Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Syms

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s proposition. The whole point is that we are not dealing with the individual circumstances of authorities; that will be done in the report. The provisions set out the methodology. That is the important thing. It is worth bearing in mind that under the existing formula grant arrangements, there is provision that in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State can make an amending report. In effect, these provisions mirror the position for dealing with the situation now; we are operating with a baseline and top-ups and tariffs, with the protection that they are uprated in line with inflation.

Paragraph 13 makes further provision to allow us to put right a mistake in the basis for calculation set out in the original report, but it is important to stress that if we did so we would again need to seek the approval of the House of Commons. The principle exists in the current system, although it has not had to be used; it is a fail-safe arrangement.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Is it the Government’s intention that the tariff will always equal the top-up—that no money will be top-sliced by the Department for Communities and Local Government—or will a reserve be kept?

[Robert Neill]

We will talk later about what is described as the central share, which is the proportion that may, as necessary, be retained by central Government. That is to ensure that at all times the settlement fits into the envelope of the control totals, but even so we have indicated that anything allocated under the central share will be returned to local government through other grants. Just as at present local authorities receive grants that are outside the formula grant scheme, so too can money be recycled to local government in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Syms]

I fully support the Government amendments, because what they propose is sensible when we are moving towards a new system. We are talking about some very large figures, and it takes only a small change in one figure to throw the others out. It is important that local authority finance officers have a clear idea of where they are going with this new system. If there is a recalculation, which we do not expect, will it be perfectly obvious in the information supplied to local authorities? Local authorities will have to set a legal budget, and they will do so based on figures supplied by the Government. If those figures change a little, will the system be sufficiently transparent for local authority treasurers to understand where there has been some adjustment? Otherwise, if it is totally out of the blue and they cannot see the rationale, that will cause more problems than we are solving.

[Robert Neill]

I take my hon. Friend’s sensible point. That is why it will be done, if it is needed, by making a report to the House so that there is proper scrutiny. Local authorities would of course be notified and the basis of any change set out. We would also seek to give any local authority affected appropriate warning informally and through the formal channels here, and there would of course be scope for Members who represent constituencies affected to raise the matter in the House and with Ministers.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) deigns to support the amendments but sorry that, in doing so, she has managed to raise churlishness to a new art form, even by her standards. I simply point out that I can scarcely remember a Government Bill in the previous Parliament that did not come with dozens of drafting amendments as it progressed. These things happen, as she knows full well. I am a little surprised and she does herself an injustice by making so needless a point.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments made: 4, page 16, line 40, at end insert—

‘(8A) Where the original calculations did not show that the Secretary of State was to make a payment to a relevant authority, but the revised calculations show that the Secretary of State is to make a payment to the authority—

(a) the Secretary of State must make that payment to the authority, and

(b) the Secretary of State must make a payment to the authority of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the original calculations as falling to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State.’.

Amendment 5, page 17, line 10, after ‘(6)’ insert ‘or (6A)’.

Amendment 6, page 17, line 18, after ‘(8)’ insert ‘or (8A)’.

Amendment 7, page 19, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4A) Where the relevant previous calculations did not show that a relevant authority was to make a payment to the Secretary of State, but the revised calculations show that the authority is to make a payment to the Secretary of State—

(a) the authority must make that payment to the Secretary of State, and

(b) the authority must make a payment to the Secretary of State of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the relevant previous calculations as falling to be made by the Secretary of State to the authority.’.

Amendment 8, page 19, line 19, at end insert—

‘(6A) Where the relevant previous calculations did not show that the Secretary of State was to make a payment to a relevant authority, but the revised calculations show that the Secretary of State is to make a payment to the authority—

(a) the Secretary of State must make that payment to the authority, and

(b) the Secretary of State must make a payment to the authority of an amount equal to the amount of the payment shown by the relevant previous calculations as falling to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State.’.—(Robert Neill.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will not go down the route of giving such a specific example, but I would say that it is worth bearing it in mind that we are considering disproportionate growth in business rate income, so one does not necessarily have to consider a particular development in itself, but the impact overall of the business rates income. I can assure him of that.

As regards my hon. Friend’s point and that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on a related topic, paragraphs 27 and 28 of schedule 1, as I recall, make provision for the calculation of the levy account and set-aside account to be made annually, but there is also provision, after the first year, of course, for a balance to be carried over. That can be done over a period of time and there is therefore an element of an opportunity—and it would be appropriate—to build in a measure of insurance over that period so that moneys could be collected and held in reserve to deal with potential set-asides in different years. I hope my hon. Friends’ points are answered.

[Mr Syms]

I think we are starting to learn a little bit more about this now. If there is a balance and it builds up—that is, if there is income from those that are gaining rather more than those that are not—will there be a redistribution at some point when there is a reset to local government?

[Robert Neill]

I envisage that the whole situation would be reconsidered when a reset was reached. The balance would itself have to be the subject of a report by the Secretary of State and would therefore have to be subject to scrutiny. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not intended that the Secretary of State should somehow hoard the balance or squirrel it away, other than for the purposes of making safety net payments. That is why there are separate accounts.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Robert Syms

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Syms]

Is not one of the major changes that there will be an incentive for ordinary rate payers and electors to support a particular scheme? There is currently no incentive for them to do so because there is no financial benefit for people who contribute to local government.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Unfortunately, under the previous Government there was a belief that we had to create an increasingly centralised and complex system to deliver results. The party that is criticising us now brought in capping and the comprehensive area assessment, which trammelled local authorities rather than freed them. I can understand, however, why this is a sensitive topic for Opposition Members. In their 1997 election manifesto they said they would localise the business rate, and they spent 13 years not doing so. Some of the principal architects of that commitment are sitting on the Opposition Benches in today’s debate, so I can understand that they might have a bit of a guilty conscience.