| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker : Order. In the interests of all right hon. and hon. Members, I ask for single questions, as that will be fairer.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The Secretary of State is contrite about the 20 per cent. minimum community charge, and says that it will go under his new council tax. Why has he failed to bring a measure before the House to
Column 912
abolish that charge from this year's poll tax, and from last year's and next year's poll tax? Unless he does so, people will continue to run up huge debts.Mr. Heseltine : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to that aspect. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, and by myself in later statements, are of significant help to people on lower incomes.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the appalling record of the London borough of Lambeth, which never collected all its rates or community charge. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend's Department published figures showing that £30 million of Lambeth's community charge remains uncollected this year. Does my right hon. Friend believe that his new council tax will be collected by Lambeth, or is it a Labour council out of control?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has raised a most interesting question, because it so happened that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) revealed the inadequacy of Lambeth's delivery in the matter of collecting its bills, and made it absolutely clear that it has nothing to do with the community charge. What it was about was the inadequate management of that authority. The fact of the matter is that Lambeth is owed £28.9 million in respect of rents, £28 million in domestic rates and £13.7 million in business rates. Anyone who wants to understand why Lambeth is responsible for charging people what is inevitably a high community charge, should have regard to its inability to collect the revenue to which it is entitled. Perhaps it is a chilling example of the concern that we have about Labour authorities that the Labour party has now been driven to the point where it has sacked the significant leaders of Lambeth council.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : When the Government introduced the poll tax, they told us that it was done to extend democracy and introduce accountability, that it would be based on fairness and that it would be easy to collect. It was introduced with a chorus of support from the Government Benches. Now they tell us, after a £14 billion mistake and waste of money, that they will introduce another tax that will be fair, accountable, democratic and simple. Why should the electorate believe in the judgment of the Government? They know that this is an election ploy for a Government who will be defeated.
Mr. Heseltine : I was extremely interested in the hon. Lady's references to extending democracy, as she speaks for a party that has sacked the Labour deputy of Wirral council, and Labour councillors in Liverpool and Lambeth. If that is not curtailing democracy, I do not know what is.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my right hon. Friend accept thanks from my constituents who live in low-rated houses and, because many of them are single households, also thanks from those who will be relieved about the 25 per cent. reduction on single households? Will he also accept our grateful relief that he is capping Lancashire?
Mr. Speaker : One question please, Dame Elaine.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I missed one earlier.
Column 913
Mr. Speaker : Bad luck, but only one question now please.Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the county council
Mr. Speaker : Order. I must say to the hon. Lady that this is hardly fair to her colleagues.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the county council be capped?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has drawn my attention today and earlier to the overspending practices of Lancashire county council, which must be of considerable concern to her and to many people who live in her constituency. I appreciate her comments about the help that we have brought to people who live in low-rated houses. Certainly, we have introduced a community charge reduction scheme which will be of considerable benefit this year and we very much welcome the opportunity to extend the principle that people should be personally involved in this process by introducing the 25 per cent. discount.
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : Does the Secretary of State agree that the public humiliation that the Government have suffered over poll tax is well deserved, in view of the fact that the Conservative party allowed common sense to be overridden by party political ideology? More important, many thousands of people in my constituency are having to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax or more, although they are very poor and can ill afford to do so. In view of that, why does not he introduce legislation to stop it now, before we have another two years of asking people for money that they do not have?
Mr. Heseltine : I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that we are now discussing arrangements for the new tax for 1993, and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that we have removed the minimum contribution.
Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : My right hon. Friend deserves the widespread congratulations that he has received this afternoon and that he will undoubtedly get during the next few weeks. Can I ask him to be on his guard lest the country at large considers that it has broadly two property taxes with no difference? Will he underline the three threats to widows, spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the fact that the valuation basis of the Labour party's proposals means there will have to be four separate values every year?
Mr. Heseltine : I very much welcome my hon. Friend's question and I hope that the Labour party will now take the trouble to spell out the implications of the figures involved in its new tax--not the one-year resting point on the old rates, but what it intends in the longer term.
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : Will the Secretary of State, when deciding the terms of reference for the reconstruction of local government, including the financing of services, take into consideration the fact that the standard spending assessment has worked unfairly against some authorities? Will he consider whether there should be equalisation in the future?
On the tax itself--
Column 914
Mr. Speaker : Just that one question, please, in fairness to other Members.
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Member will read with interest what the consultative document says about parishes, and we shall undoubtedly hear his views, along with those of everybody else. I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago about standard spending assessments. We look at these matters constantly. In any system of distributing Government grants, SSAs have always given rise to controversy.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, according to our interpretation, the word "fair" implies the protection of people from the excesses of high-spending councils? In contrast, the Labour party, with its so-called fair rates, would go back to the bad old days of no protection, when councils could spend exactly what they liked, with no control whatsoever and no protection for single people.
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the Labour party's proposals is that the party cannot give any details whatsoever about them. Even worse, the Opposition would incite local authorities to continue the upward spiral of expenditure, with devastating consequences for some of the least privileged people in our society.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) : Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that finance from national taxes will be made available in sufficient quantities to hold local taxation permanently at the new level he proposes?
Mr. Heseltine : I am grateful for the chance to repeat that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought about a new balance between local taxation and central taxation, he made it clear that the Government intended to maintain that balance.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : I am sure that the majority of the residents of the borough of Macclesfield will warmly welcome a majority of the proposals that have been announced by my right hon. Friend today. I say so as those people live in a borough whose authority underspent SSA by 11.3 per cent. My question is a direct one, and concerns the future structure of local government. Does my right hon. Friend think it fair that Cheshire county council, which produced a figure that only just prevented it from being capped, and which is controlled by Labour with support from the Liberal Democrats, should be allowed to allocate £100,000 of hard-pressed ratepayers' and community charge payers' money for the purpose of defending itself against what the people may wish to do in the future with regard to a unitary or all-purpose authority at district or borough level ?
Mr. Heseltine : Obviously I cannot prejudge any decisions about the way in which unitary authorities might operate in Cheshire. However, the commission is unlikely to be influenced by public relations campaigns involving high expenditure. It will want to give people a much fairer chance against the big battalions and bureaucracy.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : As the poll tax is now universally seen as one of the most expensive political
Column 915
fiascos in British political history, as well as being divisive and unpopular, will the Secretary of State do something to help the poorest this year and next year by bringing forward his proposals to cancel the minimum charge, by cancelling the 20 per cent., and by introducing a more generous rebate system ? Does he realise that there would be Opposition support for an arrangement to rush legislation through the House to give real help now to the poorest people ?Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the minimum contribution by the poorest people carries with it an uprating of social security benefits to enable them to make payments broadly in line with the 20 per cent. We are talking today about the system that is to be introduced in 1993--not about arrangements for the years between now and then.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : Given that my right hon. Friend is dealing with valuations in broad classifications, may I ask him whether he addressed the problem of the injustice of tax on home improvements, which was a feature of the old rating system, and would presumably be a feature of the Labour party's proposed system ? Can I give my constituents an assurance that anyone who installs central heating or double glazing will not have to pay an extra tax, as under the old system ?
Mr. Heseltine : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We do not envisage that to improve or change one's home would cause a house to move from one band to another.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Can I say to the Secretary of State that, just like the lettered number plate, this approach is very divisive and invites the worst form of coarse and vulgar consumerism? Can he imagine what will happen in two or three years' time when there are band A, band B and band G properties, with people wanting to indicate their social mobility by moving up bands? Does he not think that that is divisive?
Mr. Heseltine : I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is fair to say that the Labour party's "Fair Rates" document also referred to a banding concept. We have not suddenly introduced a new concept. The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the effects of adopting the simple system that we have proposed.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will come as very good news to the many thousands of my constituents who live in small, old terraced properties, who formerly paid low rates and who were very badly hurt by the community charge?
Mr. Heseltine : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. When people have considered and understand the exemptions, I believe that those who feel that in recent times they have paid more than they ought to pay will be reassured.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : The Secretary of State's powers of capping will affect local authority budgets, which are based on standard spending assessments. Last year, in the coming year and in years to come, they will be based on 1981 census data. Will he confirm that the standard spending assessments are to be retained under the new system, and that therefore all the
Column 916
charge-capping problems will remain? Authorities such as mine will therefore not receive adequate grant support to reflect their social and economic needs.Mr. Heseltine : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's authority has been capped. The standard spending assessment system will be part of any mechanism for distributing central Government grant. Whether it is called the grant-related expenditure assessment, the standard spending assessment or the needs element, it will be there and will always create controversy. Each local authority will want more. The problem is that it will not be prepared to recognise that that is the position of every local authority.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green) : I give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he assure my constituents who, under the old rating system, suffered increases under a Labour-controlled council of up to 42 per cent. in one year, that that will be impossible under his proposals?
Mr. Heseltine : I shall look closely every year at the Government's proposals for capping arrangements. We intend to bear down on high-spending authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with a general answer today, since we have not yet begun to consider the rules that will apply next year.
Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : The Secretary of State will be aware that his statement will meet with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people of this country, since it does not address the problem that has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends : the fact that local authorities ought to receive what they require to meet their needs. Poverty, high unemployment and poor services in many of our cities will not be remedied by his statement. He will not con the people.
Mr. Heseltine : By and large, people have come to understand that Liverpool's problems were not created by the grant distribution mechanism. If that statement needs any reinforcement, the Opposition would not have needed to sack councillors standing in the name of the Labour party and to replace them with councillors who can do the job better.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme suffering of the people of Ealing, including students, nurses and others, in 1987 when the then Labour council increased the rates by 65 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend's proposals lead to discounts for student nurses and apprentices? Will they pay something, or will they pay nothing?
Mr. Heseltine : I am sure that the transfer of control of Ealing to a Conservative administration was like a great light coming over the horizon and I am grateful to have the opportunity to pay tribute to that. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that, under the new arrangements, students, YT trainees, apprentices and student nurses will qualify for personal discounts.
Mr. Michael Carr (Ribble Valley) : Although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's consultation proposals on the structure of local government, can he give an assurance that any local authority structure that emerges will not ignore the special needs of rural areas?
Column 917
Mr. Heseltine : That is a very interesting point, and it is one of the reasons why we have referred in the consultative document to the possibility of different patterns of authorities emerging. It is also one of the reasons why we have referred to the potential role of parishes.Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that his speech today--the content, the delivery and everything about it-- in comparison with that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), which was poor, lacking in content and did not hold the attention of the House, will be widely respected throughout the country, not least in Cleveland? My right hon. Friend may like to learn at this stage that the Labour leaders of Middlesbrough, of Stockton and of Hartlepool councils have joined the Conservative leader of Langbaurgh council in asking for the abolition of Cleveland county council, as did the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) on Radio Cleveland yesterday, when he also warned his party against regional government.
Mr. Heseltine : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise, although he qualified it towards the end of his remarks. He would not expect me to be drawn on the relative merits of yes or no to Cleveland, although I know what a formidable advocate he will be on one side of the argument.
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) : I was going to ask the Secretary of State about the chip shop factor, which is when there is a chip shop on one side and a disco on the other. Without individual valuation, a person ends up paying just as much as the person who overlooks the local park. However, as I am confined to one question, may I ask him this? The question is simple. Taking the average amount that a two-person household would pay under Labour's scheme as £333 and using like with like, is it not a fact that, under the scheme announced this afternoon, the con tax would cost the same two-person household £400?
Mr. Heseltine : I think that the hon. Gentleman really asked two questions. First, he raised the issue of a chip shop on one side of the road and something else on the other. There is an appeals procedure which is perfectly open to anyone who thinks that he has been adversely affected. Doubtless that will now be seen as an incitement to every chip shop owner in the country to march towards Whitehall to appeal against what we are doing. We will treat them as fairly as chip shop owners deserve.
To go back to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, the fact is that if one has a similar sum to collect, the same number of people and the same number of properties, the average under any scheme must be the same.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. May I remind hon. Members whom I have unfortunately been unable to call that, if they table questions tomorrow to the Department of the Environment, they will be answered in a fortnight's time.
Column 918
Local Government Review (Wales)
4.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance in Wales, and in particular about the Government's proposals for the new council tax to replace the community charge. I will be consulting widely in Wales on the basis of the paper that we have published today. As right hon. and hon. Members will see from the consultation document, the new council tax provides for a single bill for each household based on the value of the property, with a discount for single-person households. There are provisions for transitional relief, rebates for the most needy and discounts for student nurses, and so on, as well as for single occupiers, and there will be no register for adults. I believe that the system will be fair, equitable and simple to administer.
The House is already aware of the substantial benefits for Welsh community chargepayers which I have recently been able to announce. The generous local government finance settlement for 1991-92 enabled local authorities to set community charges some £130 less than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I was also able to make available a total of £62 million for the community charge reduction scheme. Finally, and most important, the Government have provided £300 million to reduce by £140 the community charges set by authorities throughout Wales. The upshot of all this is that the average community charge in Wales before the award of community charge benefit will not exceed £95.
The proposals announced today must be seen in that context. The new arrangements that we are proposing will provide for a fair and durable system of local taxation in Wales. I am placing in the Library exemplifications of the consequences of the new scheme. These are based on 1991-92 expenditure by Welsh local authorities and the current level of central Government support, to which I have already referred. The Government's intention is that the balance between central and local taxation established in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement should be broadly maintained in the longer term.
As I have said, I want to consult widely on the basis of the paper published today. There may be areas where Welsh circumstances are different from those elsewhere, and so the detailed arrangements for Wales may need to differ. I am asking local authorities and others to put to me their suggestions for the particular matters on which separate Welsh arrangements would be appropriate. I trust that Labour Members may now at last be willing to contribute to that debate and consultation, and I would also welcome further contributions from those who have already been willing to participate in the consultation process and have given me the benefit of their views. I should just say a further word about local government structure and functions. I told the House on 21 March that I wished to consult further with local authority associations before taking matters forward. I met the associations on 11 April and am pleased to tell the House that we had a very positive and constructive exchange of views. I now propose to reflect on what was said to me and then, in the early summer, to publish a consultation paper
Column 919
which, among other issues, will identify the facts which need to be borne in mind in considering any reorganisation.Our review of local government finance functions and structure is making considerable progress. The Government intend to establish for Wales, as for Britain as a whole, a system of local government which can serve us well for many years to come. The consultation paper issued today is a major step forward in that process, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : On structure, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any commission in Wales must be able to generate cross-party support? Will he guarantee that the commission will not be packed with an anti-Labour membership? Will he now accept that Labour's policy principle in Wales of a single tier of most-purpose local authorities is already backed by the districts and counties of Wales?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Labour's plans for changing the structure of local government were published several years ago, following extensive consultation? The right hon. Gentleman is riding on Labour's coat -tails here. He is engaged on a policy clothes-stealing exercise, is he not?
The right hon. Gentleman now gives weight to the consultative process, as he must. May I remind him that, in the 1980s, the consultations on the poll tax were nothing less than a sham--a bitter farce? When the representatives of the Welsh councils tell him that they want to return to the rates, with enhanced rebates, will he accept their advice?
Is it not true that, under the council tax, rich people in Wales will get special treatment from the Government? The banding exercise is not equitable. Will the Secretary of State admit that the hated poll tax will remain for a further two or even three years in Wales? That will be resented throughout Wales. Why does the Secretary of State not accept our offer of a Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill, which would speedily end a tax that is hated and rejected by all our people throughout the Principality?
Some houses in well-heeled areas of Wales are worth a quarter of a million pounds or more. The average price of a mid-Glamorgan house is but £31,600. Does the Secretary of State seriously recommend a tax under which the occupant of a mansion will pay only two and a half times the tax paid by someone in a humble home in the bottom band of the Government assessment? Are not the Government protecting the rich and the super-rich?
The Secretary of State, in his former office, played a special role in perfecting the poll tax. Now the central tenet of Government policy is to dump the poll tax. Has not the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly trumpeted the merits of that tax? Does he not carry special responsibility for the hardship, distress and anger that it has generated throughout Wales? Will he now apologise to the people of Wales for his special role in establishing the hated tax? He lacked credibility as he made his statement today.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, whatever panic- stricken stratagems he is prepared to adopt, the parliamentary skins of his colleagues will not be saved in Wales? The people of Wales will make their judgment on 2 May and in the general election that is soon to come.
Column 920
Mr. Hunt : The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not know which way to jump, and he finished by jumping in all directions at once. First, he said that we had stolen his proposals. Then he said that the new tax was still the poll tax. I was totally confused, as were most hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman's first question did not relate to anything that I said or to anything in the consultation document. He must have thought that I had announced a commission today, but I did not do so. I know that some of his friends in local government would like to have an independent commission to tell us in Wales what to do, but I believe that we can decide that for ourselves. I am not minded to set up a commission, and that decision has the strong support of all the district councils.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities in Wales had agreed on their preferred form of local government. It is true that, when local authority representatives came to see me, they said that we should move towards single-tier local government, but when they were asked about the size and number of the single tiers, they did not agree among themselves. We must not let the hon. Gentleman pretend that the councils agree. The Government believe in facing up to the disagreements as well as to what is agreed, so that we can produce a solution that will last for many years.
I have read the Labour party's proposals for local government, and I asked a reasonably random selection of people in Wales whether they understood what the proposals meant. I did not find anyone who understood them. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that I had stolen the Labour party's clothes. The hon. Gentleman may be better dressed than I am, but his proposals have been covered in a cloak. I have simply snatched away the cloak so that people can see his proposals. He is right to recognise that some elements in our announcement today were in the Labour party's proposals, too, but they were subsquently denied.
Banding is one example. On 1 July, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) prepared a confidential discussion document advocating a tax based on five bands of property values. Today, it was educational to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham attacking a proposal based on seven bands, having already accepted the nature of our proposal. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside then said that the Government were merely returning to the rates. We are doing no such thing. The Labour party proposes to return to the rates, or rather, to something called a graduated rateable value. [Hon. Members :- - "Oh."] Hon. Members cannot have read the document "Fair Rates". Rebuilding, maintenance and repair costs, and private rents, would be taken into account in calculating graduated rateable values. That would not happen immediately, however. First, it was suggested, we should return quickly to a register based on 1973 valuations. The spectacle that the Labour party offers, with its idea of a Poll Tax (Abolition) Bill, is that we should return immediately to the rates.
I remind the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that, in Gwent, where a contest is looming for a parliamentary seat, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about rates. He was in Pontllanfraith-- [Hon. Members-- : "What?"]. I am merely using the pronunciation used by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). He described all rates-- [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen to the
Column 921
words of their leader. They do not like what I am saying, but this is the system to which they propose to return. The right hon. Member for Islwyn referred to"the most unjust of all taxes--local rates."
Yet that is what the Labour party now proposes.
Yes, the voters will make a choice on 2 May. They know that to vote Conservative will be to vote for councils that cost them less and give better services, whereas to vote Labour would mean voting for higher spending and higher bills.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I repeat what I said on the previous statement. I shall ask for single questions--
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : And short answers.
Mr. Speaker : --and I hope that the answers will be short, too. That would enable me to call all the hon. Members who have been rising. In any event we shall have to move on to the Scottish statement by 5.15 pm.
Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West) : Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reconcile what is left of the view of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) with the football hooliganism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that he would repeal the new tax before he even knew what it would be? The new tax is a huge improvement. Will my right hon. Friend tell us who will conduct the banding operation, and on what principles?
Mr. Hunt : We have been guided by the Inland Revenue valuation office in reaching the statistics in the exemplifications. We are now consulting on the way in which we shall deal with valuations, but in the consultation paper we rely on the Inland Revenue valuation office. We have included a provision, which we believe local authorities will welcome, to enable them to buy in local professional expertise and experience where they consider that to be necessary. On the first point, I would ask the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to consult not only the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Either they intend to repeal their proposals, or they will have positive consultations. As I have said, my door is always open. Why will not the hon. Gentleman follow the example of the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, and come in and consult properly?
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : Does the Secretary of State agree that today he has announced the introduction of another property tax? Does he also agree that he said on 3 March 1990 : "How much more abominable than a tax on widows? But this is what the rating system is."?
Surely what the Secretary of State has announced is very similar to the rating system. Surely widows living alone in houses will be adversely affected. What about second homes? I gather that there will be a special dispensation for second homes, and that it will be far cheaper for second- home owners than for the people who live there permanently to live in Wales. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
Column 922
Mr. Hunt : On the question of second homes, I make it absolutely clear that I intend to consult. That is one element where, if people follow the lead that I wish to give, in Wales we may decide to introduce different provisions from those which will apply in England and elsewhere. The proposal in the consultation paper for England does not meet the special problem of second homes in Wales. Secondly, it is precisely to meet the problems of single-parent families and widows that we are introducing a special discount for single-person households.
Mr. Ian Grist (Cardiff, Central) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that no local authority tax will be popular and that the new tax replaces one which was uniquely unpopular because, uniquely, it asked every adult to pay? That was the underlying reason for the unpopularity of the community charge. In the new banding system, will the figures be absolute, based on valuation, or will a house be placed within a particular band between an upper and lower limit, without being identified by precise pricing? Does he also understand--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions. That is enough, thank you.
Mr. Hunt : The value of the banding system--originally advocated, I concede, by the hon. Member for Dagenham--is that it removes the need to have properties individually valued. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) proposes not merely a return to the rates, with all their injustice, but revaluation within two years of every property in Wales. The banding proposal gives us an opportunity to move away from revaluations and to place properties within a band which everyone can see to be fair and equitable.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : May I ask the Secretary of State to remind the people of Wales that the poll tax will be maintained in 1991-92 and 1992-93? Even with transitional relief and the community charge reduction scheme, how much more will householders in my constituency have to pay for the perpetuation of the poll tax, even compared to his so-called fair system?
Mr. Hunt : Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am willing to consult local authorities on the best and quickest way to move from the community charge to the new system. The first responses that I have had from them are that the date that I have announced is the earliest possible time at which the new system can be put in place. But the hon. Gentleman's constituents were paying £248 actual rates on average in Merthyr Tydfil. Under the same system and with the same proportion of local government expenditure raised locally, that would have risen to £291 this year. Under the proposals that I have announced today, in the hon. Gentleman's area the average bill per household in 1991-92 would be £112.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : In welcoming the burial of the poll tax, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that thousands of people are in difficulties this year? Can he ensure that such people are given some help to overcome the debts that they have built up? I have one specific question for the Secretary of State. Will he address the question of water rates? The consultation paper refers to the domestic water charges in Scotland and the possibility of bringing them into the orbit of the new
| Next Section
| Home Page |