Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

2. What ministerial directions in respect of an action likely to breach the requirements of financial propriety or regularity were issued to the accounting officer of his Department in the past 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

Although there were no directions in the past 12 months due to propriety and regularity issues, two directions were issued to my Department’s accounting officer due to concerns that he had about the value for money of actions proposed by the then Secretary of State: one related to implementing unitary city councils in Exeter and Norwich; the other covered the purchase of Blackpool Leisure Assets. In the interests of transparency, I am today placing copies of both directions in the Library.

[Lorraine Fullbrook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that the First Division Association—the civil servants’ union—has reported that Ministers in the previous Government systematically ignored civil service value-for-money considerations. Can he give us an assurance that this Government will not do the same thing?

[Robert Neill]

We are fortunate in having able and experienced civil servants at our Department, and we certainly want to listen to their advice. It is worth remembering that that direction not only ignored value-for-money considerations, but contradicted stances taken by the previous Government. We will seek value for money, and we will also seek to be consistent.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. Can we debate Exeter and Norwich when the Local Government Bill comes to this House, although as these somewhat arrogant, high-handed and incompetent new Ministers have already lost a vote on it in the Lords before it even reached its Second Reading, we may never see it?

Does the Minister not understand that public investment through regional development agencies in towns such as Blackpool has been vital for business and jobs and should be in the future? Securing Blackpool tower and the Winter gardens for Blackpool and its millions of visitors was the right thing to do. What the House, the people of Blackpool and its Conservative council want to hear today is a promise from the Minister that he will not allow his colleagues in the coalition to undo the crucial deal that has been done. Will he give that assurance?

[Robert Neill]

The fact is that the deal is done; the money has been spent. We are not seeking to undo it.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new regulations to stop having to build on gardens will also apply to local authority-owned gardens, not just to privately owned gardens—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

5. If he will review the extent to which the local authority funding formula accurately measures the funding requirements of local communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, this is the last year of a three-year settlement. We will consult on our proposals for 2011-12 in due course. We are of course prepared to keep an open mind about options for change in the distribution of formula grant to local authorities.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for his response. One ward in Elmbridge has double the national average of child poverty, yet we get back just one third of the national average of funding for local services. Will he consider the local funding formula as part of the local government finance review to ensure that it is based on a truly objective assessment of local needs?

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I know that, very swiftly after his election to this House, he was in contact on behalf of his constituents regarding a number of related issues. I assure him that, yes, the Government are committed to a review of the local government finance formula and that, within its scope, we will of course consider the points that he and others have made.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

The Conservative party was elected on a promise to slash public services this year—the Liberal Democrats must answer for themselves—and huge cuts affecting local government have been announced today. May I ask the Minister why what he has proposed today is so unfair? Why is it that the impoverished northern mill towns, the ex-coalfields and the struggling seaside towns will take the largest share of the cuts? Why is it that the big cities—Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham—will take the largest cuts? Why is impoverished Newham to have a cut of £4.6 million and wealthy Richmond one of just £900,000?

[Robert Neill]

I have no intention of taking lectures from a member of a Cabinet that left this country record levels of debt. Unless there are cuts, by 2014 we will be paying more in interest on the debt than we will in council tax, business rates, inheritance tax and stamp duty combined.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr John Denham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Regarding today’s written statement, does the Minister not accept that local authorities have been at the forefront of making efficiency savings—2% year on year—so to ask for a further 1% part way through the year, on top of the 2% to which they are already committed, will effectively mean cuts in local authority spending part way through the year of about 4% to 5%? Rather than being about efficiency savings, this is surely the first round of the savage cuts for local authorities that Ministers promised us.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in these matters, well knows the dire financial straits the country is in and the need for all sectors to save money. However, he ought to put that in the context of what we have had to do because of the legacy of his party’s Government. We have taken steps to protect formula grant, to un-ring-fence a good deal of grant to give local authorities more financial flexibility and to remove burdens such as the expensive comprehensive area assessment inspection regime.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

If the Government cut external funding based specifically on local authorities’ levels of deprivation—external funding available to Witney in Oxfordshire at 1.7% but to the city of Sheffield at 18.5%, for example—is it not inevitable that those in greatest need will take the biggest cuts?

[Robert Neill]

Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt which this country has been left—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that these are high-octane exchanges, but the House must calm down, because people lower down the Order Paper deserve a chance to get in.

[Robert Neill]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that, if we are to have sustainable, quality local government services, the first thing we have to do is get this country’s economic mess sorted out.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

6. What steps he plans to take to abolish the Standards Board for England.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

20. What recent discussions his Department has had with Lancashire county council on levels of funding for community services in Sunderland Point, Morecambe.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

My Department has had no representations from Lancashire county council in relation to the matter that my hon. Friend raises.

[David Morris]

Thank you for that answer. [Interruption.] Behave yourselves across the Floor there.

Sunderland Point is a community that must be protected at all costs. It is a very historic area of this country, and Lancashire county council should help in any way it possibly can. I hope that the Minister’s Department can help accordingly.

[Robert Neill]

I am conscious of the sensitivities involved in Sunderland Point and the areas to which my hon. Friend refers. Predominantly, the works there are dealt with by the Environment Agency, but Lancashire county council would stand ready to assist as far as it can.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

21. What his policy is on changes to the funding formula for local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

As my hon. Friend will know, and as I said in relation to an earlier question, this is the third and final year of a settlement. Yes, we will be consulting in relation to future funding arrangements, and that certainly includes a willingness to consider any options that may be put forward.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Minister confirm that the plans we set out in our manifesto to make the funding formula more transparent—[Interruption.] Excuse me—I would like Opposition Members to listen. [Interruption.]

[Claire Perry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start again.

Will the Minister confirm that the plans to make the funding formula more transparent and independently audited are still intact? That is a matter of great concern in my constituency of Devizes and all the Wiltshire constituencies, because we receive the lowest amount of funding from central Government of any unitary authority.

[Robert Neill]

I can confirm that the Government remain committed to a review, and we are more than happy to examine the points that are raised.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Minister seemed to suggest earlier that the poorest communities would bear the brunt of the cuts. What is he doing to protect the poorest communities, such as those in Halton, from the cuts?

[Robert Neill]

The important thing that we have done is to protect formula grant, which is the largest single grant paid to local authorities. As I said, we have given local authorities considerably more leeway in how they use those moneys by ring-fencing a significant number of grants and removing significant burdens such as the inspection regime, which is estimated to cost local authorities something in the order of £2 billion a year.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the great failures of the previous Government was to wrap local authorities up in a bureaucratic top-down performance-management regime from which local government needs to be liberated?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have indicated our intention to get rid of the CAA regime, which has been estimated to cost the sector in the region of £2 billion. That is why we are committed to abolishing the Standards Board and why we want to give genuine power back to local authorities.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

There is a need for a more strategic view of how we can have Gypsy and Traveller encampments around the country, as well as in specific regions, but how can we do that when the Government have just cut the budget for the Gypsies and Travellers programme by £30 million?