Local Government Finance (England)

Compliments parish councils in her constituency that worked hard to help flood victims during recent storms.

Critiques the settlement as regressive, pointing out that Newham has lost 50% of its grant funding despite high child poverty rates, questioning if this is a fair distribution compared to more affluent areas.

Raises concerns about the disadvantage faced by councils in regions with fewer self-funders and smaller council tax bases, such as Durham County Council, compared to wealthier areas like Surrey.

Supports his local authority seeing a 6.6% increase in core spending power due to the settlement's focus on more deprived regions, increasing funding for top quartile of deprivation areas.

Expresses concern over planned cuts and the fair funding review impacting her local authority negatively by £8 million next year on top of previous cuts, highlighting adverse effects on social care recipients.

Inquires about factoring sparsity and rurality into future funding formulas to account for the higher costs in delivering services across large distances in rural areas.

Proposes an English devolution Bill as a way to provide councils with fiscal powers necessary to address community needs sustainably.

The Labour MP challenged the Secretary of State's figures on council taxes, citing Institute for Fiscal Studies data showing a 20% fall in real terms since 2010. He also questioned the direction of travel in social care funding from high-need to lower-need areas.

Mr Baker highlighted the additional pressures faced by constituencies on the fringes of major cities and asked about ensuring these areas are equipped to deal with extra demands.

He raised concerns over funding cuts in Birmingham, including closures of children's centres and youth centres. He questioned the distribution of funds based on social care needs.

Mr Sambrook argued that the problem in Birmingham is poor management by Labour councillors, citing examples of budget mismanagement and overspending.

Gwynne acknowledged the dedication of council staff and councillors despite ongoing budget cuts. He criticised the delay in delivering the financial settlement and the reduction in funding for local government since 2010, noting that Labour-run authorities have seen greater reductions than Tory-run ones. Gwynne emphasised that residents continue to pay more each year while services are being cut.

Jones highlighted the pressures on northern councils due to social care and looked-after children issues, noting that 60% of Durham's budget is spent in these areas. He pointed out specific figures for Hartlepool where this percentage could be as high as 65%, stressing the added financial strain.

Critiques the current finance settlement for local government, arguing that it relies heavily on council tax increases to fund essential services while failing to address long-term funding issues. He highlights inequalities in how additional funds will be distributed across different regions and stresses the urgent need for reform in social care and neighbourhood services.

Acknowledges that the current settlement is a step in the right direction but calls for further improvements to ensure Suffolk County receives fair funding. He emphasises the need for long-term solutions, particularly concerning social care for an ageing population and adequate public health funding.

The spending review provides a 2% real-terms increase for local government, but this is still a 5% reduction from 2015-16 and a 20% reduction per head of population since 2010. Local government has faced bigger cuts than any other public sector; social care spending in Sheffield received an additional £10 million. However, the funding review does not increase the overall budget but redistributes it, which means someone will lose out unless more money is provided. Councils have had to cut services such as buses, leisure facilities, libraries, street repairs and refuse collection by up to 50%. An end to austerity should mean restoring resources into these essential services that were heavily cut over the years.

Paid tribute to her predecessor Mark Field, who represented the seat for 18 years. Emphasised her constituency's role as home to the monarch, Government, Parliament, financial sector, cultural landmarks, and over 130,000 residents. Highlighted the City of London’s contributions through its City Bridge Trust, academies, housing estates, and green spaces. Stressed the importance of rough sleeping initiatives, welcoming increased spending for councils on rough sleeping and highlighting Westminster's efforts. Advocated for local government reform, including council tax reform to make it more progressive, citing a voluntary community contribution in her borough that raised nearly £1 million since inception.

The speaker criticises the Government's local government finance settlement, highlighting a near doubling of looked-after children in Hull since 2010. She emphasises the lack of early intervention due to budget cuts and urges for a fairer funding formula that considers actual need rather than just business rates. Emma also raises concerns about devolution deals and whether they will be prioritised based on political or economic factors.

The speaker defends the Government's funding increases for County Durham, noting a 7.1% increase in local government finance settlement and a 7.9% increase in police funding. He calls on Labour to acknowledge these measures despite previous predictions of cuts by their member Andrew Gwynne. Holden also declares an interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local democracy and urges for the exclusion of public lavatories from business rates.

Coming from Harrow, where the local authority has seen its grant reduced by 97% in eight years, it is difficult to find much optimism about the funding situation. The borough's core spending power per head this year is £170 lower than the London average and £75 lower than the rest of England, making it one of the lowest-funded areas nationally. Despite talk of 'levelling up', Harrow does not have grounds for optimism that future spending reviews will lift its funding to levels similar to neighbouring boroughs. Councils face an £8 billion funding gap by 2025 and are struggling to balance budgets without using reserves, leading to cuts in services such as youth services, public health, parks, and libraries. The situation is not only a false economy but also affects constituents' wellbeing and the most vulnerable's access to necessary support. To truly empower towns and villages, local councils need more power through devolution, with a new funding formula for London that mirrors Scotland’s funding model. The Mayor of London should have legislative powers over housing and planning matters and income tax-varying capabilities akin to Scotland's, along with full control over water services and determining the living wage.

The Secretary of State claims this is the best local government funding settlement for a decade. However, given past austerity measures that Ministers voted for now attempt to distance themselves from, such claims are questionable. The new 'levelling up' concept will require significant effort to address previous cuts. Durham County Council has lost 40% of its budget over the last decade, amounting to £232 million. This cannot be compensated by efficiencies alone; services have been severely impacted. While a fairer funding formula is promised, it risks moving money from deprived areas to affluent ones, worsening disparities. For instance, core spending per dwelling for Durham in 2019-20 was £1,727 compared to Surrey's £2,004. The two main service drivers consuming budgets are adult social care and looked-after children.

Supporting the previous speaker’s points about funding disparities and highlighting that devolving power and fiscal responsibility to local authorities has been undermined by the reality of business rate retention policies. The deceit lies in the promise of increased revenue from retained business rates, which neither businesses nor the Government are willing to accept, leading to an unfulfilled financial benefit for local authorities.

Argues that the funding formula must take into account the higher proportion of people requiring council support in areas like Durham and the increase in looked-after children. He highlights that more than half of properties in County Durham are band A, making a 1% tax rise less effective compared to wealthier areas. Proposes growing the business rate by downsizing headquarters to open up an area for investment and create jobs.

Supports the argument that the Government needs to invest properly to halt and reverse ideologically driven austerity policies affecting local councils.

Challenges Kevan Jones on the decision by Durham County Council to spend £50 million building a new centre, suggesting it would be more prudent to better utilise the current site.

Congratulates the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on her maiden speech, expresses concern over local government funding cuts since 2010, criticises Conservative Government's ideology and outsourcing exercises, highlights specific funding reductions in Enfield Council, emphasises the impact on essential services and public health, argues that inadequate funding levels reflect a disregard for community needs.

Congratulated the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on her maiden speech, highlighted the reduction in spending power since 2010 as per IFS data, raised concerns over food contamination cases, advocated for mandatory food hygiene ratings, emphasised the impact of austerity measures on local communities, stressed the need for further devolution to major cities, criticised the Government's handling of council funding cuts and their blame tactics, lamented the increase in council tax, and called for a review of the outdated council tax system.

Agreed with Jim McMahon on the need for a separate funding stream for adult social care and advocated for a review of council tax, criticised the Government's dismissal of such recommendations in their response.

He noted that important non-controversial Bills fell when the election was called. He suggested cross-party collaboration could be used to bring these Bills forward.

We will bring forward the Bill at the earliest opportunity and continue discussions. The rural services delivery grant is £81 million, the highest to date, supporting rural communities. We propose a crucial area cost adjustment in the review of relative need and resources for sparsity, isolation and market size factors. While this settlement does not solve all challenges, it helps address long-term pressures with reforms such as publishing a devolution White Paper, holding cross-party talks on social care, implementing fair funding review, reviewing business rates, and incentivising councils to build homes. The spending review will settle resources for local government and return to multi-year settlement processes. We plan collaborative efforts, including consulting on projects like the fair funding review, to fix social care challenges with bipartisan spirit.