Ukraine

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We have stepped up the support we provide to Ukraine, but there has been no change in the basis on which we provide that support to Ukraine.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his clear personal commitment. It is very expensive for Putin to fight this war, but he is getting a lot of money from the sale of oil. There are real concerns that British firms, or firms with British connections, are facilitating and enabling the illegal oil trade. What more can be done, in co-operation with the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that sanctions are more effective against the Russian oil trade?

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

That was an issue the Committee was mindful of. That wording in the report is very clear. Where there are large surpluses, and there are housing shortages to be met, housing associations should look to make sure those surpluses are spent in a way that delivers more homes.

It is also important that housing association boards look at how their resources can be managed to the maximum efficiency. The public sector as a whole has had to have an eye on efficiency in the last few years. The housing associations are deliberately not in the public sector, and the Government have taken steps to deal with that issue. Nevertheless, they receive public funding, and they should make sure they spend that public money as efficiently as possible.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I welcome this unanimous cross-party report, which reinforces criticism and opposition already voiced by Conservative Members and by the Conservative-led Local Government Association about the huge loss of affordable homes in rural and urban areas alike as a result of the Housing and Planning Bill. The other place is set to examine the Bill’s provisions on housing associations’ right to buy and the forced sale of council homes on 3 March, so what steps will my hon. Friend take to make sure that peers know all about this important report before then?

[Mr Betts]

I would have thought that making this statement today was a start to that process and give the report some publicity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be sending messages to his colleagues in the other place where he wants to draw particular aspects to their attention. A key issue is how the right-to-buy scheme should be funded. I think it would be very helpful for their lordships if the Government were to produce the calculations on how the sale of high-value council assets in relation to right-to-buy discounts, the replacement of the sold-off council homes, and the brownfield regeneration fund—which I think we can all support as a very good principle—can all be funded. We need to see the Government’s figures given that we had evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing that the maximum amount raised from the levy would be about £2.2 billion a year, which would not cover the three costs that need to be covered to meet the Government’s intentions.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I thank my hon. Friend and applaud his effort to talk to providers in his constituency. The fears that Framework expressed are widely voiced and shared by providers who offer that type of housing and support. I do not know what figures he has for Nottingham, but Homeless Link cites figures in Birmingham that expose the shortfall. The average national rent in a homeless hostel is about £180 per week. The local housing allowance rate in Birmingham is half that figure, at £98.87 a week. The local housing allowance rate for a room in a shared house, which is all that single people under 35 are entitled to, is just £57.34 a week—a shortfall of over £120 per week, per tenant.

Supported housing is not just an emergency bed or a roof over someone’s head; the support helps people to get their lives back together. Last year, 1,500—or two in five—people housed by St Mungo’s in its hostels moved on from supported housing into individual accommodation. Last year, St Vincent’s—the Manchester-based housing charity—saw 15 of its young Foyer residents go on to university, one to Oxford. For thousands of other people with severe autism, learning disabilities, dementia and mental illness, living as independently as possible in supported housing, there is no alternative but hospital and residential care, which are much more institutionalised for the residents and much more expensive for the taxpayer. This policy risks turning the clock back on people’s lives and standards of care by 40 years.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has illustrated his case by referring to people for whom the alternative may be much more expensive and less adequate care. There are other people, such as women fleeing domestic violence with their children, who come to very good accommodation in my constituency, who will have no alternative at all if those places are closed down as a result of these measures.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, understands this better perhaps than anyone in the House. There is no alternative to the supported housing needed by many of the most vulnerable people, and which they have at present. That is why Ministers must act immediately to exempt supported housing in full from the crude cuts and undertake a detailed consultation with providers about how such housing can be secured in future. Before Christmas, I revealed the scale of the problems facing people in specialist supported housing.

Housing

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am certainly in favour of aspiration and of home ownership. Under the last Labour Government, the number of homeowners increased by more than 1 million. However, I confirmed on Second Reading that we will oppose right to buy funded by forced sale of council homes because it will lead to a huge loss of affordable homes to rent and buy that people in this country need. That policy will penalise people on ordinary, modest incomes.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend not amazed that, despite the Government’s claim that their policy of selling off high value council homes will fund the replacement of housing association properties and council homes, as well as a contribution towards the remediation of brownfield sites, they still cannot table for hon. Members the figures to justify that?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, the Select Committee is examining those matters. It is not the first time that the sums do not add up, but if the Government are going to force the sale of council assets to fund the programme to extend the right to buy to housing associations, why do they not start with some of their own assets? Why do they not start by funding their policy with Government support, instead of taking it, like some medieval baron, from councils because their coffers are empty?

Ministers made much of starter homes and there is clearly a need for more affordable homes to buy, especially given that the number has fallen in the past five years by nearly 30%. However, the Government’s starter homes will be a non-starter for families on ordinary incomes. Shelter calculates that, across the country, one would need an annual income of around £50,000 and a deposit of £40,000 to afford a starter home. In London, one would need an income of £77,000 and a deposit of £98,000. That is simply out of reach for most of those on middle incomes—working families, who need help to buy the most. Of course, there are no controls to stop those who can afford to buy without help from the Government taking advantage of the scheme. There is a big risk that those who need it least will benefit most.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My guess is that the Conservative leaders of Kensington and Chelsea and of Westminster have had an influence on the Conservative leadership of the Local Government Association, because it has made it clear that it opposes the plan and it has warned of the consequences

“in particular on council waiting lists, homelessness and housing benefit.”

Alongside this policy, clauses 3 to 6 overturn 25 years of planning law established by the Conservatives in 1990, with cross-party support, to require developers to help to provide affordable homes. So the very system of planning obligations that has delivered nearly 250,000 genuinely affordable homes to rent and to buy in the past decade will be set aside by Ministers imposing starter home obligations only. It is a field day for developers, and a dark day for families wanting to rent or buy an affordable home.

[Mr Betts]

Are not the legislative proposals on starter homes worrying for two reasons? Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the starter homes, the provision will not add a single property to those being built over the course of this Parliament. Every property built as a starter home will replace a home that would have been built under section 106 obligations on an affordable basis. Secondly, this is an incredibly centralising measure under which central Government will dictate the details of planning permissions given on every site for which a local authority receives a planning application.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right on both counts. His Committee is conducting an inquiry into housing associations and I look forward to the report, as it will have great cross-party authority and will help this House and the other place get to grips with what the Bill means for the future.

The Chartered Institute of Housing, the independent professional experts, says that this fire sale of affordable council homes to fund the extension of the right to buy could mean the loss of 195,000 genuinely affordable social rented homes in the next five years. Although housing associations might well build more homes as they sell under right to buy, many will increasingly build for open market sale and rent. Indeed, one third already say that they will no longer build any affordable homes. For organisations with a social mission that have played a big part in providing publicly funded homes for decades, that is almost as shocking as one third of NHS hospitals saying that they are prepared only to take private patients. The Bill is a milestone moment for affordable housing in this country and it is a massive step backwards.

Let me turn to starter homes. We welcome the Government’s stated aim of making home ownership more accessible to people on ordinary incomes and to young people in particular. The drop in home ownership over the past five years to its lowest level for a generation means that this is an essential element of meeting the country’s housing needs and aspirations. But what is being done is not working, and these plans will do too little to help. We need fresh thinking, radical ideas and a much wider public debate for the future, which is why I have commissioned Peter Redfern, the chief executive of one of the country’s largest house builders, Taylor Wimpey, to undertake an independent review of the decline in home ownership, supported by an expert panel of major figures in housing and economics.

The Secretary of State must face the fact that the Government’s starter homes will simply not be affordable and will be a non-starter for families on ordinary incomes. Shelter calculates that across the country a person will need an income of £50,000 a year and a deposit of £40,000 to afford a starter home while in London they would need an income of £77,000 a year and a deposit of £98,000. That is simply out of reach for most of the middle-income working families who need help buying a home the most. Furthermore, there are no controls on the Bill to stop those who can afford to buy without help from the Government taking advantage of the scheme, so there is a big risk that the people who benefit most will be those who need the help least. As Shelter says of the starter homes programme:

“The only group it appears to help on a significant scale will be those already earning high salaries who should be able to afford on the open market without Government assistance.”

Let me say this:

“When this was first put forward prior to the election, it was clearly intended to be focused on using that land that had not already been designated for housing. The aim was for it to be a brownfield ‘exceptions’ policy...which would be a welcome addition to existing affordable and other new housing. In the policy as now proposed, starter homes are clearly to be instead of, not additional to, affordable homes to rent”.

Those are not my words but those of the previous permanent secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government, Bob Kerslake—Lord Kerslake. The Government’s own impact assessment confirms this:

“Starter Homes will not be additional to housing supply”—

the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). So before this Bill goes through the House, the Government must, as a minimum, change it to do two things. First, they must make any starter homes built through developer obligations additional to affordable homes, not a substitute. Secondly, they must put in place a guarantee and a guard against any abuse or dead-weight in the scheme.

Let me touch on planning—parts 6 and 7 of the Bill. With Ministers in a political panic about falling so far short of the new build numbers that they have pledged, this Bill gives them wide-ranging powers to impose new house building and override local community concerns and local plans. With a total of 32 new housing and planning powers for the centre, this legislation signals the end of localism. We welcome the measures to speed up the planning process where there is a clear case for doing so and where local decision making is not ignored, but there are serious concerns about some aspects of this Bill that will be shared in all parts of the House. I say that to the Housing and Planning Minister, who is chuntering again, because he might want to address them when he winds up. Those concerns are heightened, first, by the fact that there has been no consultation on the most radical of these planning proposals; and, secondly, by the fact that so much is left as open-ended powers for the Secretary of State.

Clauses 3, 4, 97, 102 and 107 introduce very far-reaching changes. [Interruption.] Instead of laughing, I suggest that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) look at those five clauses. These far-reaching changes must be clarified and justified by the Secretary of State, and they should be restricted as the Bill goes through Parliament if they cannot be justified. In order to do so, will the Secretary of State guarantee, as he should, that the draft regulations are available to the House when these clauses are debated in the Public Bill Committee?

European Regional Development Fund

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Dorries. The all-party report on the European regional development fund was literally that, because all Committee members agreed with it. That is the way it should be. We took evidence, and on the basis of that evidence, we came to our conclusions. The attendance at this debate probably reflects the fact that all members of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government are happy for me to speak on their behalf about the report and raise the few issues on which we took a slightly different view from those eventually indicated by the Government in their response. The Committee was unanimous in valuing the ERDF, which has clearly done excellent things in many parts of the country, particularly the poorer parts, which, for the obvious reason that that is what the ERDF is designed for, have benefited from the scheme.

One of the first things that we examined is the fact that although everyone thinks that the ERDF is good and has done good things in the areas where it has been spent, no one can actually prove it. There was certainly little hard evidence about the ERDF’s actual impact. What is better because of it? What jobs and facilities exist now that would not have been there if not for the ERDF? The Government gave us a helpful response indicating that they are now doing more work to monitor and evaluate this round of the ERDF. That should be done some time this year, and it will then feed into any proposals for spending during the next ERDF spending round. That is welcome. Does the Minister have any further information on that evaluation study? What is it likely to cover, when is it likely to report and when is it likely to be made public? I think he has promised that a copy will be sent to the Committee for our consideration. It would be helpful to have that further information.

The Committee considered the changes that had occurred. Clearly, we do not want to get into a debate— I am sure, Ms Dorries, that you will pull me up if I do—on the wider issue of the benefits or otherwise of the abolition of the regional development agencies, but it clearly changed the control of ERDF funding, the responsibility for which was given to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

While my hon. Friend is still on the question of all-party consensus and before he strays away from it to the abolition of the RDAs, does he acknowledge that the Heseltine review, which has a good deal of support across the parties, recognises the importance of EU funds such as the ERDF as a boost to economic growth and structural change?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely, and I will say a little more about it later. It is probably consistent with the European Commission’s recommendations on trying to improve how European funds are spent by pulling the various funding streams together at a European level, thus enabling simplification within the UK, and allowing that funding to be controlled and brought together with other funds at local level, including through local enterprise partnerships. That would be entirely compatible with and would boost the direction of travel for which Lord Heseltine has been arguing. That is an important and valid point.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend will forgive me if he plans to move on to this, but it is critical to know how the now-secured ERDF funding will be spent and the degree of local discretion, decision-making and flexibility, particularly at the LEP level or, in our case, the Sheffield city region level. I hope that he will encourage the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give us maximum localist discretion.

[Mr Betts]

That is absolutely right. I was going to touch on that a bit later, but I am certainly happy to do so now. It is important that the European Union has recognised that, and it is important that Departments are prepared to do so. The challenge for Ministers is getting an overview and ensuring that the totality of available funding in the ERDF budget is spent, while giving local flexibility to ensure that it is spent on the right projects and in the right ways to benefit local communities. It is always a challenge for those of us with a localist bent who want more decisions to be made at a local level to ensure that that is done so as to keep national commitments and spending budgets intact.

I come to the DCLG’s responsibility. The evidence that we had—it was clear, and I do not think that there was any dissenting evidence—showed that by and large, the switch from RDAs to DCLG, as an administrative exercise, had been well managed. However, there were one or two examples of potential delays. We asked the Government to examine those, and the response was, “We can’t find any evidence of delays.” The Committee was a bit concerned—that concern has grown—that Ministers were a little complacent in saying, “We’ve got 98% of the money committed.” By “committed”, they meant projects in the pipeline as well. It was not all contractually committed; “committed” also meant projects that were moving forward but had not been finally signed off. Historically, with the ERDF and similar budgets, to hit the target of 100% spending, it has probably been necessary to have more than 100% commitment when moving forward.

Since our report, it has come to our attention that the west midlands ERDF local management committee identified some problems with spending for which there had apparently been a commitment. The committee’s minutes for September 2012 indicate on the performance of venture capital and gap funding projects that most investment grant projects had

“made few investments at this stage and are slipping between 50% and 92% from their original profiles. There can be no confidence at this stage that forecast ERDF will be spent this year, and this will have a significant impact on priority 3 in particular”.

That problem was identified in the west midlands. Does the Minister know whether it exists in other areas? If it does, he probably should not be surprised, as a survey by the Local Government Association also found similar problems. It said that two thirds of councils responding were not confident that match funding was available for the rest of the ERDF money available. More than half had projects that had fallen through or were considered to be at risk of doing so. Clearly, there are issues.

In Sheffield, we have been trying to get Government funding for flood defences, following the serious floods of 2007. We welcome the commitment from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to find that money. When we were arguing early last year, we were told that ERDF funding would be necessary but that none was available; no one could find a penny. Miraculously, £1.75 million was available later in the year. I do not know where the money was found—it probably floated down the River Don and into the hands of civil servants.

[John Healey]

It floated down from Rotherham.

[Mr Betts]

The money was clearly available; ultimately, DEFRA found the money in its budget. We did not think that ERDF funding was available, but it is widely known that civil servants ring up local authorities across the country on the QT and whisper, “Have you got any projects available? We may have a bit of ERDF slippage elsewhere that we could do with spending.” We had assurances from Ministers 12 months ago that all was well, all was committed and there were no problems. Of course if it is 98%, not everything is contractually committed. Even contracts have slippage. A year later, slippage will occur. That could have been anticipated. I am surprised that Ministers were as reassured as they appeared to be by the information at that stage.

I assume the minutes from the west midlands are replicated elsewhere. The Minister has probably not had a chance to look at those minutes or to ask for minutes from similar bodies across the country, but he may find that similar concerns have been expressed.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about areas not spending and taking full advantage of ERDF funding. Of course, the availability of match funding is critical, but does he accept—he may have addressed this in his report—that there is an understandable caution among local authorities and local bodies given their experience in recent years of the European Commission changing its auditing benchmarks? Some projects have found that clawback is required, which has caused problems for the Department, local funders and local projects.

[Mr Betts]

I am well aware of such problems in Sheffield. That was not particularly drawn to our attention in evidence, but, in a slightly wider sense, we considered the problem of match funding itself.

We stepped into the slightly controversial territory of the abolition of the regional development agencies, which were clearly a major source of match funding. The funding was flexible and available at the local level, but it has now gone. Our attention was drawn to the problem caused by the absence of match funding. The ministerial response was, “There are local authorities, universities and businesses.” It may have escaped Ministers’ attention that local authorities are not overwhelmed with spare cash to find match funding. Universities are in a slightly difficult financial position, and the private sector is also cautious.

One of our concerns is not merely that there may not be enough match funding to deliver the total spend of the ERDF but that the constraints mean that the range of projects that might go ahead may be determined by the particulars of the match funding. We will not necessarily get best value, therefore, because the schemes that might give best value are not the schemes for which match funding is easily available, which is a problem that Ministers have not addressed terribly well.

I appreciate that the Minister was appointed after our report was published and that he is new to the issues. We suggested that the regional growth fund should have a ring-fenced element identified for match funding because it would give the sort of flexibility that has been lost with the abolition of the RDAs by providing a pot of money so that the best value projects might more easily obtain the needed match funding. There would then be the local flexibility mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), which the Government ought to consider. They removed such flexibility from the table and said, “It is not something we want to do, and it is not our policy.” They should have another look. The last two things Ministers would want are an underspend or money being spent on things that do not represent value. There is agreement on that, but the Committee was driving at how best to reach that position.

The Committee welcomed, as the Government did, the European Commission’s changes to common provisions regulation, which simplified the way in which different funding streams, such as the ERDF and the social fund, may be brought together to reduce the complexity for applicants. That should also give better value by allowing the local flexibility that my right hon. Friend mentioned. We welcome the push to harmonise the regional policy funds and the idea that responsibility could be devolved to bodies such as local enterprise partnerships.

The Committee is generally in line with the Government in seeing no problem with conditionality on individual projects, and it is right that those projects are properly assessed and audited, despite the problems caused by changing the goals of auditing, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. If projects do not do what they say on the tin, the money may be clawed back. Conditionality on individual schemes, and holding a bit of money back until they are proven to be spending appropriately, is right.

We agree with the Government—or the Government agree with us, because it is that way around—that conditionality on a country basis is wrong. The UK is not a member of the euro, and we are not part of the growth and stability pact. There is general agreement that, for ERDF purposes, applying conditions to the UK that are attached to that pact would not be right.

As a Committee, we believe that there is merit in transitional arrangements for regions where GDP is between 75% and 90% of the EU average. Having a cliff edge where regions below 75% get something and regions above 75% get nothing is not right. The Government, however, disagree and feel that all ERDF funding should go to the poorest areas. I declare an interest because south Yorkshire is one of the areas that has benefited from transitional arrangements, or their equivalent, in the past.

Have the Government analysed the potential effect on European funding in the UK of ruling out transitional areas altogether? That is not going to happen, because the EU is proceeding with the transitional areas, but the Government seem to be shooting themselves in the foot by denying UK regions the possibility of European funding through a transitional area designation.

[John Healey]

Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that, right up to the very last moment of the recent budget negotiations, the Government were opposed to any transitional region status as part of the budget settlement? In fact, it is because of the determination of other countries to see such arrangements in place that 11 regions across the country, including the one we share in the Sheffield city region, stand to benefit. May I tempt him to go a little further by urging the Government to consider switching their attitude by embracing the fact that we have such funding for the next seven-year period? Let us ensure that we make the most of that funding.

[Mr Betts]

I hope that will be the case. Clearly, we are where we are, and we ought to spend the money properly. Government support would be most welcome. Did they think through their opposition to the transitional regions? Did they consider the net impact of such resistance on the UK and our economy? Their position seemed strange.

When we discuss Europe in Parliament, battle lines are increasingly drawn on a party basis, but that is not always so. The report was all-party, and it was agreed by all members of the Select Committee. We looked at the issue of ERDF funding and Britain’s contribution, which is a net contribution to the total ERDF budget. We were supportive of the United Kingdom as a relatively rich country contributing to ERDF spending in the poor regions of the EU. That was accepted and not a problem—that is part of what the EU is all about, to rebalance our total European economy and to give assistance to the poorest regions. We did look, however, at the fact that the United Kingdom gets money back from the European Union; because we are a net contributor, in effect we are paying money over to Brussels and Brussels is paying it back to us. There is a way in which that position can be improved.

We talked about repatriation and thought that the Government would be all in favour of that. The Prime Minister recently made a speech about taking certain powers back to the United Kingdom from the European Union, and our suggestion would fit in with that. Strangely, it was something that the previous Government was trying to achieve as well. No one is arguing that that would be easy to achieve, and we would probably not get a majority for it in the next spending round anyway, but we thought there was a better alternative to passing money backwards and forwards and to having a set of European rules and a set of UK rules. The British Government could make a commitment: “This sum of money we would be transferring to Brussels and having transferred back to us, so we commit over the spending period of the European Union, over the next seven years, to spend that amount of money in the UK. We commit to spend it on those regions that are identified as either below the 75% level or with the transitional region status, but we will do so in line with our own developed policies in this country.” It could be scrutinised by the EU but, essentially, we would not have to pass money backwards and forwards, or to have another level of direction from the European Union, and we would save on administration and double layers of bureaucracy. That seemed to be a remarkably sensible recommendation, and we do not understand why the Government do not get it.

We thought that the Government had a general objective to bring powers back. We can disagree about what that might involve in the round, about referendums and their timing and about all such issues, but the Committee felt that that practical measure was a sensible proposal, which would mean less bureaucracy, less transfer of funds and more decisions made locally, but with the UK Government committed to ring-fencing the money, so that it is identified and committed for seven years and committed for spending in particular areas.

[John Healey]

In stressing the fact that what my hon. Friend urges on this Government, the previous Government committed themselves to doing, I do not want him to gloss over an important difference. The previous Government made exactly the commitment, in arguing for that repatriation of structural funding, that he is urging this Government to do as part of the overall argument. We made the commitment that we would ensure that the amount of money due to the UK through the European structural funds would be secured and guaranteed to those areas as part of our argument to Europe about repatriating such powers and decisions.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. It was repatriation within an overall European commitment to be consistent in the amount of money we spent and the areas in which we spent it, as well as in the general purpose of that spending.

The Government response was that the Treasury cannot commit for seven years. Of course it can. The Treasury is committed to the European budget and our contribution to it over seven years. The Treasury therefore makes such a commitment anyway. Why it could not ring-fence money in the way that we recommended seemed an inadequate non-response to what we thought was a practical, sensible proposal.

I have been through the Committee’s major recommendations. There are clearly areas of agreement with the Government: the value of ERDF funding; the simplifications proposed by the Commission; and doing things more locally. There are major issues on which the Government response was not as good as we might have hoped: whether we can guarantee that the money will be spent; the availability of match funding and the distortion of spending through non-availability; the transition areas; and repatriation. Perhaps the Minister can offer some further explanation in due course on those matters.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend, who has experience of local government, has put his finger on the button. What worries me is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to set the central and local shares—in other words, to determine the division of the business rates take—in each and every year, indefinitely. I am not talking just about what will happen next year and the year after that, or about what will happen until the end of the current spending review period. From year to year, local government simply will not know where it stands until the Secretary of State makes the decision. The central and local shares could vary, and central Government could decide to take a greater share.

The Government’s top-slicing of at least 50% of the business rates revenue and 50% of the business rates growth above the baseline will reduce the incentives for local authorities to support growth, which were meant to be part of the design of the system. It will also reduce the certainty that would enable authorities to plan their finances on more than a year-by-year basis, and reduce the Government’s own ability to claim that this is a localising reform. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister—and I have heard this before—that the Government have declared their intention of returning the revenues in the central share to local government; but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), we have been given no details, and we do not know what purposes or constraints that may entail.

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend has raised an important point about what the Government may choose to do with the extra money from the business rates that will accrue each year. The suspicion has been expressed that they will use it to ensure that local authorities must fund more and more council tax benefits. That would be a simple way of transferring responsibility for benefits to local authorities.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Healey and Clive Betts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is very easy to talk about resets here and now as an academic exercise, but when the time comes to do something that fundamentally alters the tax take of different authorities up and down the country, Governments of any persuasion might think twice. We should perhaps think of the history of council tax revaluations. They are not easy, but they have an impact on individual councils, and they are sometimes dismissed.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is really saying that we have not had a council tax revaluation. The problem he describes is a problem for any Government, but Governments will experience a similar problem with business rates as a result of the Bill.