Devolution in England
Debate between Robert Neill and Mark Pawsey
Robert Neill
Local authority leaders are elected via their local authorities. We can talk about the time frame for having a directly elected mayor, but I am afraid that we are again allowing process to get in the way of the principle of fiscal devolution, which is the most important thing. When one looks at local authority systems in other countries where there is significantly more financial devolution, of which France is a very good example, the public participation at elections is significantly higher because people realise that their vote makes a difference. That is the main objective that we should be aiming for.
As a Greater London Member of Parliament, I also welcome the devolution package that was announced by the Chancellor and the Mayor of London. It does not go quite as far as the Greater Manchester package, but it is extremely valuable. It is worth noting that it was a Conservative Mayor and the Labour-led London Councils that agreed, in a pragmatic fashion, on a set of 10 principles for how London local authorities would use the extra devolved powers and the even greater devolved fiscal power that was recommended in the London Finance Commission report, which I hope will be adopted by the next Government—I hope of my complexion—in the next Parliament. Again, the hugely important point to make is that when local government is pragmatic, it delivers better.
The Prime Minister gave me hope in his speech in June. The Financial Times reported him as saying that
“devolving power and money from Whitehall to the cities…is the future. The debate now is about how far and fast it can go.”
I hope that in the next Parliament, we will see a significant increase in the amount of public spending that is devolved. We have made a valuable step, because some 70% of council income is now raised locally. That is a big improvement on where we were. However, council income is not the same as total spend.
That is why the pooling arrangements between health and adult social care in Greater Manchester are an important step forward. Anyone who has served on a top-tier authority, whether it is a county, a unitary, a London borough or a metropolitan district, will know that adult social care is one of the principal cost pressures. The ability to align it more closely with the health service makes obvious sense financially and in terms of better and more effective service delivery. As has been observed, local authorities are often better placed to nuance the delivery arrangements to reflect the needs of the population.
The Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee made a perfectly fair point about where we should go from here. I think that we should start to look at the further devolution of property taxes. That is the most obvious thing to do. We have made a start with the local retention of the increase in the business rate. He was kind enough to make observations about the methodology that was put in place. He was perfectly right that we always envisaged the methodology as being capable of improvement and refinement. It would be easy to increase the locally retained share. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State talked at the Local Government Association conference last year about raising it to the high 80s or 90s. The Prime Minister has spoken in similar terms. Personally, I hope that we will move to make all the additional business rate retained in the next Parliament. We should aim, within not too short a period, to re-localise the whole of the business rate.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is making a strong case for increased devolution, which is exactly what we heard on the Select Committee. He has been a Minister in the Department, so what does he think are the obstacles within the institutions of government that prevent that devolution from taking place? Why has it not happened before now?
Robert Neill
There are two things. One is a practical matter that we must address seriously, which is the need for equalisation arrangements. As the Chairman of the Select Committee fairly said, we have a model already in place that could be adjusted to deal with that. I therefore do not think that we should allow the need for a measure of equalisation to fall in the way of further devolution. The question of risk of local authority failure is sometimes raised, but I think that it is overstated, first because of the public law constraints that are already there and, secondly, because in truth if we believe in devolution we must accept that sometimes, very occasionally, a local authority will fail. That is what democracy is about. Allowing failure as a result of a democratically elected body’s decision, provided there are sensible reserve powers that can be put in place, as the Chairman of the Select Committee properly and sensibly set out, is a sensible way forward. We could easily deal with that.
The final problem is the institutional inertia of a system in which so much has come to this place over the years that initiative at a local level is often stifled. The most talented in politics and business see London and Westminster as the centre of operations rather than driving forward their careers at a local level. In France, it would be perfectly natural for the mayor to be a significant political player. The combined authorities in France referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee work exceptionally well and have done for some 30 years. They have delivered on social care and on major infrastructure improvements. That is a sensible and pragmatic way forward that can be tweaked to reflect areas and on that basis there is no reason why we cannot also consider similar but not exactly identical arrangements for the shire counties. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) is absolutely right that they are capable of significant devolution too.
This is a most important debate. I am glad that we have had some thoughtful and constructive speeches and it is a good report. This is a piece of work that we must continue in the new Parliament, as we cannot continue with the current set-up. The Government are entitled to congratulations for what has been done so far, and I hope that it is work on which we can build.
“Councillors on the Frontline”
Debate between Robert Neill and Mark Pawsey(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Neill
There are two things that we can think about that; I understand—superficially—where the view comes from, but there are things that we should look at. First, there is the question of entitlement to paid time off to enable people to do their work, which we ought to think about. Secondly, and this is something I had to think about as somebody who was self-employed, if I was not earning a fee, whatever percentage of that fee I might have put towards my pension arrangements, I would have to make up elsewhere.
What we can do, and this would be permissible under the Government’s proposal, is say that there is no reason why a councillor cannot put a portion of their allowances, which are set locally, towards a private pension. Then, of course, they could claim the tax relief, which is part of that process. So people are not prevented from making some provision.
I accept that this is a difficult issue, but I think that there is a general feeling among the public that—if anything—we will have to be rather more cautious in our approach to pensions right across the public sector. That applies to Members of this House—our pension scheme is being revised, including for Ministers; the ministerial pension scheme is being revised—and it is happening to civil service pensions and to local government officers’ pensions. We cannot escape the fact that doing otherwise would send a message that is rather at variance with the general thrust of the approach towards pensions in the public sector. The Government’s actions are consistent with saying that, for a raft of reasons, we must recognise that we can perhaps no longer adopt the same approach towards pensions as we did before.
As I say, I accept that this is a difficult and controversial issue, and I have tried to use pretty moderate and non-partisan terms. I understand the arguments either way, but we have to be realistic about things.
As I have said, the great value of councillors is that they are not officers. I would not want—even by accident and inadvertence, if you like—to get to a stage where we do something else that reinforces the idea that councillors are part of the payroll. We would not make councillors more effective at being councillors by making them more like officers. The whole idea is that they are different and separate, and the fact that very often they have employment and experience in the private sector is part of the added value that they bring in as a different dimension to the council.
Mark Pawsey
On occasion, the role of the councillor is to call officers to account and there is sometimes a danger that councillors become too closely identified with the body on which they are a councillor.
Robert Neill
That is a perfectly fair point, and it applies right across government. I do not go as far as one council leader, with whom I served at one time, who said that his committee chairmen—we call them cabinet members now—were not doing their job if their officers and directors were not scared of them. I would not recommend such an approach, but there has to be a proper degree of distance; I think all of us would recognise that, because sometimes we have to make it clear that there is a dividing line of responsibility, and about where decisions are ultimately taken.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Neill and Mark Pawsey
Robert Neill
The Government are anxious to ensure that local businesses are not subject to local increases in taxation which they cannot control, but on the other hand a real and powerful incentive is being created for local authorities to grow their tax base by attracting business to their area.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.