Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Leech and Chris Williamson

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

Amendments 30, 31 and 32 were dealt with in some detail in the previous debate, so I shall not detain the Committee unduly by going over old ground. However, I shall speak in more detail about amendment 48, which would add a new protection in the Bill to ensure that fire authorities are enabled to fulfil their integrated risk management plans.

The plans enable fire and rescue services to develop a balanced approach to reducing risk within the communities they serve, and I hope that the Minister will look with some sympathy on the intentions behind the amendment. The plans combine prevention, protection and emergency response on a risk-assessed basis to improve the safety of local communities and to create a safer working environment for firefighters. They also include measures to help the community speedily recover from the aftermath of an emergency and to minimise the impact both to people and to the local economy. It is thus absolutely essential that funding for the fire service does not fall below the minimum amount required for it to carry out its vital duties. The amendment has the aim of ensuring that the obligation is on the face of the Bill. It would protect, through a safety net payment, authorities that might otherwise receive less funding than was required for them to fulfil their duties under the integrated risk management plans.

I understand that Ministers believe the financial risk will be mitigated by fire authorities receiving a percentage of the rates of the district authorities in their area, but what if they are wrong? They would be putting the safety of the general public at risk. If they are confident that their predictions are right, the safety net payment mechanism would never need to be evoked. Either way, I hope the Government will support the amendment.

In their response to the consultation on the changes, the Government said that if some fire authorities had their funding outside the business rate retention scheme, they would not be incentivised to make savings. We believe that is both unfair and untrue; fire authorities have all the incentive they need, which is to make their communities safer places by maximising their resources. The changes would also play fast and loose with the health and safety of the general public. The essential principle is that funding for fire services should be based on the risks and needs of the area, not solely on local economic circumstances.

Many local authorities engage in significant redevelopment schemes. I invite the Committee to look at how city centres have been revitalised in Derby, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester and many other cities, but some developments involve more than changing the shops or regenerating old buildings. They can involve a significant amount of demolition before a new project begins. New roads may be required, and some buildings may not be suitable for conversion, or they may not be worth saving.

That was the case when we regenerated the centre of my home city of Derby. Had that scheme gone ahead under the Government’s proposed new system, a significant amount of business rate income would have been lost to the local authority. Those situations can be addressed when the rates are pooled, but we fear that such projects might not go ahead under the new scheme because of the uncertainty it will create.

If shares of business rate income are to be decided year on year, an authority cannot plan effectively for a long-term project. They could use tax increment financing to fund the project itself, but that has two drawbacks. If they use a TIF 1-type scheme, there are problems if the scheme extends beyond 10 years because there may be a reset of the system by the Secretary of State. Such a time scale is possible for some major schemes, and we should like resets carried out before 10 years. A TIF 2 scheme has to be in an area designated by the Secretary of State and can only secure income to the authority when it is completed. The borrowing in such schemes is likely to be used to pay for the project; it is capital, not revenue.

New clause 2 is therefore intended to assist local authorities when they are undertaking such schemes. It would enable them to make an application in advance to the Secretary of State for a safety net payment to be made to them for the duration of the scheme. The Secretary of State would decide whether to make such a payment based on a consideration of the proportion of its income the authority would be losing and the future social and economic benefits of the scheme. That would allow a kind of cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken before a decision was made.

We have also sought to include social benefit in the calculation. The purpose of that is to ensure that issues such as the types of job to be created, rather than the number of jobs, could be looked at if there was an economic imbalance in the area. It would also enable other social benefits to be taken into account, such as improved transport access, community facilities, and access or provision for disabled people.

We have deliberately chosen not to limit any examination of social and economic benefits to the area covered by the local authority undertaking the scheme. That is because schemes may be on the border of another local authority, or may benefit those in a larger travel-to-work area. It is right that all the benefits to a wider area should be taken into account, especially when only one local council is bearing the loss of business rates.

If a scheme proposed by a local authority was deemed to have a social and economic benefit, the Secretary of State could agree that the authority would receive a safety net payment for the duration of the scheme. That would give the local authority certainty that its loss of business rates would be compensated for throughout the scheme, rather than it having to wait to see, each year, whether it had received a payment. That would encourage local authorities to go ahead with schemes that had real benefit, and would protect local services.

The new clause would also allow local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State once he had notified them of his decision, and prior to a final determination being made.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what he defines as a major redevelopment scheme?

[Chris Williamson]

I think I covered that point in my opening remarks, but the sort of thing that I am thinking of is redevelopment of a city centre. I cited my home city of Derby. There are many similar examples of schemes that required significant disruption; there is Birmingham, and many other cities—too many to enumerate. That is the type of thing I am referring to when I talk about major redevelopment.

[Mr Leech]

Would the term “major redevelopment” be based on the proportion of business rates that were to be lost? If a redevelopment resulted in a small reduction in business rates, that would perhaps not be classed as a major redevelopment, whereas a smaller redevelopment could result in a bigger loss of business rates.

[Chris Williamson]

That is a fair point, and where development was not significant, there would be little point in applying for a safety net payment. Local authorities would be in the best position to judge in what circumstances they would apply for such a payment. I think that we know what we mean when we talk about a significant, major development of a city centre. The sort of scenarios that we are envisaging, would involve not a small redevelopment of a tiny corner, but a significant development of a city centre.

As I said, the new clause would allow local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State. That is only fair to local authorities. If they believe that the benefits of the scheme were not properly taken into account, or if calculations relating to it were incorrect, the new clause would allow them to say so. That would promote good governance and good decision making by allowing local authorities to mount a challenge. The final decision, of course, would be left with the Secretary of State.

The new clause tackles an issue that was not really considered during the drafting of the Bill, but is vital for a number of councils across the country, so we are minded to divide the Committee on new clause 2, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on it.