Local Government Funding

Debate between Steve Double and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to see you, with your acerbic wit, in the Chair, Mr Davies.

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). We all know that there is not enough money in the pot. I accept that cuts have to be made, but I want to make the case for fairer funding. I know how wasteful government can be, although generally, local government has delivered broadly the same service over the last five years despite having to face considerable cuts. I want to make the case for fairness between urban and rural government.

For my local district council, West Lindsey, Government -funded spending power—the overall funding available for local authority services—was £76 per head for 2015-16. The Government propose to cut that to just £52 for 2019-20. Many hon. Members here represent urban councils. Let us take Wolverhampton as an example. For 2015-16, Wolverhampton’s funding was £559 per head. It is being cut to £455 per head over the same period. That means that the people of Wolverhampton face a reduction of just 18.6%, while my constituents in West Lindsey will have to bear cuts of 31%.

The facts are just as bad at county level. The average amount awarded in Government grant per head across urban England is £486, while the grant per head in rural Lincolnshire is just £385. Metropolitan non-fire authorities face cuts of 19% over this five-year period, while shire counties, non-fire, are being saddled with an average of 34% cuts, and predominantly rural unitaries, non-fire, face cuts of 30%.

We have to face the fact that the sparsity allowance is totally inadequate. It does not even meet the higher operating costs of running essential services in rural areas. Urban residents are receiving a grant settlement from a Conservative Government that is about 50% higher than that received by rural residents. It is a double blow, as we in rural areas face higher council tax burdens, which have to be extracted from people who, on average, earn less than those in cities.

[Steve Double]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, despite the Government’s intention to narrow the gap between local government funding in rural and urban areas, the new formula seems to widen the gap and make the matter even worse?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, it widens the gap. We are asking the Minister not for more money but for fairer funding between rural and urban areas, which is precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes.

I have worked alongside Lincolnshire County Council and West Lindsey District Council for decades, and they are not spendthrifts. They count every penny, but they are being penalised for having saved so much in the past. They know the needs of our people far more than anyone in Whitehall does. We have already given up much of our invaluable network of local libraries, and got rid of our magistrates courts and our police stations. Are we going to get rid of our fire stations now? How much more does Whitehall really expect that rural England can take?

Closing the gap between the Government grant to the urban dweller and to the rural inhabitant by just 5% over five years would make a huge difference to service provision in rural areas. In Lincolnshire, it would mean an extra £13,130,000 per annum at the end of a five-year period. Right now, good, hard-working people in rural areas are subsidising much better provision of services to people in urban areas, and that has to change.

Donald Trump

Debate between Steve Double and Edward Leigh

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to participate in the debate. I, too, am a member of the Petitions Committee, and I am delighted that we brought the debate to the House today. That is not because the Committee held a particular view, but because we felt that it was right, given the number of people who signed the petition, to air these important issues.

Like the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, and no doubt millions of others across the country, I condemn wholeheartedly the comments Mr Trump made about not only Muslims, but Mexicans, women, people with disabilities and other minority groups. However, the question whether we should ban him from this country is interesting and important, and we need to address it head on.

This country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. Although, sadly, that principle and some of those freedoms have been eroded recently, we are still a country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views. If we were to go down the road of banning Mr Trump because we find his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? There are many people with equally intolerant views—some come to this country and some, as we have heard, already live here. Are we to ban them because we do not like the things they say or we disagree with them?

The issue at stake is how our society handles people with different views from us when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive—the issue of free speech. I believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of violence—to criminal acts. That is the line that I believe must be drawn, and at which we differentiate. I do not believe that Donald Trump has crossed that line. He may do it another time, and then we might need to reconsider, but I do not believe he has done it yet. It is perfectly right that the Home Secretary bans extremist preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of terrorism and to cause harm and pain to individuals and communities—and, ultimately, to kill. However, I do not believe that Mr Trump has done that.

I wonder how long the list would be if our country began to ban people because they said things we did not like. Ignorant and unpleasant as Donald Trump’s comments are, he is not alone in saying such things. For starters, we would have to ban the Prime Minister of Hungary who has, I believe, said equally offensive things about Muslims. The way we deal with bigotry and prejudice is by confronting it head on, not trying to avoid it. Banning someone like Donald Trump risks making him a martyr. We would only fuel his cause and he would see himself as a martyr. I believe many of his supporters would feel the same.

What would banning Donald Trump achieve? We live in a global village. We will not stop his views reaching our shores purely because we ban him. In fact, I would argue the opposite. The promotion that would come from a ban would mean his views would be heard louder and stronger than they are now. Banning him would only play into his hands. Instead of wanting to ban Mr Trump, I am with those who say, “Let’s invite him to this country. Let’s bring him here and confront his views head on. Let’s take him and show him what a great nation we are, based on those values of tolerance and freedom of speech. Let’s take him to the places that he has spoken about and show him what life in Britain is really like.”

My final point is that I have been surprised at the amount of support Mr Trump has received from the Republican party. In my view, the greatest Republican President that the United States has had in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, who, far from proposing building walls, was all about tearing them down. He said to President Gorbachev of Russia,

“if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Therefore, I am surprised that Donald Trump is getting the support he is. It seems to cut against the heritage and values that I understand the Republican party to be about.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not surprised at all. The fact is that in America and Britain there is widespread disillusion with mainstream establishment politicians, who do not seem to give an honest answer to people’s concerns about immigration and many issues. Therefore, there is no point in just bad-mouthing this guy. We have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way.

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the response we are seeing is far more about people’s frustrations and concerns than about an individual man.

It would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning Donald Trump because he has called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We would surely be guilty of the thing we criticise him for. It would send a signal to the world that we are scared.