:00:09. > :00:13.My Lords I beg to ask leave for a question about which I've give
:00:14. > :00:17.everyone private notice. The question is as follows, to ask Her
:00:18. > :00:20.Majesty's Government in the light of today's budget announcement, what
:00:21. > :00:23.discussions have taken place and what happen have they agreed to
:00:24. > :00:35.provide to Surrey County Council to deal with their financial issues.
:00:36. > :00:38.My Lords, as the Government has repeatedly made clear, there is no
:00:39. > :00:41.special deal for Surrey County Council, never has been and never
:00:42. > :00:44.will be. The final local government finance settlement was laid in
:00:45. > :00:48.Parliament on the 20th February, it's clear that the Government has
:00:49. > :00:51.not provided any additional fund to Surrey and has not promised to do
:00:52. > :00:57.so. Surrey informed the Government it wanted to become a pilot for the
:00:58. > :01:02.100% business rate retention scheme. The department DCLG made clear it
:01:03. > :01:09.was not possible for 2017-18 but could apply for 2018-19 when it's
:01:10. > :01:12.more widely available. We have the councillor speaking for
:01:13. > :01:15.the Secretary of State for Community's Local Government while
:01:16. > :01:19.sitting in his car at Downing Street. Secretary of State then
:01:20. > :01:22.scuttling in to see the Chancellor and a special adviser ringing
:01:23. > :01:29.councillor Hodge back, a man who we've heard is not the sort of man
:01:30. > :01:32.who gives up and despite telling councillor Hodge what he can and
:01:33. > :01:36.cannot say and a reference to a Surrey MP who's been outstanding.
:01:37. > :01:40.Can the noble Lord tell us what are the issues decided upon, what is the
:01:41. > :01:43.sweetheart deal, what is the gentleman's agreement which has been
:01:44. > :01:48.agreed between the Government and Surrey County Council? Is the
:01:49. > :01:53.Government being straight with us or did councillor David Hodge dream
:01:54. > :01:57.these events up? Can the noble Lord tell us what he thinks it is. I've
:01:58. > :02:01.already indicated to the noble Lord the position the Government's been
:02:02. > :02:06.totally honest. Surrey County Council asked if they could be part
:02:07. > :02:11.of the scheme in relation to business rate retention for 2017-18.
:02:12. > :02:14.That, my Lords, applies to devolution deals, it's been taken
:02:15. > :02:17.advantage of by Greater Manchester, City of Liverpool, the West Midlands
:02:18. > :02:21.and London. It's not open to other authorities. We have indicated that
:02:22. > :02:25.they can apply, like other authorities, and we have been kiss
:02:26. > :02:29.youing this with other authorities before we discussed this with
:02:30. > :02:32.Surrey, they can apply for 2018-19 when it's open to all local
:02:33. > :02:42.authorities, they'll then be eligible for that assistance.
:02:43. > :02:57.The scheme was available to anyone who felt like applying. Sorry...
:02:58. > :03:05.What fine mess somebody's gotten ourselves into! Here we are, as has
:03:06. > :03:09.been described, phone calls from a car, not even a meeting, phone calls
:03:10. > :03:14.from the car to the Secretary of State and whatever the noble Lord
:03:15. > :03:18.the minister believers, certainly the leader of Surrey County Council
:03:19. > :03:23.believes that, as was seen and I've listened to it today on YouTube, a
:03:24. > :03:28.gentleman's agreement on international women's day. A
:03:29. > :03:36.gentleman's agreement. Does the noble Lord, the minister, agree that
:03:37. > :03:42.subterfuge of this sort undermines the essential prerequisite of trust
:03:43. > :03:47.and confidence that has to exist between Local Government and central
:03:48. > :03:52.Government and, would he ensure the Secretary of State comes clean on
:03:53. > :03:59.this gentleman's agreement and reveals all the other secret deals
:04:00. > :04:04.done with Conservative-run councils? My lores, let me restate and indeed
:04:05. > :04:07.I think this was confirmed by the councillor Hodge yesterday, there is
:04:08. > :04:12.no deal. There was never any question of special arrangements for
:04:13. > :04:15.Surrey, they're subject to the same rules as every other local
:04:16. > :04:19.authority. They can apply for consideration for the business rates
:04:20. > :04:23.retention scheme for 2018-19, they may wish to do that, they may not, I
:04:24. > :04:26.don't know, but that is open to them as it is to all our authorities,
:04:27. > :04:34.whatever their political complexion. That is the position, my Lords.
:04:35. > :04:41.My Lords, I wonder if the minister will understand that there is real
:04:42. > :04:45.concern that Surrey actually had less need for the additional money
:04:46. > :04:54.for social care than any other authority in the country because it
:04:55. > :04:59.has the fewest proportion of its population entitled to publicly
:05:00. > :05:07.funded social care. If, as I know, he's coming to the north-east soon,
:05:08. > :05:12.I hope that before he does so, he will pressurise the Chancellor to
:05:13. > :05:19.ensure that the additional money for social care is allocated on the
:05:20. > :05:32.basis of need. In the North East, there is not a single authority
:05:33. > :05:36.where less than 65% of those eligible for social care, as against
:05:37. > :05:47.1% in Surrey. And in the North East, the tax base is much lower because
:05:48. > :05:53.of the lower property base and the ability to raise council tax.
:05:54. > :05:58.This is an issue of need around the country and there shouldn't be any
:05:59. > :06:02.special deals for Surrey without addressing the needs of places like
:06:03. > :06:06.the North East. My Lords, first of all, in relation
:06:07. > :06:10.to the visit to the North East, which the noble lady kindly
:06:11. > :06:15.mentions, I'm very much looking forward to that, including as she
:06:16. > :06:19.shows, a visit to see domestic abuse services operating. In relation to
:06:20. > :06:22.the specific point about the finance settlement, the position of the
:06:23. > :06:27.Government and of therefore the department is very much that we
:06:28. > :06:31.wanted Surrey to come to the agreement that 97%, more than 97% of
:06:32. > :06:36.councils did, they cheese not to do so and therefore they are outside of
:06:37. > :06:40.that agreement. But very much when I am in the North East, obviously I
:06:41. > :06:43.will be in listening mode but I hope the noble lady isn't exaggerating my
:06:44. > :06:50.powers too much in relation to what I can persuade the councillor to do.
:06:51. > :06:55.-- Chancellor. This is a question of which the minister had previous
:06:56. > :07:00.notice. Now, can he now try, instead of reading from a prearranged brief,
:07:01. > :07:07.answer the specific questions put by my friend Lord Kennedy, they were
:07:08. > :07:11.clear but they weren't answered and I'm sure if he needs to, Lord
:07:12. > :07:16.Kennedy will repeat them. My Lords, I was absolutely clear, I'm not
:07:17. > :07:19.reading from a pre-prepared brief. The position is absolutely clear,
:07:20. > :07:24.we've made a written ministerial statement on it, I hope the noble
:07:25. > :07:28.Lord isn't seeking to make mischief, there is no sweet heart deal - it
:07:29. > :07:32.would be unusual if he's not - there was never a prospect of a deal with
:07:33. > :07:39.Surrey, they are in the same position, my loesheds, as every
:07:40. > :07:44.other local authority, except as we accept that they didn't sign up to
:07:45. > :07:49.the financial deal. I don't accept the position the noble Lord is
:07:50. > :07:54.saying. I'm sorry he wishes me to say something I don't want to say
:07:55. > :08:00.and am not saying. There was no special deal, I make that absolutely
:08:01. > :08:04.clear. Something caused Suhr Troy change
:08:05. > :08:07.its mind. What does he think it was? My Lords, no idea, that is a
:08:08. > :08:16.question for Surrey to answer. I will say this, that we have had a
:08:17. > :08:26.Freedom of Information request -- Surrey to answer. The leader of
:08:27. > :08:28.Surrey council said there was a gentleman's agreement. The minister
:08:29. > :08:32.is saying that there isn't. Which one is telling the truth and which
:08:33. > :08:35.one isn't? I've just indicated, I set out the
:08:36. > :08:39.Government's position very clearly that there is no gentleman's
:08:40. > :08:42.agreement, no written agreement as was suggested. There is a Freedom of
:08:43. > :08:45.Information Act request request which we are responding to by
:08:46. > :08:48.disclosing the relevant documents. I'm sure that will illustrate the
:08:49. > :08:55.point I'm making that there is no special deal at all for Surrey.
:08:56. > :08:59.The leader of Surrey is not telling the truth then? My Lords, I'm not
:09:00. > :09:03.here to fling accusations about that, that is a matter for him to
:09:04. > :09:08.deal with. I'm willing to take questions put to me but I can't take
:09:09. > :09:11.questions that are properly a matter for the Surrey County Council and
:09:12. > :09:16.its leader to deal with. The question does have to be answered.
:09:17. > :09:21.Either the leader of Surrey County Council was lying or he completely
:09:22. > :09:25.misunderstood his conversations with the Secretary of State and with all
:09:26. > :09:29.the others he spoke to. So the Government is either suggesting one
:09:30. > :09:34.or the other, I'm sure the minister is going to deny either of those,
:09:35. > :09:37.but the could he tell us categorically whether anyone in
:09:38. > :09:40.Number 10 buzz involved in the discussions with Surrey County
:09:41. > :09:43.Council -- was involved. The discussions with Surrey County
:09:44. > :09:46.Council were conducted quite properly by officials in the
:09:47. > :09:49.department and also by the Secretary of State, as you would expect with
:09:50. > :09:53.local authorities and local authority leaders. Across-the-board
:09:54. > :09:55.we are having discussions at this time with Norfolk, Hampshire,
:09:56. > :09:59.Lincolnshire, Suffolk, they are not unique to the position of Surrey, so
:10:00. > :10:03.I do want to make that absolutely clear, there is nothing special
:10:04. > :10:06.about a single local authority leader having discussions with the
:10:07. > :10:09.Department of Department of Communities and Local Government or
:10:10. > :10:14.with the Secretary of State, it's absolutely quite right and we'd be
:10:15. > :10:16.criticised if that didn't, happen, my Lords.