Local Government Finance Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is certainly clear from how the cuts to local government have fallen in this Government’s first two years that certain areas, including his and mine, have borne a much greater burden than others.

The other part of the double whammy, to use my hon. Friend’s expression, is designed into the system, and it should give the Committee cause for concern. It is that the local distribution of the business rates is very uneven. For instance, Kensington and Chelsea has a much smaller population than Rotherham or Barnsley—I represent part of both those boroughs—but raises five times as much in business rates as Barnsley and three and a half times as much as Rotherham.

The opportunities to grow the business base are also uneven. I have looked back at the latest gross value added statistics published by the Office for National Statistics just before Christmas. Last year’s figures showed a difference of more than 3% between growth in London and that in Lincolnshire, Cornwall or Merseyside. In other words, it is clear that from year one the gap between affluent and less affluent areas will grow. The business rates base, and therefore income for councils, will grow faster in some areas than others, as it has in the past.

Even if there were the same rate of growth in all areas, the relative size of the business base income, which is higher for some councils than others, would mean a greater actual cash income for some councils. The top-up and tariff system that the Government are designing will reduce, but not remove, that disparity. If it did remove it, it would remove the incentive element that they want to build into the system.

Having been a local government Minister for two years, introduced the first ever three-year settlement for local government and altered the formula to better reflect needs and resources, I know that there are always winners and losers from any change. The whole House knows that. However, the councils that have a big business rates base, a strong council tax take and high levels of growth will be win-win-win councils, and those that do not will find that they are lose-lose-lose councils. That is the unfairness that is built into the design of the new system. It will increase divisions and tensions in our country.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the current system also has a whole lot of disincentives for local authorities built into it? Over years gone by, it has disincentivised many local authorities. It is perhaps all too easy to make comparisons between relatively affluent central London authorities and those in relatively long-term impoverished areas of the north of England, but the scheme that is being put in place is intended to challenge those disincentives. Although I accept that elements of it will not provide as much transparency as many of us would like, it is at least a step in the right direction.

[John Healey]

The extent to which it is a step in the right direction remains to be seen. There is an element of its direction that is right, which is the desire to see greater incentives for local councils to support the growth of their business base, and greater rewards for doing so. How those incentives will work is weak and potentially perverse, but the principle is nevertheless in the right direction. The potential practical problems that we are beginning to tease out are part of the debate that we need to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the strengths of this debate, as shown by contributions from all parts of the Committee, is exemplified by what he has just said. He has served as a councillor in north Kent and brings that experience and perspective to this debate. He now serves as the Member for Sefton Central, in the north-west of England, and also brings that perspective, reinforcing his point.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the future position of fire and rescue services. Can he provide me and other Members who are interested with details about his modelling and assessment of future revenue streams? Can he say how many and which fire authorities will be top-up authorities in future, and how many and which will be tariff authorities? There is concern among senior fire staff that if the incentive that this system is designed to deliver works as the Government say it will, the top priority for councils in the future will be those functions for which they are responsible that help to build business growth. However, those who serve in our fire and rescue services—services that do not directly contribute to economic and business growth—are concerned that a consequence of that will be that in future they will not get the priority for funding that the proper protection of their area may deserve because they do not contribute to business growth. Let me quote a chief fire officer who fears that that may—but not necessarily will—happen. He says:

“I am concerned that the proposed funding model could foster an antagonistic relationship between the fire authority and the local authorities if they begin to see us as a service which takes money from the business rates but does not actively participate in the business growth agenda.”

There is a strong case for fire and rescue services to be funded in future on the same basis as the police, with a very clear, consistent and comprehensive assessment of risk, need and resources built into the allocation of funding for fire services in England. What we start to see with the fire and rescue services, in common with the rest of local government, is concern about the uncertainty—what it means, what the funding is likely to be and how hard it makes it to plan sensibly for the future, particularly the ability to plan and manage within diminishing resources, which by and large is accepted. As another senior fire officer told me, stability is the most important factor. The Minister could do the Committee and many in local government a favour by giving a clear and strong reassurance this afternoon about the stability and predictability of the system in future.

I am conscious that there are a number of other amendments in the group and that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak to them, so let me return to my starting-point of amendment 46. It is a probing amendment, but it contains a proposal that all revenue raised from what is a tax on businesses designed to pay for local services should provide funds for local government—not for national priorities or services around which the cloak of local government can be loosely thrown at their funding streams and categorised as local government. Post-2015, this will build in a real localising ratchet. Post-2015, when the business rates take is projected to be bigger than the sums distributed to local councils, it will mean that where central Government want to use funds to cover non-council services, they will have to transfer the responsibility and devolve the power and control for those services to local government in order to use the business rates revenue to help fund them. Thus my proposal will mean Ministers truly putting their money where their mouths are. It will mean putting into reverse the post-war centralisation of government that this country has seen, and it will mean making the localist rhetoric a reality.

[Mark Field]

I am not entirely convinced that we are debating quite as revolutionary a change in local government finance as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) would have us believe. As he rightly says, there has been periodic centralisation of local government finance in the post-war period; this Bill is a step, but only a relatively small step, in a different direction.

I am concerned that some provisions will not provide the overall transparency that all of us desire for local government finance. The worry, as we all know, is that council leaders across the country who get and understand the system will then work it to the benefit of their own local authorities, while neighbouring authorities with similar sets of needs will not reap the same benefits. I believe that has been the case since time immemorial, and I suspect it is a problem that exists in any political system. However much we try, it is difficult to discount the articulacy of those who understand and work a system. As I say, I am not as convinced or as concerned as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. I hope he will forgive me if I focus my comments on issues that have come from the lobbying of one of the two local authorities in my constituency, and in so far as we work here, we all have a vested interest in this authority—Westminster city council.

[Mr Watts]

Is not the real worry that unless a duty and responsibility are placed on Ministers to ensure that needs are assessed and catered for within the grant system, which under these proposals they will not be, the worst aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s worst fears might come to fruition?

[Mark Field]

There is a duty, although it will apply to potentially different sets of needs. I think one of the most destructive elements of local government has been the almost constant lobbying—whether it be for three-year settlements or the annual settlements of the past. Although we might return, well before 2022, to specific concerns about elements of need that have rightly been referred to, the idea of having a 10-year period is a positive route forward in providing certainty for local authorities.

Westminster city council strongly supports the principle of allowing local authorities to retain a proportion of the business rates generated in their area—no one seriously suggests that either of my two local authorities should retain all their business rates, although there are common councilmen in the City of London, and members of Westminster city council, I am sure, who would rather like the idea, but even I would not suggest that that would necessarily be an entirely sensible way forward. As other Members have rightly pointed out, local authorities have played an increasingly important and integral role in supporting and growing businesses locally.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the most wealthy local authorities, in terms of business rates, could not possibly keep all those rates. What sensible balance can be struck to ensure that some local authorities do not struggle because of loss of income and that local authorities who are worried, for good reason, have their fears allayed?

[Mark Field]

I will be coming to that later, and will be asking the Minister to clarify the matter.

I would like the Minister to address a number of concerns. Why have the Government decided to cancel out any natural inflationary growth in the business rates programme? Why are increases in what might be described as revaluation growth not included in the Bill? A major revaluation has particularly affected London local authorities in recent years. Why does the Bill fail to provide for an adjustment in the growth calculation, in order to remove the negative effect of valuation appeals, which might become much more prevalent once the Bill is on the statute book? Under the proposed reforms, every local authority, as has been pointed out, will become a tariff—contributory—or top-up recipient authority, relative to its annual grant. In that regard, I take on board the comments of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne in relation to the responsibilities on fire authorities. One key question considered through the consultation was whether tariffs and top-ups should be uprated annually by the retail prices index. As the Minister knows, the Bill proposes that business rates will continue to be uprated annually, but taking the same approach to tariffs and top-ups would cancel out any natural inflationary growth that might otherwise have been expected by local authorities.

Why have the Government decided to cancel out natural inflationary growth in business rates? The clauses in the Bill that are subject to consideration today do not allow for revaluation growth, which is regrettable. Inevitably, all Members will use the examples closest to our hearts—our own local authority areas. Westminster city council’s total rateable value at the last five-year revaluation—18 months or so ago—rose by some 60%, but the proposed reforms would allow for none of that increase to count towards growth. In many ways, that is a disincentive to doing a lot of the hard work that went on in the second half of the last decade. As a result, local authorities would receive no benefit for enhancing their commercial environment or making their area a more attractive location for businesses. Having pacesetter authorities with business improvement districts in place at the outset was one of the most important elements of the previous Government’s work in that regard. Such authorities will be almost disincentivised and penalised under the proposals, which does not make much sense.

Given that rental and rateable value growth reflect the relative profitability from which central Government benefit through VAT, corporation tax and income tax, will the Minister clarify the reasons why increases in revaluation growth have not been included in the Bill? On physical growth, one key principle of the scheme, as I understand it, is to enable local authorities to benefit from new building and construction. However, as the Minister knows—although he represents a suburban London constituency—here in the capital, the high levels of rateable value reductions that are granted on appeal often wipe out the physical rateable value growth that has been achieved through new build. A great many appeals may be heard following revaluations, and as they are accepted the total rateable value in a billing may be reduced over time. Since those reductions result from errors made by central Government valuation officers, it seems unfair to penalise local authorities for such mis-valuations. We should also note the uncertainty that would be injected into the final settlement, given that one of the main aims of the scheme is to iron out such uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

When authorities suffer a significant loss in business rate revenue, there will surely be a downward pressure on what the Prime Minister would describe as the big society, in which rate relief is given to charities, sports clubs and all sorts of other organisations that do social good. In the poorer, more deprived areas that will lose out under the new system, will not those organisations lose out as well?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman has almost taken the words out of my mouth. Given the Government’s commitment to the big society and to empowering the organisations about which he has expressed concern, removing discretionary awards would be controversial, and—given that they account for only a small proportion of the business rates that are collected—of little use. I hope that we can be given some clarification about why the Bill fails to provide for any adjustment in the growth calculation to remove the negative effect on valuation appeals.

I do not wish to sound too negative myself. Obviously we are trying to make the legislation better, and I think that the principle of allowing local authorities to retain a greater proportion of the business rates that they generate in their areas is a positive step. Nevertheless, the detailed proposals relating to RPI increases, revaluation and physical growth fail to offer the incentives for growth in high-yield areas for which we had all hoped, and I fear that they may result in excessive penalties for such areas. I realise that Opposition Members may view the issue from the point of view of relatively low-yield areas, but I think there is a risk that high-yield areas will not receive benefits for themselves and that, as a consequence, the Exchequer will not receive them either.

Encouraging economic growth at any level is critical to the national economy. Local authorities are uniquely placed to provide incentives for growth in their areas, recognising what will work even in specific parts of a single authority area—I observe a great variance within the 6.5 square miles of my own constituency—and that creates a bedrock for the national economy. I hope that serious scrutiny will be given to the reasons for the Government’s proposals, in the light of some of their potentially negative implications for areas that would be expected to generate the most significant growth.

Let me take up the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about pooling. We are living in a climate in which it will become the norm. I do not wish to pre-empt discussion of an issue that I am sure will be subject to much criticism and debate on the Floor of the House in the years to come, but I suspect that there will also be a reorganisation of local government. I foresee that in particular for London. It currently has 32 local authorities as well as the City of London, and that situation may well be subject to radical reform in the near future.

I hope the Minister gives serious thought to encouraging the pooling of resources. As he will know, in my area the tri-borough arrangements among the City of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham have worked well in a number of respect, and it is to be hoped that that continues.

It is in the interests of central Government for there to be pooling, but I fear that the proposals in paragraph 9 of schedule 1 will serve to remove any form of incentive for it. I accept that there will be some additional costs, but pooling is the way forward for many local authorities and the Government should encourage it in this Bill.

I am broadly in favour of the proposals, but I hope the Minister gives serious consideration to the points I have made.

[Helen Jones]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who always has something interesting to say even though I might disagree with him.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) gave an excellent speech, in which he set out the reasoning behind the amendments. Our amendments attempt to deal with important omissions in the Bill. There is no mention of levels of need, of the different capacities of local authorities to benefit from business rate growth, or of the different council tax bases of local authorities.

The Government present their case in a way that suggests that there is no difference among authorities, in that they all have the same capacity to raise income and have the same demands on them, and that if a local authority is struggling, it is its own fault and a result of its being lax, rather than of the conditions it has inherited. Everyone knows that that is a myth, but some people are deeply attached to it.

We must acknowledge that the current, admittedly complex, system of local government finance does at least try to take into account the relative needs of different communities and their differing abilities to raise revenue. The Government have sought to erode that in their current local government finance settlement, and the consequent significant reduction in resource equalisation has led to local authorities no longer being able to provide the same level of service by charging the same band of council tax. As a result, the delivery of core services in poorer areas has been hit particularly hard. Despite the Prime Minister’s repeated reassurances, we are not all in this together.

The point I have made is very important, because it is about the base from which this scheme starts. Let me make it clear that we are not against incentives for local authorities to grow their economies.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. When discussing the first group of amendments we said that the fact that this Bill is not going into Committee upstairs means that we cannot take evidence on anything. The Government mindset seems to be, “Let’s get it in, push it through and not bother to have any proper assessment of it.”

[Mark Field]

The local government finance system may not be quite as complicated as the Schleswig-Holstein question, but is it not a concern that it is none the less very difficult to find anyone who could seriously be said to be independent in this regard? Although I can understand some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), having an opportunity to discuss this on the Floor of the House means that more Members can have their say, and that must be a positive step forward.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although I do not believe it is impossible to find independent people in the sector and of course the Government could have taken the Bill into Public Bill Committee and taken evidence, and then had a long Report stage on the Floor of the House to enable Members to participate.

To go back to my point, we are not against providing incentives for local authorities, but we do not believe that this Bill goes about it in the right way. We believe that any system has to be fair and equitable, and must recognise that weaker local economies find it harder to achieve growth and need help to do so. The Government have signally failed to recognise their responsibilities in that regard and we are faced with a “Leave it to Pickles” Bill. The Secretary of State is going to decide who gets what on the top-ups, the tariffs and so on. That is all being left to regulations, with no indication given as to the factors that he will take into account. As I keep saying, there are no draft regulations for us to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that 10 years is too long. We think that it gives a sensible balance. But it is a good reason not to put such matters in primary legislation and to say instead that they should be developed through regulations, which, as we know, will be subject to scrutiny by the House. I should have thought that that meets the hon. Gentleman’s point. An assessment is built into the system, which is then taken forward. That is why the updating report is there.

A second point concerns the question of the central share and the set-aside. I am sure that when hon. Members reflect upon this they will realise that we have always made it clear that over time, particularly when we have put the public finances back on track, we would hope to increase the proportion of business rates to the part of the rates retention scheme. But it would be imprudent to suppose—Opposition Members would not have done so when they were in government—that there might never be an occasion when the central share might need to be maintained, or on occasion, heaven forbid, increased. I believe that the economic policies of the Government will mean that it is not necessary, but legislation has to cater for various eventualities. As I say, it is our aspiration that that should increase, but equally, as hon. Members will know, the Government have, and will always have, an interest in the totality of public spending. To expect the Government to have no control over local government finance, when it is such a significant percentage of public expenditure, would be unrealistic. That is not the case under the current scheme, and it would not be realistic in future. In that regard, some of the amendments would constrain the Government unrealistically, and I hope hon. Members will understand why.

[Mark Field]

I accept that the straitened financial times make things very difficult, but do I take from what my hon. Friend has said that there is a longer-term aspiration, if not necessarily a fully fledged commitment at this stage, that we should look to allow local authorities to raise the council tax in future to ensure that there is a little more of a balance; that some more of the money that they are expending comes from local residents? I accept that this is not a short-term measure given the financial constraints that we are under, and I understand why the Government have tried to provide such incentives to freeze the council tax at the moment, but in the longer term, the rebalancing to which he refers should ensure that local government has other full sources of income possibly to rely upon.

[Robert Neill]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He refers to the council tax, which is a separate part of the income stream from the business rates. Of course, we have ourselves removed capping and substituted the ability, even under current circumstances, for a local authority to go to its voters by way of a referendum, which is a move in the direction of giving greater flexibility. It is the authority’s local call. In relation to the business rates element of its income, I restate that it is our desire to ensure that there is flexibility for the future. This is not intended to be a system that lasts for two or three years. I am in favour of multiple-year funding settlements, which I think we all agree on, but our system is intended to last for a much longer period. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.