic principles on which the levy calculations will be made have been spelt out in the legislation? One can well understand the need for some discretion for Ministers, when operating rules, to be able to adjust on a year-for-year basis; I have no difficulty with that. But Ministers should be open with the House, the public and local government about the principles on which they are acting. The complete silence in this legislation about anything to do with the principles that determine whether an authority gets a disproportionate gain seems extraordinary.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend, who is a very distinguished former local government Minister, is exactly right. In effect, we are being asked to write a blank cheque to the Secretary of State, who can then do what he wants with it.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a fair point in relation to these probing amendments. Surely, however, a word such as “disproportionate” would require an exceptional change. For example, the building of a new town would involve a more substantial amount of building than the much smaller developments that she has mentioned. I have some sympathy with her view that it would be good to have a full set of regulations in advance of the Bill. It is extremely regrettable that more regulations are not in place. That would also apply to Bills going back many years to a time when I was in her shoes rather than the other way round. Equally, this is a relatively early stage of the Bill, and I am sure that regulations will be up and running well before Third Reading.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a fair point about regulations. I do not know whether they will be with us before Third Reading, but at that point we will have finished debating the Bill in Committee, so it will not be terribly helpful. He makes an interesting point about what he sees as a disproportionate gain. However, the problem is that that is not what Ministers see as a disproportionate gain. That is why we are trying to get some definition into the Bill. Local authorities cannot plan unless there is some certainty in the system, and as yet we do not know what it will be.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said, the Committee should at least expect to see confirmation of the principles on which judgments about disproportionate benefit will be made and on which any levy will be based, but that is not in the Bill. The principles on which a levy would be based are not even set out in the response to the consultation that was published in December. That is not good enough, and we expect more from the Minister and his colleagues.
Helen Jones
Again, my right hon. Friend makes a telling point. The consultation document merely says that there will be a proportionate levy. The obvious question to put is this: “What is the proportion and how will it be decided for each authority?”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation would vary from authority to authority? For example, Northumberland is losing Alcan, which is a large employer in the south-east of the county and therefore a large contributor to the local tax base. There is a big difference between Northumberland losing such an employer and, say, the closing down of a Westminster office block that will be replaced quite quickly.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend reminds me of a good point that I was going to make earlier. I had Northumberland in mind because it is a place that I am very fond of and know well. If Northumberland has lost Alcan by the time the baseline is set, it will be set on the basis of lower business rates. If the authority replaces Alcan with another employer, will it be deemed to have made a disproportionate gain? The Minister must explain why an authority that is trying to do the right thing by bringing in new employment to replace what has been lost should be penalised for that.
An authority will need to be able to make representations when the amount of levy that it is going to be asked to pay is first published. As I said, we do not know whether the levy payments will be included in the local government finance report. That is because the Bill is so vague.
We think that it is only fair to specify that, if a local authority is required to make a levy payment, it should be notified and be allowed to make representations about the calculation before the final decision is made. It might be that an authority challenges the basis of the decision that it has made a disproportionate gain. That is unlikely, but it could happen. It might be simply that the calculation has not been done correctly. We have seen that many times. That is why we have amending local government finance reports. It has been known occasionally for Departments to get their calculations wrong. In such circumstances, councils should have a mechanism for making representations before the final decision. Local authorities are, after all, partners in this process. Neither the Secretary of State nor any other Minister would want to be a provincial governor figure handing down unchallengeable decisions.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend says that they would. I do not think that that applies to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), although I can easily imagine the Secretary of State in a toga, handing down diktats.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is it not crucial not only to have a procedure whereby councils can appeal to the Secretary of State, but to put that within a proper time frame? Local authorities get their settlements towards the end of the calendar year in order that they can finalise their budgets by the end of the financial year and set a proper budget for the new financial year. It is therefore crucial to get not only the mechanism but the timing right.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point. The problem with the whole Bill is that it is difficult for local authorities to know the framework in which they will be asked to operate.
We are not proposing anything that would create a long delay, merely a simple system to allow councils time to check the calculations and respond before the Secretary of State issues a final determination. Most local councils support a levy system, even if they have different views about how the levy should be calculated. We do not anticipate that large numbers of councils would challenge decisions merely for the sake of challenging them. However, it is important for any system to give local authorities a mechanism to make representations if they think that the Department has simply got it wrong. I believe that Members from all parts of the House would want their local council to be able to do that if the need arose, to ensure that the communities that they represent are dealt with fairly.
The amendment would not prevent the Government from exercising the powers that they will be given if the Bill is passed. It does not even seek to change the way in which the levy is calculated—or it would not if we knew how the levy was going to be calculated. It is aimed purely and simply at ensuring that there is fairness in the system. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Mr Syms
It would be helpful to have a little more detail as soon as possible on what the Government mean. I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister is able to set out a little more detail than we have at the moment.
Clearly, the intention of the proposal is to offset unforeseen falls in rate income in certain areas. By their nature, those falls are unforeseen. Is it the Minister’s intention that the levy on disproportionate gain will be equal to any unforeseen fall in income in certain authorities, or will the Government simply recoup a levy of disproportionate gain even if there has not been an unforeseen fall in council business rate income?
If things were dealt with on an annual basis, there might be a year in which there was not any unforeseen fall, so it might be sensible for a number of local authorities with quite large gains to take a share of the income, whereas in a subsequent year there might be the opposite situation. What I am trying to tease out of the Minister is whether the exercise will be annual or whether it will occur over a period of years. Could a fund be carried forward to cover unforeseen falls in council business rate income? From my reading of the Bill—it would help if there were more information—I believe that the fund is to be exceptional and will affect only a number of authorities. One might think of the developments in Stratford, nuclear power stations, estuarial airports, car plants and so on.
Robert Neill
This has been an interesting and useful debate. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and I did a crash course in regression analysis at probably about the same time, when we were performing similar roles in local government, and I sympathise with him. He is quite right: the analogy with the Schleswig-Holstein question is frequently raised, sometimes with some justice, as I think pretty much everyone in the Chamber knows. I can happily inform him that I am not aware of any former local government Minister being driven mad as a consequence. It has sometimes been suggested that some former Ministers have been driven to tear their hair out, although I am perhaps not the best person in the Chamber to comment on that either.
This issue has certainly exercised a number of right hon. and hon. Members in a most constructive way. It has also caused a number of us to be engaged in quite a lot of detailed debate, because, by its nature, whatever system we use—the existing system, the previous system, when we had relative needs assessments, standard spending assessments and so on, or the future system—there will always be quite a lot of technical detail. A lot of the detail will inevitably be in regulations of one kind or another.
Let me try to reassure hon. Members on a number of points. The provisions in the Bill set out the scope for regulations to be made. I say to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) that the phrasing of her amendment 27 would create a duty to have regulations, rather than a permission. I hope she will not pursue that point at this stage, because I cannot conceive—it is certainly not my intention—of the Secretary of State proceeding other than by way of laying regulations. It would be inappropriate to fetter the Secretary of State’s discretion. I can assure her that our intention is that regulations will be laid in the ordinary course of the scheme’s operations.
Secondly, let me assure hon. Members that we intend to consult local government and other interested parties on the regulations in a timely fashion. The hon. Member for Warrington North knows from her experience in local government that, at present, the Secretary of State lays the finance report and there is a provisional settlement and scope for representations. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that it is certainly our intention that the system will include the ability to make representations. It is by no means unusual for regulations to be introduced during a Bill’s passage through Parliament. I think that that happened during every local government Bill with which I was involved in the previous Parliament. Of course there will be consultation on the drawing up of the regulations to set up the scheme, as well as an opportunity for representations to be made during the course of the Bill.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government’s intention to proceed via regulation, but it would be helpful if he explained exactly why he thinks it would be wrong to fetter the Secretary of State’s discretion, because that leads us to think that the Secretary of State might want to proceed in another way. Will he assure us that that is not the case?
Robert Neill
It is certainly not our intention that that would be the case in the ordinary course of events. I think that the hon. Lady is unduly suspicious, perhaps as a result of her spending a long time in the Government Whips Office during the previous Parliament; I can understand how that could happen. It is conceivable that certain urgent circumstances might arise in which we might wish to proceed differently, but it is not our intention to set out these measures in anything other than a transparent process. I want to assure hon. Members of our good faith in that regard.
I also want to make it clear that amendments 27 and 40 are unnecessary and would narrow the options available to the Secretary of State in drafting regulations about the calculation of levy payments. We believe that it is right and proper that the measures should be set out in regulation rather than in the Bill, and I restate my assurance that we will work with local government on the content of the Bill. Any regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House, and therefore subject to maximum scrutiny. At this stage, however, I do not want to limit us before we consult local government on the design of the scheme. I think that that is reasonable.
Robert Neill
Inevitably, one would have to consider revisiting the levy. As it is reported annually, the objective gives us the chance to review the balance of the accounts to ensure that there is a sensible equilibrium. Let us hope that we do not reach such a situation, but my hon. Friend’s point is fair. There is provision for that flexibility.
Robert Neill
Perhaps I might make just a little more progress.
The whole point of our concern is the need to give an incentive at all times for local authorities. We therefore do not envisage ever reaching the circumstances in which the levy is of such a kind that over time it destroys the incentive. That is why there is the aspiration to have 10 years between the resets to allow the incentive to work through. We will consult local government and then place our basis before the House for scrutiny, and I assure hon. Members that this is not intended to choke off the incentive for any local authority to go for growth. Equally, I want to assure authorities that have concerns, such as Knowsley, that there will be a proper and viable safety net that can be kept in balance to give them the necessary protections.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), the provisions in the schedule essentially mean that there will be a report annually. There will still be the annual financial report—that is why there will still be opportunities for representations to be made—and we will consult on the regulations well in advance of their coming into force in 2013-14. As far as possible, we intend to give at least the same degree of notice as local authorities currently have. As my hon. Friend will know, consultation usually starts around the summer and then there is the period when the provisional settlement is announced, generally in December and thereafter.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry Minister, but—
Helen Jones
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he answer the point I put to him earlier? If an authority loses a major employer before the determination of its rates baseline and it then somehow replaces that employer and its income goes up, will that be counted as a disproportionate gain?
Robert Neill
First, it will depend on whether it was in a top-up or tariff scenario. Secondly, precisely because we are looking at two things, the normal arrangement will be that the calculation and the report are made annually. However, in the detail of the regulations there is provision, which we may not need to use, to consider in-year payment if something were to create some catastrophic loss that could not be made up. I am sure the hon. Lady will concede that these are precisely the details that we ought to be talking to local authority professionals about—particularly how best to achieve what we want.
Robert Neill
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, to answer the question in those terms would prejudge the whole point of the consultation. I shall not do that. Hon Members have probed and have, I think, received clear answers, so I hope they will withdraw the amendment. If not, I ask the Committee to vote against it.
Helen Jones
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Williamson
In view of the shortage of time, and with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Jones
I beg to move amendment 33, page 25, line 34, at end insert
‘Any such distribution must be made on the basis of the level of need in any local authority receiving a payment as defined in Schedule 1.’.
The Temporary Chair (Mr John Robertson)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 34, page 25, line 38, after ‘distribution”)’, insert
‘including the level of need in any local authority as defined in Schedule 1’.
Amendment 35, page 26, line 19, leave out from ‘made’ to end of line 22 and insert
‘within the following financial year’.
Helen Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
With these amendments, we return to our discussion about ensuring that any local government finance scheme takes account of the varying level of need in our communities, a problem that the Government seem determined to ignore. Interestingly, the Bill does not lay down the basis on which the Secretary of State must distribute the whole or a part of the remaining balance on a levy account at the end of the year, if he decides to do so. That is the problem with the Bill: too much of it is left opaque; too much is unspecified. Even Ministers have difficulty explaining it properly.
I cannot remember whether it was the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), but on Second Reading a Minister was reduced to reading out the explanatory notes when asked to explain the Bill in plain English, but we do know that embedded in the Bill is a blind refusal to address need. It is there in the use of the current financial settlement as the baseline, which, as the Yorkshire and Humberside councils said, means that baselines may not reflect the actual funding that councils need to deliver services to their local communities from April 2013. It is there also in the Government’s refusal to put anything in the Bill about need being taken into account when determining central and local shares; and it is there in the Government voting against our amendments to ensure that need was debated alongside local government finance reports.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about caring capitalism, but as we debate this Bill we do not see much care for the needs of the elderly, for children, for the working poor or for any of those who rely on local government services. Tory Members ignore it; Liberal Democrat Members weep crocodile tears and then troop into the Lobby after their Tory masters, anyway.
We see the same mindset operating when we consider the distribution of the levy balance. It is open to the Secretary of State not to distribute it at all, and we accept that there may be times when the levy needs to build up from year to year in order to fund safety net payments. If he does decide to distribute it, and it is nice to see the Secretary of State in his place, we will be back to the “all-power-to-Pickles” scenario. There is nothing in the Bill to stop him doing as he likes. What will his decision be based on—on whether he once had a nice day out somewhere, or the fact that an open space was named “Pickles park” in his honour? I cannot see many local authorities represented by Opposition Members getting money on that basis.
In Warrington, we have an Attlee avenue and a Bevin avenue. When the noble Baroness Thatcher was in power, the council even named one of its buildings “Poll Tax house”, to remind people of how the payments that they made had been imposed on them. That is a salutary reminder of how the last time they were in government, the Tories got it so wrong on local government finance. I cannot see us having a Pickles avenue, a Neill nook or anything else that might get us money on that basis.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend’s constituency is rather moderate; I have Marx, Engels and Lenin terraces in my constituency. It is clear what the Secretary of State will do—exactly what he did last year in the local government settlement. He will reward councils in the south-east of England that vote Conservative.
Helen Jones
That is interesting; I suppose that my hon. Friend could think about a change of name to get money for his local authority, although I doubt that that would serve him.
The fundamental problem with the Bill is that too much discretion is given to the Secretary of State and there is no consideration of need. Without the concept of needs-related payment in the Bill, the Government cannot pretend that they want to protect the most vulnerable. Clearly, they do not. The amendment is yet another that tries to address that huge omission.
Wherever we look, we see evidence of the real disparities between different areas. Many examples have been cited in this Committee, but it is always possible to find more. In Knowsley, for example, 58,000 people—more than a third—live in areas that are among the top 5% most deprived in the country. There has been a 47% increase in social services referrals, which the council has had to deal with following the baby P case. In Sunderland, 50,000 people live in areas that are in the top 10% of the most deprived in the country. In such areas, councils face enormous problems in attracting new jobs and meeting service needs—despite their constant efforts to do so, which have often been denigrated by Government Members during this debate.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Bill shed any light on the Government’s decision to penalise Liverpool—the most deprived authority in the country—to the greatest extent among all local authorities? Does my hon. Friend see any way of changing that in the context of the amendment that she is discussing?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend, herself the former leader of a major local authority, makes a fair point. It is what we have been debating throughout the Bill. Everywhere we look in it, we see no consideration of need; the poorest local authorities are being penalised most at every point.
We have said that the Bill does not recognise the barriers to growth that some areas face, such as the lack of appropriate transport infrastructure or of surplus capacity, as my hon. Friend will know from Halton, near her own area of Liverpool, for example. Everyone seems to accept that some growth happens simply because of where it is. Add to that the fact that councils also face a 10% cut in money to fund council tax benefit and we see that there will be real pressure on many local authorities. They will face having to cut benefits for some of the poorest people, having to cut services or having to raise council tax. We all know how difficult it is going to be to raise council tax. The result of the changes is that stronger local economies will find it easier to grow while others find themselves caught in a trap of rising demand and declining resources.
Mr George Howarth
My hon. Friend mentioned Knowsley. Does she accept that the problem is not just current, but stretches out into the future? My information is that from 2017-18, wealthier authorities will begin to see real-terms growth in resources, yet Knowsley will still face year-on-year reductions in resources of more than 5%. After 10 years, it will still have reductions of 3.8%. If what we are discussing is wrong now, it will become progressively more wrong as the years go by.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend has hit on the key to the Bill. It is not simply wrong in the beginning; it will increase inequalities—get more and more wrong—as it proceeds.
Inequalities will widen, even if the top-ups and tariffs are uprated by the retail prices index, and the levy will not fully compensate for that. Remember that even if we get a proper definition of what constitutes a disproportionate gain—bearing in mind the earlier debate, that seems unlikely at the moment—councils need to pay only a proportion of that in levy. The logic of that is that some areas will benefit from disproportionate growth. Others will fall further behind.
Andrew Gwynne
All my hon. Friend’s argument supposes that the starting point was fair. Of course, an awful lot of authorities will have had deep and damaging cuts locked into the baseline, which is the real starting point, and would not have the ability to raise additional council tax income even if they were permitted to do so by the Secretary of State. There is a real double-whammy for those areas. That is why we need a fair assessment of need, so that we can get our share of resources through that route.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right, and many hon. Members have made that point in our debates on the Bill. It starts from an unfair baseline and totally ignores the different council tax bases that authorities have.
We believe that any distribution of the remaining balance on the levy account—if the Secretary of State decides to distribute; he does not have to—ought to be done on the basis of need. Without that and the amendments that we have tabled elsewhere, there is a real risk that services will be put at risk by factors entirely beyond a council’s control, as the Government transfer financial risks to it, but keep the power with the Secretary of State. That is why throughout the discussion we have been trying to ensure that the concept of distributing resources according to need is built into the Bill.
Graham Jones
My local authority is bracing itself not only for the cut; it will have to put further moneys aside for the risk element. The economy and incomes may not decline, but the authority has to set aside a further amount of money for risk and that exacerbates the problem.
Helen Jones
That is an important point that we have not considered so far. I believe that local authority finance officers, because of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Bill, will advise their authorities to build up bigger reserves. Authorities have been criticised by the Government for holding too much money in reserve, but the Bill almost incentivises a prudent authority to do that.
Mr Kevan Jones
If an authority did that—it would be prudent financial management—it would be named and shamed, a tool that the Secretary of State uses on many occasions. It would be said that somehow the authority could redistribute that money and keep down council tax.
Helen Jones
That is an important point. Whatever happens, some local authorities cannot win.
John Healey
Clearly, prudent councils will set sums by against risk. The central problem with the system is its unpredictability and volatility. To make provision against risk, one has to be able to quantify it. That is highly uncertain. For instance, how would the treasurer of Brentwood council—the Secretary of State’s local council—have been able to anticipate a drop of more than a third in the business rates revenue last year? It was probably due to factors beyond their control, and they would have been unable to hedge against and provide for that sort of risk.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. Local authority finance officers will no doubt respond to this by always working on the basis of the worst possible scenario and therefore by building up more reserves than they may need. Government Members claim that they support distribution on the basis of need, which is not a difficult concept. Why, then, are they so opposed to including it in the Bill?
Graham Jones
We have localisation not only of national non-domestic rates but of council tax and housing benefit, so local authority finance officers will have to put aside risk money for all three. It is a triple-whammy, and that is putting councils in a very difficult position.
Helen Jones
Indeed, that is absolutely right. As we have said many times during these debates, the Government are centralising power and devolving blame so that local authorities will have to take all the risks.
Why not include our proposal in the Bill? The only real answer is that Ministers do not want to be constrained in how they use the money. I entirely accept that it might be necessary to carry over the balance if the account is to be sufficient to fund safety net payments, but if the balance is to be distributed, what is wrong with being clear about the factors that should be taken into account? If the Government reject the amendment, it will be clear that they want simply to collect the money and allow the Secretary of State to distribute it in any way he likes. There will be no fairness in the system and no real account taken of the needs of the poorest people in the poorest communities.
Amendment 35 also deals with how any remaining balance in the levy account is distributed. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State may decide to distribute the remaining balance to one or more local authorities. In amendments 33 and 34, we set out exactly what factors he should take into account. Strangely, however, even if he does decide to make a payment, he does not have to hand it over. The Bill gives him the authority to pay whenever he likes and to pay in instalments if he wishes; I do not suppose that they would come with interest. What on earth is that provision for? We would not expect anyone else to be treated in this way. If I bought some furniture from someone and said to them, “I’m going to pay you, but I’ll do it when I like, in as many instalments as I like”, I would find myself rapidly being sued for the money and would not have a defence. This is another “Trust me—you know it makes sense” clause, whereby the Secretary of State can say , “I’ll distribute the money any way I like.” He seems to believe that he can treat local authorities in that way by deciding to pay out the remaining balance on whatever basis—we do not know—and as and when he thinks fit.
Andrew Gwynne
That goes back to the nub of the problem from an earlier debate—the lack of certainty that is given to council treasurers in enabling them to plan ahead in their council budgets.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Time and again we find in the Bill a lack of clarity and lack of certainty for local authorities.
How on earth can this be the right way to deal with local services? Local authorities need to be able to plan and to have a degree of certainty in their finances, yet here we have a recipe for uncertainty. Our simple amendment would require the Secretary of State, if he decided to make a payment, to hand over the money within the following financial year. Such a provision would give ample time for him to do the calculations, or at least get someone else to do them, to determine the amount to be paid and to hand it over. Local authorities would then be certain about what they were receiving and when, and, importantly, they would be given more certainty about how the scheme would operate.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s arguments against the amendments. Does he believe that if local authorities know they are going to get a payment and when, they will blow it all on riotous living—that they will decorate their town halls with bunting and order large shipments of chocolate cake—or does he believe, as we do, that they will use it to improve services? His arguments can mean only two things: that he expects local authorities to behave irresponsibly, which is like saying to children, “You can’t have your pocket money all at once because you might spend it all on sweets”, or—I think this is the real reason—that the Treasury wants to hang on to the money.
Local councillors deserve better than that. They are our partners in delivering services. They should be given as much certainty as possible and trusted to act responsibly. The amendments would achieve that, and I commend them to the Committee. It might be helpful, Mr Robertson, to let you know that we will seek to divide the Committee on amendment 33.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) used a good analogy when she said that this measure is intended to centralise power but decentralise blame. Local councils will be given options over, for example, a 10% cut in council tax benefit. They will face some difficult decisions about how that is to be distributed. When the Minister wrote to Newcastle’s The Journal last year, he did not even mention that in his supportive letter on the letters page. We need to be clear to local people that this is not about decentralisation but about putting power back into the hands of the Secretary of State and, ultimately, those of the Treasury.
We had an interesting discussion on the previous group of amendments about whether there would be any money left to distribute at the end of the year. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) asked the Minister what would then happen, but he did not answer. I suspect that this mechanism is being used so that the Government can use local government-raised finance to offset central Government expenditure. It might be given back to local authorities, but only as a substitute for other types of grant. It is all about centralisation.
In the settlement of the accounts in the first few months of the coalition Government, the Secretary of State was the first Minister to run to the Treasury saying, “I’ve got my plans and I’ll give up my savings to meet the Chancellor’s targets.” If he again finds himself with a large pot of money left at the centre, no doubt he will offer it up to get himself some credence in the Treasury and in the eyes of the Prime Minister as the Secretary of State who is doing best in financially managing his Department, even though the pain of that is being borne on the shoulders of local businesses and local people.
Robert Neill
That just enables the sum to be carried over. The point is that it would remain in the same account. It could not be used for any other purpose. It could be carried forward for a year as part of a buffer, but as I have indicated, it could go out of the levy account only by way of a safety net payment or as a distribution of the remaining balance to local authorities. Either way, it would go back to local government. That is the key point that I am not sure has been grasped. I therefore hope that Members will not press amendment 33 to a Division.
Amendment 35 would require any payment in respect of the remaining balance to take place in the following year. There are some technical reasons why I do not believe it would work, including the need for any payment from central Government to local authorities to include the standard provisions about Treasury consent. I know that Opposition Members will remember that. It is a technical thing, but it has to be done.
I assure Members that in practice we would not want to hold back any distribution of the remaining balance once it had been agreed in the local government finance report. However, payment as described in the amendment might be difficult to achieve because of the timing of that report.
Helen Jones
If the Government do not intend to hold back payment, why have they included in the Bill provisions for the payment to be made at such times and in such instalments as the Secretary of State determines? Surely holding on to the money once they have determined to pay it out makes it a gain to the Treasury, however we look at it.
Robert Neill
It is equally useful to have those provisions to deal with in-year payments, and I have already indicated to the hon. Lady that we do not intend to hold back the money and make gains to the Treasury. One way or the other, the money will all ultimately go back to local government.
There are technical issues to consider about the timing of the report and Treasury consent, so I say to the hon. Lady that I am willing to consider whether anything more can be done to provide greater clarity on Report. I assure her that we do not intend to hang on to the money, but if there is a way in which we can make the provision work better technically, we can return to the matter on Report if she does not press the amendment now.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Helen Jones
I beg to move amendment 65, page 36, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2A) In determining whether or not to pay a grant to any authority named above the Secretary of State must satisfy him or herself—
(a) that the resources available to any local authority (including payments made under Schedule 1 of this Act) are sufficient to meet the needs of the local authority, and
(b) that there has been no significant change in the circumstances of the local authority resulting in a substantial increase in demand for the authority’s services or for reductions in council tax.’.
The schedule removes the Secretary of State’s duty to pay a revenue support grant and replaces it with a power to do so. Like many measures in the Bill, how that power will be exercised remains opaque.
From the consultation, it seems that the Government propose to use discretionary grant more like a section 31 grant to meet new burdens on local authorities, but the point is that the power in the Bill does not say that. The power is given to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to pay a grant and there is a real possibility of the gap between the resources available to a local authority and its need growing even further.
I have already quoted the concerns of Yorkshire and Humberside councils about how the baseline was set and the possible gap that will emerge by 2013-14 between the needs of a community and the resources available to it. Their view was expressed reasonably, but many local authorities’ justified fears of increasing gaps are much stronger.
The special interest group of municipal authorities, or SIGOMA, modelled outcomes based on business rates growing at about 4%, which is 1.5% above inflation; council tax growing at 2.5%; and inflation growing at 2.5% over the same period. On that basis, many councils will suffer a real decline in overall income in the first two years of the scheme, first because the increase in business rates will be taken by the Government, and secondly because all local authorities will suffer an absolute decline in 2014-15 as the funding available to local government is reduced overall in line with the Government’s spending review.
In fact, the autumn statement was clear that the Government are not on target to meet their deficit reduction programme until 2016-17, which is much later than first thought. Local authorities will find themselves penalised, because the Bill is clear that the system can operate only within the overall spending envelope set by that programme.
This change—from a system in which grant is paid to one in which there is a dependence on business rate generation—brings with it real concerns. Levy and safety net payments could mitigate some of the impact, but as we discussed earlier, we still do not know properly how the Government will operate them. We have seen no drafts, yet everything is left to the regulations.
As time goes on, the problems with the system will likely become apparent. The Government have failed to consider the different tax base of local authorities, especially because the council tax base does not feature in the Bill. The Government have nothing to say about their role in helping weaker local economies to grow and have shown repeatedly in the debate that they do not wish to take any account of need, yet it is precisely those weaker local economies that are most likely to face the greatest strains on their resources in the coming years.
We have mentioned several times the problem of child poverty. There is a real problem for councils with weaker local economies that need to deal with levels of child poverty in their areas that are well above average. Child poverty is 29% in Hartlepool, for example, and 27% in Liverpool. Those authorities have much greater problems meeting the needs of their populations than those with fewer problems, such as Surrey. But the charities working in this sector tell us that child poverty is likely to increase, rather than decrease, as a result of the measures that the Government are taking. Their cuts to housing benefit, their Welfare Reform Bill, and the cuts in council tax benefit that they are seeking to introduce in that Bill will all increase child poverty.
One example that may have slipped through the net is the increase in the hours needed to work to qualify for working tax credit. That measure alone will affect 200,000 families and is likely to put 400,000 more children into poverty. What will that mean for local councils? It will mean more demands on their statutory social services; more people moving out of private rented accommodation and requiring emergency accommodation, at huge expense to council tax payers; more people unable to pay their council tax; more demand for council services; and less ability to meet the demand.
Graham Jones
Will my hon. Friend add to that list that, with a reducing income to pay for those needs, those authorities will have less opportunity to invest in business infrastructure to attract businesses—the inverse of what will be happening in the net beneficiary authorities?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. Instead of a virtuous circle, authorities could end up in a vicious circle that spirals further and further downwards.
If we look at unemployment figures, we see the same problem facing particular local authorities. Unemployment is up 6.9% in Yorkshire, Humber and the north-west. In Denton and Reddish—my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is not in his place at the moment—it is up 14.5%. In Derby South it is up 16.7% and in parts of Newcastle it is up by 14.6%. All of those are authorities that have already experienced huge cuts in their spending power under this Government and are likely to see further cuts in their resources as the scheme proceeds.
It is estimated that by 2016 the disparity between the richer and poorer areas will become apparent. After 10 years, which is when the Government propose to reset the scheme, the gap between the affluent areas and the poorer ones will be wider still. The Government have said that no council will lose out at the start of the scheme. What will happen in year three, year five and year 10? No one knows, but in the meantime the Government expect local councils to pick up the consequences of their failed policies, policies that are designed to hit the poorest people in the poorest communities. That is why we have tabled the amendment, which would provide that the Government, when deciding whether to pay a grant, must ensure that the resources available to a local authority are sufficient to meet its needs and that there has been no significant change in circumstances that has led to a significant increase in demand for services or reductions in the amount of council tax collected.
The second part of the amendment is designed to tackle the kind of problem that occurs, for example, when a major employer closes down—we discussed that earlier. What happens then is that unemployment leads to more demand for services from councils and a loss in revenue, because more people qualify for council tax benefit at the same time as the council has lost business rate income. How is a local council to cope with that under the system the Government propose? The council will lose rate revenue and council tax, and even if it is successful in attracting new businesses, they will not come in immediately. If, as is often the case, those new businesses are small and medium-sized, they will not generate the same level of business rate. Safety net payments will not kick in until the following year and we do not know whether they will be sufficient to replace the loss of income. We do not know, because the Government will not tell us the basis for their calculation.
The Secretary of State should use his power to pay a grant where there is a real gap between needs and resources. If not, we will see—we have made the point throughout discussion of the Bill—the gap between rich and poor increase. The motto of this Bill seems to be to them that hath shall be given, but that is not the way to run services, especially statutory services, in a civilised society.
Graham Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grotesquely unfair that constituents in those poorer areas are paying for goods and services, the profits from which furnish plush offices and pay high executive wages in the likes of Westminster and the City of London? The poor are effectively paying the rich, because there are no head offices in deprived local authorities. Westminster and City of London will be able to keep those resources and that is grotesquely unfair.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend raises a point that I had not considered before, but he is right about that effect. Part of the problem in this country is that headquarters of major companies are often concentrated around London and the south-east, unlike many other economies, in which it is common for major companies to have their headquarters in the regions. There is huge unfairness built into the system that the Government propose.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
How many headquarters are there on the Isle of Wight, which is in the south-east?
Helen Jones
I did not say that they were in every constituency: I said that they are concentrated in London and the south-east, which is a plain fact.
In any case, we do not believe that this is the way to proceed. If the Government do not take steps to tackle the gap—and those steps are not set out in the Bill—services in many councils will decline, while others are able to reduce, even abolish their council tax as time goes on. We will therefore seek to divide the Committee on the amendment later, and I commend it to my hon. Friends.
Mr George Howarth
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on amendment 65, which encapsulates an important principle. The 2012-13 settlement, which will be used as the baseline for the new finance system that is to be introduced, has a number of problems that will affect areas such as Knowsley disproportionately—we have already heard examples from other areas.
It is important for Knowsley in particular—and I hope the Minister will comment on this when he replies to the debate—that the system is based on the damped allocations, including the grant floor, as that will lock £6 million in for Knowsley, which is a very important sum of money. The baseline also needs to consider the scale of cuts faced by some local authorities in the recent multi-year settlement which, as my hon. Friend has said, targeted some of the most deprived areas in Britain, including Knowsley. It is worth reminding the Committee that Knowsley’s cut in revenue spending power per head of population in 2011-12 was £156.09 compared with the average in England as a whole of £49.18.
If the Secretary of State were here for this debate, he would be sitting there smiling and might even be tempted to say, “The point we’re trying to make with this Bill is that local authorities such as Knowsley should go out and promote their businesses, get more inward investment and shore up the business rate, the benefits of which would offset some of these problems.” However, the difficulty is, first, that that does not address the fact that we cannot switch around economic activity in a given area in a short space of time. We can do it over time, and Knowsley has been quite successful in retaining major industries. Earlier I quoted the example of Jaguar Land Rover, which has remained in Knowsley; indeed, it has grown, with new products and a major recruitment programme last year. New businesses can also be attracted, which is what we did with QVC, a massive business, employing about 1,500 people in Knowsley, and a major contributor to the business rates of the borough. However, doing that takes time, and such changes cannot be made in a short space of time.
Andrew Stunell
My hon. Friend is right and I will bring some of the facts and figures to the attention of the Committee in a moment or two. I hope that will reassure not just her but Opposition Members about the impact of the scheme.
Once the baseline is set—for shorthand, let us say that it is set at formula grant level—it remains fixed in place and in amount, in real terms, until there is a reset. We have already said that that figure will be uprated by RPI to effect that. In advance of any reset, protections will be built in for those authorities that are less able to respond to the growth incentive. For instance, there will be the safety net payments we have already discussed, which will apply to any local authority that sees its income drop by more than a set percentage below its baseline funding level.
Helen Jones
The Minister and his colleagues keep talking about the growth incentive, so will he now answer one simple question to which we cannot get an answer from any of his colleagues? What does he think local authorities will do differently under his scheme from what they do now? The point has been made again and again that most local authorities are constantly seeking to attract new jobs and new investment.
Andrew Stunell
Similar questions were asked about the Government’s decision to apply the new homes bonus to empty homes. We were asked what possible difference that could make, but it has reduced the number of empty homes by 21,000 this year and, as I go around the country, I find that local authorities are, for the first time, seized with the importance and necessity of tackling empty homes because that is an income stream for them. That will definitely be the case with local authorities in this situation. Indeed, the Opposition have given some illustrations that suggest that they rather fear that it might. There have been questions about whether the measure will prohibit the redevelopment of sites if authorities cannot keep the business rate income coming in. Opposition Members see that the perception about receiving a business rate income will be a significant consideration for local authorities of all kinds.
Andrew Stunell
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I want to mention Knowsley first. The right hon. Member for Knowsley has done a very good job of illustrating the challenges faced by his council and his residents. He made the point that he has a number of large employers and he has understandable anxieties about the possibility of extreme volatility that that introduces. However, in the four-year period I have mentioned, Knowsley had an annual average growth of 8.7% in its business rates. Again, I invite him to talk to his chief finance officer and find out whether the formula grant increase for Knowsley under Labour was higher or lower than 8.7% per year. I hope that gives yet another illustration that it is not necessarily the most challenged or challenging authorities that face the losses he fears from the transfer of decision making and money from Whitehall to the town hall
Andrew Stunell
I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman and then to the hon. Lady.
Andrew Stunell
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I agree and I am sorry if any of my remarks conveyed a different impression. He is absolutely right that the issue is not about the future of particular companies in his constituency. On his second point, it is a good idea for me to tackle this issue of need head-on, as the amendment is about need.
Helen Jones
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I have to say that he is advancing an entirely specious argument. He is comparing growth at a time when the Labour Government were investing hugely in cities such as Liverpool and when the economy was growing with a time when that investment has been mostly withdrawn under this Government and the economy is flatlining. Anyone who seriously thinks we will get the same amount of growth in the next—
Helen Jones
No, the Minister quoted the actual growth in business rates. Anyone who thinks we are going to get the same amount of growth in the next few years is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Andrew Stunell
I invite the hon. Lady to check her diary carefully and see exactly when it was that we had to buy all the banks because they had gone bust.
I want to contrast Knowsley with another local authority. Knowsley gets £1,225 per resident in formula grant. I am sure the right hon. Member for Knowsley would say that is not enough, and I understand his point of view, but I want to draw his attention to Wokingham, which is often prayed in aid as one of those rich southern places that benefits from an unfair system. Wokingham had a 3.3% growth in its business rates in the period I have mentioned against Knowsley’s 8.7%, and whereas Knowsley got £1,225 in formula grant per person, Wokingham got £686. That is being built into the system.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said he thought the Government were behaving grotesquely unfairly. He may think that, but I have hon. Friends who think that that outcome is grotesquely unfair for a different reason. We have a system that recognises need, albeit imperfectly and even though we have built in damping. That suits the right hon. Member for Knowsley but does not suit my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner). That is entrenched in the system and it is important that if the Opposition make criticisms—understandably, because that is their job—they should be based on a sense of reality.
We are introducing a scheme that provides an incentive for growth and localises decisions over the money that local authorities can spend. That growth and localisation is very much better than local authorities standing as beggars at the door of Whitehall, year after year, saying, “We want more money.” Surely it is right that those who have the money can decide how to spend it and those who can promote growth have opportunities not only to do it but to benefit from it.
What about Westminster which the right hon. Member for Knowsley prayed also in aid? Let us be clear: he should rejoice when Westminster gets loads of business rate. Why? Because the authority keeps only the baseline figure. It will keep only its formula grant figure. All the rest will go to help Knowsley, among other places—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) says it is not true. I am not sure whether she is accusing me of deceiving the Committee.
Westminster gets its formula grant and the rest goes back into the pot. When Westminster has growth, it will be able to keep some of it. If it has disproportionate growth, it will be taken away in the levy. Two things will affect Westminster: it will get only the equivalent of its formula grant in its baseline, and when growth comes, any disproportionate growth will be taken away to fund the right hon. Gentleman’s safety net.
Andrew Stunell
I am disappointed with that, I have to say. I said very clearly that the Government have reached a settled view about including damping in the formula grant system; I hope that that is very clearly on the record.
Let me turn to the part of the amendment that relates to what should happen to revenue support grant. We are talking about funding outside the local share of the rates retention scheme. We could only use the revenue support grant for other matters. For instance, in the financial year 2013-14, the most likely recipient will be Local Government Improvement and Development. Perhaps the scale of these things needs to be understood: £27.8 billion is being distributed through formula grant—the amount that will, in future, come through the business rates retention scheme. Local government receives funding from outside that, from departmental budgets. For instance, under the provisional settlement for the coming year, the learning disability and health reform grant will be £1.36 billion; that comes from the Department of Health. The local sustainable transport fund will be a much smaller figure—£100 million—and comes from the Department for Transport. The preventing homelessness grant will be £90 million, and comes from the Department for Communities and Local Government. In the great majority of cases, it would be completely inappropriate to do what is suggested in amendment 65 and run those through a needs assessment.
Helen Jones
I am sorry, but most of the grants that the hon. Gentleman mentioned could not be run through needs assessments, because they are paid by other Departments, not by DCLG. The amendment relates to DCLG.
Andrew Stunell
I think that the hon. Lady is asking a question about revenue support grant, and that is the answer that I am giving her.
The Government have strongly endorsed the previous Government’s policy that new burdens imposed on local authorities should be funded directly by central Government. We would therefore want a more tailored assessment of how those new burdens fall, rather than a needs assessment process.
The amendment misses the mark entirely. The speakers in this debate have started from a position of understandable oppositional attack on the proposals that we have introduced, and have entirely missed the point of what we are doing in returning power and opportunities to local authorities. Their fears for their individual authorities are misplaced. With that explanation and assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will choose to withdraw the amendment.
Helen Jones
I want to respond to what the Minister said, because I am not entirely sure, having listened to him, whether he has understood what is in the Bill that his Department has brought before the Committee. First, he tells us that the Bill hands control of business rates back to local authorities, but it precisely does not do that; the Secretary of State decides the central and local shares for each authority. The Minister also told us that need was in the system. Well, it may be somewhere in the system in his mind, but it is certainly not in the Bill. It appears nowhere in the Bill, and the Government have rejected every amendment that tried to put it there.
Secondly, the Minister kept quoting the growth incentive for local authorities. Throughout these debates, no one on the Government Benches has been able to tell us what they expect local authorities to do differently under the new system from what they are doing now. He also talked about local authorities giving all their growth, if they are a high growth area, to other authorities, but that is not what the Bill does. That ignores the gearing effects. Local authorities with a high tax base will gain more from the same amount of growth than an authority with a low tax base.
It is true that there is a levy on local authorities. That does not take back all the growth from a local authority, nor does the top-up and tariff system. Let me tell the Minister again that the levy takes back part of the disproportionate growth. It does not take back all the disproportionate growth. The logic of that is that some authorities grow at a higher rate than others. The problem is that the Government will not accept that the effect for some local authorities might be a huge gap between needs and resources.
Once again, we are asked to give a blank cheque to the Secretary of State to distribute grants in whatever way he thinks fit. There are a number of objections to that. We will be told, no doubt, that the Secretary of State will do that fairly, and that he is a benign, generous and wise individual. His record so far on local government finance would not support that view. Even if we believed that, there are whispers that he might not be in that post very long. However, in the Bill we are giving power not to an individual, but to an office holder, with no checks and balances whatever in the system. I am amazed that Conservative MPs, who constantly lecture us about the growth and overweening power of the state, are prepared to cede such power, with no checks and balances in the system.
What we heard from the Minister in his winding-up speech is cloud cuckoo land. It is nothing to do with what is in the Bill. Perhaps it is an aspiration, like not raising tuition fees, but we want to see these things written into the Bill. For that reason, we will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Temporary Chair
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no powers to do so. Any more points of order would obviously reduce the time further.
New Clause 5
Re-set of the system
‘The Secretary of State shall establish a mechanism to allow local authorities to make representations on whether they believe a re-set of the system is required. The Secretary of State shall, prior to the publication of the Local Government Financial Report in any year, give consideration to any representations he has received and must lay before the House of Commons a report detailing—
(a) any representations he has received from local authorities on whether it would be appropriate to re-set the system, and
(b) his or her decision on such representations and the reasons for that decision.’.—(Helen Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Temporary Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Resets of the non-domestic rates retention system
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall be required to make arrangements for a “reset” of the non-domestic rates retention system every three years.
(2) Any such reset must include consideration of—
(a) relative spending needs of each authority,
(b) relative resources available through council tax income,
(c) relative resources available through non-domestic rates.
(3) The assessment of relative need shall be determined in full consultation with local government.’.
Helen Jones
It is nice to see the Minister in his place after the time he spent quivering with fear in the Lobby.
Having convinced a junior Minister of the value of new clause 2, I hope to convince the rest of them of the values of new clauses 5 and 7. The new clauses attempt to tackle the difficult problem of how often the system should be reset by requiring a reset every three years and by establishing a mechanism to allow local authorities to make representations on resets.
All hon. Members accept that there must be a balance between having stability in the system and coping with change, but a system that leaves it too long without a reset will simply increase the disparities between local councils and penalise those in greatest need. The long gap that the Government want will increase the dislocation between the resources available and the funding needed for local services, which we have discussed. There is therefore a possibility that service provision will become a postcode lottery depending on the demands made on a local council and on whether it has been successful in attracting new business.
Andrew Gwynne
Like me, my hon. Friend might have seen SIGOMA research that shows that all councils face a drop in their income when such changes are introduced. The research also shows that over the first five years of the 10-year period, a number of councils manage to make surpluses, but some do not. By the end of year 10, there is a huge disparity between the richest and the poorest authorities. Is not that the basic unfairness of the Bill?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend highlights the problem throughout the Bill, but the longer the period between resets, the worse it gets. It is not clear what the Government plan, but in their response to the business rate consultation, Ministers say it is their aspiration to have a reset every 10 years.
Mr Watts
It is bad enough that the Minister is introducing a Bill that means that no hon. Member can work out the effect on their local communities and constituencies, but is it not even worse that he will also leave it for 10 years before he looks to reassess the situation?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend, who is a clear expert in local government finance makes a valid point—[Interruption.] He certainly is, and he ran a very successful local authority.
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have tried to get some certainty. But there is no certainty about resets. It is not certain whether the Government’s aspiration will become a policy. The period is too long, and I suspect that in making it only an aspiration, the Government know that and are providing a get-out clause. They will not publish all the responses to their consultation, just a summary, but we know that the majority of respondents wanted a maximum of five years between resets, and many wanted a shorter period. This seems to have had no influence on the Government.
The problem with a 10-year reset is that all the modelling shows that the gap between the richer and poorer authorities will increase, and the Government have rejected all attempts to link resources with need. Indeed, the baseline for the redistribution of business rates is the current local government financial settlement, which has already created disadvantage, whatever the Under-Secretary might seek to tell us.
Andrew Gwynne
I am sorry to intervene again, but this issue is a hobby horse of mine. The general unfairness of the baseline locks in the in-year cuts that we saw in 2010-11, and the very poor settlements that Tameside in particular will receive in 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, so that those will be the baseline for the 10 years of this business rate redistribution.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I have discussed with representatives of his local authority how badly they will be affected by this. No one will believe the Under-Secretary when he tells us that fairness is built into the system and that the Government will take account of need. A man who cannot even find the right Lobby is not likely to be believed to be an expert on local government finance.
Many of the councils who will suffer most have the weakest economies, the highest unemployment and significant barriers to business rate growth, so it is likely that they will be caught in a spiral of disadvantage, with local people paying the price. Labour Members have a real fear that the link between resources and needs, which has already been eroded by this Government, will be undermined further. Authorities with a high tax base will benefit more from the same amount of growth than those with a low tax base, even after taking levy payments into account.
No account is being taken, as we have seen, of the differing council tax bases of local authorities. That means that those authorities with many properties in band D and above will benefit much more from the same rise in council tax than those with a majority of properties in the lower bands. Some councils will end up struggling to protect the most vulnerable, while others might find that they have been successful enough to reduce, or even abolish, their council tax. The result will be that the system of delivering local services will no longer be seen as fair or reasonable, with huge implications for people’s support for the system of business rates and council tax. We saw in the extreme case of the poll tax what happens when public confidence in a system of local taxation collapses—when they no longer see it as fair. I suggest that that is also a risk with this system.
Mr Watts
Is that not exactly what the Government want? They want to show that local authorities have been left with two choices—either to cut vital services in their communities or to put up council tax—but they want to be able to blame them for that, rather than accepting the blame themselves.
Helen Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, we have discussed what the Government are trying to achieve many times in debates on this Bill. Opposition Members are all clear that this Bill is not about giving power to local authorities, but about ensuring that they get the blame for what goes wrong.
In fact, the Government have already recognised in their response to the consultation that there is a problem with changing needs in local authorities. For example, a rise in population would create the need for more children’s services, whereas as a growth in the number of elderly people may mean that more social care was needed. However, as we have seen in our debates thus far, the Government have failed to recognise that many other things can contribute to increased demand for local authority services, including unemployment and child poverty. The argument that that has to be balanced against the requirements of those who wish to undertake long-term projects, by allowing a 10-year reset, simply does not stand up, because most of them—we are talking about the TIF 1-type projects—will run for much longer than 10 years anyway. What the Government are suggesting would therefore fail to help councils with those projects, yet cause excessive problems for others. We believe that the way to avoid them is to have the system reset at regular intervals. The reset should also look not only at the business rate baseline and the basis for redistribution, but at the council tax base.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
If the Opposition are so keen on resets and the ability to affect the calculation based on need and other factors, I am intrigued to know whether the hon. Lady can tell the Committee how many resets or revaluations took place between 1997 and 2010.
Helen Jones
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difference is that when we were looking at local government finance, much of the grant was allocated on the basis of need. The problem that we are considering with this Bill, whereby the gap between local authorities will grow wider and wider, is not what we were considering at that time.
Helen Jones
I am going to make a bit of progress, because we have to get through this.
The way to avoid those problems is to have a reset at regular intervals. Some have suggested three years, and some five. We have opted for three years in our new clause 7, because we believe that local authorities have become used to three-year financial settlements and that they have operated very well. That option is also in line with the responses to the consultation, where only 23% of respondents felt that 10-year resets were appropriate. So much for the Government taking note of the consultation.
In new clause 5, we have also suggested that local authorities should have a right to be consulted each year about whether a reset is required before the Secretary of State publishes the local government finance report. We have done that because we think that local government is the best judge of what is happening on the ground. It should be treated as a partner in the process and allowed a say. Councils would be able to make such representations if they felt that unforeseen problems had been discovered, if major changes had occurred or simply if the system was not working as the ever-optimistic ministerial team assures us it will. Such a mechanism would recognise the key role that councils play in representing communities. That right is fundamental, if we in this House believe that councils have a democratic mandate of their own—as I think we all do—and should be able to participate in the process. The Secretary of State would have to consider representations received, and publish his decision and the reasons for it.
Helen Jones
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to wind up, because others want to get in before 10 pm.
We believe that such a proposal would introduce more clarity and accountability into the procedure. We have often been told—particularly by Government Members—that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We now have a chance, with our new clause, to let a bit of sunlight into the DCLG. We believe that both our new clauses would improve the system no end. It might help, Mr Amess, if I give the Committee notice that we will seek a vote on new clause 7. I commend new clause 5 to the Committee.
Annette Brooke
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I wish to make a few brief comments.
It is important that a local government body of councils should have a position on all the decision making, be it on the tariffs, the top-up or the levy or in relation to resetting. I do not know how formal that arrangement needs to be, but it is important to recognise that the information needs to come from a cross-section of local councils. Of course, we already have the Local Government Association, which is in a position to take such an overall viewpoint.
We have had some useful discussions about the length of the set-up period. It is fairly clear that no one here knows what the ideal period would be. I feel instinctively that 10 years is rather too long, but I recognise that we need a period of stability in order to make other measures work and to create incentives. I therefore hope that the Minister will assure us that a great deal of work will be done on this before we get to the regulations. I have a preference for a period of about five years, but I would also like an assurance that the Minister would have the power to reset, having listened to the LGA and other bodies, should something obviously have gone dramatically wrong. We have heard a great deal about uncertainty and, yes, there is bound to be uncertainty involved in a change of this magnitude, but the main thing for me is that we ensure that there is a safety net in place for ourselves, as decision makers.