I shall give my hon. Friend two possible answers to his question, and I shall leave him to decide which is correct. The first possibility is that the Secretary of State and the Ministers responsible for this Bill genuinely believe that areas such as mine and that of my hon. Friend have the capacity create to economic growth—a bit like turning on a tap—and to widen the tax base and increase the revenue that they get through the business rates. They might also think that we are not doing enough to attract new investment into our areas. My hon. Friend and I know that that is not the case, however.
The alternative answer was put forward in very explicit terms by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) earlier. It is that these measures are a crude way of rewarding those areas that send Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs to this House and penalising those that do not. To put it even more crudely than my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham did—although I am not entirely sure that that is possible—I think that the Government are rewarding their friends and penalising their enemies.
I am not standing here as the representative of the Knowsley constituency to cry crocodile tears or to wave around the levels of deprivation that exist there. Those are facts. This is not a question of sentiment or of special pleading. The reality is that, as a result of historical events, some of which took place at least 20 years ago, we have problems and, as a result, we have needs. Unless the Bill can satisfy me and the people of Knowsley that those needs will be taken into account when the grant formula is determined, the more bleak interpretation that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton drew out of me a moment ago will be the inescapable conclusion.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, either here or in the House of Lords, later in the proceedings. They must not fall back on the argument that we heard earlier, when they said, ““Don't worry, we'll take all this into account in the regulations. It will all become clear then.”” The risks involved are so great for my constituents and for the local authority in Knowsley that it is impossible for me to accept those assurances. I do not believe that they have been given dishonestly. I accept that they have been given in good faith, but I have been around long enough to know that promises made in the heat of the moment in Committee in response to concerns about specific provisions have a habit of getting lost in the ether later. We need clarity, but we need it now. Local authorities are expected to plan on a long-term basis to meet their needs and determine their expenditure on services. Without that clarity, we will find ourselves in a position, some years down the line, in which the worst possible interpretation that we can put on the Bill will be the nightmare reality.
Local Government Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
George Howarth
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 January 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Local Government Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
539 c240-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:27:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803167
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803167
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803167