County Council Finances Question House of Lords

My Lords I beg to ask leave for a question about which I've give

everyone private notice. The question is as follows, to ask Her

Majesty's Government in the light of today's budget announcement, what

discussions have taken place and what happen have they agreed to

provide to Surrey County Council to deal with their financial issues.

My Lords, as the Government has repeatedly made clear, there is no

special deal for Surrey County Council, never has been and never

will be. The final local government finance settlement was laid in

Parliament on the 20th February, it's clear that the Government has

not provided any additional fund to Surrey and has not promised to do

so. Surrey informed the Government it wanted to become a pilot for the

100% business rate retention scheme. The department DCLG made clear it

was not possible for 2017-18 but could apply for 2018-19 when it's

more widely available. We have the councillor speaking for

the Secretary of State for Community's Local Government while

sitting in his car at Downing Street. Secretary of State then

scuttling in to see the Chancellor and a special adviser ringing

councillor Hodge back, a man who we've heard is not the sort of man

who gives up and despite telling councillor Hodge what he can and

cannot say and a reference to a Surrey MP who's been outstanding.

Can the noble Lord tell us what are the issues decided upon, what is the

sweetheart deal, what is the gentleman's agreement which has been

agreed between the Government and Surrey County Council? Is the

Government being straight with us or did councillor David Hodge dream

these events up? Can the noble Lord tell us what he thinks it is. I've

already indicated to the noble Lord the position the Government's been

totally honest. Surrey County Council asked if they could be part

of the scheme in relation to business rate retention for 2017-18.

That, my Lords, applies to devolution deals, it's been taken

advantage of by Greater Manchester, City of Liverpool, the West Midlands

and London. It's not open to other authorities. We have indicated that

they can apply, like other authorities, and we have been kiss

youing this with other authorities before we discussed this with

Surrey, they can apply for 2018-19 when it's open to all local

authorities, they'll then be eligible for that assistance.

The scheme was available to anyone who felt like applying. Sorry...

What fine mess somebody's gotten ourselves into! Here we are, as has

been described, phone calls from a car, not even a meeting, phone calls

from the car to the Secretary of State and whatever the noble Lord

the minister believers, certainly the leader of Surrey County Council

believes that, as was seen and I've listened to it today on YouTube, a

gentleman's agreement on international women's day. A

gentleman's agreement. Does the noble Lord, the minister, agree that

subterfuge of this sort undermines the essential prerequisite of trust

and confidence that has to exist between Local Government and central

Government and, would he ensure the Secretary of State comes clean on

this gentleman's agreement and reveals all the other secret deals

done with Conservative-run councils? My lores, let me restate and indeed

I think this was confirmed by the councillor Hodge yesterday, there is

no deal. There was never any question of special arrangements for

Surrey, they're subject to the same rules as every other local

authority. They can apply for consideration for the business rates

retention scheme for 2018-19, they may wish to do that, they may not, I

don't know, but that is open to them as it is to all our authorities,

whatever their political complexion. That is the position, my Lords.

My Lords, I wonder if the minister will understand that there is real

concern that Surrey actually had less need for the additional money

for social care than any other authority in the country because it

has the fewest proportion of its population entitled to publicly

funded social care. If, as I know, he's coming to the north-east soon,

I hope that before he does so, he will pressurise the Chancellor to

ensure that the additional money for social care is allocated on the

basis of need. In the North East, there is not a single authority

where less than 65% of those eligible for social care, as against

1% in Surrey. And in the North East, the tax base is much lower because

of the lower property base and the ability to raise council tax.

This is an issue of need around the country and there shouldn't be any

special deals for Surrey without addressing the needs of places like

the North East. My Lords, first of all, in relation

to the visit to the North East, which the noble lady kindly

mentions, I'm very much looking forward to that, including as she

shows, a visit to see domestic abuse services operating. In relation to

the specific point about the finance settlement, the position of the

Government and of therefore the department is very much that we

wanted Surrey to come to the agreement that 97%, more than 97% of

councils did, they cheese not to do so and therefore they are outside of

that agreement. But very much when I am in the North East, obviously I

will be in listening mode but I hope the noble lady isn't exaggerating my

powers too much in relation to what I can persuade the councillor to do.

-- Chancellor. This is a question of which the minister had previous

notice. Now, can he now try, instead of reading from a prearranged brief,

answer the specific questions put by my friend Lord Kennedy, they were

clear but they weren't answered and I'm sure if he needs to, Lord

Kennedy will repeat them. My Lords, I was absolutely clear, I'm not

reading from a pre-prepared brief. The position is absolutely clear,

we've made a written ministerial statement on it, I hope the noble

Lord isn't seeking to make mischief, there is no sweet heart deal - it

would be unusual if he's not - there was never a prospect of a deal with

Surrey, they are in the same position, my loesheds, as every

other local authority, except as we accept that they didn't sign up to

the financial deal. I don't accept the position the noble Lord is

saying. I'm sorry he wishes me to say something I don't want to say

and am not saying. There was no special deal, I make that absolutely

clear. Something caused Suhr Troy change

its mind. What does he think it was? My Lords, no idea, that is a

question for Surrey to answer. I will say this, that we have had a

Freedom of Information request -- Surrey to answer. The leader of

Surrey council said there was a gentleman's agreement. The minister

is saying that there isn't. Which one is telling the truth and which

one isn't? I've just indicated, I set out the

Government's position very clearly that there is no gentleman's

agreement, no written agreement as was suggested. There is a Freedom of

Information Act request request which we are responding to by

disclosing the relevant documents. I'm sure that will illustrate the

point I'm making that there is no special deal at all for Surrey.

The leader of Surrey is not telling the truth then? My Lords, I'm not

here to fling accusations about that, that is a matter for him to

deal with. I'm willing to take questions put to me but I can't take

questions that are properly a matter for the Surrey County Council and

its leader to deal with. The question does have to be answered.

Either the leader of Surrey County Council was lying or he completely

misunderstood his conversations with the Secretary of State and with all

the others he spoke to. So the Government is either suggesting one

or the other, I'm sure the minister is going to deny either of those,

but the could he tell us categorically whether anyone in

Number 10 buzz involved in the discussions with Surrey County

Council -- was involved. The discussions with Surrey County

Council were conducted quite properly by officials in the

department and also by the Secretary of State, as you would expect with

local authorities and local authority leaders. Across-the-board

we are having discussions at this time with Norfolk, Hampshire,

Lincolnshire, Suffolk, they are not unique to the position of Surrey, so

I do want to make that absolutely clear, there is nothing special

about a single local authority leader having discussions with the

Department of Department of Communities and Local Government or

with the Secretary of State, it's absolutely quite right and we'd be

criticised if that didn't, happen, my Lords.