Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Jim McMahon and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I would prefer to see the wise men and women on Labour’s Front Bench than Ebenezer Scrooge and Jacob Marley on the Conservative Front Bench. Does the Minister agree that the statement he has made today is in stark contrast to the legacy left by the Conservative party, which left local government in dire straits?

[Jim McMahon]

That is the point: the previous Government knew just how bad the situation was, but they put off the tough decisions. For example, how many times in 14 years did the previous Government promise that they would go back to multi-year settlements so that councils knew where they were, but failed to do so? How many times did the previous Government say that they would bring in a fair funding review, but failed to do so? How many times did the previous Government say that they would deal with the audit backlog? They did not just fail to do that; the backlog got worse. If we had not taken action, it would have been 1,000 sets of audited accounts, and that was not due to covid, because those accounts went back to 2015. That failure was systemic, and it was all on the watch on the previous Government. What that meant in practice was £100 billion of public money that they could not account for, so they did not really know the state of the sector, because they completely gave up on monitoring it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim McMahon and Peter Dowd

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Within the first couple of days of this Government, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to local authority leaders, inviting them for discussions on devolution agreements. One of the founding principles is, of course, geography that makes sense—and having coterminous boundaries for public services and the rest does make sense. Without going into the specifics of individual conversations that are taking place, I advise the hon. Member to bring that point into the work on the English devolution Bill, which will make sure that all of England has a voice and a role in devolution.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has shown that her footwork at the Dispatch Box is as good as her footwork on the dance floor. At this year’s election, veterans who brought along their veterans’ ID card to prove their identity were turned away. Will the Minister guarantee that this will change?

HMRC Closures

Debate between Jim McMahon and Peter Dowd

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some of them cost an arm and a leg. The Minister should take on board the question of perception. In a democracy, when we are in the middle of an election, it might be technically, legally and administratively okay to do this, that and the other.

[Jim McMahon]

I am afraid that I do not buy the Minister’s explanation at all. The delays to the lease being confirmed for the Manchester office meant that additional costs were already being incurred. The incurred costs for one scheme were because of commercial and development reasons. The Government say that they could not wait for purdah to complete, but that would have given a new, incoming Government the freedom to change that decision. The situation is very odd.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. The Government should think those sorts of things through.

As I was saying, there is, at the very least, an issue of perception about whether this is all above board. Even if it is above board, it has to be seen to be above board. The issue is that people do not feel that that is the case. We all feel that something is not quite right. In a democracy, we have to be seen to be above board. That feeds into the concern that some of us have that Parliament is being ridden over roughshod on a whole range of issues. For example, we did not have Opposition day debates for months on end. When we did get them, the Government virtually did not turn up to respond, and they continue to take that approach. It feeds into the perception that they are developing contempt for the views of Members in this Chamber and, specifically, the main Chamber.

There is a perception—and in this case, it is a reality—that the Government treat people with contempt. A briefing on the civil service compensation scheme feeds into that narrative:

“On 18 July 2017 the High Court held that the Government had failed to comply with the duty to consult prior to amending the CSCS, in that it had imposed conditions on union participation in the consultation process.”

That seems to be saying, “You either agree with us in advance what we want you to discuss, or you’re going to be brushed aside and not considered.” The briefing continues:

“As such, the 2016 amendments were unlawful.”

There is getting to be a pattern of unlawfulness with the Government—for example, the issues on tribunal fees and in relation to social security. It goes on:

“The Court’s decision is at the time of writing subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

I have no doubt that the Government will do that. That is dated 26 October—just a few days ago.

We are not the only ones making this argument. The Public Accounts Committee said:

“We do not believe that it will save as much money as HMRC has predicted”—

that is the understatement of the decade—

“and we are concerned that it has not thought through all the negative costs to the wider economy of its approach and the impact on local employment”.

That is another understatement, if ever there was one. Many people and communities will be dreadfully affected by this.

Let us talk about service issues. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said:

“Service standards are deteriorating with taxpayers having to spend longer and longer on the phone trying to get through or waiting for their letters to be answered.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) alluded to that. To boot, the National Audit Office says that this has cost £600 million more than first thought. That is the situation we are in. Why the Government are persisting with this dog’s dinner is absolutely beyond me.

Members today have made fantastic contributions that were forensic, surgical, factual, objective and mixed with a bit of humanity, which seems to be completely missing from the Government’s approach. I ask the Government to take these proposals back, give them further consideration and think about the communities and people affected.