Local Government Pensions Scheme (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Lord Shipley (LD)
I should first declare my interest, as I have a small pension resulting from six years’ contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme as a councillor. This has been a very helpful debate in identifying the key issues that this decision has thrown up, because it is a very bad decision.
I recognise the role of my party in the coalition in ameliorating some aspects of the proposals. However, the fact remains that the Government’s decision is still poorly thought through and is a bad one, as I say. We should be very surprised and concerned by it because it discriminates against elected councillors, many of whom have heavy workloads as councillors and may have to give up other careers to take on the role, as we have heard. The decision also discriminates against those who have several part-time jobs, of which being a councillor is one. Again, we have heard an example of that.
Recently, during the passage of the Pensions Bill, time was spent discussing how best to recognise that some people may have several part-time jobs in their working lifetime. Being a councillor is such an activity, and it is work. It is formally treated as work in respect of tax and national insurance. Councillors are not, of course, formally employees of a council but because they are remunerated and pay tax and national insurance they are the equivalent of council employees. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why councillors should be excluded from a pension scheme which is available to those who are formally employed by a council.
Council employees may work in full-time or part-time posts and may do so for a short period. Councillors and elected mayors are no different: they may also be full time or part time and may be in post for a short period, should they not stand for re-election or lose their seat at an election. Equality of treatment is missing here. In pension terms, the right of council officers to join a pension scheme should apply also to councillors.
It is sometimes alleged—we have heard this in your Lordships’ House this afternoon—that being a councillor is a voluntary activity. We have also heard it said that it does not take up much time. It is, of course, true that it is a voluntary activity because people are not compelled to stand for election. However, that is not really the issue. In terms of time, being a councillor may not take up much time in a very small council but that is not true in the vast majority of cases.
Full-time elected mayors will not in future be able to join their local government contributory scheme. They may have to give up a contributory scheme in their current employment to become elected mayors but will have no right to continue contributing to a pension through the local government scheme. This seems wrong. Council leaders and cabinet members who carry substantial workloads, often between half and full time, are in the same position. Why should they be denied the right to contribute to a pension?
It has been said that not all councils offer membership of a scheme. My response to that is that I have real doubts about the work of the independent remuneration panels. I do not understand why there is no statutory national scheme for the payment of councillors’ allowances and for a pension scheme. That does not exist yet; I hope that it may do so in future. However, it remains the case that 58% of councils do offer membership. The fact that 42% do not may reflect workloads and the size of those councils, but in total just 17% of all councillors are part of the scheme. My noble friend Lord True asked a critical question—namely, what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve and why do they not simply permit the current scheme to continue? Attention has been drawn to the double standard that will now apply, because in Wales, Scotland and, I understand, Northern Ireland pension rights will continue.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked about the financial consequences and I think said that the proposal may save money. The problem is this: it is unlikely to save any money because an independent remuneration panel will have the power to allocate a sum of money for councillors to purchase pension contributions. If that is done, it will have to be done for every councillor in that council area. Therefore, if that happens, it could end up costing more. At the moment, only 30% of councillors, where there are schemes, have joined them. The right voluntarily to join the contributory scheme is therefore the best way to approach the issue.
At its heart, this is a major issue of principle. The consequence may be that fewer people will be prepared to stand for election and fewer will be prepared to take on leadership roles. The consequences could well be that leadership roles will be undertaken by those who are older, with independent incomes. It would be a great loss to local government if younger people were less willing to serve, and I hope that the Minister will explain what problem the Government are trying to solve, what analysis was done of the consequences of the decision that has been made, and what the future for local government will be if fewer people are willing to come forward to stand for election.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, I will be slightly out of line with other speakers, all of whom have local government experience as well. I have been listening carefully to the debate. As a former leader of a council and a former Minister who did not take a pension—I declare that interest—I am very conscious of the work that is done by local councillors and the extra amount that they do as a result of the changes to their responsibilities that have been made over the years.
However, I part from a number of the speeches, for which I am sorry because I am very fond of my noble friend Lord True and everyone who has spoken. I want to draw back because the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others have talked about the difficulty of recruiting people as councillors. I remember extremely well when allowances of any sort were first considered. The argument was that if we did not provide them, only the rich, the old and people who had time on their hands would be able to be councillors. We introduced allowances and some of them are very substantial indeed. I know that my noble friend Lord True says that they were reduced, but he is not necessarily in the majority. Over the years, council allowances have exponentially increased. I am not concerned about that but about the fact that we are beginning to use the same arguments that supported allowances for supporting the pension scheme. I have never understood why councillors were included in it, and I shall tell noble Lords why.
It is because local councillors are responsible for their position to their local electorate. They can be there, at elections, or they cannot—they can be taken away. They voluntarily stand for election. They do not know whether they are going to be councillors. They are totally reliant on the electorate to make sure that they are there and for how long. That underlines the voluntary nature of standing for a local council. The work that they do is, of course, immensely important. However, this work can be done alongside other jobs—and many people do that—and therefore I do not understand where the pension comes into it.
I understand why there are allowances. If I may say so, they were quite hard fought for at the time but the allowances are there. I do not think that my noble friend has a policy on which she is going to win very strongly but it is something where the Government have to grasp the nettle. If not, the argument will go on and on as people justify more and more expenditure for local councils.
Finally, I want to make a distinction between councillors and council officers. If councillors ever come to be seen as in any way doing officers’ work and running councils on the basis of officials, then we will have lost the plot. Councillors are there to represent people in the local community which they serve; they are not there to implement policy. There is a difference between employed people on the council and councillors, and I think that that is what drives the distinction between those who do and do not have a pension.
Council Tax
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, local authorities were well aware of what the council tax support was going to be. They were also well aware that their schemes should take into account any additional costs which came about as a result of the council tax support scheme. As with everything else to do with local authorities, we will keep this under review but it would not qualify for any consideration under new burdens because council tax is always something that the council has had to deal with.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of helping those on low incomes would be to increase the number of council tax bands at the top end, so that those who are wealthier pay more?
Bailiffs
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is extremely important that bailiffs are under no illusion about how they should behave when they have to take on a debt. As the noble Lord says, they should be courteous and caring, and that will be in the guidelines, which are being produced as we speak and are almost ready. They will give clear guidance as to how bailiffs should behave and operate.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, will those guidelines explain why some local authorities are considering implementing a charging regime and taking part of the bailiff’s gross fees? Is there not a clear conflict of interest when a local authority appoints a bailiff, supervises a bailiff and then shares in the gross fees of that bailiff?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I said initially, the local authority is entitled to come to arrangements with bailiffs on fees and whatever charges are made. The guidance will make clear what local authorities can do, but I agree with the noble Lord that anything that looks like a cosy arrangement between the bailiffs employed and local authorities is thoroughly undesirable.
Gateshead and Northumberland (Boundary Change) Order 2013
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, there are two elements under these two orders and I wonder whether I might deal with them both together. The first is the Gateshead and Northumberland (Boundary Change) Order 2013, and the other is the East Hertfordshire and Stevenage (Boundary Change) Order 2013. I will talk to them both if that is acceptable to your Lordships.
The Boundary Commission invited local authorities across the country to tell it whether there were any boundary anomalies that councils believed should be investigated. The Boundary Commission was prepared to undertake reviews only where both the affected local authorities agreed. In essence, only three cases came out of that request, and these are the final two.
These orders are very straightforward; they transfer small areas of land, and in the case of East Hertfordshire and Stevenage a few houses, from one local authority to another. The transfer between Northumberland and Gateshead is basically a case of the transfer of one house, which ratifies the position on the ground. The property and its residents are already registered with Northumberland, although at present they are not in the county. The first order simply puts that right. In both cases, the councils concerned agreed that a change is necessary and supported a boundary change.
It might help if I explained the statutory framework that allows change and the context within which boundary change is now being considered. On the statutory framework, this is the second use of the powers in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act for boundary change. Under the legislation, a boundary change can take place between two local authorities only on the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, whose responsibility is to give advice to the Secretary of State. In doing so, it: gathers evidence, for example from the councils involved and local people; publishes and consults on draft recommendations based on this evidence; and, once it has considered the representations, makes final recommendations to the Secretary of State. When considering whether a change is desirable, the boundary commissioners bear in mind the statutory criteria that change should lead to effective and convenient local government and reflect community identities and interests.
Secondly, the context within which boundary change is being considered must ensure that local government boundaries reflect communities and that councils can deliver effective and efficient services. This has been described as,
“a keystone of effective democratic local government”.
A boundary that cuts through a property or an estate is unlikely to be convenient to the property owners, who may have to have dealings with two separate local authorities: for example for council tax, refuse collection or planning purposes. While local government will in practice generally put in place informal arrangements—or indeed make formal agreements to deal with such situations, as they have done in the case of Northumberland and Gateshead—the very fact that they need to do so can be wasteful of resources and not conducive to effective and convenient local government.
It is recognised that moving a boundary and changing the area of a local authority is a fairly large step to take, particularly when the number of residents affected is small. We would expect councils to work together to alleviate the impact of such boundaries. However, we recognise that, especially in cases where local people do not feel an affiliation to the area of their local authority, to reflect the concerns of local people it is best to take that further step and amend the boundary.
The Gateshead and Northumberland boundary review concerns a property—a bungalow and associated grounds—part of which is in Gateshead and another part of which is in Northumberland. The order realigns the boundary so that the property is transferred from the metropolitan borough of Gateshead into the county of Northumberland, as is the entirety of the gardens and grounds of it and neighbouring properties. Not unsurprisingly, very few representations were made, but the county council, the local councillor and the parish concerned are supportive.
On the East Hertfordshire and Stevenage (Boundary Change) Order 2013, as a result of the current boundary position 19 properties within three culs-de-sac are represented by East Hertfordshire District Council, while 15 are represented by Stevenage Borough Council. However, the existing boundary means that the access for all the East Hertfordshire residents in the affected properties is via Stevenage Borough. This order realigns the boundary so that all the affected properties are in Stevenage.
The commission received 20 submissions on its draft recommendations from East Hertfordshire District Council, Stevenage Borough Council, three district and county councillors, 12 residents directly affected by the boundary change, two members of the public and one other. All those who responded were unanimous in their support of the proposed boundary change. It is clear that local people consider the current boundary arrangements to be anomalous and that residents clearly relate to a Stevenage community identity.
The Boundary Commission has confirmed that the changes will provide for effective and convenient local government. In its view, there is no adverse impact on the local authority’s ability to deliver value for money. In short, the orders implement small boundary changes, and I commend them to the House.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support both these simple proposals, which reflect common sense. However, I am puzzled by one matter: why it has taken so long. The final recommendations were published in May 2012, based on the consultation a year ago. Why has it taken nine months for the matter to arrive now, in February of the following year? There may be explanations that I have not understood, but it strikes me as a long time when the consultation occurred almost a year ago. Any guidance or further details on the procedure being followed and the timetable to which those involved should keep would be helpful to know.
Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, this order will enable local authorities to implement localised council tax support from 1 April when council tax benefit is abolished. These changes are part of the Government’s wider policy of decentralisation. The order will amend the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which allows local authorities, if they choose to do so, to contract out statutory services relating to the administration of local taxes which they would normally have to provide themselves: for example, the calculation of individual council tax liabilities and the serving of demand notices.
New administrative functions will be created when localised schemes are implemented. This order will add these new functions to those that can be contracted out already. The new functions are: the issuing of council tax reduction decision letters; the payment of reductions in certain circumstances where the billing authority is of the opinion that it would be appropriate; the serving of penalty notices in connection with a reduction; the repayment of an amount paid in connection with a penalty issued in connection with reductions under local schemes that has been subsequently quashed; and the calculation and collection of premiums on long-term empty dwellings.
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 deal with the detection of fraud and enforcement mechanisms relating to local authority schemes. They provide local authorities with the means of protecting their reduction schemes from attempted fraud and deterring those who may be considering making a false claim.
These regulations are being put forward for approval using powers in Sections 14A, 14B and 14C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which were inserted by Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 2012. These powers allow for the creation of criminal offences, the creation of civil penalties that may be imposed by local authorities, and regulations providing powers to require information from individuals or organisations.
These powers are broad, and noble Lords and Members in the other place rightly sought assurances from the Government during the passage of the Bill on how the Government would seek to exercise them. A statement of intent, Localising Support for Council Tax: Information Sharing and Powers to Tackle Fraud, was published in July last year and committed the Government to bringing forward proportionate and measured proposals that would not go beyond the existing powers relating to council tax benefit, while replicating only the powers that were essential in the context of reduction schemes. These regulations are the result of that commitment, and I shall explain how that has been translated into specific provisions.
Regulation 2 sets out a number of definitions, but noble Lords may wish to note how we are defining a council tax offence for the purposes of subsequent regulations. A council tax offence is defined as any criminal offence committed in making an application for, or in the award of, a council tax reduction; or an offence committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of such an offence; or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offence. It does not include offences committed for wider purposes related to council tax administration and enforcement, nor for other criminal offences committed against a local authority. Noble Lords may wish to bear this context in mind when examining later regulations that deal with requiring information and the creation of offences.
Regulation 3 provides for local authorities to authorise individuals to undertake investigations into council tax offences. The provisions are equivalent to those that are currently in place for local authorities to authorise investigations into housing benefit and council tax benefit cases. However, the regulation restricts how authorised officers may exercise their powers. They may do so only,
“for the purpose of preventing, detecting and securing evidence of the commission … of a council tax offence”.
This does not allow for powers to be exercised for routine checks on individuals or, more generally, to verify the content of applications.
Regulation 4 provides that authorised officers may require a person to supply information that is needed, again for the prevention, detection and securing of evidence of council tax offences. Where the person from whom information is to be required falls within the list of persons set out under paragraph (3), information may be required only in relation to a particular person, and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person, or a family member,
“has committed, is committing or intends to commit a council tax offence”.
The classes of people who may be required to provide information are equivalent to those who may be required to provide information for welfare benefit offences, with the removal of certain groups. For instance, we are not providing for officers to require information from telecommunication providers, since such requests should instead be exercised, monitored and reported on through legal avenues under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and be subject to requirement for judicial approval and oversight.
Regulation 5 provides for electronic access to information to be provided to an authorised officer, where such arrangements can be made. Local authority investigators have similar powers to seek electronic access to information in relation to welfare benefit investigations. Under the regulations, the powers to require electronic access to information may be used only where the electronic records are likely to contain relevant information for the purpose of preventing, detecting and securing evidence of the commission of a council tax offence.
Regulation 6 provides that it will be a criminal offence intentionally to delay or obstruct an authorised officer when exercising their power to require information. It is also an offence to refuse or to fail, without reasonable excuse, to provide information or access to electronic records when required to do so. I hope noble Lords will accept that deliberately frustrating an investigation should itself be an offence. These offences are similar to those that exist in relation to delay or the obstruction of an officer in relation to a welfare benefit investigation.
Regulation 7 provides that it will be a criminal offence to make a false representation or to provide or allow to be provided information that is known to be false in order to gain a reduction.
Regulation 8 makes provision, similar to that currently in force for council tax benefit, that a failure to notify a relevant change in circumstances would be an offence. The regulation also makes it an offence knowingly to cause or to allow another person to fail to notify a change in circumstances affecting their entitlement to a reduction.
Regulation 9 deals with offences that may be committed by a body corporate and the ability to prosecute the officers themselves if the offence was due to their actions or omissions.
Regulation 10 deals with the legal timescales for prosecutions.
Regulation 11 provides that a local authority may offer to impose a penalty on a person rather than prosecute them through the courts. In the face of sufficient evidence to prosecute, the person may wish to avoid a criminal sentence and voluntarily accept a financial penalty. In return, the local authority can avoid the need to prepare a legal case and the time and resources involved. Any such agreement would be subject to a cooling-off period and may be offered only when there is sufficient evidence to institute proceedings, so that there is no question of any person with a legitimate defence being pressured or forced into accepting a penalty against their will.
Regulations 12 and 13 extend the existing system of financial penalties that local authorities may impose for council tax discounts, so that similar penalties may be imposed in relation to council tax reductions.
An authority may impose a £70 penalty on a person when they are negligent in providing information or notifying a change in circumstances that lead to them receiving a reduction beyond their entitlement. These are for non-criminal actions and are at the discretion of the local authority. If a person has been charged with an offence or issued with a penalty as an alternative to prosecution, a penalty may not be imposed. There is no question of penalties being imposed under these two regulations when a person has been charged with an offence and a prosecution subsequently fails or lacks sufficient evidence.
In conclusion, these regulations in large part reflect the provisions that are currently in place for the internal administration and enforcement of council tax benefit. If approved, they will carry out two essential functions. They will enable local authorities to deliver their local schemes, whether using internal resources, external providers or a mixture of both, as well as providing a proportionate but robust system of enforcement powers to combat attempted fraud and seek information from organisations that can assist in bringing offenders to book.
Localising council tax reduction delivers on three of the Government’s key priorities: devolving power and control over local matters from the centre; reforming the welfare system to make work pay; and reducing the deficit. It is important that we provide authorities with what they need to deliver a cost-effective council tax system and to combat attempts to defraud them and honest local taxpayers. Together, this is what these statutory instruments will do, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall comment on this one and on the next, too, so I need speak only once.
I have a desire for a reassurance that in all the contracting out of existing functions of local authorities, whether they have been previously contracted out or may be in future, exactly the same standards will apply on matters concerning data protection and in the duties, obligations and service standards of those to whom work is contracted out. I am thinking in particular of the role of bailiffs and what standards of service they will be required to work to. There has been a discussion and things have been done about this in the past year or two, but I seek the Minister’s assurance that exactly those same standards, or perhaps even better standards, will apply in future.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that it is explanations that are asked for rather than anything else. I was asked what “off-site” provision was. It is exactly what it says. As noble Lords will know, when an obligation is entered into for affordable housing, in many cases that affordable housing is not on the main development site but is being provided elsewhere. All the guidance says is that any affordable housing that is not on the particular site can be taken into account. I hope that explains that. We discussed this quite a bit in Committee but it should be quite clear that this clause relates only to affordable housing. That is the only element that we are seeking to address within this Bill.
Local authorities can voluntarily renegotiate Section 106 agreements already. Under the regulations that have just been laid, they can be required to look at the whole aspect. Often the affordable housing is quite a large aspect of the development obligations and it therefore makes sense not to go through the whole galaxy of the Section 106 review, but to take account of the affordable housing and go through a quicker process.
This is, of course, taken into account against the background of the development plan and has to be reviewed under those provisions together with what was taken into account when planning consent was granted in the first place. The development plans include policies for the delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs. These policies are usually applied in the context of individual site viability. The effect of the clause is to help to deliver these policies by bringing forward viable development; it does not require a revisiting of the plan policies.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made, I think, a moderate complaint about the fact that the proposals for establishing viability appeared only last night. I recognise that and I apologise that they were rather late. However, they are not very detailed and I think anyone with a lunchtime would have had an opportunity to read them. However, lunchtime does not exist in my life and maybe not in other noble Lords’ lives either, so I understand the noble Lord’s point.
The obligations that we are discussing were probably agreed at the time of the property boom and before the statutory tests for Section 106 were introduced in April 2010. Before then there was no statutory requirement to ensure that obligations were,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Therefore, there may be capacity to revisit a range of obligations that were required before the tests were in place.
A full review of all aspects of an agreement could be costly and time-consuming for both parties. We wanted a streamlined review process as a backstop whereby viability is an issue. Affordable housing obligations are often the most expensive element of the Section 106 agreement and are agreed subject to viability. Research from 2007-08 found that about 50% of all planning obligations were for affordable housing so this is quite a significant area. That is why we have focused on only the affordable housing element of a Section 106 agreement in the Bill. For obligations agreed since April 2010, the statutory tests should ensure that the local authority can require only those items that are,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Our approach will safeguard essential mitigation measures, such as transport, open space and education provision, which are required for the scheme to go ahead, and would be part of the overall Section 106 agreement but would probably take a great deal longer to negotiate. To open up the clause to these other obligations would add complexity to the review and could make the development unacceptable in planning terms.
I turn now to community infrastructure levy payments, which I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned but my noble friend Lord Jenkin did. It is not very helpful to bring them into consideration here. The community infrastructure levy is non-negotiable so it cannot be taken into account as it cannot be renegotiated. The levy is up front—developers know what they will have to pay and it is predictable. It is set at the local level in accordance with local viability. Local authorities do not have discretion to waive or reduce the community infrastructure levy once the payments are set. The regulations make provision for exceptional circumstance relief but only subject to very strict criteria.
With those explanations and going back to the indication that this clause relates only to affordable housing in this Bill, that Section 106 agreements can be renegotiated voluntarily and that the regulations for post-2010 are now in place, I hope noble Lords will realise that there is a package here and will not press their amendments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her explanation. I am sure that we share the aim of wanting to build more affordable housing. In accepting the Minister’s assurances about the Government’s desire to get housebuilding on-site, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I appreciate that proposals and applications for extensions will always be different because it will depend on the nature of the property—for example, whether it is terraced or detached. Permitted development rights are being removed for small-scale and reasonably small-scale developments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply. She may be right to say that there will be a desire to return to some of these concerns on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government: Provisional Finance Settlement
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the fire authorities are in the same position as everybody else in that they are having to make economies, but they have been pretty well supported. The noble Lord will know that the fire authorities have benefited from the protection in the formula used to set the base line, which used an existing adjustment to provide top-ups for the fire and rescue relative needs formula. That helps in the rural areas. The metropolitan fire and rescue authorities overall, which of course do not include London, are seeing grant reductions of 7.2%, but London has had a reduction and the noble Lord has to make up his own mind about how to deal with that. As I pointed out in the Statement, a review by the retiring chief officer is taking place, and I am sure that that will produce something useful.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a recipient of a small local government pension.
I should like to raise two issues with the Minister. The first concerns the tri-borough initiative in London and the basis for the statement that if councils merged their back offices, as in the tri-borough initiative, they could save £2 billion. Can the Minister circulate further details of that calculation? It is extremely important. In Tyne and Wear, where the number of residents amounts to just a little over 1% of the population, that would imply a saving of more than £20 million, which could be spent on, for example, keeping libraries open and improving services. Therefore, any information as to how that might be achieved would be helpful.
Secondly, I support the comments from other noble Lords concerning the council tax support grant distribution and the fact that the DCLG is not taking account of benefit caseload changes since the end of the 2011-12 year. I suggest that there is a case for using the unallocated transitional grant to assist councils that have faced higher caseload and cost figures in recent months, and I believe that there is a very strong case for using final outturn caseload figures for 2012-13 in the grant figure for 2014-15.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am very happy to ask the councils involved in the tri-borough initiative to let us have full details of the savings they hope to make. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest as having been a member of at least part of that tri-borough arrangement many years ago. However, they are very clear that they have made tremendous efficiency savings and, more than that, that they are much more efficient. As a resident of that tri-borough, I can say that they certainly demonstrate that. I shall certainly see that my noble friend receives those details.
I believe that the benefit caseload for this year is based on the figures for 2010-11 but I shall let my noble friend know if that is not correct. I shall need to write to him regarding the final outturn for council tax.
Fire Services: Funding
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am perfectly prepared to pass on her request, but I know that the fire Minister is already in close discussions with the metropolitan fire and rescue services and is listening very carefully to what they are saying.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that London had been protected from the recent round of cuts over the past two years. I also understand that this was due to the Olympics. Will she confirm that there will now be fairness in the distribution of reductions in budgets, particularly in view of the fact that a number of senior firefighters believe that there is now a danger to the delivery of the national resilience policy because of the unevenness of the impact of the cuts across the country?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there are different views about the impact of the reductions. Depending on where you are in the country, you may have a different view. The best thing that can happen—which is happening—is that the consultations should continue until decisions are made on the next spending allocations.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I feel that this amendment is actually extremely important. I draw the Minister’s attention to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has confirmed that councils in the north of England are having to cut spending at almost three times the rate of councils in the south. In absolute terms of course, many councils in the north receive more revenue support per head than councils in the south, and will go on doing so, but then their needs in many places are also greater. The principles of resource equalisation continue to matter greatly, if we are to meet need fairly across the country.
This problem of deeper cuts in the north would have occurred had a Labour Government been elected in 2010, not least because Labour had plans to dismantle working neighbourhoods funding, worth several million pounds a year to many councils. However, I support the aim behind Amendment 7, because it maintains the principle of allocating spending against need and against the availability of resources, which I fear is increasingly in danger of being lost sight of, given recent settlements.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment, or at least indicate agreement to its spirit: to ensure that resource distribution reflects the principles of need and equalisation. If the Government do not give that commitment, it implies that they are no longer in favour of resource equalisation.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I appreciate that the use of the central share is of concern and interest, particularly once we get through the next couple of years. Amendment 7 would ensure that the central share money would always be distributed on the basis of need. We have said that the central share money will always be returned to local government. The basis of the central share going to the Government is that it will then be used for local government. The question of need and special grants will be covered by the central share. That is basically what the central share will do. I cannot at the moment give the absolutely unqualified assurance that both noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord McKenzie, asked for on resource need equalisation. I am pretty sure that that is correct, but I will come back to them if there is any change to that.
I also confirm that the amount of revenue support grant in the system will reflect future spending reviews, so the Government’s view of the funding will be available to local government in advance. I hope that with that rather short explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I think I agree with the comments of the noble Lord. There is an issue here that relates to the deletion of “major”. Will the Minister respond on the content of the Localism Act? On the rights and powers of precepting authorities, my memory is that some crucial amendments were made to the Bill on Report, which enabled the protection of the rights of parish councils and neighbourhood planning councils. Is the Localism Act sufficient to deliver the resources that should lie within the money, particularly that raised through the community infrastructure levy, to very small neighbourhood areas? I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance on that point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this little amendment. Neither he nor other speakers will be totally surprised when I say that it is not acceptable in its current terms. I shall tell him and the Committee why.
We recognise that parish councils underpin many neighbourhoods across England. They have been given a specific role under the Localism Act. Local, parish and town councils are specifically mentioned as being able to generate neighbourhood plans. As has been said, they are the focal point for a wide range of local involvement and action under the Localism Act. For some parish and town councils, that range of activity and involvement will include promoting economic growth but they do not have the same financial levers to deliver growth as principal authorities do. I know—the noble Earl has just said so—that some town and parish councils are keen to receive a share of business rates. That was evident not only from what the noble Earl said but from the Government’s consultation on rates retention last year, when several parish and town councils expressed in their response a desire for a change in this matter.
However, the local government resource review was set up to look at how principal authorities are funded, with a view to giving them greater financial autonomy, strengthening the incentives to support growth in the private sector and the regeneration of local economies, and reducing their reliance on central government funding. The funding of parish councils is therefore outside the scope of the review’s terms of reference. The Government’s proposals for business rates retention are focused on changing the allocation of business rates, which previously fed into formula grant, which is not paid to parish or town councils. Therefore, allocating parish and town councils a proportion of business rates would be at the expense of the principal and major precepting authorities, thus weakening the growth incentive. I just add that of course all parish and town councils have a precepting power so that in general they are able to cover their costs. Although I accept that that may not be a great contribution to growth, it is certainly something that they are able to do.
The Government consider that it might be appropriate to reassess this position in the context of an untimed, unnamed and unexpected fundamental review of the business rate retention scheme, but I would advise noble Lords not to hold their breath on that.
As I said at the outset, the noble Earl will not be surprised when I say that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Shipley
Perhaps I may intervene for a moment in relation to Amendment 37 to probe the meaning of the word “need”. I should like to raise an issue concerning exempt student households. It is becoming an increasingly serious matter on which I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance.
Student households are exempt from council tax. They are also exempt from business rates where it is a house in multiple occupation but owned by a landlord. The principle has been that councils get reimbursed from the national pot. In the past couple of years, that has not been happening as it should, and in some cases there is around a 25% deficit so that only around three-quarters of the income that would be expected is being received, yet local services are being provided without all the income that is necessary to pay for them.
I understand that the consultation that is taking place over the summer with local authorities will look at this issue, but I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that the matter will be taken very seriously. In the past, need has been taken to include full reimbursement of the loss because student housing is exempt.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I was about to say, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was asking about the consultation on the needs and the formula. That is part of the summer consultation, so it will be dealt with before we meet again on Report. I am not going to muddy the water before that, so I will leave that there. I do not think there is any intention to change the exemption from council tax for students and business premises.
The first reset will start in 2013-14 and the Government will set out in the local government finance report all those elements sought by Amendment 38, but only in 2013-14 and in any reset year. I do not need to go through again the arguments I have already deployed in relation to Amendments 35 and 36 but, as I have already said, outside of a reset year, we do not intend to reset tariffs and top-ups to take account of need. We have been through this. This is because the scheme is designed to produce, and we intend it to deliver, a significant incentive for local authorities to promote growth. We think that incentive would be destroyed. Instead, we intend that the scheme should give authorities absolute clarity for a period of up to 10 years—clearly it will be eight at the start—about the payments that they will receive or make to central government. This will give them the strongest possible incentive to respond to business concerns, secure the necessary investment and increase their income through sustained growth.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will recognise that, for these reasons, the Government cannot accept either of these amendments, and I hope that he is persuaded to withdraw Amendment 37 and not to move Amendment 38.
Baroness Hanham
It is as it pertains at the moment, which is that students are not charged council tax and the owner is not charged business tax. I think that is correct, and there is no intention to change that.
Lord Shipley
I should be very happy to have a written note about this prior to Report. It would help us enormously. The issue is that the exemption should be fully refunded to local authorities; as I understand it, in the past few years it has not been. It is becoming a problem for places that have large numbers of houses that are wholly exempt because they are wholly occupied by students. There is simply no income at all.
Housing
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that anybody will disagree with what the noble Baroness said. There is no doubt that the construction industry provides jobs and training for young people and, as she has said, it has many offshoots as a result. It is therefore in everybody’s interests that we manage to ensure that the housing market is boosted, and the Government are firmly behind that.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, we have recently seen the establishment of a green investment bank, and some commentators think that consideration ought now to be given to a housing investment bank. Will that be seriously considered by the Government?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a point, which I am sure will be noted—and I will make sure that it is.
Cities: Economic Development
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we are currently developing city regions which will be within the local enterprise partnerships and will cover most of that. We are aware, of course, of the problems that the noble Baroness identified. I am sure that there will be further discussion on that in due course.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, while I strongly support what the Minister said about the Government’s approach to city regions, perhaps I may draw her attention to the fact that public expenditure per head is higher in Northern Ireland, London, Scotland and Wales than in any English region. Might not one possibility be for the Government to look again at rebalancing public spending and consider what the Lyons report said about decentralising Civil Service jobs from Whitehall to the English regions?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I am sure the House knows, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has been appointed as a government adviser on cities, and so will speak with authority. I want to look further at the matters he has raised and, if necessary, I will write to him.
Housing: Managing Agents
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I acknowledge that it is probably not very easy, but I do not acknowledge that there are no routes for dissatisfied leaseholders. They have access to the lease valuation tribunal if they have concerns, particularly about charges. They also can go to LEASE if they are concerned about the way in which their property is being managed. It requires at least one person in the property to be in charge of the residents and how they feel in order to make sure that they follow the routes that are already open to them.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report published last year which showed that some leaseholders were paying far too much in property insurance to managing agents and that, as a consequence, regulation would most certainly help? In addition, might it be for government to promote the right to manage to leaseholders groups in blocks of flats, so that they themselves can reduce the costs that they have to bear?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the matter of commission is already being investigated as there have been many complaints about it. As I understand it, the commission of, for example, insurance would not appear on the service charge but could form another charge that the leaseholders have to pay. I think that most leaseholders need to have a tenants association within their blocks of flats or wherever they live to ensure that they do have some muscle with poor managing agents and that they can then use the routes that are, as I said, there for them.
Housing: Rented Homes
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that scoops up a whole lot of things, some of which are not entirely to do with me. The universal credit is not part of my department, although I recognise that the housing benefit goes towards the contribution of housing facilities. We are trying to provide, and will provide, affordable housing for as many people as we can. The universal credit and the amount of money paid in housing benefit is something that my noble friend Lord Freud will deal with in due course.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the reason for the shortage of homes for rent is the failure of the previous Government, over 13 years, to build council houses? Given the pressure on the private rented sector, and the fact that 40 per cent of homes in that sector do not meet the decent homes standard, what consideration is being given to further regulation of the sector? Will the Minister consider the advice of the British Property Federation, the National Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents that there should be a system of compulsory regulation of letting agents to ensure that professional and ethical standards are applied to private sector lettings?
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I said in Committee, Amendment 28 is not necessary. The review already ensures that a decision by the landlord not to renew the tenancy must be fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer decide that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy, the landlord will need to reconsider his decision. Where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property despite a review concluding that he was not acting in line with his own policy, the court will refuse to grant possession, as the Bill makes clear. Amendment 33 will not be moved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is minded to withdraw Amendment 28.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I hope that what she has described will happen. I am sure that it will. We need to ensure that people who are worried about a successive tenancy have little cause to fear that the landlord might decide not to grant a further tenancy. On the assumption that the measure will provide what we are trying to achieve, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We recognise that the homelessness duty is one of the major responsibilities of local authorities. However, I resist the amendment to extend the duty to five years, on the basis that often two years is sufficient. People who face homelessness need suitable accommodation, but that is often supportable within the private rented sector. As has already been said, the homelessness duty involves reasonable preference for people on the priority list who need housing. They need suitable accommodation, but not always social housing. The amendment would be unfair to other households on the waiting list that need social housing, which would have to wait longer to have their housing needs met.
One purpose behind the Bill is to allow local authorities much more flexibility in the use of the accommodation they have and in how they can fulfil their obligation to house people—not only homeless people, but those who are on their waiting list. Sometimes, two years is quite sufficient to let people who have been homeless start to find their way forward.
A number of points have been made on that matter and I should like to start with the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on asylum seekers—a point also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. For asylum seekers in this country who are homeless, the homelessness provisions require that accommodation should be in their area if reasonably practical. Only after that requirement has been tested can they be placed out of the borough but, again, there is the certainty that several factors have to be taken into account, such as location and affordability—matters that are now considered all the time. As has been said, applicants who become homeless after two years can reapply, and they will still be able to obtain support by making a fresh application for assistance, should that be necessary. Therefore, they are not abandoned at the end of two years. There is support for them and the local authority still has a responsibility towards them.
I understand the noble Lord’s desire to see that timeframe extended, but we do not think that that would be in the interests of local authorities, those who are homeless and those who are waiting for accommodation. We are satisfied that local authorities’ obligations to those who are homeless can be fulfilled satisfactorily within two years, with the expectation that if at the end of two years they still require housing they will again either be treated as though they are unintentionally homeless or be given advice and help in finding accommodation.
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that reply and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her response, although from my perspective it is a little disappointing. I think the evidence over the next two to five years will demonstrate that a five-year period would be wise. However, I am still hopeful that the Minister will think further about this matter. Perhaps discussions can take place over the next few weeks between Report and Third Reading that will cause the Government to look further at whether the timeframe can be extended to five years. In the hope that that may yet prove possible, I am prepared to await an outcome that we might secure at Third Reading, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
I see a nod of the head. Third Reading might be before the end of September, but I seriously doubt it, so the answer is yes.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention and the Minister's response. I was encouraged by the fact that most of the issues that we have raised under the amendments will be in the order and that further discussion will take place. Strong views have been expressed on this issue and a lot of worries have been expressed in this afternoon's debate about increasing homelessness and the rights of those who are or may be made homeless. Any debate that can take place between now and Third Reading would be very helpful. I am very grateful to the Minister for making that clear and clarifying the position. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment seeks to make provision for non-priority-need homeless people to be afforded emergency accommodation. The charity Crisis collected considerable evidence that the homelessness service of local authorities does not always provide single people who are not in priority need with any meaningful assistance. A small extension of this provision to those who are not in priority need may be all that is needed to get people back on their feet, to help them to stay in employment and to prevent them from falling into a downward spiral. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that this matter will be looked at by the ministerial working party on homelessness chaired by Mr Grant Shapps MP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, serve as members.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was very brief in moving this amendment, for which I am grateful. I think that the best thing I can do is to say that I will certainly make sure that it is considered by the homelessness working party and I shall ask the Minister to take that on board. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thought I made myself pellucid on this. Local authorities and housing associations will have the flexibility and the right to offer only lifetime tenancies. I do not see that that money has anything to do with this. I do not think there is any likelihood that Parliament will want to intervene in that. That is the situation. They can have lifetime tenancies for everyone if they wish, but if they have other people who they think could make better use of the property or have people who do not need it, as I have said before they will be able to do that. I cannot commit future Governments, so I would like to commit mine for a very long time, as they will be there, but as the noble Lord knows perfectly well one can commit only one’s own Government, and I think I can commit ours to that.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government’s approach to these amendments. I raised two issues. The first was the extension of minimum tenancies from two to five years and the second was the exemption of vulnerable people and households from flexible tenancies. On the first, I heard the Minister say that housing providers, local authorities and social housing can all continue to offer lifetime tenancies to new tenants. I think that is a very important statement, and I am encouraged by it. As I said earlier, I am an advocate of lifetime tenancies, largely on the grounds that if people are financially able to move, the vast majority do so and enter owner-occupation in practice. The problem that I have been trying to solve is not obvious in that respect because people move on from rented accommodation to owner occupation in large numbers. I was concerned about two issues. On the two to five years, I heard the Minister say that councils and social housing providers may continue to offer lifetime tenancies if they wish to do so, and that for two years to be used has to be exceptional and that the exception has to be clearly defined by that authority. That is extremely important because that becomes a public declaration of what an exception is.
On Amendment 25, which deals with the exemption of vulnerable households, I heard the Minister say that there is nothing in it to threaten anyone. I am much encouraged by that because I believe that to be true. We all recognise the fear of people who do not feel confident that they have their homes for their lifetimes and that they may be forced to move in old age, which is not particularly nice.
I am sufficiently encouraged by what the Minister said to believe that five years may apply in some places. I believe that most housing providers will continue to provide lifetime tenancies. Some, where they can prove the need for an exception, will go for two years. There may be specific individual cases where that is important or it may be for a specific geographical reason. I hope it will not be an excuse for those parts of the country that have serious problems with the availability of affordable rented housing to go for two years, with lifetime tenancies being offered much further away by other authorities. I see my noble friend the Minister shaking her head and I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention.
Because I believe in both cases that there is still movement in our understanding of the regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government Finance
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I know of the noble Baroness’s interest in this. A consultation is a consultation, and if people have ideas about how wide they want the tax increment financing to go they will be able to say so in the consultation. I do not think there is anything in the consultation questions that would prevent that from happening. I am not in a position at the moment to say what my response will be to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, while welcoming the Minister’s announcement, it is important not to misinterpret what is being proposed. While this is being billed as being about the repatriation of business rates from 2013, that is strictly speaking not the case because firms will see no difference in the way in which they pay tax, or in the way in which the tax is set, as a result of these changes. In this sense, therefore, this is not about repatriation. However, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Jenkin identified, it is very important that the repatriation of business rates is seen to be fair by the firms and businesses that are paying these rates. For this to be maintained at a national level is, at least for the foreseeable future, the right thing to do.
What matters in this proposal is that it encourages growth and enterprise. For this reason, it is important that the deal that has been announced is seen to be fair and does not simply redistribute from poorer areas to richer areas. Setting an insurance scheme against shocks enables poorer areas to do more for themselves and to generate income that will make them richer. In that sense, a virtuous circle can be created.
The consultation is very welcome. I have been a firm advocate of the repatriation of business rates now for many years, so I welcome the direction that the Government are setting.
Finally, I have one question about tax increment financing. There is no date in the Minister’s Statement for when tax increment financing will come into play. I assume that it will be in 2013, but it is very important that, as part of the whole package of repatriation of business rates from this date, tax increment financing is part of it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s final question is that the Government are committed to introducing tax increment financing as soon as possible and will move as quickly as possible to deliver it. It is being introduced through the local government finance Bill alongside the local retention of business rates. Once again, I thank the noble Lord for his support for this.
On the repatriation of tax revenue for business rates, while businesses will not see an immediate change to the way they pay the tax, they will see a greater interest from local authorities in the rates. They are important anyway, but I expect and hope that they will be even more important because there are lots of incentives for business not only in the Localism Bill but in the consultation that has been announced today. Yes, this is absolutely all about encouraging growth and enterprise, and the expectation and the ability to keep extra business rates in areas that need to do more to encourage business will do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said: they will help the poorer areas perhaps to try to generate a little more business activity in the areas they represent.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
I will happily do that and I will lay a copy of the answer in the Library.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, before I formally withdraw my amendment, I would like to make two brief points. First, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True that in scrutiny there has to be a clear role for back-benchers, particularly those of the controlling party, but there can of course be vice-chairs, and that system works well. Secondly, I hope that the Minister is right that legislation here is unnecessary and will simply bear in mind my amendment should it prove not to be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Government: Finance
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, youth clubs are invaluable and are run by the voluntary sector. Some of the other aspects that noble Lords have raised will come out of Home Office funding, not from local government. Nobody would disagree with a word that the noble Earl says. One wants to prevent people from going into prison because, once they are in, we all know that that just leads to further problems. The aspects that he raises are not really for the local government settlement.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare an interest as the other half of the “Likely Lads” from Newcastle City Council, on which I am a councillor. I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement from the other place. There has been some listening to local government and, indeed, the settlement is, I think, a little better at first glance than what we had feared. I declare an interest also as vice-president of the Local Government Association. On the issue of front-loading, it wanted a limit on loss of spending power of 8 per cent, and the Secretary of State has agreed on 8.9 per cent.
The word “progressive” was used. I have three questions on which I should like a response. First, is this not a progressive settlement in the sense that there has not now been a reallocation of grant from poorer to richer councils? Secondly, reference was made to the grant of £650 million to keep council tax increases at zero in the next financial year, but there is a question about that sum being built into the baseline for many years to come. If council tax is raised by 2.5 per cent, it is always in the baseline for the future. However, if the Government give the equivalent of 2.5 per cent, will that stay in the baseline? That matters. Thirdly, for further clarity on the capitalisation limit and the cost of redundancy, it is probable that the capitalisation limit will not prove sufficient. If it is not, councils will be required to reduce revenue and spending in the next financial year, which will in turn produce further cuts and redundancies. My noble friend referred to other ways in which that might be done; I was wondering what those other ways were.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked three clear questions. Is it a progressive settlement and reallocation? I think that we will take it year by year. This is a two-year settlement; whether it progresses on, I do not know. Whether it progresses in terms of how the grant is dealt with, we will have to wait and see. The £650 million is the repayment for 2.5 per cent of council tax if it is frozen. The question of whether that will be carried on next year will have to be decided. If it is, that will determine whether it is part and parcel of the baseline. As the noble Lord knows, capitalisation is treated as revenue by the Treasury, so whatever is spent goes back on to the revenue expectation. If that proves not to be sufficient, it will be a matter for each local authority to deal with.