House of Commons
Debates 15 July 2010
20. Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con):
What steps he is taking to reduce the administrative burden placed on local
authorities by central Government. [8520]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): We have
already scrapped the comprehensive area assessment and regional spatial
strategies, as well as removing ring-fencing from more than £1 billion of local
government spending. We are currently inviting local government to identify the
statutory guidance, legislation and regulations that it thinks should be
removed, and we will go much further by introducing a decentralisation and
localism Bill later in the year.
Stephen Mosley: One consequence of
reducing the administrative burden on local councils and freeing them to take
more decisions locally will be to allow them to offer different levels of
services from their neighbours. Does my hon. Friend agree that far from being a
bad thing, that will allow good councils to differentiate themselves from bad
councils and allow local council tax payers the ultimate decision on the type
of council they desire?
Robert Neill: Freedom for local authorities to
respond to the priorities and needs of their residents is absolutely a good
thing and is a top priority of this Government.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): But what
does the Minister say to local authorities such as mine that face a larger
burden of in-year cutbacks than neighbouring authorities? What does he say
about the additional burdens that he has put on to them by forcing them to cut
previously agreed budgets with voluntary sector organisations and local
services, meaning more expensive ways of managing their budgets?
Robert Neill: First, the hon. Lady forgets the
financial situation that we inherited-that is fundamental. Secondly, because we
have removed ring-fencing and reduced the percentage of ring-fenced funding, we
have made sure that local authorities have more flexibility in how they save
money. Thirdly, despite our dire financial inheritance, we have ensured that no
local authority would have to make a reduction of more than 2%.
Fiona Mactaggart: Slough is facing a
reduction of 3.19%.
Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have these
sudden interventions when not expected and not in order, however frustrated
people feel-and they do.