Local Government Finance

Points out that since 2010, local authorities have had to consider closing libraries, swimming pools, and leisure centres due to cuts. Asks the Minister for confirmation on long-term investment needs.

Expresses concerns about the revenue support grant not reflecting updated population statistics, specifically highlighting Salford's 15.4% population increase from 2011 to 2021.

Queries whether the Treasury has stopped the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities doing further capital spending due to concerns about value for money.

Supports additional funding from levelling-up funds, transforming cities funds, and coastal communities funds, noting that schools are directly funded by the Department for Education.

Critiques austerity measures leading to £75 million worth of cuts expected in Liverpool this year, threatening vital services such as benefits maximisation teams. Raises concerns about food poverty affecting one in three people in his city.

Questions the Minister's statement regarding capital spending decisions by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities being halted due to Treasury concerns about value for money.

Concerned with Warrington Borough Council’s borrowing of over £2 billion and its involvement in lending to commercial businesses, questioning whether this is the role of local councils.

Questions the Minister's stance on increasing care spending while simultaneously advising councils not to raise council tax without a referendum.

Appreciates the Government’s assurance review and intervention preventing mismanagement in local authority finances, using Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council as an example.

Critiques the impact of last year's mini-budget on inflation, affecting local authorities facing cuts since 2015 under St Albans City and District Council and Three Rivers District Council.

Asks for clarity from the Minister regarding why there is a one-year settlement for local authorities, the continuation of the new homes bonus in 2024-25, and progress on adult social care reform.

Intervened to say 'Taking back control'.

Commented that the levelling-up process is costing local taxpayers as well. For example, in County Durham, five bids were put forward at an estimated cost of £2 million, only for the goalposts to change mid-process.

Stressed the importance of county government and local accountability in local governance. He noted that while local authority funding has changed over time, the essence of the relationship between local need and authority remains intact.

Disputed John Hayes's claim about the proportion of local government funding raised locally. He stated that around 60% of local government funding comes from council tax, suggesting a direct link between money gathered and spent.

Proposed removing the Government-imposed cap on fees that local authorities can charge big developers for planning applications to give local authorities more funding options.

Asked about the gap between the £2 billion social care funding package and the MacAlister review's recommendation of £2.6 billion for addressing issues in children’s social care.

Emphasised the need for long-term funding for infrastructure, particularly roads, which carry much of the food that services the whole country. Mentioned the de-trunking of roads by a previous Labour Government.

Questioned about the scope for councils to build new housing given the demand from residents for quality council stock and trusted landlords, despite limited building capacity.

In challenging circumstances, the Government have come up with proposals that are broadly acceptable and will enable local government to function properly. However, there are some drawbacks including short-termism in funding, a raw deal for rural areas, and insufficient funding for children's social care. The funding formula review is urgent, especially for coastal communities facing significant challenges such as higher costs of living and lower incomes.

Raises concerns about local government funding, including the reduction in central Government grant since 2010. Discusses how levelling-up grants have not addressed these issues and has led to a disparity between wealthier areas and those like County Durham. He also critiques the bidding process for levelling-up funds as non-transparent and politically motivated.

Rural areas will receive £111 per head less than their urban counterparts, yet rural residents often pay on average £110 more in council tax. Rural councils received only £67 per head for discretionary services compared to £131 per head in urban areas. Dorset's revenue support grant is zero while Durham Council had £29 million last year. The disparity between rural and urban areas must be understood, especially considering the high costs of social care and transport in rural regions.

Since 2010, councils have lost an estimated £15 billion from their budgets due to cuts. Luton council has faced a £160 million cut over the past 13 years. The Government’s latest local government finance statement represents a continuation of underfunding and widening inequalities. Cuts have decimated services such as youth programmes, bus routes, and social care. Councils are being forced to raise council tax by up to 5% with an additional increase in police precept due to sustained underfunding for policing.

Critiques the government's claim that funding for policing and local government is sufficient, arguing instead that austerity measures are causing financial strain. He points out inconsistencies between the government’s assertions and the reality faced by communities. Emphasises that deprivation is at the core of funding issues rather than rurality.

Intervenes to support Jon Trickett's argument, highlighting that since 2010, need-based elements such as public health grants have been removed from funding formulas, exacerbating the issue of underfunding in deprived areas.

Argues for long-term financial stability and support for local authorities to address regional inequalities. Criticises austerity cuts since 2010 and their disproportionate impact on poorer areas, leading to reduced services like buses, libraries, and social care. Advocates for government investment in local councils to foster economic growth and improve community outcomes.

Ms. Nandy criticises the Conservative government for misleading language in press releases regarding council funding, pointing out that families will face a significant increase in their council tax bills despite current high taxes. She mentions that Labour councils offer £335 less on average compared to Conservative-controlled areas this year. The speaker highlights the financial strain placed on local communities by the Government's policies and emphasises the importance of long-term funding for councils, calling out the inconsistency from ministers who criticise one-year settlements while advocating for them. She also points to the lack of support in the announcement regarding the public health grant and expresses frustration over the 'begging bowl culture' imposed on local councils.

Thanked Members for their contributions, highlighted the challenges faced by local government due to the pandemic and war in Ukraine, acknowledged the complexity of the funding system but noted that core spending power has been increased by £5.1 billion, additional grant funding secured, and minimum 3% increase without council tax rises. Emphasised recognition of rurality needs and invited specific MPs to discuss concerns further.

Acknowledged the importance of addressing internal drainage boards challenges and requested road funding inclusion in settlement discussions.

Challenged the Minister's claim about the unanimous welcome for the north-east devolution deal, stating that opposition existed within County Durham despite cross-party support elsewhere. Criticised Conservative councillors' use of public funds during the pandemic.