Nick Raynsford
Main Page: Nick Raynsford (Labour - Greenwich and Woolwich)Local Government Finance Bill
Nick Raynsford Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
‘(1) Each local authority in preparing its council tax reduction scheme should start on the basis that, all other factors being the same, the total cost should be no greater or less than in the previous financial year.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 85, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
‘(5A) Any grant payable to a local authority in England in support of a council tax reduction scheme for a financial year beginning with 1 April 2013 shall not be less than the amount paid in council tax benefit subsidy for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2012.
(5B) The total amount of any grant payable to a local authority in England will be assessed each year or financial year beginning with 1 April 2013 in line with the Government’s New Burdens Doctrine.’.
Amendment 80, line 31, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must ensure that local authorities receive no less in subsidies under the council tax reduction schemes than they would have expected to receive under the earlier scheme.’.
Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 49, line 39, at end insert—
‘(2A) In circumstances where a deficit arises in the billing authority’s collection fund the authority shall be able to make an application to the Secretary of State for a payment to cover that deficit.’.
New clause 11—Payment of additional grant
‘The Secretary of State shall be required to pay an additional grant to a local authority if, at the end of any financial year, the total expenditure incurred by the authority under any scheme approved pursuant to Schedule 4 of this Act is greater than the amount of grant received from the Secretary of State to fund the scheme. The amount paid to the authority shall be the difference between the sum originally received and the total cost to the authority of the scheme.’.
Mr Raynsford
Amendment 79 and the linked amendments, 78 and 80, aim to put this part of the Bill, which devolves responsibility for council tax rebates to local authorities, on the same basis as the earlier parts of the Bill, which we have debated over the past two weeks. Those parts sought to localise business rate revenue. Hon. Members will recall that, during the debates on the business rate localisation, Ministers were emphatic in insisting that the baseline from which the new business rate arrangements would operate should not involve any local authority losing revenue. In other words, the scheme was designed to be revenue neutral in year 1. That is precisely what the amendments seek to achieve for the new local council tax reduction schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, seeks to achieve a similar result through his amendment 85, which is linked to this group. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has tabled new clause 11, also linked to this group, which seeks to protect local authorities from any additional costs that might fall on them during the course of a year. That might happen, for example, as a consequence of more people becoming eligible to claim benefits if a local factory were to close, or if more people were to lose their jobs for other reasons. Currently, local authorities are reimbursed for unforeseen expenditure, and Government grant meets the full cost of the benefit scheme, which is of course an integral part of the overall national scheme of welfare benefits, including housing benefits, that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Some would query the logic of separating council tax benefit from the other benefits at a time when the Government are arguing for simplifying the whole benefit structure through the universal credit. However, I do not propose to pursue that argument today. There are good reasons for localising this aspect of benefits to local authorities, but there is no justification for doing it in a way that imposes harsh cuts in benefits from the outset and leaves local authorities, and therefore benefit recipients, vulnerable to further cuts because they have to take the downside risk of any increased expenditure caused by additional benefit claims in-year.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Do not the Government’s proposals introduce some quite substantial financial risks for local authorities, not least that there are no real needs-based criteria for authorities, as we discussed in earlier sittings of the Committee? Every local authority is different in its make-up and economic circumstances might change within financial years, so there needs to be a mechanism to reflect that need.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the assessment of need. The framework imposed by the Government will certainly require local authorities to make very deep cuts in benefit payments to certain categories of people. We will go on to explore some of the implications in later debates; suffice it to say for now that it really is a travesty of localism to say to local authorities, “We are giving you this new responsibility, but we are shackling your ability to do the job properly by imposing, first, an immediate 10% budget cut and, secondly, a total transfer of risk for any future increases in cost; and, thirdly, by requiring you to do this to a rushed timetable that does not allow you adequate time to consult local residents to test the impact of different models for the new scheme, posing a serious risk that the software will not be ready in time to allow orderly implementation.” I am afraid to say that this is a very sad example of a badly conceived scheme being rushed through by a Government who are not themselves going to face the consequences. Local authorities will face the consequences of a lot of very angry and very unhappy residents.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government know exactly what they are doing and that they are doing it so that when people get angry locally, the Secretary of State can stand by and say that it is not his fault, but the local council’s fault?
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Frankly, I am very surprised indeed that Lib Dem members of the coalition are going along with this—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) say what he does; I hope he will demonstrate that in the Division Lobby later.
I am surprised that Conservative Members who have experience of local government, and who must be well aware of the pressures that the Government’s measures will impose on their local government colleagues, are prepared to support such a draconian and ill-thought-out package. Cutting 10% of the cost of council tax benefits at the outset is bad enough, but obliging councils to take the downside risk of a further rise in costs in-year, and imposing conditions that will inevitably force heavier cuts on some categories of recipient, adds insult to injury.
To cap it all, imposing an unreasonably tight implementation timetable without allowing adequate time for local authorities to prepare demonstrates a cavalier disregard for the interests of those authorities, which, not surprisingly, are demonstrating growing alarm. The Government should pause to think about why local authorities, which ought to be welcoming a measure whose intention is localist, are expressing such grave reservations about the implications of this scheme.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Let me first declare my interest as one who is still a member of a local authority.
Is the right hon. Gentleman, like me, aware that some authorities have expressed the fear that they will have to make cuts in this year’s expenditure to prepare the ground for the implementation of the measure? Once again, the Government are showing no semblance of care about what they are imposing on such authorities.
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Any prudent local authority treasurer who takes account of the element of risk that is being transferred will inevitably say that there must be cuts in addition to those required by the Government, to provide a cushion against possible circumstances that cannot yet be anticipated.
Amendment 79 requires local authorities, in planning their council tax rebate schemes, to start from the premise that, all other factors being equal, the overall cost of the new scheme should be no more and no less than the cost in the previous year. In other words, it requires a neutral baseline that avoids arbitrary cuts, but also protects Government against the risk that local largesse will increase their own costs. That arrangement is utterly fair, and will operate in just the same way as the arrangement that we all agreed was appropriate for the introduction of the localisation of the retention of business rates.
The system that I propose will not inhibit local authorities from making changes in the current rebate scheme to reflect their local circumstances or priorities. Provided that the overall effect is cost-neutral, they will be free to make as many changes as they wish. This is a truly localist approach, allowing local discretion without imposing unreasonable and arbitrary central diktats.
Amendment 80 refers to central Government support for local expenditure on council tax rebates. It requires the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive no less subsidy than they would have expected under the previous scheme. Again there will be a neutral baseline: a starting point at which the Government will not be exposed to higher costs, but equally local authorities will not be exposed to the risks that are implicit in the Government’s proposals. Amendment 78 is designed to cover the risk of unforeseen increases in expenditure in-year if the number of claims increases by making it clear that authorities may apply for reimbursement of those costs.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Having read amendment 78, I assume that if it were passed any losses on collection of council tax would enable a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for reimbursement. As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience, the effect would be to cause virtually every local authority in the country to suffer losses on council tax collection. His amendment would open the door for every local authority to apply for reimbursement.
Mr Raynsford
If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the wording of the amendment, he will see that it allows local authorities to apply, but does not require the Secretary of State to pay. In new clause 11, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) proposes to go further by requiring the Secretary of State to reimburse. I can see the logic of that, but it is open to the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. I hope he will accept that I have framed my amendment in an extremely moderate way, in order to make it clear that there should be a presumption that if costs are increased through no fault of the authority involved—not as a result of a failure to collect the money owed to it, but because of circumstances outside its control such as an increase in the number of unemployed people in the area—it should be able to seek reimbursement. The amendments are silent on the obligation of the Secretary of State to meet such applications. Some might say my proposals are rather too moderate, and that I should have shackled the Secretary of State, but I hope Members on the Government Benches will realise that I have tried to frame a very moderate series of amendments that simply seeks to create a neutral starting baseline and to avoid the draconian cuts that will otherwise be imposed on local authorities.
These are sensible amendments that should command the support of the Committee, and certainly of everyone who understands, and sympathises with, the needs of local government.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
On the first string of amendments, we are focusing on the 10% cut, which leads to all the other problems identified in subsequent strings. I accept that in addition to the 10% cut there are unexpected changes in the number of claimants and that apparently there is no cushion for that situation. Although I do not support the amendments that have been put forward, it is important to flag up the problems, which must not be ignored.
Let us consider the situation for a council faced with setting up a new system. Any savings it will be able to make through localisation of council tax benefit will need to be offset against the administrative costs it will incur. I accept that there must be some savings, because otherwise there would not be the same need for external audit when money is sent to the council to cover payments, but will the Minister state explicitly where the money will come from for the inevitably large cost of setting up individual schemes, particularly in the first year. There is of course the possibility that councils will work together, which would reduce the administrative costs of setting up new schemes, but they would then lose the advantage of localisation, because even an adjoining local authority will have a different demographic make-up. As soon as we focus on the 10% cut, we think about the demographic make-up.
I share some of the concerns that have been raised across the House. Once we ring-fence pensioners—we probably all agree that they should be protected—we effectively put a gearing effect on everyone else. By the time we have picked out families with a disabled member and other vulnerable groups, the reduction in council tax benefit, which might have started as an average of £2 a week, will start escalating on the backs of just a few people to £6, then £10, all depending on the make-up of the local authority area.
Mr Raynsford
I am finding it a little difficult to reconcile most of the hon. Lady’s speech and, in particular, her point about the impact of the 10% cut, which she clearly sees as damaging, with her earlier statement that she cannot support the proposed changes. Amendment 79 would quite simply allow the scheme to start on a revenue-neutral basis without the 10% cut, so what objection can she possibly have to it?
Andrew Stunell
I give way to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
Andrew Stunell
I want to make some progress.
It is essential that local authorities plan their schemes carefully and take account of possible changes in demand, as pointed out in the debate. As we have set out previously, we believe that those in-year pressures that hon. Members have mentioned can be managed by enabling any deficit in the collection fund to be shared between billing and major precepting authorities. Our scheme will do that. We are taking powers in the Bill to allow billing authorities to make arrangements with major precepting authorities and to vary the amount of precept to be paid to the major precepting authorities in-year to rectify any shortfall in council tax receipts. That could help to protect billing authorities, which could include small district councils—my hon. Friends mentioned that some district councils are indeed small organisations.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out a new burdens assessment on their allocation of grant, but the Government have already committed to consult on their proposals for distributing the grant. We must be clear that local authorities have to make choices, but they will be able to choose whether to pass on the reduction to council tax payers, to use the flexibility over council tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East mentioned, or to manage the reductions within their budgets.
To the best of my reckoning, 12 local authorities come within the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate, and 10 of those local authorities are in a position whereby if they were to take advantage of the new flexibilities over second homes and empty homes, they would achieve an income increase exceeding the 10% reduction in their council tax benefit grant. I am not saying that it is right for local authorities simply to gobble up all that money, but I want to make the point—
Andrew Stunell
In a moment. I realise that I failed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I will do so in a moment.
As the impact assessment makes clear, the reduction in the council tax benefit fund to local authorities in England is in the order of £420 million. Furthermore, as is also set out clearly in the impact assessment, the total of both the discounts and the other arrangements recoverable from the local tax changes also equal about £420 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is right that there is not an exact match between the increase and the decrease, but it remains the case that three quarters of local authorities find themselves in a position whereby should they go down that route, they would have the funding.
It is also open to local authorities, however, to look elsewhere and to put additional money into their council tax reduction funding, and of course they can change the basis on which they allocate that funding.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He previously said that the Secretary of State did not intend to use his powers to define schemes. That extraordinary claim was the reason I wanted to intervene. We will shortly come to a group of amendments dealing with the Secretary of State’s default powers and his power to impose a scheme if a local authority does not have one in place. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State does not intend to use those powers either? If so, why on earth are they in the Bill?
Andrew Stunell
Of course, it would be sensible to debate that matter when we come to the next group of amendments, and I look forward to it. I want to make it clear, however, that the Bill states that if a local authority has failed by 31 January next year to put in place a scheme, by default the existing scheme will continue, and that is what the Secretary of State has the power to ensure happens.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out the new burdens assessment, but we are already committed to doing that. We must be clear that local authorities do the job that they have been set. They have the opportunities to raise money in alternative ways and to devise a scheme that is suitable to their circumstances. As for the administrative cost, we have already made it clear that we will be fully following the new burdens doctrine that this Government have set out. The Government will therefore be working with local authorities to assess the net impact of housing benefit centralisation and the localisation of support for council tax, including the transitional costs, which will be covered, where necessary, by the new burdens doctrine.
Andrew Stunell
No, I absolutely do not accept that. The average reduction if local authorities do not put any extra funding into the pot, from any source at all, is £2.64 per household per week. Every local authority—even those that do not have complete recompense of the one pot of money from the other—will still get significant inputs from the discount scheme, which local authorities can, if they choose, take into account. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) to withdraw his amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it if he does not.
Mr Raynsford
We have just heard an absolutely lamentable performance from a Minister who is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for an outrageous scheme that has been designed in a way that reflects very poorly indeed on the members of the parties that comprise the coalition. This is a crude scheme which is seriously cutting the benefits that, at the moment, go to literally millions of poorer people—some in work, some over pension age, some not in work but under pension age. All those people—about 6 million nationally—are dependent on the existing scheme. The Government, in their wisdom, have suddenly imposed the idea that the scheme can be cut immediately, from year one, by 10%. They are then imposing further rules that involve a much larger cut on all those people who will not be protected by the Government’s diktat.
The Minister tries to weasel away from all that by using the figure of £2.40 or so for the average loss. He knows very well that, in proportion to the average claim that people receive at the moment, that means an average cut of 16.7% in benefits to poor people. On top of that, there are the other appalling features: all the risk being transferred to local authorities, which will have to cope with unexpected increases in cost without any Government support whatever; the possibility of an increased number of claims, because, perfectly rightly, people who currently do not claim the benefit may do so when it is no longer called a benefit and they can feel more comfortable about making a claim. Who bears the cost? Not the Government: once again, it is the local authority that has to bear the cost.
On top of that, we have the appalling timetable for implementation. The Government have not got their regulations ready. They will not have them ready, we are told, until late summer; and yet local authorities will be expected to implement this—a whole new scheme, requiring new software, new application forms and new procedures—in a matter of months. All the experts are telling the Government that it will not work and that it will be a catastrophe. Against all that advice, coming from authorities all over the country and here in the Chamber—virtually every Member who has spoken has expressed serious reservations and called on the Government to think again, delay and allow time for this scheme to be got right—the Minister just tries to dismiss it. This is a lamentable performance, and I intend to press amendment 79 to a vote, so that we can say that to the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.