Local Government Finance

Debate between Robert Neill and Andy Sawford

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

Chief officer pay is something that should, rightly, be determined locally. We would of course want local authorities to be responsible. I urge the hon. Gentleman to recognise, however, that some of the highest paid chief officers were in Conservative local authorities. We will not be taking any lectures on that point.

The Government seem to have introduced the term “spending power” to hide the true scale of the cuts. London Councils says that it is extremely concerned that the spending power calculation is misleading and incorrect. The Government say that spending power is the total amount of money available to a local authority but the LGA tells us that there is double counting, such as with health budgets that are also in the Department of Health’s figures. Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says that

“these figures demonstrate…statement on the local government settlement this year was by any usual standards an…opaque announcement.”

The Minister says that the change to spending power is a shift in Government policy to reduce dependence. He uses that term about the begging bowl that, frankly, I find offensive. He says that this is about reducing dependence on central Government and freeing councils to encourage local growth. If that is true, we have to ask why it has taken so long for this Government to make a U-turn on business rates, which have risen by £2,000 since May 2010. Why will they not join this side of the House and go further by cutting rates for 1.5 million small and medium businesses? We agree, of course, that councils should not simply be a post-box for the Treasury, and schemes such as the local authority business growth incentive were introduced by the last Labour Government. We will look to reform any so-called incentivisation so that the system works fairly for all areas of the country and is alongside, rather than a replacement for, mechanisms for fair distribution of funding according to need.

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

First, I find it ironic that the hon. Gentleman should criticise any change to the business rates model that his party resisted for so many years. Secondly, he talks in terms of the four-block model, which is generally regarded as discredited now. Would he persist with it or not?

[Andy Sawford]

The consensus around recognising need in local authority areas existed for more than 65 years, until this Government broke it. We have been clear that we will look in the next Parliament to restore fairness in the formula, and of course we will look to ensure that the model in place recognises need.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Andy Sawford

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Well, we could try to resolve many things by way of a judicial review, but whether that would be a wise or proportionate use of public funds, when the outcome is highly uncertain, is questionable. Surely it would be much better to deal with the problem at source, in the way that is being proposed. The Opposition appear to have little to say on this matter, and they appear to be shedding a great many crocodile tears about this aspect of the Bill.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has shared his thoughts on a range of publications by London local authorities. I invite him to condemn Hammersmith and Fulham council, which he would surely deprecate for publishing a magazine that not only advertises “Sofas and Stuff” on the local high street but comments on the impacts of Government policy on local residents. Will he also consider the publication from the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which gives its views on the Government’s Crossrail proposals and on funding implications for the council, among other things? Does the hon. Gentleman see any difference between that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is new to the Dispatch Box, but I must remind him that interventions must be brief, whether they are made from the Dispatch Box or from the Back Benches.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Andy Sawford

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

I should have declared my interest as a member of the local government pension scheme when I first intervened. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the technical issues, as those on our Front Bench have pointed out, is that the language we use should allude to the amendment of the schemes rather than to their closure? If the local government pension schemes that are currently in deficit were to be closed, the employers involved would immediately become liable to pay those deficits. That could have a hugely disruptive effect not only on the people receiving pensions now and in the future but on the local authorities themselves and the public services that they provide.

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his arrival in the House. I have been dealing with him in the local government world for many years. I did my best to prevent him from coming here, but it clearly was not quite enough! He anticipates one of the technical issues that I was going to mention, and it is perhaps the most substantial one. Chronologically, it is not the first in relation to the Bill, but I might as well deal with it now for the sake of completeness.

I read with care the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister gave in Committee. I entirely accept that it is not the Government’s intention to create crystallisation. However, I note that the finer details of the proposals are being considered, and we should look carefully at that. The Minister said that there was no requirement for the funds to be wound up, and I accept that, but I hope that he will consider the issues that have been raised by the Local Government Association about legal ambiguity.

I do not doubt that the Minister has no intention of creating a closure that would crystallise the debts of a scheme. That was always the basis on which I approached such negotiations when I was a Minister, and I am certain that nothing has changed in that regard. However, this was one area in which some of the nuttiest legal advice needed to be obtained—[Interruption.] I should have said “knottiest”. There is sometimes a risk of legal ambiguity, and that must be avoided at all costs. I would therefore urge my hon. Friend and his advisers at the Treasury to take on board the work that has been done in the DCLG and other Departments to find a means of resolving this issue. We all know where we want to end up, and I am sure that there is a means of achieving that. I know that the Minister’s skills and abilities will get us there. It is right to point out that some issues still need to be addressed, but they are not insurmountable in the context of where the Government want to get to. It is an important area to clarify to the maximum extent.

The other issue I want to touch on is governance. I hope that the Minister will consider the concerns raised by the Local Government Association and the unions about the lack of segregation between the scheme manager and the scheme board. Again, I do not think there is any dispute between us about where we want to end up, but it is a fact that the local government schemes have a good record in their management and a good record on transparency. When experienced representatives of local government employers raise concerns that the two functions of the scheme manager and the scheme board are difficult to reconcile within the same body, those concerns should not, in my judgment, be lightly dismissed. I note that the Minister sensibly and properly took on board the fact that there are still developments going on here and that proposals are still being developed. I hope that that will continue to be the case, and when he responds to the debate, he may be able to update us and reassure us that continuing discussions will take place with the experts in the local government sector to make sure that we get the best possible design for those matters.

Finally and more generally, I ask the Minister not to be deterred by undue reference to Henry VIII clauses. When I was taking the Localism Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill through the House, if I had £5 for every time I was criticised about Henry VIII clauses, I would have retired to some tax haven as a very rich man. [Interruption.] I probably would not have not done that actually as I enjoy being here so much. However, it is part of the knockabout banter we get here that Oppositions always say that there are excessive Henry VIII clauses, but when one looks back, one finds that when the Opposition move into government, they construct Bills with exactly the same sort of clauses. That is why I urge the Minister not to be put off by that; it is necessary to build in the flexibility that such clauses provide in any piece of legislation of this kind. What are important are the statements of intent about the manner in which those clauses should be used. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.