All 1 Debates between John Healey and John Robertson

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Healey and John Robertson
Wednesday 18th January 2012

(12 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Healey Portrait John Healey
- Hansard - -

I beg to move amendment 46, page 11, line 31, leave out ‘may not exceed’ and insert ‘should equal’.

John Robertson Portrait The Temporary Chair (John Robertson)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 44, page 11, line 32, at end add—

‘(5) Such an amount should only be paid in place of other grants to local government if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the overall needs of local government will be met.’.

Amendment 45, page 11, line 32, at end add—

‘(5) The amount debited under subsection (3) must not be greater than any amount debited under subsection (3) for the previous financial year.’.

Amendment 19, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

(c) in determining the central share and the local share for any relevant authority, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(i) the level of need in that authority,

(ii) the likely capacity of the authority to benefit from business rate growth, and

(iii) the council tax base of the authority.

Any assessment of the level of need in the authority shall include—

(iv) the ranking of the local authority in the Index of Multiple Deprivation,

(v) the level of unemployment within the authority’s area,

(vi) the proportion of adults with a limiting long-term illness within the authority’s area,

(vii) the number of adults in receipt of social care within the authority’s area,

(viii) the number of looked-after children within the authority, and

(ix) the level of child poverty within the authority’s area.’.

Amendment 37, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

(c) The Secretary of State must for each year, and for the subsequent two years in relation to each billing authority in England, determine an indicative share for the subsequent two years.’.

Amendment 38, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

(c) the percentages referred to in (a) and (b) above shall be determined following full consultation with local government.’.

Amendment 36, page 13, leave out lines 1 to 4.

Amendment 39, page 15, line 17, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 19 and insert

‘prepare and publish an assessment of the level of need in each local authority, as defined in paragraph 4(c) above. The Secretary of State must—

(a) lay the report containing the assessment before the House at least 14 sitting days in advance of the publication of the Local Government Finance Report, and

(b) notify such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State thinks fit of the publication of the report on need and the detail of the basis of calculation in the Local Government Finance Report.’.

Amendment 26, page 17, line 37, at end insert—

‘(4A) The Secretary of State must also lay before the House of Commons his or her assessment of the impact which any such report will have on the level of service provision in any local authority to which it applies.

John Healey Portrait John Healey
- Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee of the whole House under your chairmanship, Mr. Robertson, and that of your colleague, Mr. Amess.

Amendment 46 is a probing amendment in an important group of amendments that the Committee will discuss. I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will be able to answer when he replies, but if not, I hope that he will answer in writing, as would usually be the case. I notice that two of the amendments are among the 17 that the Government have already tabled at this very early stage to their own Bill. In this case they correct not just drafting errors, but quite serious errors in basic sums. The Minister can speak to those himself when he contributes to the debate.

Amendment 46 and the rest of the group reflect four consistent concerns about this part of the Bill on business rates. First, it will create a greater uncertainty for local government in its flow of funding and its ability to plan financially, and therefore its capacity to cope with the funding squeeze now and foreseeably in the next few years. It undermines an essential stability in funding for sensible longer-term planning and sensible long-term service reform and change.

Secondly, the amendments reflect the distrust of central Government with regard to the use of the business rates funding stream as a cash cow to help to cover the cost of failures in economic policy when revenue streams from other sources fall off, as we have seen during the last 12 months.