John Healey
Main Page: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Andrew Stunell
I am delighted to be taking part in the resumption of the debate from the previous Session, as it is good to be resuming our consideration of this important Bill and these important provisions. The Bill is a major step forward in localising fundraising and decision making to local councils and restoring to them local control. Discussing local government finance is very much an acquired taste, albeit one that I can see has not been acquired by too many hon. Members today.
May I draw the House’s attention to the publication of the statements of intent, which the Department has tabled for the benefit of hon. Members over the past few days? The statements bring to the House’s attention a great deal of the technical work behind the Bill and of how the Government intend that the scheme should be implemented over the coming months.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the seven technical notes. Dozens and dozens of pages about how the Government are going to approach this were released on the working day before Report and Third Reading in this House, and three and a half months after this House finished its Committee stage. Does the Minister accept that to anyone outside this House it looks as though, at every stage, this Government are going out of their way to avoid people being able to take a proper look at this and to avoid this House being able to do its job of scrutinising this Bill properly? We will be leaving too much to the other House to do.
Andrew Stunell
I am extremely disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. May I just remind him that when I assured the House that these papers would be published, there was universal astonishment that we proposed to do that before the Bill left this House? There was a universal assumption that I had somehow misspoken and that we actually meant to do this at a later stage. It is very much for the convenience of this House today that it should have these very important documents available for consideration, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Members of the other place will have every opportunity to give further consideration to the information. Of course, the reason for publishing these papers in advance of the Bill completing its passages through the two Houses is to give local authorities and those who have to work on these schemes the maximum length of time to implement the necessary provisions, so that an appropriate and speedy commencement can be made next year.
Andrew Stunell
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I should make it absolutely clear that, from the Government’s point of view, it is right for local councils to take account of the local circumstances in their communities and to draw up a scheme that they believe is appropriate for them. I again make the point that other measures in the Bill give greater discretion to local authorities on raising council tax on second and empty homes. The vast majority of local authorities potentially have a substantial stream of additional income, if they believe they will face difficulties because of the reductions in income resulting from this part of the Bill. The Bill has to be taken as a whole.
John Healey
The Minister has just said that the Government want councils to be able to draw up schemes to take account of local circumstances. Why then is he putting this funding noose around their necks by cutting the available money by 10% from the start?
Andrew Stunell
I dealt with that point a minute or two ago, when I pointed out that the UK-wide reduction announced in the 2010 comprehensive spending review of some £500 million—with an impact of approximately £440 million in England—was part of the Government’s deficit reduction programme. Of course that has implications, as Opposition Members have pointed out. We think that pensioners are the important group to safeguard, which is why we are putting the statutory safeguard in the scheme and saying that local authorities should have regard to the most vulnerable in their area when drawing up their schemes.
John Healey
How can the Minister say that? He talks about protecting pensioners. In Rotherham, there are 2,600 people who are in work but on incomes so low that they need the support of council tax benefit to get by, week to week and month to month. They will lose out as a result of this measure, and they will do so by significantly more than 10% of the overall cut, so how can the Minister piously say that work incentives matter to this Government?
Andrew Stunell
It would be interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of those 2,000 people received an income tax rebate as a result of the decisions taken by this Government. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will have been taken out of income tax altogether.
Mr Raynsford
I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
This is a shocking example of how not to legislate. It is three months and 21 days since we completed a rushed Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and during that time, the Government have sat on their hands. Why, during that period, did we not have proper time to discuss the Bill’s very serious implications? Why did the Government not use it to publish the draft regulations that the Minister promised in the debate on 31 January? I remind him of what he said:
“I recognise, of course, that local authorities and suppliers need as much information as possible as soon as possible. For that reason, we intend to publish draft regulations while the Bill is still before the House.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) sharply picked up on that and asked the Minister whether he meant
“this House or the other House”.
The Minister replied:
“I am looking for a nod somewhere”—
he was clearly in need of guidance—
“but let us stick with this House.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 777.]
That was his commitment on 31 January 2012. As I said, three months and 21 days later we still do not have the draft regulations. The Government, belatedly and to cover their embarrassment, pushed out a series of positioning papers on 17 May—four days before this debate—rightly provoking anger and criticism in local government that it had not been given time to consider the detail far enough in advance of today’s Report stage to issue briefings. We had the worst possible example of the Government rushing the Committee stage, preventing proper scrutiny. I remember well the lack of detailed scrutiny, with a number of amendments simply not being called because of the lack of time. The Government then did nothing for three months and 21 days, and now they have come to this House without draft regulations. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves and should apologise to the House for the shambles they have made of introducing this legislation.
John Healey
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one other consequence of taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Public Bill Committee, was that those organisations responsible for implementing the system with concerns about its consequences did not have the opportunity formally to give evidence to the House, and thereby inform the debate and scrutiny, and ensure that the legislation was better than it is now?
Mr Raynsford
My right hon. Friend, who is extremely experienced in these matters, makes a telling point. That was just one further way in which the Government could have ensured proper scrutiny, giving a proper opportunity to those most profoundly affected by the changes to give evidence to us and to help shape a better Bill than the one we face today. But no, the Government simply did not want scrutiny because, as we shall see, they are pushing through a crude measure that will have a profound impact—of some £500 million—either on individuals or on local authority budgets, and they are doing so without proper care or consideration of those consequences. As I have said, they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
This is a complex matter. The introduction of housing benefit in the 1980s, many years ago, was bungled. It was bungled because it was rushed and local authorities did not have enough time to prepare. There were horror stories from all over the country of people not receiving the benefits to which they were entitled, and huge backlogs of cases building up in local authorities. One would think that a Government who had experienced that in their history—or at least the Conservative part, which went through that experience in government—would want to avoid doing the same thing again. But here we are, with a Government once again rushing to introduce complex changes in benefits that will have profound impacts on many individuals’ potential entitlement, and doing so to a ridiculously tight timetable.
Mr Kevan Jones
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) pointed out, the Bill has not changed greatly since we last debated it. The underlying theme remains. As the Minister made clear, it has nothing to do with reform or enabling councils to implement a local scheme; it is actually about the Government’s deficit reduction targets. That is why they are so keen to aim for implementation in 2014.
The Minister seems to think—and I recall that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said this during our last debate—that all local authorities are on a level playing field, but they are clearly not. The Minister suggested that, following the 10% cut in council tax benefit, councils could make up the difference if they wished to, which may be all well and good for councils in areas where the benefit is being increased. I hate to return to my favourite example of Wokingham, but a few weeks ago a very good article in the Financial Times stated that its budget was rising by 3%—unlike the budgets of authorities such as Durham, which are declining by as much as 15%.
We are not dealing with level playing fields; we are dealing with a strategy that the Government have worked out quite well. As we can see from the playbook according to which the Conservative part of the coalition is working, it is nothing new. The same strategy was adopted by the Conservatives in Canada in the 1990s. They made savage cuts in public services and devolved decision making to local level: in their case, federal level. What they were saying was “We are giving you freedoms, but we are ensuring that you take all the blame for the cuts.” The flexibility that councils will be given will, in fact, cause them great difficulty, unless they are in Wokingham.
That very good article in the Financial Times, published on 7 May, was headed “The well-to-do towns that austerity forgot”. I think that it is worth looking at, and not just because it makes it plain that the Government are rewarding their own councils while penalising poor areas. Let us look at the calculations for Wokingham. It is among the 8% of local authority areas—out of a total of 152—that are expecting a real increase in local government spending over the period set out by the Government. Meanwhile, 20% of councils, including Durham, are taking cuts in excess of 15%.
We are being told that we are all in this together and that what is being done is fair, but let us look at the difference between Wokingham and Wigan. In the index of multiple-deprivation, Wokingham scores 5.5 whereas Wigan scores 26. On average, there is an additional 1% increase in local government spending cuts between 2009-10 and 2011-12. Not only are local authorities in the north-east and other deprived areas suffering because their grants are being cut, but they are now going to be hit again by the council tax benefit cut. Local authorities will be told they are being given the flexibility to administer the scheme, but the result will be a 10% cut.
John Healey
My hon. Friend mentions Wigan in the north-west and authorities in the north-east, but the case he makes is equally true for many authorities in Yorkshire and the Humber, such as Barnsley and Rotherham. As he has access to the figures, he might care to look at them in this regard. Wokingham may be facing an increase in its grant, which is astonishing given that local government is taking such a hit across the board, but Barnsley and Rotherham are facing double-digit reductions in their grant, despite increasing need and increasing pressure on services in their communities.
Mr Jones
I agree. My right hon. Friend’s authority and mine are among those that are having to take £152 million out of the budget over the next four years. In Wokingham, however, the council is planning to overhaul its town centre at a cost of £30 million, and it is not closing its libraries and its voluntary sector groups have not lost their funding. In communities such as mine and that of my right hon. Friend, councils are having to find savings—and they are having to find them in areas such as libraries and non-statutory services.
In Durham, the bulk of expenditure goes on adult social care. The Labour-run local authority is rightly making sure the most vulnerable are protected, but that restricts where savings in the budget can be made. I send a clear message to the Liberal Democrats sitting on Durham county council that, as a result of their Ministers’ actions and their Members’ votes on this Bill, Durham and other local authorities are having to make savage cuts. The idea that they can be found simply through efficiencies is complete nonsense. No organisation could reduce expenditure so much without affecting front-line services.
John Healey
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the current settlement unfair, but it is the baseline for the future system, and the Bill will lock in that unfairness for at least a decade?
Mr Jones
That is a very important point. That will limit the ability of my council in County Durham and my right hon. Friend’s authority to effect any change. That will lock in the unfair and disproportionate effects, which have been caused by no account having been taken of deprivation. We have just heard a Minister saying this Bill takes account of equality, but it must be the first Bill in history that supports a system by which the poorest in our society and those councils with the largest need—growing aged populations and increasing numbers of looked-after children, for example—will suffer the most.
John Healey
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has more than a decade’s experience in local government and knows what it is like for local authorities trying to deal with central Government cuts and central Government diktats. He knows that local government across the board, irrespective of party, is willing to change but wants that change to be implemented properly and fairly. Much in the Bill will make that more difficult for local government in the months ahead.
The Bill signals that council tax benefit is no longer a benefit or an entitlement for those whose incomes are such that they need help with council tax costs. In future, there will be a means-tested, cash-limited discount on council tax bills. That limit next year will be 10% less than the spend on and cost of council tax benefit this year. I have the figures released recently by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), showing the total subsidy properly paid by councils to those entitled and then properly reclaimed from Government in 2010-11. In Rotherham, the figure was £22.5 million; in the other local authority that my constituency partly covers, Barnsley, it was nearly £20 million; and the total for South Yorkshire was £112 million. That money went to many of the poorest, who need help with their council tax costs and who currently have an entitlement to that help. In future there will be a smaller cash-limited pot and a severe means test, with that £112 million cut from the outset by 10%.
Earlier, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister gave some figures—£1.8 million and £1.9 million—which he said were the figures for the value of the reliefs and discounts compared with what he argues is the shortfall in Rotherham. Of course, reliefs and discounts are part of the council tax scheme. They bear no relation to the level of council tax subsidy, which under the current system is paid by councils and reclaimed from central Government. If the Minister was telling the House and telling me, as one of the MPs representing Rotherham, that there will be no cut in the pot available for council tax benefit payments next year compared with this year, I will willingly give way to him, but I think he was using those figures to make a completely different case, entirely separate from the challenge that Rotherham and every other council will face next year because of the decision taken, as he admitted tonight, for the purposes of crude deficit reduction, not as a bold local and localising reform. The Minister has not accepted my offer to give way, so I take it that he accepts the case I made and is not able to sustain the impression that he gave the House earlier.
The problem faced by many of the poorest non-pensioners is that they will lose the most, as the Government tell councils to protect pensioners and make everybody else worse off—in other words, penalise everybody else and protect pensioners. That cannot be done without causing significant pain for many non-pensioners because the overall sum available, irrespective of need or entitlement under the current system, will be cut by £500 million next April.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman must not have been listening carefully, because that is not the case my hon. Friend was making. His point was that providing special protection for pensioners when £500 million is being cut overnight from the available fund means that those people who are not pensioners but who are currently entitled to council tax benefit or council tax support will inevitably be hit harder. Local authorities and charities are making the same case, as did Barnsley Advice Network to me last week when we discussed the potential challenges and problems that people will be forced to face.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I apologise for coming late to the debate. I had a meeting elsewhere in the Palace.
My right hon. Friend is making a pertinent point. Is he aware of the work done by the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit, which has estimated the impact of a 10% cut to council tax benefit, with protection for the over-65s, using DWP figures? It calculates that non-pensioners will face an average cut of 16% in their council tax support.
John Healey
I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place. He has been an active participant in all debates on the Bill, including on Second Reading and in Committee. I have seen that work by the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit, which I think is useful and supports the point I am making to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). If anything, the 16% figure is probably on the conservative side. My local authority in Rotherham calculates that non-protected, non-pensioner claimants of council tax benefit are likely to lose, on average, 19% of their support.
Mr Kevan Jones
To clarify my earlier point for the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, who is obviously having problems with earwax tonight, I was not suggesting that pensioners should be taken out of that protection; I was making exactly the same point as my right hon. Friend is making. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman will go into the Lobby tonight to vote for some swingeing cuts to the lowest paid, including some of his constituents in Manchester, who no doubt will have their revenge at the next general election.
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes clearly and succinctly the points he made earlier.
I am concerned about the percentages, whether 16% or 19%, and the averages, such as the LGA’s calculation that non-pensioners are likely to lose, on average, £6 a week from the support they currently receive to help pay council tax. Percentages and averages are one thing, but the family, household or individual—the one in eight people currently entitled to council tax benefit who are in work but do not earn enough to cover their council tax bills without help—will face a reduction of perhaps £10, £12 or £15 a week, at a time when other costs are being loaded on them and they are struggling to make ends meet. They will find such a difference really hard to deal with. I hope that we do not lose sight of the sort of pressure that the Bill and the changes the Government are making will put on many households, including many that are working hard and have an entitlement that they simply will not have under the new system.
John Healey
I wonder—are they unintended consequences? If they are, the degree of negligence in the legislation is unforgivable. If they were foreseen and have been calculated as part of the legislation, that speaks volumes about the “doublethink” and “doublespeak” that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), quoting Orwell, talked about earlier.
The Government are making a pious claim to be on the side of those who are struggling but who are trying to do the right thing by staying in work in order to support themselves and their families, but those people will find it much harder from next year as a result of the changes that are going ahead. In Rotherham, just over 2,600 people are in that position, in Barnsley, just over 2,200, and across South Yorkshire there are more than 13,500 people in work who earn so little that they are entitled to support from us and others to help cover their council tax bills.
Mr Raynsford
I wholly concur with my right hon. Friend’s argument. Does not he, like me, think it extraordinary that the Government, when they first announced the proposals, said specifically that they intended the reduction not to create any work disincentives? That has now disappeared from the rhetoric—they appear to have forgotten that objective entirely. Given their overall approach and the rhetoric they are adopting in relation to other benefit changes, such as saying that they are on the side of people in work, is it not extraordinary that they are now explicitly accepting the fact that this measure will create serious work disincentives?
John Healey
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I am not sure that they have forgotten it, because earlier the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the scheme will somehow preserve work incentives. The whole design of the proposal, the framing of the legislation and everything the Government have published do not match the claims he has made from the Dispatch Box. They are hollow words that will hurt many people who are working at the moment and others who are not pensioners but who rely on the council tax benefit to help make ends meet, week to week and month to month.
John Healey
The Minister wants to intervene. Perhaps he will give the House the straight account of the figures for Rotherham, on which I challenged him five minutes ago.
Andrew Stunell
I was going to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, but I am happy to respond to the other one as well. On the last point, it is absolutely not the case that the Government have made explicit anything relating to disadvantaging working recipients. On the contrary, the statement of intent—I appreciate that he might not have got to this section—makes it clear that it is important for schemes devised by local authorities to link with universal credit and preserve exactly that protection.
On the other point, Rotherham council, according to the figures it submitted to the Department, will lose approximately £1.8 million of funding, but the discounts and exemptions that it will be able to recover in future will amount to £1.9 million. That is all in the Bill before the House today. Whether the council chooses to join those two things together is a matter for it, but it is absolutely the case that, taking the Bill as a whole, the council will in fact have a greater capacity to meet the needs of the people it serves.
John Healey
The Minister has just told the House and me that, to run the new scheme from April next year, Rotherham will have available no less funding than it has during this financial year. I will look very carefully at the facts, and, if they match the Minister’s words, I will welcome them; if they do not, I shall demand that he puts the House straight and offers an apology.
On work incentives, will not the Secretary of State therefore use his powers under schedule 4 to specify that people in work must, and work incentives will, be protected as he proposes, and has pledged, to use them for pensioners? If that is the case, the Minister’s actions will match his words. If that is not the case, exhortations on the importance of local government schemes reflecting needs and not damaging work incentives will not be worth the paper of the circular on which they are sent out, because there will be no protections guaranteeing the preservation of work incentives until and unless the Secretary of State chooses to use his powers as he has pledged to use them for pensioners.
Until that point, it is reasonable for Opposition Members, who are concerned about the future of this support for council tax payments, to continue to press the Minister and to be concerned that non-pensioners are likely to bear a heavy cut in their current support. Those on low incomes who are not pensioners, but who would get the full council tax benefit under the current system, will, as the Barnsley advice network has told me, have to find 20% of their council tax bill from their basic income, whatever they earn, as councils try to make less go further.
The Minister is old enough, experienced enough and has been involved in local government long enough for this measure to sound a warning to him and his colleagues. This is the return of the poll tax—[Interruption.] There are a few groans from Tory Members, but let us remember that a 20% minimum payment expected of all people, whatever their means, was part of the flaw in, and at the heart of the unfairness of, the community charge a couple of decades ago. In practice, that is what we are building in for non-pensioners: a requirement to cover for themselves, whatever their income, about 20% of the council tax costs in their local area.
Given the way in which the measure will work for many, it is a return of the poll tax: rushed into law and rushed into practice, with a deaf ear to local government, to charities, to experts and to Members, who warn the Government, “You’re pushing too far, too fast with these changes.” I will return in a moment to the amendments on the legislation’s commencement tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, but first let me do my job and introduce new clause 2 and the amendments that stand in my name.
With new clause 2 and amendment 2, I seek to challenge the Secretary of State’s powers over, and prescription of, the new council tax support schemes. My purpose is this: I believe that the House and local government require a justification for the inclusion in this Bill of such powers of prescription from the centre over the local, otherwise their removal from the Bill is justified. None of the arguments that I have heard from Ministers, on Second Reading, in Committee or today, justifies the extent of the centralised powers vested in the Secretary of State to design and to enforce a particular manner of council tax support scheme.
The Government claim that the reform is a localising one. If it is, they should localise the decisions on the design of, and procedure for preparing, the scheme. They should localise the decisions and let the local authorities that will run the scheme devise them, in the Minister’s words, to suit local circumstances.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that any system has to be flexible enough to ensure that, if there are changes in demand locally, the system can catch up with the increase, but is not the concern that the Government’s proposals are completely inflexible, and that any increase in demand will impact on local services?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any increase in need, demand and, as a consequence, cost will all have to be borne by the local authority—borne by switching funding from other budgets that perhaps support important local services, or borne by cutting back within the council tax support scheme the support that is paid to those who remain eligible.
However, I want to exemplify the challenge that the Minister faces to justify the powers that the Secretary of State is taking in the Bill in order to prescribe from the centre. In paragraph 3(4) of schedule 4, the Secretary of State may make regulations on the procedure for preparing the scheme, including in paragraph 3(5) regulations to
“require the authority to produce documents of a particular description”;
regulations to
“include requirements as to the form and content of documents produced in connection with the preparation of the scheme”;
regulations on the
“requirements…about the manner in which such documents must be published”;
regulations to
“require the authority to make copies of such documents available”
in certain ways, and “to supply” copies of such documents to certain people; and even regulations to prescribe the charges that local councils should make for those documents.
In all honesty, that is the sort of prescription we expect to find in a memorandum from a publications manager to a graphic designer and a press officer, not from central Government to elected local government officials throughout England. If the Minister and the Secretary of State are to have any credibility on the claim that this is a localising move and a localising measure, they should back off and guarantee what they say. If the schemes should be under local control, as the Minister and Secretary of State claim, the Government should give local authorities the powers to control them, not take those powers and exercise them from the centre.
Amendment 1, which is also in my name, is in the same vein although more moderate, because it seeks simply to require the Secretary of State to consult before making any changes to the requirements that he chooses to impose nationally on local schemes. As the Bill stands, there is not even any obligation to consult local government on the requirements that central Government impose.
Paragraphs (8) and (9) of schedule 4 make it clear that the Secretary of State may make regulations to require any matter to be included in the design of a local scheme; may prescribe any class of person to be included in the scheme; may prescribe the reductions that cover any class in any area; and, to reinforce my earlier point, may prescribe the way in which the provisions are made. That completely undermines not only the constant mantra of Ministers across the range of their departmental responsibilities but the specific pledge that they made in their response to the consultation, where, on page 2, they said that this is
“a policy of decentralisation that will give local authorities increased financial freedoms”.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is not this yet another example of the Secretary of State’s schizophrenic approach to local authorities? His previous edicts have given advice on everything from pot plants to levels of chief executives’ pay to publications. He wants to give the impression that he is giving up powers, but in fact he is retaining them.
John Healey
To be honest, no Minister of any Government is immune to that temptation. I am sure that it would be possible for the Minister to find one or two examples where I myself might have made such moves as a Local Government Minister. However, we in this House have a right to challenge the Government on what they claim is the underpinning principle of the Bill and to point out how the principles they claim are not matched in their legislation. There is a strong, principled case for the Secretary of State to back off, loosen the reins, and let those in local government devise the schemes that they will be obliged and required to run.
There is a principled case and a practical case for the amendments. If the Government are able to set the key constraints and parameters of any scheme, and to do so at any time, it is entirely possible not only that local flexibility—the ability to tailor to local circumstances—will be undermined, but that local authorities will devise their schemes, set about implementing them, and then find that they have to revise them because the Secretary of State has decided to step in and make regulations under the many regulation-making powers that he has available to him in this primary legislation. If it is pensioners today, could it be carers tomorrow and ex-service personnel the day after?
John Healey
Perhaps that is not as serious a case to put to the Government as ex-service personnel and carers, but my hon. Friend makes the point. If the Secretary of State had a particular concern about cat lovers, he could indeed use these regulations to make special provision for council tax support for them.
John Healey
Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had better not pursue that. However, it is certainly true that given their drubbing a couple of weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats will have to chase votes wherever they can find them.
Amendment 1 is designed to challenge the Government to concede, and to give a commitment to this House, that should they use their powers under the Bill and make stipulations about the schemes that local authorities will run, they will at least consult local government before doing so.
Amendment 3, which also stands in my name, exemplifies my belief that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich argued, this is a rushed reform that has been introduced without an ear to proper consultation or a thought to the consequences. The amendment attempts to flush out whether the Government have properly considered the impact of the Bill in relation to the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, which allows a local authority, in setting its budget and its council tax, to put to the vote in a referendum a level of council tax that it might want to propose for its area, and allows local residents to veto what they may regard as excessive council tax rises. Under those powers, a local authority must hold a referendum no later than the first Thursday in May of the financial year to which the council tax would relate. In practice, that means that a local authority will have to run contingency spending plans, budgets and council tax levels until the result of the referendum is known, and if it is unsuccessful, those contingency budgets will need to be put in place and new council tax bills issued. That process must take place around the turn of the financial year, and by early May at the latest, yet the Bill requires that the council tax support scheme must be designed and in place by January—before most local authorities finalise and agree their budgets and council tax levels, and certainly before the level in any referendum might be established.
That mismatch indicates that this reform is ill thought out, rushed and likely to be wrong, and it reinforces the arguments that my right hon. Friend made about his amendments 6, 7, 10 and 13, to which my name has been added. There are good reasons for making this part of the benefits system local, but there is no justification for doing it by making harsh cuts to the national and local totals of spend available, by capping the totals against any future rise in needs or costs, by requiring local councils to carry all the risk of any increases in claims, or by forcing very big cuts in council tax support for many of those who need it most.
When we last debated this in Committee in January, my right hon. Friend and I noted that councils were faced with an extraordinarily tight timetable of 12 months until the point at which they would have to have these new schemes in place. That period is now eight months. There is no time to consult local residents, to design the computer software systems necessary to run these schemes or to test them and put them into practice, to work out how the tapers to the new universal credit system will have to work with the council tax support system, or to plan for the new local scheme in the context of next year’s budget planning by local authorities.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. The Government have not done the work needed for local government to do the work that it needs to do. I say this to Ministers: take a leaf out of the Health Secretary’s book, pause, listen, and be prepared to put back the start of this scheme from April next year to April 2014.
Helen Jones
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), whose speech was not only very passionate but extremely well informed.
Nothing could illustrate better what a shambles of a Bill this is than the seriousness of the new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled at this late stage. It is, frankly, a gross discourtesy to the House to bring these issues before us with little notification and little opportunity to discuss them. Because we have not been allowed to take evidence on the Bill, we have had no evidence on the new clauses. We would have benefited from evidence on them, particularly from legal experts. Although the Minister assures us that the new clauses replicate powers that are already in existence, that is debatable. He could not answer a number of the questions that were put to him about how inaccuracy in data records could be challenged, which electronic records could be accessed under the powers, and how the powers would relate to a person’s personal electronic data that are held on their own PC.
Every council will, of course, need the right system in place to tackle fraud—nobody would argue otherwise. However, it is interesting that we have heard nothing from the Government in this debate about the reductions in council staff, which are making it much more difficult to tackle fraud, or their desire to abolish the Audit Commission, which is the very body that searches out fraud and assists local councils in tackling it.
I am concerned about some of the measures in the new clauses. Some of them do indeed replicate those in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. However, the Minister cannot explain how one can commit an offence other than dishonestly and he cannot explain the offence of
“allowing a person to fail to notify”
something. What on earth does that mean? Does one have to be under duress, or not? What is the definition of the word “allowing”? What kind of proof is required? Above all, what will the defence against those offences be? That is not clear from what is before us. I want to see dishonest people banged up in prison or fined, but I want people who have made an honest mistake to have a proper defence for any charges that are brought against them. It is a great shame that we were not allowed to discuss the new clauses in Committee.
I want to concentrate on new clause 5, which I tabled with my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government’s plans for council tax and what we have heard from them today clearly demonstrate how remote they are from the realities of life for many people in this country. They propose to take money away from some of the poorest people, including, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, people who go to work every day to earn their poverty. People with disabilities and families with children will pay the price for the incompetence of the Government. Many of them will already have lost tax credits or disability living allowance, which is being cut by £2.7 billion. It is estimated that about 400,000 disabled people will lose employment and support allowance when it is time-limited to one year for people who have paid national insurance contributions. Those very people will be hit again by the Government’s plans.
The Government consultation document said that they would
“seek to ensure that the most vulnerable in society, in particular low income pensioners, are protected”.
Pensioners are indeed protected from the cuts, and we do not disagree with that. However, coupled with the 10% cut in the amount that is available, that means that other people, many of whom are equally vulnerable, will face council tax increases. That is something that the Liberal Democrats do not seem to understand, but it is simple mathematics.
The Government’s default scheme in their so-called statement of intent replicates the current scheme and gives protection to many more vulnerable groups. The intent, I suppose, is to penalise councils financially. However, it is difficult to argue that we should protect vulnerable groups in the default scheme, but not legislate for that protection elsewhere.
There is no protection for people with disabilities—not even for those who are placed in the support group for ESA. Those people are, by definition, unable to seek work, even if it was available, which is not likely given the current flatlining economy. There is no protection for people placed in the work-related activity group, who are not expected to
“seek paid employment to increase their income”.
They are asked to take steps to increase their employability, but they are not yet expected to seek work. That shows how spurious is the Government’s claim that they are doing this to spur on local councils to get people into work. That is nonsense.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Determination of central and local shares—
‘(1) In determining the central share and the local share for any relevant authority, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the level of need in that authority, and
(b) the likely capacity of the authority to benefit from business rate growth.
(2) Any assessment of the level of need shall include—
(a) the ranking of the local authority in the Index of Multiple Deprivation,
(b) the level of unemployment within the authority’s area,
(c) the proportion of adults within the authority’s area who have a limiting long-term illness,
(d) the number of adults within the area who are in receipt of social care,
(e) the number of looked-after children within the authority, and
(f) the level of child poverty within the authority’s area.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay his assessment before the House at the same time as the Local Government Finance Report.’.
New clause 11—National business rate policy changes: consultation—
‘The Secretary of State may not make any changes to national business rate policy which impact on local business rate yields without first consulting with all interested parties.’.
Government amendments 15 to 17.
Amendment 62, page 12, line 13, schedule 1, leave out ‘each year’ and insert—
‘each financial year until the end of the financial year beginning 1 April 2014’.
Government amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 63, page 23, line 40, at end insert—
‘(ca) by reference to the volatility caused by rating appeals following a revaluation;’.
Government amendments 20 to 41.
Government new clause 8—Payments to and from authorities.
John Healey
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, and amendments 62 and 63.
My purpose with new clause 1 is to encourage the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Government, that the necessary powers exist in legislation to make tax increment financing work in future, and also to confirm Ministers’ intent and commitment to using those powers. The case for TIFs—tax increment financing schemes—is unarguable. I myself have been arguing it for a number of years, first in the Treasury and then in the Department for Communities and Local Government. There are local government regulations in Scotland to allow six TIF pilots to go ahead. The use of TIFs is widespread in Canada and the US, particularly in areas where regeneration is required; indeed, only one state in the US—Arizona—does not have TIF legislation. TIFs build on the commitment that Labour made in government, in the Budget 2010, a commitment that was backed by a capital down payment of £120 million.
However, if the TIFs system is to work—that is, if local authorities are to borrow money for up-front infrastructure investment against the anticipated increase in business rate income as a result of the new infrastructure —there must above all be certainty for those long-term investments to be made. There needs to be certainty for a clear business plan and then an investment plan to be put in place; otherwise TIFs will not get off the ground and will not work. That certainty is required over a 20 to 30-year time scale, which is why it is needed in legislation. As the Centre for Cities said in response to the Government’s consultation:
“When the Government introduces Tax Increment Financing…it should be based on ‘Option 2’—a ringfenced TIF which is best suited for local investment finance within the proposed business rate retention system.”
That point was echoed by the British Property Federation, which said:
“Failing to ring-fence the income stream for that length of time”—
its submission referred to a 25 to 30-year period—
“would generally render the upfront investment unbankable, because the risks associated with it become too difficult to model, understand and price. TIF will only work with the sort of total ring-fencing proposed under Option 2”.
The Government made the commitment to ring-fencing, stating in the White Paper of October 2010:
“We will introduce new borrowing powers to enable authorities to carry out Tax Increment Financing”.
In response to the consultation, the Government also made a commitment to
“allow a limited number of Tax Increment Financing Projects to be exempted from any levy and reset for 25 years.”
That is the crucial commitment that I want to test against the content of the Bill before us. I expressed my concern about the freedom of the ring-fencing from any effects of reset to the Secretary of State on Second Reading on 10 January. He had no answer: either he did not know, or he did not want to say.
Let me therefore point the Minister to the source of my concern, which relates to paragraph 37(1)(d) of schedule 1 on page 32. This deals with the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State, referring to regulations that can
“provide for that amount or that proportion to be disregarded for the purposes of calculations under any of the following provisions”—
in other words, regulation-making powers that can lead to the disregard of a proportion of business rates in specified areas, namely TIF areas, for particular payments that would otherwise be due. The provision goes on to identify payments to the central share, payments by billing to precepting local authorities, levy payments, safety net payments, payments on account and payments that follow from changes either to the local government finance report or to an amending report of a local government financing report. There is no power, however, to make regulations to exempt payments as a result of changes through a reset.
If I am mistaken, I would like the Minister to indicate where that power lies. If no such provision exists in the legislation, will he confirm that the Government will honour the commitment they made in their response to the consultation and will amend the Bill so that any payments resulting from a reset can be disregarded—and disregarded in full—for the purpose of the TIF areas? The Minister would be welcome to accept my new clause if he needs to do so.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has made admirably clear his concerns about the potential lack of commercial certainty. One of the advantages of going down the route of tax increment financing is that there would be ring fence over the 25 to 30-year period. Does he not see, however, that in very uncertain economic times, that is a very long period, so it might be unwise, where a major change required a major reset in a particular area, perhaps where new towns were being built, not to allow the Government a certain amount of leeway? Is that not more important than the exclusion of a reset from the ring fence?
John Healey
I would have thought the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Cities of London and Westminster, would recognise more than anyone else that for the sort of commercial investment required to get TIFs off the ground in circumscribed and specific areas, certainty is a premium. If the 25 or 30-year commitment required to make this work could be periodically completely set to one side in a reset process, I put it to him that the inherent risk created by that and the inherent lack of certainty entailed by it would undermine the ability to raise the finance necessary to get the TIFs off the ground.
As to the hon. Gentleman’s point about new towns, the regulations allow the disregard in the specified areas that are designated as TIF areas only. The disregard on business rate payments, a proportion of which would otherwise become payable by the local authority, would be allowed under various headings, but this would not apply to the reset. Fundamentally, that is the biggest upset factor of all, so the case for disregarding that is probably stronger than it is for the smaller-beer measures for which regulations can be designed to protect.
Mark Field
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says and he is absolutely right about commercial certainty, which is of great importance to any would-be investor. Instead of the notion of absolute certainty embodied in new clause 1, would the right hon. Gentleman not be satisfied, particularly in view of the important effect of building a new town or a huge new industrial estate for which the notion of a reset would apply, by reassurances from the Minister that the Government do not intend to make the changes he has in mind? Would that not be better than going down the route of absolutely certainty, which provides little flexibility either to central or local government, for an incredibly long period of 25 or 30 years? We need go back only two and a half or three decades to recognise the great changes that have taken place in many of the industrial areas that we represent and to understand that absolute certainty of the sort that he—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. [Interruption.] Order—the hon. Gentleman must not test my patience even more. Interventions are welcome, and I am prepared to give a little leeway, but the hon. Gentleman is almost making a speech.
John Healey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got the gist. I welcome this Bill and I want it to work. My fear is that without the certainty around potential resets—we do not know when or how often they might happen; we do not know whether they will happen every 10 years; we do not know how they will work in future—there will be huge risk and uncertainty in the system. It is not a question of whether I am satisfied by the provision; it is a question of whether the potential investors, who will determine whether the TIFs work or not, are satisfied. I am trying to convey the sentiment that I have picked up from my discussions with banks, commercial organisations, the British Property Federation and some of the City’s policy experts, who all say, “Look, we require a ring fence; it must be total”. Thus leaving out the reset, which the Government promised they would not do, does not make sense if we want the provisions to work. I hope the Minister will be able to provide the confirmation we need and be able to build it into the Bill. This issue will certainly need to be confirmed at later stages of the Bill.
Amendment 62 is designed to get to the heart of the relative share of the business rate take as between central and local government. The figures for projected resource spending on local government under the current spending review demonstrate a significant reduction for next year and the year after that—of nearly half a billion between this year and the next, and of more than £1.5 billion between next year and the year after that in nominal terms. Alongside that, the projected yield from business rates is set to go up by nearly £1 billion next year and by more than half a billion the year after that. That means that the gap between the projected business rates yield and central Government’s commitment to resource spending on local government is more than £2 billion for next year, and £4 billion for the year after that. There is a significant and growing gap between the business rates yield and spending on local government.
Andrew Gwynne
It is not yet clear how local authorities’ needs will be assessed for the purpose of determining the proportion of the business rate that they will retain. We need to see the bigger picture, not least because services and needs vary widely, as does the ability to generate income locally.
John Healey
My hon. Friend, who has experience of local government, has put his finger on the button. What worries me is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to set the central and local shares—in other words, to determine the division of the business rates take—in each and every year, indefinitely. I am not talking just about what will happen next year and the year after that, or about what will happen until the end of the current spending review period. From year to year, local government simply will not know where it stands until the Secretary of State makes the decision. The central and local shares could vary, and central Government could decide to take a greater share.
The Government’s top-slicing of at least 50% of the business rates revenue and 50% of the business rates growth above the baseline will reduce the incentives for local authorities to support growth, which were meant to be part of the design of the system. It will also reduce the certainty that would enable authorities to plan their finances on more than a year-by-year basis, and reduce the Government’s own ability to claim that this is a localising reform. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister—and I have heard this before—that the Government have declared their intention of returning the revenues in the central share to local government; but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), we have been given no details, and we do not know what purposes or constraints that may entail.
Mr Betts
My right hon. Friend has raised an important point about what the Government may choose to do with the extra money from the business rates that will accrue each year. The suspicion has been expressed that they will use it to ensure that local authorities must fund more and more council tax benefits. That would be a simple way of transferring responsibility for benefits to local authorities.
John Healey
My hon. Friend may well be right, and his Select Committee will doubtless keep a close eye on the matter. I hope that the Minister will give us some answers tonight, but I am sure that, if he does not, Ministers in the other place will be pressed on the point.
The other gaping hole in the Bill is the absence of any specific measure that would tell us when and how the Government would deal with the reset in the future. The two options that they presented in their statement of intent last week could lead to fundamentally different outcomes. There could be a full reset, whereby all the business rate growth up to the point of the reset was redistributed—meaning, in effect, that the baseline of the whole system would be reset by means of the new, and total, business rates pot—or there could be a partial reset, meaning that business growth would be retained at local level, and just the initial baseline would be reset. That represents a very wide range of possibilities for local authorities. If the Minister wants authorities to be able to plan for the future on the basis of the new system, he must provide them with some of the answers to such questions, sooner rather than later.
Andrew Gwynne
Getting the reset procedure right is important not least because the initial baseline is so unfair. It locks in unfair local government settlements and in-year cuts. It is crucially important for local government to be certain that the reset procedure will work in the future, because otherwise the gaps will continue to widen.
John Healey
Indeed. I have my misgivings about whether any approach to the reset procedure can make the system fair after more than a few years. Indeed, I am still to be convinced that the system can be reset in a fair and proper way. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I digress beyond the scope of the amendments that I tabled.
Let me now turn to amendment 63. During earlier debates on the Bill in the Chamber, I argued that this was an unsuitable system for long-term Government funding. Ultimately, business rates yield is too volatile, and it is too volatile on a year-by-year basis. Let me give three examples, a couple of which will be close to home for those on both Front Benches.
In Warrington the business rates yield has dropped by £10 million over the last 10 years, from £53 million to just £43 million. In Sunderland there was a £17 million drop between 2010 and 2011, and in the year before that there had been a £12 million rise. I can tell the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), that in the middle of 2005-06, the business rates income in his borough of Bromley halved. In two of the last four years, the changes—up and down, and up and down again—have amounted to more than 10%. The funding stream is inherently volatile, and, in my view, is inherently unsuitable as a basis for the funding of essential local government services.
The main purpose of amendment 63, however, is to draw attention to concern about the volatility caused by appeals. I believe that areas in which there is a particular concentration of a single or consistent business type are particularly vulnerable to a big impact from them. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who has just left the Chamber, may recall that in 2007-08 a full 20% of the business rates yield of the City of London was lost as a result of successful backdated appeals. So the appeals add another important, volatile element to the system of business rates.
Those appeals are made against decisions by the Valuation Office Agency, not local authorities. The system is managed by the VOA and tribunals, not the local authority, and it brings benefits to the companies that are successful, not the local authorities. We must ensure that the impacts of appeals do not affect the funding base of the local authorities; we must not expose authorities to vagaries in the system and to the impact of appeals, when they cannot predict them, control the risk of them or benefit from them. Actually, neither can they benefit from business rate increases through revaluation, at least while the Government put in place transition relief.
I tabled amendment 63 because the Government are creating a one-way bet, in which the Chancellor wins each way and the councils lose each time. If the appeals are won by the company, the local authority has to manage the volatility and has to bear the loss up to the level of the safety net threshold—which, according to the statement of intent in the Government’s publications of Thursday last week, is likely to be somewhere between 7.5% and 10%. Amendment 63 is an attempt to make sure that once the calculations and the thresholds are determined, safety net payments take full account of rating appeals. Linked to that, I hope the Government will accept the case for fully compensating local authorities from the levy pot for the impact of any successful business appeals—over which they have no control, and which they cannot predict.
New clause 11 is relatively modest, and I hope the Minister will accept it in principle, if not in practice at this stage. The power for setting and changing business rates policy—business rate reliefs, which are mandatory, as well as the payment schedules for business rates and the transition periods for business rate increases—will continue to rest with the Secretary of State and the national Government. Currently, any national business rate policy changes have no direct impact on local authority finances or local authority budgets. In future they will, however. They will not be local government decisions, but they will create consequences that local government will have to deal with. If the Government decide to change the rate or the type of mandatory rate reliefs, or to allow the deferral of part of the change in business rate bills, that will have a direct impact on that year’s yield in the area concerned, and therefore on the local authority’s funding. Local authorities will be hit by the consequences of decisions that they did not make and that they cannot control. That is unfair and unreasonable.
It may surprise some Members to learn that the Federation of Small Businesses has also made that argument. It said in response to the consultation of October 2011 that
“the FSB is concerned that the incentive system could actually deter local authorities from promoting and utilising the reliefs available to small businesses such as small business rate relief, rural rate relief and hardship relief…It would mean that a local authority would lose out on income if it increased the proportion of businesses that received rate relief or would make money if the number of businesses able to get reliefs fell.”
I am sure the Minister does not want to design into the new system perverse incentives that will hit small firms in that way.
As currently proposed, the new system will be bad for local authorities, and could be bad for local small and medium-sized firms. My new clause requires that, at the very least, the Secretary of State must consult the parties that would be affected by changes in national business rates policy before making such decisions. Under the new system, the stakes for councils will be higher, so the guarantee to consult them before any changes are made is the minimum that Ministers should promise.
Robert Neill
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to make do with a potted version, given that I have only 10 minutes left and want to deal with other points as well. Suffice it to say that if he casts his eye over paragraph 37(1)(d)(iv) and (vi) of part 10 of new schedule 7B to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 —I know that he will want to do detail as we wish to do detail—he will see that the regulations permit those uplifts to be disregarded.
Those provisions have the same effect as the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne would have. The Government have said that it is not our intention to reset the system until 2020, save in exceptional circumstances. I accept that for option 2 TIFs it may well be desirable to have a longer period than that, and the regulations will permit that. Enterprise zones and option 2 TIFs will be disregarded at the reset and could be disregarded for subsequent periods. It will therefore be convenient to align future resets with the revaluation period from 2015 onwards. The system will work perfectly well in practice.
In amendments 62 and 63, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne fairly recognises that central Government have, and always will have, an interest in public spending. It is unrealistic to think that central Government would not have a macro-economic view on the overall level of control over local government, and that is why we could not accept his amendment and constrain ourselves in the way that is intended. However, we have always made it clear that, over time and particularly once we have the public finances back on track, we hope to increase the proportion of business rates that are part of the rates retention scheme. We are starting at 50%, which is a considerable step forward in giving local authorities greater financial autonomy, and the provisions in the Bill allow the figure to be increased if circumstances permit. Equally, however, one has to be realistic and recognise that in an economically difficult world it would be imprudent to presuppose that the central share could be removed altogether. I do not think that any Government would envisage that. It is conceivable that in dire circumstances the share could be increased, but that is certainly not the Government’s intention; we intend to reduce it as soon as economic circumstances permit. It is therefore appropriate to maintain the existing provisions, which enable the alterations in shares between local and central Government to be considered alongside the need to maintain affordability and to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the wider economy. Whatever the proportion, be it 50% or higher, I repeat the assurance that, as is consistent with the 1988 Act, it remains the case that business rates paid to central Government through the central share will be returned to local government through other grants.
On amendment 63, we are alive to the point that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne makes, and we will take it on board when drafting final regulations. We are conscious of the potential interaction of the incentive with loss of revenue at appeals, and we have said that we will consult further on that during the summer. We have already scheduled meetings between officials and local authority officials. Against that background, I hope that the he will feel able, albeit in absentia, to withdraw his amendment.
Let me turn to new clause 6 and the related proposals from Opposition Front Benchers. I could not help but note a slightly different tone in the debate when we discussed them. I think that earlier the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) alluded to one-tune records. With respect to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), a one-tune record is still a one-tune record however long you play it, and I am afraid that that is what we heard from the Opposition Front Bench. It is also, I am sorry to say, a rather inaccurate one-tune record, because when one analyses the hon. Lady’s argument, one sees that it is not only a serious indictment of the system that we inherited from the Labour Government but it does not accurately portray what we are seeking to do. It is a serious indictment of the Labour Government’s record because the list of undoubted differences and inequalities between regions in the UK that she set out is in some measure, if she will forgive my saying so, the legacy of the failed, highly centralist policies of the Labour Government. It is pretty scandalous that after 13 years of regional policy and of a highly centralised local government finance system, the inequalities to which she referred exist. That is what Labour left behind.
The coalition has sought to address that legacy, even within the existing system. First, we have increased the weighting given to the needs element of the formula grant, which precisely reflects those issues, from 73% to 83%—something that no previous Government have done. Secondly, we have introduced transitional grant to deal with authorities in the greatest difficulty.
It is worth bearing in mind that need is built into the calculations in the business rate retention system. Need is part of the calculation of the baseline because the needs element is part of the formula grant, and we have indicated that we will take the 2012-13 formula grant as the baseline. The hon. Lady’s examples of the undoubted cost pressures in social services, child care and so on are, therefore, reflected in the social services element of the formula grant that we have maintained, as well as in the uplift of the needs element that we have maintained. We have placed such authorities in a better position for the starting line.
There are undoubtedly significant and sensitive services that are under pressure. Reference has been made to some of the child care cases that we know about. Those are really tough areas with real cost pressures, but under our system top-tier authorities in two-tier areas, which make up the majority of the authorities that are responsible for adult social care and children’s services, will be designated as top-up authorities. That means that they will be protected from volatility more than any other authorities in the system. They know that their top-up will be fixed for the reset period and index-linked thereafter to the retail prices index. There is particular protection in our system for authorities with the greatest need. The thrust of the Opposition proposals therefore falls at the first point.
We have said that we will share the proceeds and the risks through the 50:50 split between local and central Government. We have said that the baseline will take into account the issues that we have taken on board. We have said that baseline funding will remain fixed and that growth in budgets will be linked to local business rates growth thereafter, but with protections in place. Opposition Front Benchers have shown a schizophrenic attitude to the Bill from start to finish. They have paid lip service to a degree of localism, and they have given examples of over-centralisation that, on analysis, turn out to be the legacy of their own system. They have been in denial throughout about the need to link reform of the local government system with a realistic appraisal of the need to reduce the deficit. They have produced a set of arguments about as dysfunctional as one could find, making them the Simpson family of British politics. We have heard no credible alternatives. They have played the same record time and time again, and they do not have much credibility. I hope that the House will resist the Opposition proposals if they are pressed.
John Healey
Members of another place will study the Minister’s remarks this evening very carefully and return to a number of points. I am grateful to him for his comments about TIF funding, and I was pleased by most, if not all of them. I, too, will study the Hansard record of his comments very carefully indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.