Why have the Government decided to cancel out natural inflationary growth in business rates? The clauses in the Bill that are subject to consideration today do not allow for revaluation growth, which is regrettable. Inevitably, all Members will use the examples closest to our hearts—our own local authority areas. Westminster city council’s total rateable value at the last five-year revaluation—18 months or so ago—rose by some 60%, but the proposed reforms would allow for none of that increase to count towards growth. In many ways, that is a disincentive to doing a lot of the hard work that went on in the second half of the last decade. As a result, local authorities would receive no benefit
18 Jan 2012 : Column 813
for enhancing their commercial environment or making their area a more attractive location for businesses. Having pacesetter authorities with business improvement districts in place at the outset was one of the most important elements of the previous Government’s work in that regard. Such authorities will be almost disincentivised and penalised under the proposals, which does not make much sense.
Given that rental and rateable value growth reflect the relative profitability from which central Government benefit through VAT, corporation tax and income tax, will the Minister clarify the reasons why increases in revaluation growth have not been included in the Bill? On physical growth, one key principle of the scheme, as I understand it, is to enable local authorities to benefit from new building and construction. However, as the Minister knows—although he represents a suburban London constituency—here in the capital, the high levels of rateable value reductions that are granted on appeal often wipe out the physical rateable value growth that has been achieved through new build. A great many appeals may be heard following revaluations, and as they are accepted the total rateable value in a billing may be reduced over time. Since those reductions result from errors made by central Government valuation officers, it seems unfair to penalise local authorities for such mis-valuations. We should also note the uncertainty that would be injected into the final settlement, given that one of the main aims of the scheme is to iron out such uncertainty.
4.30 pm
Despite earlier assurances, the Government have failed to provide for any adjustment in the growth calculation to remove the negative effect of appeals, although—dare I say—given the difficult economic constraints that we are experiencing, I fear that there will be an exponential increase in the number of such appeals. It is estimated that Westminster city council has achieved an annual physical growth of about £30 million in rateable value per annum over the last five years, but failure to remove the negative effect of appeals will mean the loss of much of the benefit of that growth, and I suspect that we will hear similar stories from other Members. It is also possible that a significant number of appeals will be processed in 2013-14 and 2014-15 once the valuation office has completed its appeals programme for the 2010 revaluation, and that too could have a significant impact on the final settlement. I believe that the only option for local authorities will be to achieve growth through the adjustment of business rate allowances. The only allowances that authorities are currently permitted to control are discretionary reliefs for charities and non-profit-making bodies, and hardship relief.
Graham Jones: When authorities suffer a significant loss in business rate revenue, there will surely be a downward pressure on what the Prime Minister would describe as the big society, in which rate relief is given to charities, sports clubs and all sorts of other organisations that do social good. In the poorer, more deprived areas that will lose out under the new system, will not those organisations lose out as well?
Mark Field:
The hon. Gentleman has almost taken the words out of my mouth. Given the Government’s commitment to the big society and to empowering the
18 Jan 2012 : Column 814
organisations about which he has expressed concern, removing discretionary awards would be controversial, and—given that they account for only a small proportion of the business rates that are collected—of little use. I hope that we can be given some clarification about why the Bill fails to provide for any adjustment in the growth calculation to remove the negative effect on valuation appeals.
I do not wish to sound too negative myself. Obviously we are trying to make the legislation better, and I think that the principle of allowing local authorities to retain a greater proportion of the business rates that they generate in their areas is a positive step. Nevertheless, the detailed proposals relating to RPI increases, revaluation and physical growth fail to offer the incentives for growth in high-yield areas for which we had all hoped, and I fear that they may result in excessive penalties for such areas. I realise that Opposition Members may view the issue from the point of view of relatively low-yield areas, but I think there is a risk that high-yield areas will not receive benefits for themselves and that, as a consequence, the Exchequer will not receive them either.
Encouraging economic growth at any level is critical to the national economy. Local authorities are uniquely placed to provide incentives for growth in their areas, recognising what will work even in specific parts of a single authority area—I observe a great variance within the 6.5 square miles of my own constituency—and that creates a bedrock for the national economy. I hope that serious scrutiny will be given to the reasons for the Government’s proposals, in the light of some of their potentially negative implications for areas that would be expected to generate the most significant growth.
Let me take up the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about pooling. We are living in a climate in which it will become the norm. I do not wish to pre-empt discussion of an issue that I am sure will be subject to much criticism and debate on the Floor of the House in the years to come, but I suspect that there will also be a reorganisation of local government. I foresee that in particular for London. It currently has 32 local authorities as well as the City of London, and that situation may well be subject to radical reform in the near future.
I hope the Minister gives serious thought to encouraging the pooling of resources. As he will know, in my area the tri-borough arrangements among the City of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham have worked well in a number of respect, and it is to be hoped that that continues.
It is in the interests of central Government for there to be pooling, but I fear that the proposals in paragraph 9 of schedule 1 will serve to remove any form of incentive for it. I accept that there will be some additional costs, but pooling is the way forward for many local authorities and the Government should encourage it in this Bill.
I am broadly in favour of the proposals, but I hope the Minister gives serious consideration to the points I have made.
Helen Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who always has something interesting to say even though I might disagree with him.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 815
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) gave an excellent speech, in which he set out the reasoning behind the amendments. Our amendments attempt to deal with important omissions in the Bill. There is no mention of levels of need, of the different capacities of local authorities to benefit from business rate growth, or of the different council tax bases of local authorities.
The Government present their case in a way that suggests that there is no difference among authorities, in that they all have the same capacity to raise income and have the same demands on them, and that if a local authority is struggling, it is its own fault and a result of its being lax, rather than of the conditions it has inherited. Everyone knows that that is a myth, but some people are deeply attached to it.
We must acknowledge that the current, admittedly complex, system of local government finance does at least try to take into account the relative needs of different communities and their differing abilities to raise revenue. The Government have sought to erode that in their current local government finance settlement, and the consequent significant reduction in resource equalisation has led to local authorities no longer being able to provide the same level of service by charging the same band of council tax. As a result, the delivery of core services in poorer areas has been hit particularly hard. Despite the Prime Minister’s repeated reassurances, we are not all in this together.
The point I have made is very important, because it is about the base from which this scheme starts. Let me make it clear that we are not against incentives for local authorities to grow their economies.
Mr Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that her point is one of the reasons that the Government do not want any independent assessment of the implications of what they have already done and of what they now propose to do? An assessment would demonstrate that poorer authorities have got poorer and that the richer have got richer.
Helen Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. When discussing the first group of amendments we said that the fact that this Bill is not going into Committee upstairs means that we cannot take evidence on anything. The Government mindset seems to be, “Let’s get it in, push it through and not bother to have any proper assessment of it.”
Mark Field: The local government finance system may not be quite as complicated as the Schleswig-Holstein question, but is it not a concern that it is none the less very difficult to find anyone who could seriously be said to be independent in this regard? Although I can understand some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), having an opportunity to discuss this on the Floor of the House means that more Members can have their say, and that must be a positive step forward.
Helen Jones:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although I do not believe it is impossible to find independent people in the sector and of course the Government
18 Jan 2012 : Column 816
could have taken the Bill into Public Bill Committee and taken evidence, and then had a long Report stage on the Floor of the House to enable Members to participate.
To go back to my point, we are not against providing incentives for local authorities, but we do not believe that this Bill goes about it in the right way. We believe that any system has to be fair and equitable, and must recognise that weaker local economies find it harder to achieve growth and need help to do so. The Government have signally failed to recognise their responsibilities in that regard and we are faced with a “Leave it to Pickles” Bill. The Secretary of State is going to decide who gets what on the top-ups, the tariffs and so on. That is all being left to regulations, with no indication given as to the factors that he will take into account. As I keep saying, there are no draft regulations for us to look at.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): I apologise for not being able to be here for the earlier part of the debate. My hon. Friend knows my constituency well. Does she agree that unless we make a provision along the lines of amendment 19, which deals with need, the capacity to benefit from business rate growth and the council tax base of the authority, areas such as Knowsley are likely to be badly penalised?
Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion of his constituency for many years, hits on exactly the point that we are trying to make: unless the distribution of the central and local share is based on a number of factors, inequality will be built into the system—indeed, it is built in already because of the starting point. We do not believe that this approach is good enough. The future of communities and of the services available, particularly to the poorest people in this country, cannot simply be left to chance. If the Government believe in fairness and really believe that they would take into account the factors we mention in any case in determining central and local shares, I cannot see why they would have a problem in accepting our amendment. After all, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister told us during their now forgotten love-in back in May 2010, before the romance had gone and they started squabbling, that they
“will ensure that fairness is at the heart of…decisions so that all those most in need are protected.”
That is all we are asking for in this amendment and the others that follow it.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide that fairness. If it goes through as drafted, service provision will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, increasingly be based on the ability to raise local business rates and council tax. As council tax increases will often be subject to a referendum, most of the demand will be put on local business rates.
Mr Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that, for authorities such as South Tyneside council, which has nearly 50% of its properties in band A—that compares with a figure of 2% for Kensington and Chelsea—the existing system makes it more difficult to raise any additional money from the domestic side of the rates?
18 Jan 2012 : Column 817
Helen Jones: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons for including the council tax base as one of the measures that ought to be taken into account. I shall say a little more about that later.
Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way and I am grateful for that. Let me extend that point and return to those made about shires and districts. Where is the incentive in a scenario in which there are a large number of band A properties, for which council tax cannot be used, and in which the receipt will be only 15%, such as in my district authority? It seems to me that the system has not been thought out.
4.45 pm
Helen Jones: My hon. Friend has hit on another flaw in the Bill and that is one reason for our complaining earlier about it being rushed through. Such matters need to be considered in detail.
If service provision is to be increasingly based on the ability to raise local business rates and council tax, this Bill has nothing to say about the levels of need. For example, parts of the area I represent used to be heavily industrialised. It is now a mixed area because a new town was built, but part of it was a mining community and we had heavy industry. Many other local authorities have much worse problems than my area, but all those areas are still dealing with the long-term health issues linked to heavy industry and poverty. That is why in an area such as Halton, a neighbouring authority to mine, one in five of the population has a limiting long-term illness. That is why the north-east has higher levels of deprivation, child poverty and poor health than the English average. Sunderland, for example, has 34 neighbourhoods that are in the top 10% most deprived areas of the country. The legacy of poor health, deprivation and poverty is what many local councils are constantly striving to deal with. There is no lack of effort on their part or lack of will. The failure is not theirs, but results from a long industrial heritage followed by the collapse of much heavy industry in the ’80s and ’90s.
Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is making a very good point; there is a risk in the system. She mentioned Sunderland—not my area—and Nissan is a very large employer in that region. Who is to say that in five years’ time the company will still be present there?
Helen Jones: Indeed—my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Later, we will debate the provisions for safety nets and how the Bill can cope with risks.
Andrew Gwynne: Will not some of the disparities about which my hon. Friend is talking be exacerbated by the new system? The analysis from the special interest group of municipal authorities—SIGOMA—shows that there will be an absolute decline over the next two years in funding across all local authority areas, that by 2015-16 some of those authorities will have recovered their position and that by 2020 there will be a huge disparity between the most rich and the most poor.
Helen Jones:
My hon. Friend highlights a real risk of the Bill. All the modelling shows that the gap between rich and poor will become wider. That is a problem
18 Jan 2012 : Column 818
because, in my experience, local authorities have worked relentlessly to tackle these issues and to regenerate their communities. It is a long-term project, however, and it is much more difficult in some areas than in others for a whole host of reasons, including poverty, a local authority’s inheritance, its location and so on.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): Some years ago, I was an assistant director of education in the city of Sunderland and, despite its massive challenges, the attainment of the children was well above that of their statistical neighbours and was close to the national average. That demonstrates that such places can have massive challenges but still deliver well for their communities.
Helen Jones: My hon. Friend highlights the role of local authorities in achieving such gains. I believe that those authorities are constantly working to improve things for their communities and that the assumption underlying much of this Bill—that they do not want to do that—is simply untrue.
Returning to the issue of need, Durham council spends more on older people than a similar council such as Surrey because it has higher levels of deprivation and ill health. That means not only that it faces a greater requirement for social care but that it has fewer people who are able to finance their own care. Fifteen times as many people per 1,000 population receive a community service in Durham compared with Surrey, and 2.4 times as many receive a home care service. That kind of variation in need exists right across the country.
A similar pattern can be seen with children’s services and the level of child poverty, which all experts estimate will rise as a result of many of the Government’s actions. In Hartlepool, 29% of children are in poverty, whereas in Newcastle the figure is 27%, as it is in Liverpool—more than 91,000 children. In comparison, the figure in Wokingham is 7%. I defy anyone to argue that there should not be some resource equalisation to deal with that, but nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to take account of the level of need when he determines the central and local share of non-domestic rates.
Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is talking about the growth in demand for council services that might occur in future and about the need to have some way of assessing that growing demand. It is relevant to services such as adult social care, particularly elderly care, that the geographical distribution of older people in our country is not the same across every local authority. In the shires, for example, there will be more of an ageing population than in my local authority. Does my hon. Friend think it is important to find a way of assessing those differing growth rates in need, which are often for services that are highly resource-intensive?
Helen Jones:
My hon. Friend makes the valid point that the need for all these services varies across authorities; more to the point it is not within councils’ control. A council cannot control how many elderly people are going to need social care, or how many children are going to need intervention from their children’s department. That is the real problem. There are huge variations in demand for children’s services and educational services across the country, and that is often linked with poverty.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 819
Middlesbrough, which is the ninth most deprived local authority area in England, has almost seven times as many children receiving free school meals as Wokingham. Almost all councils showed a huge increase in referrals and in the taking into care of children following the tragic baby Peter case, which we all know about. That was not under their control, but the differences between the numbers of children in care across the country are still stark. Surrey has 32 looked-after children per 10,000 population, whereas Wokingham has 22. In Middlesbrough, the figure is 104 and in Newcastle it is 100. In Liverpool, there has been a 60% increase in child safeguarding referrals since 2009-10, whereas the average national increase is only 10%.
Bill Esterson: I keep being struck by the tension between, on one hand, the Government’s stated support for localism and the retention of business rates that they want to bring in and, on the other, the retention of powers by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is describing extremely well the growing gap among different local authorities and it seems to me that unless the Secretary of State addresses the issues in amendment 19, he will not be able to avoid that growing gap. I cannot understand why the Government would not want to support amendment 19.
Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention highlights the fact that no matter how much we want to make local government finance simple, it is never going to be simple because of the variation in need and the difference in resources. There is a balance to be struck between simplification and unfairness, and we do not think the Government have got that balance right in the Bill.
Some councils are coping with huge demands on their resources. Some form of equalisation will be necessary if, for example, children in poorer areas are not to be placed at risk. The idea that children’s services or the care of the elderly should depend on the number of businesses persuaded to relocate to a particular area is difficult to get to grips with.
George Hollingbery: In the debate on Second Reading the shadow Secretary of State said that there were far too many points in the Bill where the Secretary of State could interfere. As I said earlier this afternoon, there are mechanisms built into the Bill that ensure that revaluation and re-rating will take place. We can quibble about the date, but there are provisions to do that. There are safety nets built in. There is also at the first setting of this level of support a built-in bias towards communities that need more, as there should be. A calculation that I did showed that there was one public sector worker for every 88 people in Hampshire, because there is much less deprivation there, and I understand that, but one public sector worker for every 19 people in Manchester. Where we start clearly reflects the level of need.
Helen Jones:
I know the hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech on Second Reading, but he is wrong on both counts. First, there is nothing on the face of the Bill about resets. Secondly, resetting the whole system is different from the way in which the system is run in the
18 Jan 2012 : Column 820
meantime. The baseline has nothing to do with the number of public sector workers anywhere. The baseline is the current local government financial settlement, which we argue is completely unfair to many local authorities anyway.
Andrew Gwynne: Because many of the children’s services that my hon. Friend mentioned are statutory, is it not the case that local authorities will have to find the money to provide them? The real pinch will come in the budgets for non-statutory services. There will be huge differentials from local authority to local authority, with some able to provide libraries, parks and other wonderful things, and other local authorities barely able to make their statutory arrangements.
Helen Jones: Indeed. My hon. Friend hits on a point that is important to local government as a whole. Local authorities cannot avoid their statutory responsibilities, so other services are squeezed. In future we may well see richer authorities developing a Pickles park here and there and naming public libraries after this beneficent Secretary of State, but it will be very hard for other authorities.
We have included unemployment in the factors that the Secretary of State must take into account. There are a number of reasons for that. Unemployment increases ill health, it forces more families into poverty, and it is an indicator of the state of business in an area. But high levels of unemployment also increase the demand for local authority services. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, it will increase the demand for council tax benefit, for example. As more people become unemployed, many more rightly receive discounts on other services, such as leisure services. So unemployment increases demand at the same time as locking the authority into a cycle of falling revenue.
The theory behind the Bill is that local authorities can resolve that problem simply by expanding their business rate base and attracting more jobs. This was the theory that the Deputy Prime Minister set out when he explained the Government’s proposals to council leaders. He said:
“The new system will start on a level playing field—where you progress from there is up to you.”
It is a wonderful thing to be a Liberal Democrat. They can conduct politics exactly as if they are writing a “Focus” leaflet. But in the first place, there is no level playing field. We have debated endlessly what we see is the unfairness of the current local government financial settlement, which forms the basis for rate redistribution and penalises the poorest local authorities most. The simplest statistic is the most telling and it bears repeating. The 10% most deprived authorities lose four times as much as the 10% least deprived. The cumulative cuts in per capita spending hit the poorest hardest.
5 pm
I quoted some statistics on Second Reading, but let me quote a few more now. By 2012-13, South Tyneside will have lost £183 per person in spending power and Middlesbrough £156. The national average is £47. The average in the south-east is £31. A few councils actually gain. Basingstoke and Deane gains more than £6 per person. But the Government simply refuse to look at local council resources as a whole, and inexplicably they
18 Jan 2012 : Column 821
refuse to consider the varying council tax yields from local authorities, which is why we want to put that in the Bill.
In the north-east, 85% of properties are in bands A to C. In Surrey, 75% of properties are in band D and above, compared with just 9% in Sunderland, which means that it will raise a lot less from the same level of council tax. For example, South Tyneside has 66% of its properties in band A, and its council tax base per person is 0.2966. In Kensington and Chelsea, fewer than 2% of the properties are in band A, and the council tax base is 0.5524. From a national standard band D tax of £1,439, Kensington and Chelsea would raise £795 per person, South Tyneside just £427.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne picked up the Bexley and Barnsley problem, where Bexley and Barnsley have a similar population, but Bexley raises about £37 million a year more in council tax. As I said, resource equalisation used to try to compensate for that up to 2010-11, but it is now being eroded. Inequalities will be entrenched unless these things are taken into account when the central and local shares are decided.
I come now to the second of the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertions, which was that once the scheme had started, how far a council progressed was up to it. I do not believe it is, and that is why we would like to put the ability to benefit from business rate growth as one of the factors to be taken into account in the Bill. First, such a statement ignores the Government’s responsibility for promoting growth. It has been estimated that 80% of growth is down to Government actions, and only 20% down to what the local council does.
But it also ignores the fact that many areas need infrastructure investment in order to grow. For example, Northumberland, the most beautiful county in England, has a sparse population, a large part of its area is national park, thus restricting the kind of development it can have, and it has a poor infrastructure. It needs national investment in that infrastructure in order to grow. That some local authorities find it easier to grow than others has to be recognised and provided for in any system of distribution.
It is no good the Government simply pointing to their proposals on tax increment financing as a solution. TIFs cannot provide a high-speed rail link to the north-east. They cannot give it a big new road system. Yet transport is the key to unlocking some of the regional inequalities in the economy.
Secondly, we have to acknowledge that for a number of reasons it is much easier to attract new businesses to some areas than to others. Westminster is a prime example. It has a multi-million pound base of national and international company headquarters. It is much easier for them to attract new investment than, say, Consett.
Cambridge has a wonderful high-tech hub centred on its university. Because in business like tends to follow like, attracting more businesses is much easier for such places than it is for local authorities starting from scratch. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) gave a good example in her excellent speech on Second Reading. She suggested that Catford was less likely to develop in the way that Old Street had because Catford was not on the tube map, and that makes things more difficult.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 822
The Government say that this issue will be dealt with by their proposed levy system, but they suggest that the levy will take back only a proportion of disproportionate growth, rather than compensate for it completely, so inequalities will grow, and they will grow even if the top-ups and tariffs are uprated by the retail prices index, as was noted earlier. It is estimated that, even with the uprating, the cash funding growth over four years could be 139.6% in the City of London, but 21.1% in Bury. It could be over 90% in Westminster, but 21.9% in Knowsley. The reason is obvious: a highly geared authority with an existing large tax base, relative to its funding levels, will do better from a business rate retention scheme than an authority with a lower tax base even if the rates grow by the same percentage.
The Government have recognised that in part through their proposed levy, but it will not compensate for all the unfair growth. We believe that it would be fairer and better if the local and central shares were decided on the basis of all the things listed in the amendment, especially an assessment of need.
Bob Blackman: I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s explanation of the amendment. It suggests a whole series of different factors that the Government would have to take into account in deciding how much money a local authority would be given. Who would conduct that assessment? Would it be the Government, some independent body, the Opposition or the whole House? Otherwise, the amendment would simply put into the Secretary of State’s hands the power that she is accusing him of taking already in the Bill.
Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as an independent assessment would be a good idea. However, assessments of local authority need are already done by the Department for Communities and Local Government, so I see no reason why they should not be done in future. As he will hear when I move on in my speech, we have tabled further amendments requiring the report to be laid before the House so that it can be debated.
Amendments 37 and 38 would require the Secretary of State not only to announce central and local shares for each authority for a year, but to give indicative totals for the following year after consultation with local government. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, the Bill is a hugely centralising measure, as the Opposition have said several times. We are seeking to mitigate that by inserting a requirement that the Secretary of State consult local government before making his decision, which seems fair and proportionate and reflects the fact that what we are engaged in is a partnership between central and local government.
Amendment 37 would require the Secretary of State to give an indicative announcement for the subsequent two years to allow local councils to plan their services and make the right preparations, rather than working from year to year. Recently, all parties seemed to have accepted that it is much more sensible for local government finance announcements to cover a number of years. The previous Government introduced three-year settlements, and even this Government announced a two-year settlement, knowing that they expected to change the system.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 823
Amendments 37 and 38 simply attempt to introduce a little more certainty into a very uncertain system. They would not change the power of the Secretary of State to decide the shares and they seek only indicative shares, not shares set in stone. In our view, that would produce better governance in local authorities and help them to plan. As it is, the Secretary of State can change the shares from year to year with little warning for local authorities. As we require local authorities to deliver statutory services, as has been said, we ought to allow them to plan the support that their community needs. Local authorities are constantly lectured by Ministers about the need to manage their resources, yet how can they manage their resources properly without any indication of how their finances will change from year to year?
Amendment 36 is merely a probing amendment. It is designed to tease out an explanation for the wording in the Bill. The Government intend to determine the baseline for non-domestic rate income in an authority by using the total that would be payable if it had “acted diligently”. We would like clarification from the Minister of what is meant by that. We all accept that an authority has to have an efficient collection system and that it should pursue debtors vigorously. However, what happens if an area finds itself in difficulty and its businesses are struggling because of the Government’s policies? Many businesses are in that position now and are finding it difficult to pay their rates. Is an authority expected to pursue such businesses to the limit? Will a council be penalised if it offers more discretionary reliefs? We would like clarity on that. We would also like clarity on the position of councils generally in offering discretionary rate relief. For example, will a council be penalised if it offers rate relief to too many non-profit organisations? Will “too many” be defined somewhere by the Secretary of State? What will be the position on hardship relief, which is also discretionary? Will a council in a difficult situation that tries to help local businesses be penalised because its baseline is set much higher than its actual income?
If I move on to amendment 39, I might be able to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We believe that it is vital that the Secretary of State not only makes an assessment of need before setting the central and local shares for each authority, but publishes that assessment and lays it before the House. That would bring transparency and openness to the system. We want the debate on the local governance finance report in the House to be informed by information on the level of funding for local authorities and the level of need within them.
There are, of course, variations in services because there are variations in circumstances. The main difficulty in dealing with local government finance is the belief held by many people that they should get roughly the same from certain services wherever they are because, as they see it, they are taxpayers and ratepayers. Elderly people who need care in their own homes have a reasonable expectation that they will get a certain standard of care wherever they live. If anybody was told that they could not have that standard of care because businesses had not grown enough in their area, we would soon hear from them. It cannot be right for looked-after children in Middlesbrough to receive a different standard of care from children in another authority.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 824
By requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report, the House would be able to take account of the needs of groups that are not the most vocal, especially children and the elderly. Those groups do not always have access to journalists to argue their case. When they are written about, it is sometimes as if they are a different species. Many such people do not come to our surgeries or write to the local newspaper. After all, a society is judged not by how it treats its most affluent people but by the way in which it treats those most in need and those without a voice. We tabled amendment 39 to ensure that those matters are debated, and we hope that the Government will accept it.
5.15 pm
We tabled amendment 26 to ensure that the level of service provision is taken into account when any amending finance report is placed before the House. We accept that all Governments need amending reports from time to time. Local authorities make representations about the basis of calculation, and sometimes simple errors are discovered—we have all experienced that. Yet we also believe that the system that the Government propose is so complicated that it has an in-built capacity for error. There is a real possibility that those errors could be substantial. London Councils called the proposed new system “fiendishly complex”, and there are good reasons for believing that, in many ways, it is more complicated than the current system. That complexity, coupled with the lack of any consideration of need in the Bill, makes it possible for any amending report to have a real impact on services in a local authority. There will be more volatility in the system, and we believe that the House should have an opportunity, when it receives an amending report, to debate it along with the impact on services. We hope that the information would be put before the House in advance of any debate. The two reports taken together would provide Members with the information they needed to debate the subject sensibly.
I hope that I have explained the thinking behind the amendments. It might be useful if I notify you now, Mr Robertson, that we will seek Divisions on amendments 19 and 39. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Bob Blackman: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones).
The key issue is that local government finance has changed radically and dramatically in the past few years. I congratulate the previous Government on introducing three-year settlements. Having served in local government for some 24 years before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know that the certainty that gave local authorities was extremely welcome. However, the financial arrangements have changed dramatically and will do so again.
I can speak for London authorities. The average London authority has £1 billion in revenue going though its books. It has discretion over probably only a quarter of that because roughly a third goes on housing benefit and 40% goes on education spending—schools and colleges. Now, that 40% for education passes through with the local authority doing virtually nothing but act as an agent of the Government in putting the money into the hands of the schools. Equally with housing benefit, under the proposed change to universal credit,
18 Jan 2012 : Column 825
local authorities will no longer administer that money. However, there will still be the surfeit of discretionary or statutory services that local authorities provide and that need to be funded by them. There will be different streams of income—council tax, other charges that local authorities levy for their services and, importantly, the business rates.
The key issue, which the Opposition have not started to understand or appreciate, is that there is a deliberate and perverse incentive for local authorities to retain deprivation in their areas. If there is deprivation, money flows from Government for that particular purpose.
Bob Blackman: I will give way in a second. I will cite an example from the past few years, when the previous Government decided to change the rules on the amount of money that was given through the formula for local authorities with large concentrations of black and minority ethnic communities. All of a sudden, funding for local authorities throughout the country with large BME populations would have been decimated because it was one of their great income streams. Huge lobbies took place and the Government backed down.
Mr Kevan Jones: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he give a specific example of a council anywhere, irrespective of its political persuasion, that has wanted to turn prosperity away from its area?
Bob Blackman: The key is not that local authorities turn away business or prosperity; I am pointing out that there is an in-built presumption that areas of deprivation follow extra grant from Government. As a direct result, there has been hardly any change in areas of deprivation across the country. Despite the fact that local authorities—of all political persuasions—with areas of deprivation have had huge amounts of money put in over 30 or more years, those areas of deprivation remain the same.
Heidi Alexander: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the implication is that local councillors and local authorities want to maintain deprivation in their areas because they get more money into their coffers. Is he really saying that? In my experience, local authorities and local councillors do the jobs they do because they want to make the lives of the people whom they serve better; they are not interested in getting money into their coffers to serve their own purposes.
Bob Blackman: I am not saying that councillors, council officers or local authorities of any persuasion deliberately decide that they want their areas to be deprived. I am saying that there is a perverse incentive for those areas to be deprived. The Bill changes that presumption. It will be for every local authority where there is deprivation to encourage and promote prosperity and businesses to set up in their areas, so that there is a deliberate move to create economic growth in areas that have been unfairly deprived for far too long.
Graham Jones:
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way on that point. I realise that he is under a lot of pressure given the comments he has just made. Does he accept that what we actually see in
18 Jan 2012 : Column 826
deprived areas is better partnership working between local authorities and businesses? That is certainly the case in Lancashire. Relationships and partnership working between the business sector and councils are not as good in west Lancashire, which is an affluent area. Councils in the east of Lancashire have an exemplary record, because there are deprived areas that need business. The answer in those deprived areas is not grants from the Government, but businesses, which is why those local authorities pursue that avenue.
Bob Blackman: I recognise that partnership working has almost been forced on local authorities. Some embraced it; others were forced.
Graham Jones: I was talking about deprived areas.
Bob Blackman: That did not happen only in deprived areas. I come from somewhere that had areas of great deprivation and which formed local strategic partnerships and other such organisations. However, those areas still have huge deprivation and are among the most deprived parts of London and the country, even though they have had huge amounts of money pumped into them by Governments of all persuasions. The key issue remains: there has been no incentive for economic growth in those areas.
Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a self-defeating point, because he reminds the Committee of local strategic partnerships, which were mandated only in areas of deprivation, and to which the previous Government handed out grants. His point is that the previous Government instructed local authorities in deprived areas to work, through LSPs, with the business community and the private sector, and the supply and education chains.
Bob Blackman: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we have to consider cause and effect. I do not decry what the last Government instructed local authorities to do, but the key point is that it failed. The areas of deprivation then are still the areas of deprivation. This Government are trying to introduce a direct incentive to business growth and economic growth in those areas and right across the country. They are giving local authorities an opportunity to change their view and see the direct incentive to have economic growth. Local authorities will keep the money, which they can then invest in the local services that people need. That does not mean that there is not a need for national investment in local areas when infrastructure improvements and regeneration are needed, but that is very different from creating economic growth.
Mr Betts: There is a danger that we will get locked into a discussion in which we simply assume that the current system has always been in place. Prior to the poll tax local authorities kept all their business rates, yet since 1945 and probably before, the difference and disparities in deprivation have continued to grow. Local economies in different parts of the country have performed very differently, despite local authorities having had the incentive of business rate retention prior to the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman’s argument therefore lacks a little if it is taken beyond the particular complications of the current system.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 827
Bob Blackman: One of the key historical points is that local authorities used to set their own business rates, but then pressure from the House changed that situation for the simple reason that large local authorities saw the opportunity to milk businesses and set exorbitant rates, because business did not have a vote. They could then keep local tax low because they had increased business rates to milk businesses. That was why the national business rates were introduced.
I do not believe that there is an argument for changing the position so that local authorities determine the level of business rates, but there is a very strong argument, which the Government are advancing, for their retaining the money that is collected locally. I believe that the Government are being a bit timid in their approach, because I would like more money to be retained locally, possibly with a slightly less complex formula to make it more transparent. However, I recognise that the Government are taking the first step along the way.
Mr Betts: I intervene briefly on a factual point about what happened prior to the poll tax. Probably one of the reasons why it was brought in was the very large rate increases made by some authorities, such as the one in Sheffield of which I was a member at the time. It is not true that authorities sought to pile all the pain on businesses and keep their other taxes low. Actually, the domestic and non-domestic rates were linked and could be increased only in line with each other. It was not possible to increase one without increasing the other. Domestic ratepayers had a vote, of course, and in many cases were prepared to vote for large increases to protect services.
Bob Blackman: That, of course, is local democracy—if people want to pay higher taxes, they are welcome to do so. I am personally a great advocate of annual elections to local authorities instead of referendums, so that if councillors want to raise local taxes exorbitantly they will be voted out at the ballot box. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Heidi Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has argued that incentives have not previously existed for local authorities to stimulate economic growth in their area. He is a distinguished former leader of a large London local authority, Harrow. Given that those incentives did not exist, did he not do anything in his time as leader to stimulate the local economy in Harrow?
Bob Blackman: I was actually the leader of Brent council, not Harrow, but I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was the chairman of a city challenge company that was part of the London borough of Brent, and for five years we had Government money flowing in. We retained every job that we had and expanded the number of jobs in the area, but by the end of the five years unemployment in the area had increased, not reduced. We had had huge amounts of money but, perversely, unemployment had risen, which meant that we could go back to the Government and say, “We need more money.”
5.30 pm
I will cite another example given to the Communities and Local Government Committee when it considered the matter. When the mayor of Newham was challenged over this cycle of deprivation and investment, he said,
18 Jan 2012 : Column 828
“We’d love to be out of the cycle of deprivation. Just not yet. We need another 25 years of money coming in from the Government to enable Newham to grow and develop.” But despite the huge investment—because of the Olympics and investment from Governments of different persuasions—it remains one of the most deprived areas in London and the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who used to lead Hackney council, will attest to the fact that every year in Hackney the local authority was required to identify areas of deprivation and amplify them so that it could appeal to the Government for yet more funding.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): My hon. Friend is making an important point. Was not one problem that there was almost an incentive for a whole band of an officer class to prove deprivation rather than an incentive to prove and create success? That is how we ended up in this appalling game in London of trying to prove who was the poorest borough.
Bob Blackman: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I return to my central argument, which is that there was a perverse incentive for deprivation to continue. Here, in the Bill, we are taking the first step—it is not perfect by any means—towards saying, “Instead of failure, success will be rewarded.” That is the approach that we seek to take, and it is the right approach to take.
I ask the Minister to consider two final points. First, there is concern about how the scheme will be administered and about its fairness and transparency. It is right that we consider the elements of the scheme and undertake to conduct a review to ensure that it is working appropriately, fairly and transparently, so that not only the House but every local authority in the county can say, “Yes, this system works.”
Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous in giving way. I thank him for that. He referred to success. What does he mean by “success”? Does it mean a local authority that leans back in its chair as a large employer turns up, or a local authority—presumably like the one he ran in Brent—that fights to defend and save jobs? There might not be growth, but an awful lot of work goes in to maintain the position. Which model would he describe as successful?
Bob Blackman: That is exactly my second point. In large parts of the country, particularly in suburbia, there has been a gradual leakage of businesses, as business land—areas designated for business land and investment—have been turned over to housing. There is an incentive for local authorities to do that, because it increases the council tax base and makes it easier for local authorities to get new homes bonus money. It does, however, reduce the business rate income. At the moment, those local authorities suffer no penalty for doing that.
Under the new system, there can still be a leakage of land and employers. I am talking not about a catastrophic failure where one major employer closes down—that would obviously be a huge loss to the local authority—but a gradual process, over a number of years, under which industrial land has been turned over to housing, resulting in a leakage in business rate income. Has the Minister
18 Jan 2012 : Column 829
considered that point? How will it be looked at in the round? I raised the matter on Second Reading but so far we have not had an answer.
Finally, one thing that will be true in this brave new world is that there are risks associated with both the income and expenditure of local authorities. We know that there are huge numbers of demand-led services that every local authority must provide—they have been mentioned already: adult social care, children’s care, and so on—and I recognise that. It is also the case that income levels can sometimes be unpredictable. The more predictable they are, the better. However, there is the pooling approach. I wonder whether the Minister can say what directions will be given if certain local authorities just sit back and say, “We’re alright, Jack. We’re fine. We’ll just keep the money. We’re not going to pool our risk. We’re not going to pool our opportunity. We won’t co-operate with our neighbours.” That is an important point, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised. How will the Government direct local authorities to pool resources, in order to spread risk across a number of authorities?
Mr Betts: I want to speak about set-aside—the principle and the calculations—and, in particular, to draw attention to my amendments 44 and 45. This is the first opportunity that I have had during the Committee stage to talk about the new, simplified system of local government finance that the Government are proposing. [ Interruption. ] Is that a smile from the Minister? We have to have a laugh about the terminology, but it was the terminology that the Secretary of State used when introducing the consultation proposals. He called it a simplified system, but I do not think that anybody, even—
Mr Betts: Perhaps the Minister is going to talk about the new, simplified system.
Robert Neill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I was smiling just to say how pleased we are to see the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government among us.
Mr Betts: It is very nice of the Minister to say so, so I will smile in return. However, even he could not rise now and say that this is a simplified system. It is a new system—it is a radical departure—but it is certainly no less complicated than what went before it; rather, it is complicated in a different way.
Let us talk about transparency. By that I mean the possibility that when a development is put forward in part of a local authority area, it is possible to say to residents, “If that development is granted, these will be the financial consequences.” There is no chance of that happening with this piece of legislation. It will be very difficult for local authority treasurers to explain to their members collectively what the implications of the new legislation are, let alone for a local councillor to tell residents looking at a planning application, “These are the financial consequences of accepting this proposal.”
I have no problem with the principle behind the Bill; indeed, I think there is a shared principle across the Committee. We all realise that there must be more incentives in the system to reward local authorities for
18 Jan 2012 : Column 830
encouraging and promoting growth in their areas. There is no problem with that principle at all. The difficulty, which is reflected in the responses to the consultation on the legislation that we are considering today, is that the authorities with a relatively high business rate base, or the potential to develop one and grow their business rate relatively easily, are obviously all arguing for lower tariffs and top-ups, whereas those that have lower business rate bases and more difficulty in attracting growth to their areas, perhaps including those with the greatest need, are arguing for more top-ups and tariffs.
As I said on Second Reading, the Government have a fundamental problem. Because of the effective removal of Government grant to local authorities from 2013-14, they are now trying to use the business rate to do two potentially contradictory things. They are trying to use the business rate as a mechanism to encourage growth and development, rewarding authorities by allowing them to keep the business rates that are raised from development and growth, but they are also trying to use it as a method of redistribution to help authorities that cannot achieve development and growth easily, and that have problems of deprivation. The Government are trying to do two things with one tax, which is a problem. That is why we have such a complicated arrangement.
If there was a separate element of Government grant that could be used for redistribution and if authorities were then allowed to keep their business rates, separately—as was the case with the old system, which we have just discussed with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—that would be relatively easy. There would be a business rate that was an incentive and a Government grant for redistribution. The fact is that we do not have the second of those; complications thus arise.
Some of us can remember the GREAs—the grant related expenditure assessments—the SSAs or standard spending assessments and other complicated arrangements like regression analysis that used to be done on all these matters. On every consultation, local authorities in various parts of the country would have different views about the allocation of resources and the finance system—of course they did, and the same applies on this occasion. What the Secretary of State and this Government have managed to do this time, however, is to unite the whole of local government on one fundamental issue—a feat that I do not think has been achieved before by any Government or any Secretary of State in relation to local authority finance.
Every local authority association and every local authority in the country has united against the principle of set-aside. They all view this as central Government putting their hands into the local authority pot and taking money out of it for themselves. When we used to debate local government finance, as we still do, most people rightly assumed that it was a debate about finance for local government. Now the debate is going to be about finance from local government, as local government will be contributing to national Government and the national Treasury. We will no longer talk about a business rate that is collected locally and distributed nationally, but a business rate that is collected locally and spent nationally. That does not strike me as a terribly localist move.
The Government have created a fundamental problem for themselves with set-aside. One can see the Secretary of State sat in his office, snaffling local government
18 Jan 2012 : Column 831
resources and getting into the Chancellor’s good books by passing those resources over and saying, “Look, I’ve done it again, Chancellor. I’m the good guy in all this; I’m giving you lots more money to spend.” Perhaps it is more like good cop, bad cop. We generally see the Secretary of State coming along to join the Minister for these debates, with the Secretary of State doing the broad sweep and the Minister knowing the detail. Perhaps they will go along to the Local Government Association in future when the pantomime season is in bloom. The Minister will go along as the wicked uncle, describing how much the set-aside is going to be worth in that year and how much is going to be taken away, while the Secretary of State will come along as the fairy godmother to say, “Look at all the goodies I’m going to give you back when I spend the set-aside. The problem is that when I wave my magic wand, what you get might not be what you thought you were going to get, because the money is going to be spent on things for which you would previously have had a grant.” This is the delusion being created.
The reaction on the part of local government is obvious. It says, “You are asking us to accept 28% cuts to Government funding over a four-year period and to cut our fundamental services.” Despite what the Minister said to the Select Committee today, there is not a local authority in the country that is not having to cut social services and social care. That is what is happening. At the same time as local authorities are being asked to make profound cuts to front-line services—it is happening to authorities of all persuasions up and down the country—the Government are saying, “By the way, we are now going to take away from local government resources that could be spent on local services, by means of the set-aside.”
All this explains why I tabled the amendments. Amendment 44, for example, is an attempt to make the point that something must be wrong when a Government say that they are going to take the set-aside away—irrespective of the real needs of local authorities, which they are clearly unable to meet in the current financial situation.
Graham Jones: On the same argument, would my hon. Friend add to that the housing benefit and council tax cuts, which are on top of the 28% and have a disproportionate effect on deprived areas? Does this not mean that we are talking about cuts of 28% plus—and they are growing rapidly?
Mr Betts:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at the totality of the effects of the cuts on local authority budgets. Before the Secretary of State takes this set-aside from local authorities, he should look at what is happening to social care and with council tax increases, which authorities will have to impose after the freeze or deferment comes to an end. He should look at what is happening to concessionary travel for young people, which gives them their independence and mobility, and to care for the elderly and to road safety schemes, which cannot now go ahead. He should look at what is happening to proper protection for private sector tenants from rogue landlords, which authorities will probably not be able to fund, or at the diminishing possibility of providing weekly bin collections
18 Jan 2012 : Column 832
across the country—something close to the Secretary of State’s heart. Before looking at set-aside, surely the Secretary of State ought to consider how far local authorities have been able to meet such needs.
5.45 pm
Annette Brooke: As a genuine point of discussion, let us imagine a situation in which set-aside is used for reasons that everyone could sign up to, and directed to local government services—an ideal world, I admit. Despite our desire to march towards localism, would not holding back on full localisation in the first few years be a prudent approach that would reduce uncertainty?
Mr Betts: I am not sure, because how the set-aside ends up being used is fundamental. Will it simply go to the Treasury, and we never see it again? Alternatively, will Department for Communities and Local Government or other Ministers say, “We used to fund certain council services, and now we will use set-aside for that.” It will save central Government money. A classic example is the requirement on local authorities to fund 10% of the cost of council tax benefits in the first year—that will almost certainly rise if unemployment rises. What will stop Ministers saying in future, “We have already established 10%, so next year it will be 20%, 30% or 40%”? That will bring no benefit in council services or to local taxpayers or councils; it is just a saving to the Treasury. From a Minister’s point of view, however, it is a neat way of linking two parts of the Bill together.
Graham Jones: Another Treasury or DCLG idea could be to use the set-aside to pay for wasteful weekly bin collections.
Mr Betts: It could be; we are not sure where that funding is coming from. In future, a whole variety of things, such as police grant, could be paid for out of set-aside. Things that Government would have paid for through another source could be paid for out of set-aside, saving the Treasury money. We do not know, because the Bill does not contain the detail. All that we can say is that there will be no power at local level, or among local government collectively, to decide such things. Will there be any power in the Chamber to decide such things, or will it all be up to Ministers?
Mr Ward: The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. We discussed earlier the uncertainty around incentivisation—we do not know what that will lead to—but we can completely remove the uncertainty around the levy account and the safety nets in the central share if the Minister makes a clear statement about what they will be used for.
Mr Betts: We could, but I am not sure that Ministers will be able to give such an assurance. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is his Government who are taking these measures, so he may have more influence over Ministers than those of us on the Opposition Benches do.
Mr Watts: Is it not possible for a future Government to say, “We will use that set-aside money to reduce council tax”? If so, that money would disappear from local authorities’ spending level, and overall they would have less money to spend on vital services.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 833
Mr Betts: Absolutely. We just do not know. All the power and the decision making are going to Ministers in a completely opaque way. We have a right to ask certain questions.
The Government initially introduced the principle because the comprehensive spending review, in placing limits on local government spending as a whole, created a problem for them. It was and is quite possible, with the rise in business rate linked to inflation, for the business rate and council tax collection after 2013-14 to amount to more than the spending control totals. The Government had to find a way of dealing with that problem, but there is no reason why it need continue after the current comprehensive spending review round. In future, the Government could make an assessment of the likely increases in business rates on the basis of their new system and accommodate that within the spending control totals, thus removing the need for set-aside altogether.
I understand the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into in the current spending round, but why continue the principle after that? In amendment 45, I have tried at least to raise the possibility of not allowing the set-aside to become an ongoing, potentially increasing amount of money that is decided by Ministers for ever and a day.
Heidi Alexander: London Councils describes the existence of the central share beyond the current comprehensive spending review period as
“a cynical attempt by the Government to limit the extent to which local government can benefit financially from the growth it will drive through its economic development activity and engagement with the business community.”
Does my hon. Friend consider that to be a fair assessment of what the Government are doing?
Mr Betts: What the Government are doing is twofold, because two problems are being exacerbated by the set-aside. By limiting the amount of money in the local government system, they are reducing not only the incentives for councils but their own ability to do some redistribution. If they did not use the set-aside and allowed more money to remain in the local government system, they might be able to resolve the conflict caused by their attempt to do two things with one tax. The less tax that they have in the system and the more restrictions they impose, the more that conflict will come into play—the conflict between the retention of money to encourage investment and more growth, and the need for redistribution and the mechanism enabling it to take place.
George Hollingbery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being extremely generous with his time.
A number of Members have pointed out, both today and on Second Reading, that there is a relatively limited amount that local government can do to encourage business growth. It occurs to me, from a more philosophical viewpoint, that economic growth can be a public good, and that Government investment elsewhere in the economy can allow that growth to go ahead. Is it therefore entirely unreasonable for central Government to keep some of that business rate growth?
18 Jan 2012 : Column 834
Mr Betts: I think it would be considered so by a localist who wants it to be possible for money that is raised at local level to be spent at local level. The complicating factor is that there must still be some element of redistribution. In the past that would have been dealt with by means of a Government grant, but it is now being dealt with through business rates. If central Government take away any element of that business rate growth, by definition they are reducing the incentives to encourage development and reducing the amount of money available for redistribution, thus worsening the problems that they are creating for themselves.
Let me issue a challenge to the Minister. Will there be any limits to, or criteria for, the determination of set-aside in a future comprehensive spending review, or will the Chancellor simply come up with a figure? Will business rates grow according to the level of the RPI, and will the difference between them constitute the set-aside? Will no more thought be given to it than that? Will there be any criteria on the basis of which the Government may review the system annually, or will the Secretary of State simply say, “I am not giving enough to the Chancellor this year, so we will have to amend the set-aside arrangements”?
I return to the question asked the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Will there be any criteria governing what the money can be used for? Will it be possible for it simply to go to the Treasury, or will there be some understanding that it will be spent on local initiatives? Will there be some understanding that if it is transferred back to councils to do certain things, they will be given power to do them? It may well be that there are things to be done by local government in the future that are not being done now. We have seen no evidence that any of that will happen.
Will we be given an assurance that the set-aside will not mean a further dispensation of largesse from the Secretary of State and the Minister in the shape of more specific and ring-fenced grants? The Government have almost completely abandoned ring-fenced grants, and I support that as a principle. May we have an assurance that the set-aside will not be used as a mechanism enabling the Secretary of State to say, “Look what I am giving you: more ring-fenced grants and more specific grants”—thus providing a photo-opportunity for a Minister to draw attention to what good things are being done with them by every council in the country?
May we also have some assurances that the Local Government Association and local government in general will be properly consulted on this each year? They should be consulted about the criteria, the proposals and the arrangements by which set-aside will be used and the amounts will be determined. Will there be transparency about where set-aside funding comes from and how it is spent across the country and which local authorities will benefit?
Finally, will we have assurances that this will not be simply a Government matter? This is the House of Commons of a sovereign Parliament. The annual decisions about set-aside and how it will be spent must be subject to discussion, debate and a vote in this House. We must have assurances that the ultimate power will remain with Members of Parliament, not Ministers.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 835
Mr Kevan Jones: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not only a distinguished Chair of the Select Committee, but had a long and distinguished career in local government.
Today’s debate reminds me of the Second Reading debate in that, as my hon. Friend said, Members on the Government Benches are trying to have their cake and eat it. They want the nirvana of councils keeping all the business rates while also recognising that there should be some redistribution. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made some strange comments about perverse incentives for councils to remain poor. I am yet to meet such a council, but he tried to get his colleagues to help him come up with an example. Councils in my area work very hard to attract business and prosperity, as they want to make their areas not only pleasant places to live in but economically active. The Government talk about localism a lot, but this Bill centralises more powers in the hands of the Secretary of State than any other local government reform of recent years.
On fairness, if we are to have a system whereby the contribution from national Government to local government is wiped out and we rely on business rates to provide the gap in funding, we must address the fact that different parts of Britain have different needs. Amendment 19 is important as it would ensure that that is reflected in the system.
From listening to some Members on the Government Benches, people would think some parts of the north are responsible for their own unemployment. Those Members fail to remember what happened in the late 1980s, when huge swathes of industry in the north-east were wiped out. Many areas are still recovering from that today.
There are also issues to do with population movement, which can lead to extra demands on local councils such as Durham county, where there is a large elderly population and many people who worked in heavy industry. Health needs in such areas are inevitably greater. Moreover, as County Durham is quite a rural community, even those in work often cannot move from place to place as easily as people in large cities.
I give credit to councils of all political persuasions throughout the country that have tried to encourage business into their areas. I am not convinced that keeping a small slice of the business rate is going to have a major impact, however. We should consider what the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have done in the north-east in doing away with One North East. It was very effective at working with local councils and other partners to get inward investment and business growth. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is not in his place at the moment, but he admitted that it is much easier to get business growth in his constituency than it is in mine or in those of many other hon. Members from the north of England.
6 pm
Graham Jones:
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point that has not been mentioned—the role of local enterprise partnerships. Lancashire has had a terrible problem with LEPs, which are skewing investment in certain areas and not interested in other areas—those who have been involved have said as much. The role that LEPs
18 Jan 2012 : Column 836
play across these district areas is not promoting business in certain parts, and that is having an adverse consequence. How can business be promoted and how can success be obtained in those conditions? Again, the Government are accountable for this.
Mr Kevan Jones: Again, that is part of the contradiction in the Government’s thinking and policy. As we have seen, LEPs are toothless tigers. They are not going to produce much growth or investment, as I know from the ones in the north-east. Certain people in the business community are becoming increasingly cynical and feel that LEPs are just going to be talking shops, rather than organisations that will do things to regenerate areas or attract growth.
Amendment 19 refers to “need” and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, it sets out the important issues that we need to take into consideration. I know from my north-east constituency that unemployment is a very important issue to take into account. The level of unemployment stands at 11.7% in the north-east of England, which is 3.5% above the national average. As my hon. Friend said, unemployment means that additional services are required and it puts further strains on local councils, which is why it is important to take it into account.
This debate is also about where we start from, which is why it is important to take the council tax base level into account. In the north-east, 50% of properties are in the lowest band, band A, whereas the corresponding figure for Surrey is just 2%, with 75% of properties there being in band D and above. It is very difficult for councils in the north-east to raise extra finance outside the business rate, so we are not starting on a level playing field. Mention has been made of South Tyneside, where 66% of properties are in band A, and that must be compared with the figure for Kensington and Chelsea of less than 2%.
Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a superb point about the ability of local authorities to raise income from council tax. Is not a major issue for local authorities such as his and mine the fact that the formula grant for 2013-14 will lock in those very real cuts that such local authorities will have had to face from 2011-12 onwards?
Mr Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because I was about to discuss the baseline, as it has been set at 2011-12 levels. Durham county council had a grant reduction last year of some £10.9 million, which represents about a 4% loss, and that is now going to be set in stone for the next 10 years. Let us compare that with the situation in Wokingham, in Berkshire, whose authority actually had an increase in its grant of 0.2% and each person living there got an extra 30p in grant.
As I said on Second Reading, it is quite clear—I take my hat off to the Conservatives and do not know why the Liberal Democrats are turning a blind eye to this—that the Conservatives are looking after their own. They used to accuse the Labour party of doing so, but the Secretary of State makes no bones about the fact that he will help the people who voted for him. Does he give a stuff about the north-east and other places? No, I do not think he does.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 837
It is important that we consider need because, as I said and as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said earlier, with unemployment, a more elderly population and deprivation, people use council services more in such areas. Some 31% of the people living in County Durham, for example, live in the top 20% of the most deprived areas in Britain and 21.8% of children in the county live in homes that are classed as in poverty. In Wokingham, that figure is under 7%. The demand for local services in Durham is obviously a lot higher. Likewise, eight people go for every job in County Durham. A good example is looked-after children: in Wokingham, there are 22 per 10,000 children whereas in Middlesbrough, in the north-east, there are 104 per 10,000.
It is not just about the numbers but about the types of services. Elderly care and services for looked-after children are very expensive to provide. There is no cheap way of looking after elderly people or vulnerable children in care, so that puts added pressure on those councils. That must be taken into account in any assessment, as otherwise we will do exactly what my hon. Friend said that we would. We will start from the premise that this Government like to put out, which is that irrespective of where a local government organisation is in this country, there is a level playing field. There is not. Any system must take need into account and that is why amendment 19 is important and why I do not understand the Government's not being in favour of it.
Another issue that we heard about on Second Reading and that we have heard about again tonight is the idea that by retaining a certain percentage of the business rate councils will be able to incentivise and develop business. That might well be the case in some areas, but councils must cater for other factors, one of which is location. My hon. Friend mentioned Consett. Consett has actually done very well in attracting businesses, but it is a damn sight harder attracting jobs there than it is in parts of the south-east and London.
Graham Stringer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority cannot possibly be incentivised to do more—most of them want to do quite a lot—by reducing the overall level of resources? The contention that a little incentive on one hand and a huge loss of grant on the other will mean that they work harder is extraordinary.
Mr Jones: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is a double whammy for local authorities, really, as even if they could keep some of the money and use it for incentivisation, the huge proposed cut through the 10% reduction in council tax benefit that they will have to administer will fall disproportionately on areas with large numbers of unemployed people and the elderly. Absorbing that will be very difficult for a lot of councils, certainly in the hard economic times we are in at the moment. As unemployment goes up, the pressures on the councils will increase, too.
Mr Watts: Is it not the case that if a deprived local authority gets less grant, one way or the other, it will still have to provide the key services that my hon. Friend refers to, which will mean that it will have less money for economic development initiatives in its areas? That will go counter to the Government’s stated intention for this proposal.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 838
Mr Jones: Indeed. When local businesses in my constituency want to expand, the first thing they will ask is, “Where are the grants?”, but there are none any more because One North East has gone and the amount that the council or anyone else has to give to help is usually small. There is a perception that this change will make a real difference to most areas, but it will not; the effect will be marginal at most. My hon. Friend is also right that councils cannot just stop providing elderly care and other services. In the present round of cuts, the problem is trying to explain to people what is statutory and what is not. This Government know exactly what they are doing—[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) chuckles, but what I mean is that they know exactly what they are doing politically on this issue.
Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend was going a bit too far.
Mr Jones: A bit far, perhaps. The Government know exactly what they are doing. As I said on Second Reading, their strategy is quite clear: they want to give freedoms to local councils, push decision making down as far as possible and then, when they have cut grants, as they will with council tax benefit and others, they will say to local people, “Well, it’s your local council that has to decide how and where the cuts come.” The Government will stand back and say, “We’re sorry, but it’s nothing to do with us.” That is the clever side of it. Part of their strategy is about making sure that they save money and cut it out of the system but that local councils, rather than themselves, get the blame for implementing the cuts.
Andrew Gwynne: Does my hon. Friend agree that an unforeseen consequence of the Bill could be that local authorities become overly dependent on one type of economic development—the type they can generate the most from in business rates? In an area such as mine, that would mean an overdependence on retail.
Mr Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In terms of economic development, local authorities might go for what will generate income rather than what will create the right mixture. Although retail shopping and warehousing produce business rates, they do not produce large numbers of local jobs, but there might be a growth in those types of business in some areas.
We should not be fooled into believing that the Government do not know what they are doing, because they do know. They are passing legislation down to local government and making sure that those in central Government do not get the blame. We need to be saying that these cuts have been implemented because of the Government—including the Liberal Democrats. It amazes me that Liberal Democrats in Durham can complain about the closure of leisure services or a leisure centre while stepping back and saying, “It’s nothing to do with us,” even though their representatives on the Front Bench in government and others are going through the Lobby to vote for such measures, as they will tonight. Without amendment 19, and without some assessment of need in the Bill, I have little faith that the Government will not do what they have a track record of doing: rewarding the areas that vote for them.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 839
Robert Neill: The debate on these amendments has been lengthy and wide-ranging, and I shall do my best to do justice to the points raised. Some of them were specific, technical and helpful, whereas others seemed to seek to reopen elements of the Second Reading debate and, perhaps, the debate on the finance settlement. I am afraid that sometimes they were rather wide of the mark. In general, I regret to say that I shall ask the Committee to reject all these amendments if they are not withdrawn because they seem to miss some fundamental points. First, the system already recognises a balancing of need and resources: that happens now and will continue to happen. Secondly, if we are to move away from a system of excessive dependency by local government on central Government grant in order to reduce reliance on central Government grant and create incentives for growth at a local and national level, we have to move away from the current, highly centralised system. Nothing has been advanced to suggest that the current system produces the transparency—
Mr Watts: Will the Minister give way?
Robert Neill: The hon. Gentleman has been very vocal, so I shall make a little progress and perhaps give way in due course. Serious points were raised in debate, and I will do my best to respond to them, if I may.
6.15 pm
I accept some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) about the objective of, and a desire for, greater localisation, but that has not happened under the current system. Sadly, despite the fact that some Members would deny it, there is force to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others that perverse incentives in the current system sometimes lead to perverse behaviour, with more emphasis placed on ticking the boxes that can demonstrate need than harnessing the undoubted energies that local government has—[Interruption]—and in which I have faith to drive forward economic growth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is, as usual, very vocal from a sedentary position, which is his more usual form of contribution to debate.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Mr Jones, please stop shouting across the Chamber. Either try and intervene or please be quiet.
Robert Neill: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he might like to reflect on this. He has been very vocal about the Second Reading debate. I remind him of this passage, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following this very point, said:
“Economic success is not a southern phenomenon”,
and the hon. Gentleman intervened and said:
“Yes, it is.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 81.]
Would he like to explain that?
Mr Jones:
The Minister does not quite understand. It is for me to ask him questions in interventions, not the other way round. He said that there were perverse
18 Jan 2012 : Column 840
incentives in local government. Can he name one council where that is the case? The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) could not.
Robert Neill: My hon. Friend specifically gave the example of his own council. The point that the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members do not get is that the Bill is not just about dealing with the short-term issues of one-year funding settlements. It is about creating a system that certainly has an element of equalisation in it, because as we all know, all local government finance systems going back many years have always had a degree of equalisation. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the Chairman of the Select Committee—
Graham Jones: Will the Minister give way?
Robert Neill: I will make a little progress before I give way again.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East took us a little way down memory lane with GREAs and SSAs. There has always been an element of equalisation and that will continue. The rather complicated and highly prescriptive process that is built into the amendments does not improve on what is set out in the Bill. Indeed, it would undermine some of the key objectives of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and her hon. Friends are seeking to place what we regard as an unnecessary requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake multiple and frequent assessments of needs. That undermines the key objective of long-term certainty which provides the incentive and also stability in a local authority’s funding. As it is, the needs and resources elements are taken into account at the setting of the baseline. The baseline is set and then it runs forward. They are taken into account. Some people say, “Go back to a previous year on the baseline”, even though that would involve more out-of-date data and formulae. Many would say that that was not fair.
Robert Neill: Let me finish the point and hon. Members may find that their intervention falls into place better.
Local authorities’ baseline funding levels are set on the basis of the 2012-13 formula grant. The calculation of the tariffs and the top-ups will then ensure that the funding at the outset of the scheme is in line with that assessment of relative need and resource. That is in our system. After that, the baseline levels, tariffs and top-up funding remain fixed and the budgets grow in line with the incentive.
If the system is reset too frequently, that undermines the incentive that we wish to achieve, and in particular it severely diminishes the value of the important introduction in the Bill of tax increment financing. For tax increment financing, which the local government world has wanted for a long time and which the Lyons review advocated introducing, it is important to have a reasonable degree of certainty about the income stream against which we can securitise. That is undermined if interference and change in the system are too frequent.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) about uprating in line with the RPI, and I accept
18 Jan 2012 : Column 841
that there has to be a degree of trade-off in this. It means that top-up local authorities will have a degree of assurance throughout the period of the reset that their income levels will grow by inflation. That is particularly important in the case of two-tier areas, where the county councils responsible for a large number of personal services will be predominantly top-up authorities. Much the same will apply to other precepting authorities, such as the combined and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities. I accept that arguments were made on either side, but, as is always the case, a balance has to be achieved, as I know my hon. Friend will recognise.
Mr Watts: I accept that revaluation too often can cause a problem, but does the Minister agree that the valuation process has not been changed for many years and the longer the period without a revaluation, the more likely it is that no Government will do it because it will make such a difference and there will be winners and losers? There has to be some sort of judgment between how long is too short and how long is too long for a review, and is not 10 years too long?
Robert Neill: I do not think that 10 years is too long. We think that it gives a sensible balance. But it is a good reason not to put such matters in primary legislation and to say instead that they should be developed through regulations, which, as we know, will be subject to scrutiny by the House. I should have thought that that meets the hon. Gentleman’s point. An assessment is built into the system, which is then taken forward. That is why the updating report is there.
A second point concerns the question of the central share and the set-aside. I am sure that when hon. Members reflect upon this they will realise that we have always made it clear that over time, particularly when we have put the public finances back on track, we would hope to increase the proportion of business rates to the part of the rates retention scheme. But it would be imprudent to suppose—Opposition Members would not have done so when they were in government—that there might never be an occasion when the central share might need to be maintained, or on occasion, heaven forbid, increased. I believe that the economic policies of the Government will mean that it is not necessary, but legislation has to cater for various eventualities. As I say, it is our aspiration that that should increase, but equally, as hon. Members will know, the Government have, and will always have, an interest in the totality of public spending. To expect the Government to have no control over local government finance, when it is such a significant percentage of public expenditure, would be unrealistic. That is not the case under the current scheme, and it would not be realistic in future. In that regard, some of the amendments would constrain the Government unrealistically, and I hope hon. Members will understand why.
Mark Field:
I accept that the straitened financial times make things very difficult, but do I take from what my hon. Friend has said that there is a longer-term aspiration, if not necessarily a fully fledged commitment at this stage, that we should look to allow local authorities to raise the council tax in future to ensure that there is a little more of a balance; that some more of the money that they are expending comes from local residents? I accept that this is not a short-term measure given the
18 Jan 2012 : Column 842
financial constraints that we are under, and I understand why the Government have tried to provide such incentives to freeze the council tax at the moment, but in the longer term, the rebalancing to which he refers should ensure that local government has other full sources of income possibly to rely upon.
Robert Neill: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He refers to the council tax, which is a separate part of the income stream from the business rates. Of course, we have ourselves removed capping and substituted the ability, even under current circumstances, for a local authority to go to its voters by way of a referendum, which is a move in the direction of giving greater flexibility. It is the authority’s local call. In relation to the business rates element of its income, I restate that it is our desire to ensure that there is flexibility for the future. This is not intended to be a system that lasts for two or three years. I am in favour of multiple-year funding settlements, which I think we all agree on, but our system is intended to last for a much longer period. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.
Mr Betts: I thank the Minister for the slight reassurances about his thinking on the future of the set-aside, but will he reflect on the fact that many countries manage a different relationship between central and local government with more flexibility for local government? Can he think of any other advanced western democracy where local government taxes are used by central Government for their own purposes, rather than for those of local authorities?
Robert Neill: It is perfectly fair to observe that the local government finance system in this country is highly centralised, and many of us have often said that we want to make it less so. The Bill will do precisely that. I am reminded of the old phrase, “Half a loaf is better than none.” As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Lyons inquiry into local government, which the previous Government established, found that the system was too centralised, but Opposition Members conveniently ignored that when in government. We are doing something about it, so his ambition is being met at least in part.
I will say something about how this will operate. The central and local shares will have to be set out in the annual local government finance report. We will consult local government on the draft report, as we currently do, which will then be laid before the House and subject to the rigour of parliamentary scrutiny. A statutory consultation, as proposed in amendment 38, is unnecessary, as that will happen as a matter of course. We do not envisage that the shares, once they have been set at the outset, will be changed from year to year. That gives certainty that the uprating for the top-ups and tariffs will be protected until we come to a reset. We have already debated what will be the most appropriate period before a reset. That is why amendment 37 does not give any greater clarity.
The Government’s intention is that the money that comes into the central share will be returned in its entirety to local government, as currently required by the Finance Act 1988. We will do so by funding local government by grant that is outside what is currently formula grant and will now be in the rates retention scheme. There are plenty of examples of localised grants
18 Jan 2012 : Column 843
that are made in that way—for example those relating to neighbourhood policing and homelessness grants. The suggestion, from the authors of the current system, that that is centralising should win the award for chutzpah of the year so far, although it is only 18 January.
These changes are an important step towards localisation. There is a great deal of detail and we have undertaken to consult on the regulations, and I assure hon. Members that they will be subject to the scrutiny procedures of the House. As I said earlier, we have set up a working group at official level to talk through the details with the local government sector.
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who is no longer in his place but, for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that amendment 46 is necessary to achieve a degree of fairness in the system. It would have a perverse effect, as it would prevent any of the central share money from being used to fund transitional protection arrangements under the transitional rate relief scheme. Schedule 1, as drafted, permits that, which means that transitional payments under the rate relief scheme would not fall on local government. Central Government would be in a position to pick up the cost if disparities arose. Under the amendments, the costs would have to fall on local government, which is not his intention. I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment before we come to vote.
I will turn briefly to the two Government amendments in the group. They relate to seriously technical parts of the schedule. I apologise for that, but they are important. First, they increase the amount that can be debited from the main rating account to include payments received in respect of central list contributions and payments that are made as contributions in aid. Those payments are made directly to the Secretary of State.
6.30 pm
The central list relates essentially to occupiers of network property. That is entered not on any individual local authority’s rating list, but on the central rating list. Contributions in aid relate to certain property that is exempt from rating and is occupied by central Government, such as that for visiting forces, international headquarters and so on. We want to ensure that that is not counted in a way that is to the detriment of local government in determining the appropriate shares. By allowing those sums to be included, the amendments will reduce the central share and allow local government to keep more of the local rates that they raise. They are technical amendments, but they work to the advantage of the local authority sector as a whole.
Secondly, the amendments will ensure that central Government cannot debit any sums that need to be repaid in respect of an earlier year. It sometimes happens that in the course of a year, authorities are expected to pay their central share contribution on the basis of an estimate made at the start of the year. That happens to some degree now in the calculation of business rate payments and there is a reconciliation at the end of the year. The amendments will simply ensure that reconciliation works in a way that allows payments to be made back to local authorities. Again, that will ensure that local authorities keep a bigger share of the local rates that
18 Jan 2012 : Column 844
they collect. These are both benign amendments that, in a modest way, strengthen the position of local authorities even further. I accept that this is a marginal part of the system, but it is none the less important to get it right.
I urge Members to support the two Government amendments and hope that they will reject the amendments of Opposition Members if they are pressed to a vote.
Amendments made: 1, page 11, line 31, after ‘exceed’ insert ‘—(a)’.
Amendment 2, page 11, line 32, leave out ‘(1)(c)’ and insert
(b) the total amount debited for the year under sub-paragraph (2)(a)’.—(Robert Neill.)
Amendment proposed: 19, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
(c) in determining the central share and the local share for any relevant authority, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(i) the level of need in that authority,
(ii) the likely capacity of the authority to benefit from business rate growth, and
(iii) the council tax base of the authority.
Any assessment of the level of need in the authority shall include—
(iv) the ranking of the local authority in the Index of Multiple Deprivation,
(v) the level of unemployment within the authority’s area,
(vi) the proportion of adults with a limiting long-term illness within the authority’s area,
(vii) the number of adults in receipt of social care within the authority’s area,
(viii) the number of looked-after children within the authority, and
(ix) the level of child poverty within the authority’s area.’.—(Helen Jones.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
Ayes 232, Noes 318.
[6.32 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Mr Wayne
De Piero, Gloria
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Eagle, Ms Angela
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Lyn Brown and
Graham Jones
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Mensch, Louise
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Jeremy Wright and
Mark Hunter
Question accordingly negatived.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 845
18 Jan 2012 : Column 846
18 Jan 2012 : Column 847
18 Jan 2012 : Column 848
Amendment proposed: 39, page 15, line 17, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 19 and insert
‘prepare and publish an assessment of the level of need in each local authority, as defined in paragraph 4(c) above. The Secretary of State must—
(a) lay the report containing the assessment before the House at least 14 sitting days in advance of the publication of the Local Government Finance Report, and
(b) notify such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State thinks fit of the publication of the report on need and the detail of the basis of calculation in the Local Government Finance Report.’.—(Helen Jones .)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
Ayes 228, Noes 318.
[6.49 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Mr Wayne
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Eagle, Ms Angela
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Lyn Brown and
Graham Jones
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Mensch, Louise
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Mr Shailesh Vara
Question accordingly negatived.
18 Jan 2012 : Column 849
18 Jan 2012 : Column 850
18 Jan 2012 : Column 851
18 Jan 2012 : Column 852
7.3 pm
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again (Standing Order No. 9( 3 )).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair .
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow .
18 Jan 2012 : Column 853
Business without Debate
delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118( 6 )),
That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 2 November, be approved.—(Greg Hands .)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118( 6 )),
That the draft Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Dissolution) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.—(Greg Hands .)
Business of the House (23 january)
That at the sitting on Monday 23 January paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition day.—(Greg Hands .)