Clause 2 - Control of borrowing
Local Government Bill
9:45 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but only a Liberal Democrat Member would regard the Chancellor in his present incarnation as prudent. Given the right hon. Gentleman's current tax and spend mode, most Conservative Members regard him as anything but prudent. The amendments are well intentioned and are driving in the right direction. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's view that a CIPFA code is infinitely preferable to specific rules being laid down by the Secretary of State. I am concerned, however, that the two amendments would reduce the discretion of local authorities. They would require local authorities to perform their duty of setting prudential limits by reference to the prudential code, not by having regard to the prudential code, which is the phrase used in the Bill.
Of more concern to me, apart from architecture to which I shall return in a moment, is that the CIPFA code and any subsequent changes to it will be brought into primary legislation without there having been parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not really want that. I am in a slightly strange position of having to say that it would be better to have the CIPFA code drawn into the matter by regulation. The draft regulations that the Government have published specifies the CIPFA code. That is fine. We all support that. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's worry that the Bill allows the Government to specify something other than the CIPFA code at some time in the future or to introduce additional regulations. That would be a cause for concern.