Covid-19: Road Map

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat the answer I have given several times: all these contracts are published in the normal way.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all recognise the huge work that has been done to make the vaccine roll-out a success, but may I press him on why some of the dates are set as “no earlier than”? If we believe in the vaccine, the programme and the data, is not the logic that if the data shows we can move to free up sectors of the economy sooner, we should not artificially hold them back? Surely that is following the data. Should there not be a little more flexibility there?

[The Prime Minister]

We need to see the data and the effect of each successive relaxation. As I explained to the House, we need four weeks to assess whether the relaxation has caused a surge in the virus, because that is the time it takes—so, from the opening of schools until 12 April. We will need to assess that, and then we will need a further week to give people due notice, and the same onwards through 17 May to 21 June and so on. The reason for that cautious but irreversible approach is that I think people would rather have certainty than urgency. We are going as fast as we reasonably and responsibly can, but if there is a trade-off between haste and certainty, I think people would prefer certainty.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

At the last two elections, I promised my constituents that I would do all I could to ensure that we left the European Union with a deal, rather than without one, and I shall therefore vote for the Bill today. Even though it does not go as far as I would have liked in some areas, it is none the less a basis on which we can build a constructive relationship for the future. That is in our interests as a nation, and in the interests of our friends and neighbours in the European Union.

There has understandably been much talk of sovereignty and control. I recognise the force of that, but we also have to be frank and honest, and say that sovereignty itself never put any food upon any family’s table nor paid any family’s wages, or mortgage or rent. It is how we use that sovereignty and control that matters, and sometimes that is best done with restraint, and often in collaboration with others. I hope in that spirit that we will build on the arrangements in the Bill, particularly in key areas of our economy such as financial services. I welcome the fact that there is some reference to financial services in the Bill, but there is much more to do there. I hope that as a matter of urgency the Government will do more work on data adequacy arrangements, ensuring that we swiftly obtain equivalence arrangements for that sector and also deal with the growing financial technology sector, in which we are world leaders. There is work to do, but this is something on which we can build, and I know that for that reason the City corporation and the financial services sector welcome the Bill.

I also welcome the legal services chapter, but again there is more that we can do to extend the definition of mutual recognition of professional qualifications beyond lawyers, as it currently stands, as very often accountants and others work in multidisciplinary teams now.

I am pleased with the work done on justice and security co-operation, although I hope that we will be able to find a better means to deal with access to SIS II, because we have had compelling evidence on the Justice Committee of the importance of that. Again, that is something that we can build upon. I hope also that there will be a spirit of co-operation in which we can deal with other matters of critical importance that are not directly covered by the Bill, such as agreeing early accession to the Lugano convention on civil justice co-operation and enforcement of judgments. There is no reason now why that should not be pursued with the utmost speed, so that we can ratify as soon as possible.

Finally, there is the matter of an obligation that we have to the people of Gibraltar. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. We gave a clear undertaking to the people of Gibraltar—who, although they voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe, are equally determined to remain part of the British family—that we would not leave them behind and would not leave the European Union without securing a deal for them, too. I hope that when he responds to the debate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm our Government and our nation’s continuing commitment to use every endeavour in the coming days to get a deal for the people of Gibraltar that protects their interests and respects their British sovereignty. We gave our word. Our future reputation in a global world will depend on our ability to keep our word; here is a swift and immediate instance where we can be seen to do so. That is a matter of political and moral obligation.

Against that basis, there are constructive things that we can do—set aside, perhaps, divisions of the past and work together collaboratively as a nation with our friends and neighbours, and those who we have given our word to support and assist. I will support the Bill today.

Public Health

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

When I declined to support the regulations on the national lockdown on 5 November, I did so on the basis that they were disproportionate and went beyond what was necessary and justified by the evidence. I said that I would support regulations that were proportionate and based on the evidence. Unhappily, the regulations before us are not; they are disproportionate, still, and they go beyond the evidence, still. I had hoped very much that I would find in the briefings and analysis something that would persuade me to support them, but it is not there.

The impact assessments are frankly inadequate, particularly on the economic side, and I am concerned generally that there remains a lack of economic rigour in the decision-making approach that has been adopted on this matter. We all want to protect the NHS and we all want to protect those who are vulnerable, but we do not protect the NHS by doing fundamental damage to our economy without having set up the most rigorous arguments to convince us that that is necessary and that there is no other option to achieve the desired objective. I am sorry to say—it is a matter of real regret—that that has not been achieved.

Proportionality requires an assessment of the beneficial effects of any restrictions against the harm they will cause, and a judgment can then be made on that. The analysis documents that we have seen do not include an accurate assessment of those benefits or the harms of the tiers.

The tiers themselves are, frankly, arbitrary in many cases. I happen to live in a London borough in one tier; many of my friends live just in the county of Kent, in a part of Kent that has very low infection rates, but because of the rigid application of tiering by top-tier authority, rather than by a more nuanced approach, they are dragged disproportionately into restrictions that will seriously damage friends and families of my constituents and businesses that feed into the business chains of my constituents. That is not justified upon the evidence.

While certain changes have been advantageous to the hospitality sector, such as the end of the 10 pm curfew, it is still disproportionately affected, and I have not yet seen any justification. I am sorry to have to say that; I would have hoped that the Government would have gone away and done more work on this.

The counterfactuals that were set up were of no regulations. That is not a realistic counterfactual; the counterfactual should have been of a more proportionate set of regulations that were more nuanced and more targeted. In the absence of that, and therefore in the absence of evidence to balance against the potential economic harm, I believe that there are better ways of protecting lives and protecting the NHS than these regulations. So, again, I cannot support them tonight.

Public Health

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a profound moment in which we are being asked knowingly to restrict the civil liberties of our fellow citizens to an unprecedented degree in peacetime, and knowingly and deliberately to harm the economic welfare and, in some cases the personal welfare of our fellow citizens, because lockdowns have consequences and do damage. In deciding whether that can ever be acceptable in a country that believes in the rule of law, it is important to consider whether such measures are necessary, proportionate and supported by evidence. I accept that the covid pandemic is an emergency of a kind that can make such draconian measures necessary. I regret to say, however, that I do not believe that the measures set out in the regulations are either proportionate or based on the evidence.

I do not doubt the good intentions of the Secretary of State and the Government, but the details of the measures go beyond those that are appropriate to achieve the objective that is set out. We could refer perhaps to the briefing from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and its reference to the late Sir John Laws who suggested doing the minimum that is necessary to achieve the objective with the minimum intrusion on civil liberties. I am afraid some of the measures here go beyond that. There is no scientific basis for the banning of non-contact outdoor sports. There is no scientific basis for treating grassroots football and community sport differently from elite sports. There is no scientific basis for stopping and, indeed, criminalising people of faith joining in collective worship when they do so in a safe fashion, forgoing the right to join in communal hymn singing or music to limit the risk of transmission. That goes beyond that which is proportional.

There is no economic impact assessment, but as to the disbenefits to businesses, I have seen family businesses of 20 years’ standing already go under in my constituency. I cannot vote to support that without clear evidence as to why it is necessary, the extent to which it is likely to continue and what the plan is to come out the other side in good order.

With a heavy heart, I cannot support the Government in the Lobby today. These measures are not amendable, but I would have been prepared to look at a more limited or proportionate form of regulations, An example of the short notice that we have had to consider these measures and the poor drafting of them is that people are allowed to go to an estate agent, but they cannot go to a solicitor. But the documentation that people will need to get a mortgage and to move house will frequently need to be witnessed in person by a solicitor. These are poorly drafted regulations, and that is only one of many examples. That is why I cannot support them.

EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. She is absolutely right. As a result of the Prime Minister standing firm in defiance of criticism from some in this House, it appears—it appears—that, at this stage, the EU has moved in a way that intensifies talks and sees legal texts being exchanged. I sincerely hope that that is the case. We will find out more in the days ahead. As for the analysis that she quotes, that was not mine.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend recognised earlier the importance of, if at all possible, obtaining continuing arrangements for security co-operation and access to the very important Europol, Eurojust and related databases. All of those matters require an agreement on data sharing, as does much access for the financial services business. What specific advance has there been in relation to data adequacy and data sharing?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to secure data adequacy in order to have the best possible set of arrangements for business and for security. It is an autonomous process, but we believe that the EU should grant us adequacy on the basis of the information that we have provided. More broadly, there are a variety of security and law enforcement tools to which we believe we will have access, but, because of European Court of Justice jurisdiction, there are one or two that remain difficult.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Absurd and self-defeating as that action would be, even as we debate this matter, the EU has not taken that particular revolver off the table. I hope that it will do so and that we can reach a Canada-style free trade agreement as well.

It is such an extraordinary threat, and it seems so incredible that the EU could do this, that we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist, because I am afraid that they reveal the spirit in which some of our friends are currently minded to conduct these negotiations. It goes to what m’learned friends would call the intention of some of those involved in the talks. I think the mens rea—

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I never object to another promotion.

I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister says, but does he accept that were our interlocutors in the EU to behave in such an egregious fashion, which would clearly be objectionable and unacceptable to us, there is already provision under the withdrawal agreement for an arbitrary arrangement to be put in place? Were we to take reserve powers, does he accept that those reserve powers should be brought into force only as a final backstop if we have, in good faith, tried to act under the withdrawal agreement and are then frustrated? The timing under which they come into force is very important for our reputation as upholders of the rule of law.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. He knows a great deal about this matter, and it is of great importance that we go through the legal procedures, as we will. As things stand, however, in addition to the potential blockade on agricultural goods, there are other avenues that the EU could explore if it is determined to interpret the protocol in absurd ways, and if it fails to negotiate in good faith. We must now take a package of protective powers in the Bill, and subsequently.

For example, there is the question of tariffs in the Irish sea. When we signed the protocol, we accepted that goods “at risk” of going from Great Britain into the EU via Northern Ireland should pay the EU tariff as they crossed the Irish sea—we accepted that—but that any goods staying within Northern Ireland would not do so. The protocol created a joint committee to identify, with the EU, which goods were at risk of going into Ireland. That sensible process was one achievement of our agreement, and our view is that that forum remains the best way of solving that question.

I am afraid that some in the EU are now relying on legal defaults to argue that every good is “at risk”, and therefore liable for tariffs. That would mean tariffs that could get as high as 90% by value on Scottish beef going to Northern Ireland, and moving not from Stranraer to Dublin but from Stranraer to Belfast within our United Kingdom. There would be tariffs of potentially more than 61% on Welsh lamb heading from Anglesey to Antrim, and of potentially more than 100% on clotted cream moving from Torridge—to pick a Devonshire town at random—to Larne. That is unreasonable and plainly against the spirit of that protocol.

The EU is threatening to carve tariff borders across our own country, to divide our land, to change the basic facts about the economic geography of the United Kingdom and, egregiously, to ride roughshod over its own commitment under article 4 of the protocol, whereby

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”

We cannot have a situation where the boundaries of our country could be dictated by a foreign power or international organisation. No British Prime Minister, no Government, and no Parliament could ever accept such an imposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman did not like the protocol at all. He would rather have not had the protocol. He and I just have a disagreement on this issue. I believe it was necessary to make special arrangements for Northern Ireland, or for the UK to be in the EU customs union to avoid a hard border in Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister came along and said the protocol was the right thing to do.

Let me deal with the third excuse we heard. This is the “It was all a bit of a rush” excuse. As the Prime Minister said in his article, times were “torrid” and there were “serious misunderstandings”. He tries to pretend that this is some new issue, but they have been warned for months about the way the protocol would work. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is sitting in his place, was warned at the Select Committee in March and was asked about these issues. The Business Secretary was written to by the House of Lords Committee in April.

Let us just get this straight for a minute, because I think it is important to take a step back. The Prime Minister is coming to the House to tell us today that his flagship achievement—the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was oven-ready, the deal on which he fought and won the general election—is now contradictory and ambiguous. What incompetence. What failure of governance. How dare he try to blame everyone else? I say to the Prime Minister that this time he cannot blame the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), he cannot blame John Major, he cannot blame the judges, he cannot blame the civil servants, he cannot sack the Cabinet Secretary again. There is only one person responsible for it and that is him. This is his deal. It is his mess. It is his failure. For the first time in his life, it is time to take responsibility. It is time to ’fess up: either he was not straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he did not understand it.

A competent Government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions they could not live with. If such a Government somehow missed the point but woke up later, they would do what any competent business would do after it realised it could not live with the terms of a contract: they would negotiate a way out in good faith. That is why this is all so unnecessary. There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose in the agreement: the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. What did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on 11 March at the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union? He will recall that he was asked about state aid. He said:

“the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the Joint Committee to resolve.”

The remaining issues to which the Bill speaks are not insignificant, but nor are they insurmountable, and that is the right way to pursue them, not an attempt at illegality.

Let me come back to the excuses. Fourthly, on Sunday, there was the Justice Secretary’s “the fire alarm” defence: “We don’t want to have to do this, but we might have to.” I want to be clear with the House about something very, very important about a decision to pass the Bill. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but I want to make this point. The very act of passing the Bill is itself a breach of international law. It would be wrong for hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House to be under any illusions about that as they decide which Lobby to go into tonight. If we pass the Bill, even if there is a nod and a wink from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we equip the Government with the power to break the law. That in itself is a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol and therefore a breach of international law.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s formulation and I understand much of what he says. However, an Act passed by this House only becomes law when it comes into force. He will be right, I submit, to say that as soon as any of these provisions came into force we would potentially breach international law. That is not quite the same thing, as I think he would fairly concede.

[Edward Miliband]

That is not a risk we are going to take.

So the fire alarm defence simply does not work. The last defence was floated as a trial balloon, one might say, by the Northern Ireland Secretary last Tuesday, I believe. He said it was a breach of the law in a “specific and limited way.” That really is a new way of thinking about legal questions. It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this Government. We have all heard of self-defence, the alibi defence, the innocence defence; now we have the Johnson defence: you can break the law, but in a specific and limited way.

Think about the grave context we face. The Home Secretary is in today’s newspapers warning everyone, “You must abide by the law.” On this, she is absolutely right. She says,

“I know that, as part of our national effort, the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules. But there will be a small minority who do not”.

You couldn’t make it up. What she does not say in the article, but what we now know about this Government, is that the Johnson defence means something very specific: there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this Government. Pioneered by Cummings, implemented by Johnson—that is the Johnson rule.

This is the wrong thing to do. It is not necessary and it is deeply damaging to this country. Let us think about the impact on our country in the negotiations. The Government’s hope is that it will make a deal more likely, but that relies on the notion that reneging on a deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with now will make that party more likely to trust us, not less. Think about our everyday lives: suppose we made an agreement with someone a year ago and we were seeking to have another negotiation with them; if we had unilaterally reneged on the first deal we made, would it make them more likely to trust us, or less likely? Obviously, it would make them less likely to trust us.

We know the risks. I very much hope the Prime Minister gets a deal. As a country, we absolutely need a deal. We know the risks of no deal if this strategy goes wrong. The Prime Minister said last week that no deal is somehow “a good outcome”. He is wrong. I hear all the time from businesses—I am sure the Business Secretary, who is in his place, does too—that are deeply worried about the danger of no deal. I know what the Prime Minister thinks about the views of business, thanks to his four-letter rant, but this is what businesses have to say. Nissan says there could be no guarantee about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK to EU trade. Ford says that no deal would be disastrous. The NFU says it would be catastrophic for British farming—indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said the same thing. We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years, the biggest public health crisis for 100 years. No deal is not some game; it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country.

What about the prized trade deal with the United States? I know the Prime Minister thinks he has a friend in President Trump, but even he must recognise the necessity of being able to deal with both sides. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said:

“The UK must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU… If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”

This is the signal that we—the country known for the rule of law, the country that abides by the law, the country that founded international law—are sending to our friends and allies around the world. That is why we cannot support the Bill.

The Government must go back, remove the provisions breaking international law and ensure that the Bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements. That is what a responsible, competent and law-abiding Government would do. This is a pivotal moment to determine the future of our country—who we are and how we operate. In shaping that future, we have to stand up for the traditions that matter: our commitment to the rule of law. The Bill speaks of a Government and a Prime Minister who are casual, not to say cavalier and reckless, about the gravity of the issues confronting them. The Prime Minister should be focusing on securing a Brexit deal, not breaking international law and risking no deal. He is cavalier on international law and cavalier on our traditions. This is not the serious leadership we need, and it is why we will oppose the Bill tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I will endeavour to prove that the best advocacy can be the most concise.

There is a great deal in the Bill that I support and that is necessary, sensible and desirable. However, there is one important part of the Bill that creates very real difficulty for me and many others, and I want to go straight to the rub of that point. Part 5 of the Bill, as it stands, gives me real concern as to its leading the United Kingdom into a breach of our international obligations and the law that stems from them. That is, as many others have observed, not something that any country should do, save in the most extreme and pressing circumstances.

The difficulty arises in relation particularly to clauses 42, 43 and 45. They are different from the rest of the Bill, because they give very wide-ranging powers indeed to Ministers to disapply elements of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, which have the force of international law, by regulation. These are measures of a very sweeping kind, involving any kind of legislation and any part of the agreement, not just those related to the protocol, and appearing to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in any respect. I question whether their being so wide can be justified.

My other concern is that the way the clauses are phrased at the moment runs the risk of bringing us into breach of our legal obligations before it is necessary. I heard what the Prime Minister said about an insurance policy, and I heard what the Lord Chancellor has said about a “break the glass in emergency” provision. That is fine, but it seems clear from the protocol that there are steps that must be gone through first and exhausted before that can properly be done. The most important part to bear in mind is that if article 45 is brought into force immediately after Royal Assent, we would at that point have disapplied the concept of the direct effect of European law, which is part of the agreement we signed up to and which this House passed less than a year ago. So bringing it into force on Royal Assent is needlessly provocative to our negotiations and needlessly undermines our reputation for sticking to the rule of law.

There are also provisions that bind us to act to resolve disputes only through the arbitration process, which is set out in the withdrawal agreement. Article 168, which we have signed up to, states that

“the Union and the United Kingdom shall only have recourse to the procedures provided for in this Agreement.”

There are detailed procedures and timelines for that.

It seems to me that we should be very careful about moving forward with bringing these clauses into force until every opportunity to resolve any dispute has been carried out through the arbitral mechanisms. Only then, and if it is necessary because the EU has not responded to a result of the arbitral mechanism—

[Jeremy Wright]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that should give us some optimism about the use of the mechanisms that he is describing is the specific references to the defence of the Good Friday agreement and of Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom in the protocol and the withdrawal agreement themselves?

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is, I think, the best approach for us to take. We should stick to the letter of those provisions, as that gives proper defence of our strategic interests. For example, there is the safeguard provision in article 16, which would enable us to act if, in extremis, the stability of the situation in Northern Ireland and the Union was threatened, but we could do that while maintaining the moral high ground and our intellectual reputation. I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is listening. I hope that he will be able to go further than the Prime Minister, either tonight or in the course of debates on the Bill, and assure us that those provisions will not be brought into effect unless and until every one of the legal mechanisms open to us has been exhausted and unless and until there has been a specific vote of this House—not by a statutory instrument, which does not give enough scrutiny for such a constitutionally significant issue, but by a specific resolution. That is why my amendment seeks to give the Government an opportunity to have that “break the glass in emergency” provision, but without our triggering a breach of the international legal obligations before it is absolutely necessary.

[Steve Brine]

Further to that, does my hon. Friend not agree that, while there will be some who are still on the, shall we say, Blair end of the argument, notwithstanding what he says, that position would be seen by the majority of people as being a reasonable one for us to take in this Act before we enact the nuclear button that is so often talked about? Would that not be reasonable?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I do hope that the Government will listen carefully to that. I want to be able to support the Bill. I cannot support it with these clauses in it as they are at the moment. I hope that we will take the opportunity to change and improve these clauses and the way in which they might operate so that we do not fall into a means of damaging our reputation. That is why I cannot support the Bill tonight. I hope that we will see amendments to change what I believe are the egregious, needless and potentially damaging elements of part 5 of the Bill. Unless there are those changes, I will have further difficulty in supporting the Bill. None the less, having listened to what the Prime Minister has said, I want to give the Government that chance in a constructive spirit, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is listening carefully to that.

I do hope that the Government recognise that to act in a way that unilaterally breaches our international obligations is wholly against the spirit of what this country stands for. It is against the spirit, I think, of the party that he and I have always adhered to as a party of the rule of law, and we need to find a constructive means of making sure that we meet our obligations to the Union, but without undermining our obligations to the rule of law. I do not believe that is impossible with good will.

Local Government Finance

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), whose speech was characteristically thoughtful, and I think that, across the House, we all recognise his expertise in this matter. I can start by agreeing with him on the last part of his speech, which is in urging my right hon. Friend the Minister to be ambitious in our devolution agenda. The fair funding review is necessary and right, and I urge the Government to move forward with it. However, the Minister is right, in the wording of the Government amendment, to link this to our ambitious devolution agenda, which gives us an opportunity to break out of the straitjacket that has bedevilled local government funding for many years—throughout my time in the Department and my time as a councillor.

I am delighted to be making my speech with my new constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon), sitting just in front of me. He had a most distinguished career in local government—in the London boroughs and on the London Assembly. I think his expertise in this field will be very welcome to this House, and I am really pleased to see my friend here.

That comes back to the point: the pressures local government has had to contend with have been real, despite the fact that the sector is staffed by dedicated people at all levels, as the Minister acknowledged, and I very much welcome what he said about that. Historically, it has also been the most efficient part of the public sector, and we need to build on that strength. However, it has suffered, as the Select Committee Chairman pointed out, from the fact that it has, compared with most other countries, a very narrow tax base or revenue base from which to fund itself. I therefore hope that we will be prepared to think outside the box to some degree when we look at devolution.

The devolution of function is really important and the devolution of legal power is important—as my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, that is something my good friend the noble Lord Pickles, I and others sought to do in the Localism Act 2011—but the third bit of the equation is the devolution of resource. If we are going to be serious about devolution, we have to talk in terms of fiscal devolution as well. I commend to the Minister and colleagues the work of the London Finance Commission. It has published two reports, the first of which was in 2013. The commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London, and I know from personal experience that the Prime Minister himself is a convinced devolutionist.

I hope that we can look again at some of the sensible and practical recommendations for fiscal devolution in that first report. For example, there is the devolution of stamp duty land tax and perhaps of other property-based taxes. That also reflects another point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. Yes, there are more disparities of resource in the United Kingdom than in other countries, but at the same time there are disparities of costs as well. The cost of running a local authority service in London and the south-east is exceedingly high, and perhaps a measure of fiscal devolution to a regional level would enable greater nuance in the way we approach those matters. It is an important topic, and it seems to me that we need to think that through very carefully.

Among the other specifics I want to touch on is the need to look sensibly at the formula itself. When I was the Minister I think we had 270-odd bits of regression analysis in the formula, and I pay tribute to the officials who grapple with that. However, it is complex and opaque, and we need something that is much more transparent to those who are its recipients. For example, we could look at a couple of practical issues. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to eliminating negative rate support grant. It seemed to me scandalous that a well-run and efficient local authority such as Bromley would, if we had not taken steps, have been penalised by negative RSG. I ask the Minister—I sure he will do this because he looks at all this carefully—to look at the London Borough of Bromley’s submission to the consultation, which set this out in some detail and with real expertise.

Another important area is that at the moment the formula is based almost entirely on a needs versus resource matrix, and there is nothing in the current arrangements that rewards efficiency. If we want to change behaviours in local government for the better, surely we can find some incentive that we can build into the funding mechanisms to reward local authorities that have a track record of being historically efficient and historically low-cost. Bromley is exactly such an authority, but it actually loses out in consequence. As it has been efficient, any reduction made on a simple pro rata basis bears more heavily on it, because there is less slack. We need to bear in mind that, in some cases, historically high spending may be the result of historically high funding, but not necessarily the consequence purely of need or of the efficient use of resource. Therefore, we need a formula that is more nuanced in capturing those distinctions.

I hope we can look seriously at the operation of the area cost adjustment. In my experience, that has proved to be rather arbitrary in a number of areas. We have an artificial distinction in London between inner and outer London boroughs. As many Members of the House will know, that does not reflect the way London has changed. There are now areas of considerable affluence in inner London, but as they are counted as inner London boroughs, they get a more generous rate of funding than outer London boroughs, whereas many of the London suburbs are facing increasing social and economic challenges. Getting rid of that distinction would be good, and moving to a more up-to-date system of calculation would also be valuable. I often wonder whether we should be looking at assessing need on the basis of disposable income and costs once housing costs are taken out of it, because housing costs are a significant distortion across the country and perhaps some element can be put in the formula to look at how we deal with that. Again, that bears heavily on efficient outer-London authorities such as mine.

We could also look at the way that benefits data are handled in this calculation. Should we be looking at benefits data making allowance for the level of take-up, which will vary? Doing it on a flat basis can, again, potentially distort the reality on the ground. That is why taking deprivation levels after housing costs may give us a better and more realistic assessment of disposable income in local authority areas.

I shall make my final point, because I know that there is much more that we need to touch upon. We have always maintained that we would honour the new burdens doctrine, but I am not sure that that has always been possible to achieve in practice over the years. There are still about 1,100 statutory obligations on local authorities and those have grown, sometimes for good reasons of social policy—the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is one example—but they can, again, bear heavily on some areas, particularly in London, because for a raft of reasons over which local authorities have no control, London is inevitably a magnet for new arrivals, so there will be greater pressure on London boroughs in terms of the costs of housing policy. Something that is more nuanced, which I am sure is achievable given modern data collection, would be welcome and advantageous.

I very much welcome the move back to multi-year settlements, and I hope we can look at having four-year or so settlements going forward. It was necessary to do what we did this year—I think everybody understands that—but let us get back to multi-year settlements to give greater certainty for people.

If we give local authorities more powers, as we did under the Localism Act 2011, can we look at the rules governing the way in which they can approach raising revenue for investment in capital projects? There are a number of restrictions around that at the moment? It would also encourage them to use their powers—also provided under the Localism Act—to take on more commercial activities and to do so in a more commercial manner. The take-up of that has been somewhat patchy thus far, so what can we do to encourage and assist local authorities to do more of that for the benefit of their communities?

So actually there is an ambitious agenda here, and this is an ambitious and important topic. I welcome the opportunity for us to have this debate. With respect to the Opposition, I should say that it is not simply about putting more money into a system, because, at the end of the day, the system is no longer capable of responding to the complex needs and pressures that modern local government must deal with. That is why the Government are right to have this review. They are right to be ambitious and to link it with the broader devolution agenda. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.