§ 8. Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)When he expects to bring forward proposals for the reform of the system of allocating funds to local authorities by reference to standard spending assessments. [120146]
§ The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong)Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will not be taken until we have consulted widely this summer.
§ Mr. WebbDoes the Minister accept that, for my constituents in South Gloucestershire, SSA might as well stand for "schools short-changed again", because for as long the council has existed, it has been the worst-funded local education authority in the country in terms of primary schools? Does she accept that my constituents will be angry if a whole Parliament goes by without reform of that unfair scheme? Will she tell them today that, before the current Parliament is through, we will have a fairer scheme in place?
§ Ms ArmstrongAs I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows from previous Question Times, I am keen for us to move to a new form of funding, but that requires co-operation from local government, as well as ideas and determination from central Government. We have a system that I support, which recognises that different parts of the country need different levels of support from central Government. We believe that we should respond to need, and it is from that basis that we start.
I hope that we can move forward, but there is no holy grail. What is important in one area has a different priority in another. What is seen as fair in one authority is seen in very different ways in others. I am sure that constituents of other hon. Members will feel that they have as much right as any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to get an uplift. We will do what we can but, as I say, we need the co-operation and support of hon. Members and local government to move forward.
§ Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of allocating local authority funds creates too many inequalities and anomalies? For that reason, it is important that the review be carried out as quickly as possible to ensure that local authorities such as the one in my area, the London borough of Havering, can resolve some of their difficulties in delivering public services.
§ Ms ArmstrongWe knew when we came to power that there were great problems within the local government finance system. We have made some adjustments. 639 More than that, we have substantially increased the amount of money going into local government compared with what went in under the previous regime. It is a question of ensuring both that we run the economy to get more money for good public services, and that we get a distribution system that is as fair as possible. We are seeking to do that, but I repeat: there is no holy grail and no system that everyone will think is fair to them.
§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)Will the Minister undertake not to repeat the outrageous fix whereby, in the life of the current Parliament, shire counties will lose out by £623 million? Will she abandon the so-called front line first policy, under which funds will be diverted from properly elected local councils, with funding decisions being made by Ministers in Whitehall? The move was attacked recently by Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour leader of the Local Government Association, as amounting to
the strange death of local democracy.
§ Ms ArmstrongLet me nail once and for all the absolute rubbish that the hon. Gentleman comes out with time and again about funding for shire areas. Far from the position that he suggests, we have put substantially more money into local government in the past three years, including into the shires. If shire authorities received the same amount of money now as they received under his regime, they would be receiving substantially less. We have uplifted the amount that has gone in, and his crazy creative accounting fools no one.
§ Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)Does the Minister agree that the grand objective of the review should be to reduce the differentials between the winners and losers under the existing system?
§ Ms ArmstrongThat could be one objective. We are canvassing a range of objectives. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that if we reduce the differentials, we also take less account of differential need.