| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir William Shelton : Does the hon. Gentleman persist in saying that he would let Lambeth council spend whatever it wished? The hon. Gentleman talks of local democracy, but is it not true that his party has dispossessed 13 councillors, elected by the people of Lambeth, and has made them resign their seats from the Labour party? Am I not right that the main reason was that those councillors had a debate on the Iraq war and were rather in favour of Saddam Hussein? Moreover, some of them did not pay their community charge, exactly like some Labour Members.
Mr. Gould : I am sorry to be harsh with the hon. Gentleman, but I am always astonished that Conservative Members take the trouble to come into the Chamber, presumably to make a contribution, and then reveal their abysmal ignorance of the subject on which they choose to intervene. The truth is that the Lambeth councillors are still councillors and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads our proposals for annual elections and a quality commission, in which he will see that we have a complete programme for some of the problems that have arisen in Lambeth.
The Government's use of capping has virtually extinguished any remnant of true local democracy. Every aspect of local authority finance is now controlled from Marsham street, from the constraints on capital spending to the nationalised business rate, from the level of SSA and essential Government grants to the threat and reality of capping which, under the Government's new measure, will dictate to every local authority the size of the budget that they must set. Ministers seem insensitive to the charge that they are thereby destroying local government. They appear to understand little and to care less. They preen themselves on having held down budgets and spending programmes, with no regard to the real damage that they have done to local services and to the people who depend on them. I suspect that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who has some experience in his constituency of what those cuts mean, would, at least behind the scenes, agree with me.
Mr. Holt : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. However, I do not agree with his latter point. Although I disagree with the Government over standard spending assessments, the inefficiency of Langbaurgh council is a byword. Indeed, its
Column 844
civic amenity has a bar with no financial controls, not even a till roll in the till. Until such matters are put right, Langbaurgh council is not a good example to pick.Mr. Gould : How refreshing it is to hear a Tory Member who is at least prepared to make honest comments about a Conservative-dominated administration. The hon. Gentleman would agree with the general proposition and the principle--
Mr. Gould : The hon. Gentleman well knows that a Conservative budget was put forward.
Mr. Gould : Yes, it was. It is clear that we shall not resolve this issue, but the hon. Gentleman will concede
Mr. Holt : I must put this on the record yet again in the House. The largest party on Langbaurgh council was the Labour party. For some reason, four members of the Labour party defected and became independent. The Liberals then switched their support from the Labour party to the Conservative party, but, every time a budget proposal was put forward by the Conservative party, it was voted down by the Liberal and Labour parties together.
Mr. Gould : The House will conclude from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that the Conservative party took the chair of the committee and a Conservative party budget was eventually voted through.
Let us make no mistake : whatever the truth of the position in Langbaurgh-- which the hon. Gentleman may or may not be prepared to reveal--the Government's capping measures and the threat to use them have caused substantial damage and hardship to nursery school provision, lunch clubs for old people, legal, housing and welfare rights, advice centres, leisure and library facilities, youth clubs and the whole voluntary sector, which is the means by which so much local effort is made effective in the local community.
Ministers should not claim that those cuts were painless. They have hurt services and local people notice that damage and those cuts. Those measures could have been perpetrated only by a Government who, if they ever understood and valued local government, certainly do not do so now. There is little point in challenging Ministers on what they believe about those issues. They have shown beyond doubt that they have no beliefs to which they are prepared to adhere. Those Ministers continued to proclaim the great virtues of the poll tax until they were told to jump in another direction and then duly did so. They have not only no sense of principle or consistency but no sense of shame either. They are prepared to follow their Secretary of State in humiliating reversals and clear about-faces, in flat contradiction of their own personally stated positions. The Ministers act not on what they think or believe, but according to what, from day to day, appears to them to serve the interests of their own immediate short-term electoral fortunes. The evidence is that the electorate is as sickened by the spectacle as we are and will impose the appropriate penalty as soon as the general election is held.
Column 845
8 pmMr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : I shall not follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) along his last electioneering path, but will instead return to the subject of the debate and follow on from the remarks that I made in last year's debate on capping. I said then that the decision on whether the Government should cap was effectively determined by Bristol city council through its decision--which was the council's decision alone--to impose on the city a budget far beyond that which people could afford.
In order to explore one of the reasons which justify the Government yet again rescuing the long-suffering citizens of Bristol from the waste and jobbery that are now inseparable from Bristol city council, I shall concentrate on one aspect of the council's inflated budget--the way it sets about collecting public money.
Undoubtedly, the most resented part of the council's community charge announcement for the current year was that the community charge for Bristol included a sum of £40 for every charge payer to cover the costs of non -collection. That sum alone amply justifies a far more savage cap on the community charge than that imposed by the Government. That does not take account of other spending which, in the previous year, led Bristol to announce net revenue expenditure of about 185 per cent. of its standard spending assessment.
A study of Bristol's system for collecting the community charge shows that the problem goes much deeper than irresponsible overspending. This year, the collection losses in Bristol on both community charge and rates averaged £10 per adult. The average figure for comparable authorities was £7. Last year, the cost of collecting the community charge and administering community charge benefits in Bristol was £19.90 per adult. The figure for comparable authorities was £11.30.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I think I can help out here and correct the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure got his figures from the city treasurer. He is right to say that the estimated cost for the collection of Bristol's poll tax for the year was £19.90, but the probable outturn, which is based on the cost, is £14.65. The cost per head in the big 11 and the metropolitan authorities, which are comparable to Bristol, is £15 per head. Therefore, Bristol is bang on the Government target.
Mr. Stern : I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who quotes the city treasurer's figures, which have also been quoted to me. I am quoting the Audit Commission's figures, and while there is room for a difference of opinion between
Ms. Primarolo : The treasurer's figures are based on the Audit Commission's figures. The hon. Gentleman should not be silly.
Mr. Stern : I was quoting the Audit Commission's figures, which are independent and would not be available under a Labour Government because I believe that the Labour party intends to abolish the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission's figure for administering community charge benefits and collecting the community charge in Bristol was £19.90 per adult, and the figure for comparable authorities was £11.30. However, that does not mean that Bristol does not know how to save money. It saves money on collecting rents. At March 1990, its
Column 846
accumulated rent arrears were 25 per cent. higher than those of comparable authorities. Above all, and perhaps most relevant to today's debate, the authority saves money on the staff that it needs to deal with its finances, which presumably includes collecting the community charge. At March 1990, subject to inevitable differences in classification, while its overall staff level was considerably higher than that of comparable authorities, it had 239 fewer financial staff than the figure that other similar authorities reckoned they needed. The techniques used by Bristol city council to collect the community charge are not just inefficient ; they seem carefully designed to create the maximum suffering among people who are entitled to benefits. One of my constituents has dedicated his life to bringing up a large family, every one of whom is severely physically handicapped. Despite having to live largely on benefits, he has nevertheless had the courage to play a considerable part in the local community. Not surprisingly, he is entitled to a high community charge benefit. The council's response was to withdraw that benefit without warning in November and ask him to pay nearly £45 a month--about four and a half times what he had previously been paying. He came to see me nearly in tears because there was no way that he could possibly meet that bill out of his benefit. When I queried the bill, his rebate was reinstated and the only explanation given was that it had been withdrawn as a result of an annual review. Another constituent was continually being reassessed for the amount of community charge payable despite the fact that there was no change in his circumstances. When I asked why, I was told that there was currently a problem with the computer software interface between the benefits system and the community charge system which meant that some bills were produced unnecessarily. That was in January, nearly 10 months after the introduction of the charge. Clearly the problems have not yet been resolved because the council has just sent out huge batches of arrears notices without any previous explanation to the recipient. Some of them are for tiny sums, and some of them have been withdrawn as soon as they were queried.One group of people who I believe are wholly blameless for this chaos are the council officers involved--
Mr. Gould : The Government are responsible.
Mr. Stern : The Labour party is not interested in protecting council officers, but Conservative Members are.
There is no evidence that the council officers have done anything other than their best with the resources that they have been permitted by their political masters. The many apologies that I have received on behalf of my constituents for some of the errors and re-errors--I stress that the re- errors affect some of the most vulnerable members of the community--must have been painful ones for councillors to write.
A combination of misdirection of resources and failure to collect sums due to the council can be laid only at the door of the councillors who direct the council's functions. Councillors Robertson, Hammond, Naysmith and Micklewright and their acolytes determined that it was not worth collecting the money due and that the machinery for collection should be so inefficiently applied. Whether they did so out of incompetence or out of a desire to discredit the community charge I cannot say, but their recklessness
Column 847
with public money in Bristol makes it inevitable that the Government should step in to ensure that those councillors have less money to mishandle.8.7 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South) : I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will not leave now because I wish to talk about the air of sweet reasonableness that he adopted. He had an air of calculated, warmhearted consideration for local authorities. I have never heard a Minister talk through his hat as much as the Minister did a moment ago.
The Minister said some fine words about Stoke-on-Trent and painted a pretty picture about what was being done to help. He showed that he does not know what he is talking about because Stoke-on-Trent has been heavily penalised by the Government. The Minister said that the Government's caps are reasonable and responsible. How can he say that about a system that hurts authorities that do not merit being hurt ? The way in which Stoke-on-Trent has been hurt is shocking. I am surprised that both the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment can stand by their decision.
It has been rumoured that the local authority representatives who saw the Under-Secretary, as Stoke-on-Trent did in good faith, got nothing, while those who saw the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities got some concessions. That is only a rumour, but if it is true it shows a certain division within the Department, whereby the Under-Secretary was used as a foil, almost a bait. Everyone commented on how nice he was--of course he is a nice man of whom I am fond. However, he gave nothing, while the Minister gave concessions. Is there a little bit of political manoeuvring going on? I am prepared for the Ministers to deny that.
Mr. Portillo : The implication that my hon. Friend is a hard man and I am a softie is absurdly flattering to both of us.
Mr. Ashley : I am afraid that the Minister has misunderstood even what I said, let alone the policy. The implication was that his hon. Friend was the soft man and that he was the hard man. Far from flattering the Minister, I was insulting him.
I am sorry that Stoke-on-Trent has been included in the Government's proposals. The authority has never been extravagant or profligate. The Government's object is to hit authorities that have shown those tendencies. Stoke-on-Trent has set low rates for decades, owing to its low-paid workers and pottery industries. Because of that tradition of low rates, Stoke-on- Trent has no proper facilities. It is trying to change that, but is being prevented by the Government, who are adamantly capping the council's finances. That is an unrealistic action : Stoke-on-Trent is being hit as it tries to clamber out of the confinement of the current recession.
Stoke-on-Trent has been called a sick city--and rightly so. In half its wards, the average child will not live to experience retirement. Dereliction in the area is such that three times the national average number of houses have no inside WC and twice the national average number have no bath, while 53 per cent. of its houses are substandard.
Those are shocking figures. People may well call Stoke-on-Trent a sick city --although I prefer to call it a
Column 848
Cinderella city because it has been neglected by the Government and left to rot, yet it could have a glittering future if given the right kind of help. In the next four minutes, I shall plead for help from the Government. Mine will be a short speech, but it will put a reasoned case. I ask the Minister to stand up to the Treasury, and demand a fair deal for Stoke-on-Trent.Stoke-on-Trent's 1990 standard spending assessment was low, and there was no significant improvement in 1991. The final insult was a £410,000 cut in the provisional assessment. When I complained about the low SSA to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, he gave me an interesting answer. He said that the 16.6 per cent. increase was
"some way above the class average".
"Class average", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a town such as Stoke-on-Trent. The realistic and relevant criterion would be obtained through a comparison with the nine largest shire districts in England.
Stoke-on-Trent's assessment is £128. The top figure is £237, and the average is £164. Where is the sense in that? Why should one district receive £128 and another £237? There is no justice or fairness there. It is outrageous that Leicester, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Hull, Southampton, Plymouth, Derby and Bristol should all have higher SSAs per head than Stoke-on-Trent. The Government are penalising a city that has already been penalised. Let me make it clear that I am not criticising the other cities that I have mentioned ; if they can secure higher SSAs, good luck to them. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has arrived in the Chamber. I am in the process of putting the case for Stoke-on-Trent--a special case, for Stoke-on-Trent has been treated very badly. As I have said, I do not criticise those other cities. I believe, however, that the Government have been grossly unfair ; the comparison that I have highlighted is appalling. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will accept that they are damaging Stoke-on-Trent, and preventing it from breaking out of the poverty trap that has been inflicted on the whole county. As I said, Stoke-on-Trent is a sick city. It is also a poor city. Unless the Secretary of State acts at the eleventh hour, it will become a depressed city. Stoke-on-Trent's achievements are widely known. It has tremendous potential owing to the attractions of its skilled labour force, its excellent industrial relations, its good communications and its enterprising spirit. Tonight, however, it needs help very badly. Even at this late stage, I look to the Secretary of State to provide that help.
8.16 pm
Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington) : It might well be asked what a respectable county like Warwickshire is doing in company like this-- why it finds itself in the dock, awaiting sentence from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the House, along with all the old lags, by which I mean the profligate, high-spending Labour authorities which thoroughly deserve to be there. The answer lies in the grant settlement. In my speech, I shall submit that the county that I have the honour to represent--as do several of my hon. Friends who are present tonight--is being treated unfairly.
Column 849
It is only fair that I quote from a letter, dated 13 May, which I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. My hon. Friend wrote :"There is no question of Warwickshire being treated differently from other authorities, as I have said SSAs are calculated on general principles and differences in assessments reflect differences in characteristics. A relatively low SSA per adult does not penalise the authority in question, it merely reflects the proportionately lower costs faced by that authority."
That may apply in a number of instances. Certainly I regret the fact that my county council was charge capped, although, to be fair, I am sure that it is capable of further economies--scarcely any institutions are not capable of that, if they look into their hearts. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us half a loaf, and listened to the spirited representations made by Warwickshire Members and by the county council. Given the overall position, however--especially in regard to education--I do not think that Warwickshire could cope at this stage without the budget that it set itself. I believe, for two main reasons, that it would be unfair to reduce that budget to anything below £278.3 million.
Firstly, unlike many other authorities, the council decided a year ago not to use the introduction of the community charge as a smokescreen to hide irresponsible increases in expenditure. On the contrary, it took a number of restrictive financial steps to help support national policy, and to protect the population of Warwickshire from a high community charge. It reduced service budgets by £5.6 million, which was more than what was considered necessary, and £3 million of that reduction was intended to be only temporary, such as that relating to maintenance of roads and buildings and teachers in-service training--services that the council wanted to restore. A strong cash limit was set for pay and price increases, actual inflation was £2 million more than the amount that was provided, but the authority had to manage within the limits. The previous year's £1 million efficiency savings was removed from the budget permanently.
The precept was further reduced by taking £3.5 million from reserves and balances. As a result, the precept increased 11 per cent., compared with an average of 17 per cent. among county councils that the Audit Commission regards as fairly comparable with Warwickshire. That was the second lowest increase among county councils. Taking the past two years together, Warwickshire's precept increase is one of the lowest of all county councils.
The plain fact is that if Warwickshire had not made those reductions and used its reserves a year ago, it would not be facing capping along with profligate Labour councils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a fair man, but it is unfair that Warwickshire, which has behaved so reasonably, is being punished.
Ms. Primarolo : May we assume that the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby to vote against the cap for Warwickshire?
Sir Dudley Smith : The hon. Lady is right--I shall indeed. I do not blow hot and cold and fail to follow up my comments. I have much regard and respect for my right hon. Friend, who is a first-class Secretary of State, but he has been ill advised about Warwickshire by his officials
Column 850
and there is only one way to register my protest. Therefore, with much regret, although I hate voting with the Opposition, I shall vote with them today.My second point in defence of Warwickshire concerns the standard spending assessment formula, which is not only used to distribute revenue support grant but forms part of the criteria for selecting authorities to be capped. The formula consists of numerous elements, many of which Warwickshire regards as demonstrably unfair. I shall try not to weary the House, but I must give one or two important figures. The formula assumes that Warwickshire will earn £6.7 million interest on revenue balances and what are called usable capital receipts. But expected interest is only £1.5 million--a difference of £5.2 million. Revenue balances and expected capital receipts are low, so once again Warwickshire, which behaved sensibly last year in reducing its commitments, is being penalised for using reserves to reduce its community charge.
Mr. Stevens : My hon. Friend puts the case well. Does he agree that Warwickshire had a shortfall when the system changed from rate support grant to revenue support grant which is continuing from the previous year to this year? Grant increased by a modest amount this year, but that aggravated the problem which began in the first year of the scheme.
Sir Dudley Smith : My hon. Friend is right. That is why Warwickshire finds itself in the dock. Officials have not paid sufficient regard to that aspect.
The formula assumes that Warwickshire's labour costs are lower than in the south-east of England. That, too, is unfair as most pay scales are based on national rates. For teachers and police officers--almost half Warwickshire's work force significant local discretion is not only impractical but is not allowed. This part of the formula leaves the Warwickshire charge payer £26 worse off than a community charge payer in Oxfordshire. No one could say that Oxfordshire is Warwickshire's poor relation. The unfairness is compounded by the fact that, although the formula assumes lower labour costs in Warwickshire than in the south-east, it does not allow for higher costs in Warwickshire than in other parts of the country. Another unfairness stems from time lags. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the M40 motorway was opened recently and should have increased Warwickshire's SSA by almost £1 million. That would have been valuable, but we are not sure whether the figures will be fed through even in time for 1992-93. I am advised that other time lags have had a similar effect.
The SSA formula for the police does not reflect unavoidable costs falling on Warwickshire as a result of its having far more long-serving officers than average, and of its having to pay higher than average housing allowances. My hon. Friends and I have been to see the Home Secretary about that.
The fire service SSA for Warwickshire is £2.6 million less than the 1991-92 budget--a difference of more than 30 per cent. The service has remedied the over-provision identified by Her Majesty's inspector and I am sure that he would not support further reductions.
The county tells me that the SSA formula means that the less permission an authority receives from the Government to incur capital expenditure on credit, the less revenue money it needs to use instead. The authority
Column 851
regards that as nonsense, and so do I. It hits Warwickshire especially hard as the county has the second lowest basic credit approval per charge payer of all English county councils. A year ago, changes to the Department of the Environment's formula for deciding the appropriate spending for each authority cost Warwickshire £13 million overnight. Once again, it lost out disproportionately. That was the second worst change per charge payer of any county council. On 31 March last year, Warwickshire's education budget was within 1 per cent. of the education SSA's predecessor. The next day, despite adopting a tight budget for 1990-91, Warwickshire was deemed to be overspending on education by £11 million. That was partly a result of the Department of the Environment's civil servants attaching unreasonable weight to additional education needs. Such volatility must call into question the credibility of the SSA system.Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : Will my hon. Friend reflect on what may happen next year? Will he find time in his speech to ask Ministers whether they will carefully consider the SSAs for next year so that we do not find ourselves in the same position as this year?
Sir Dudley Smith : My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. He knows the line that many of us have tried to develop before. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here because he is the man who can help us.
The credibility of the SSA system is being questioned by Tory, socialist and Liberal Democrat county councillors in Warwickshire and by chief officers. They all believe that something is wrong with the system as it applies to Warwickshire.
Plainly, the situation cannot continue. My hon. Friends and I must go to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fairly soon with my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). I appreciate that they are in a difficult position as they are members of the Government, but we must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider Warwickshire in a different light in order to achieve fairness in the future. I think that we can reach an accommodation and I hope that we shall.
I very much regret that I have no alternative but to vote against the Government tonight.
Sir Dudley Smith My hon. Friend says, "Shame", but it would be a hollow thing to make a speech such as I have made and then to abstain or walk away. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a perceptive politician. He realises the pressures generated in our county and why I shall vote against the Government. I shall do it not with delight, but with sorrow. In doing so, I hope that my hon. Friends and I will be able in due course to get a better deal from the Department of the Environment.
8.30 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : I join other hon. Members who have expressed their deep sorrow about what happened tonight in India--the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. It is an appalling thing to happen in the world's biggest democracy. In our democracy such an
Column 852
event has not been successful in recent years, although very nearly so, and all hon. Members will feel strong sympathy for his family.Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : It happened to Ian Gow.
Mr. Taylor : I was referring to party leaders and the incident involving the Prime Minister which was not successful. We have dealt with democratic issues tonight, so, in that sense, it may be relevant.
The order is an admission of failure by the Government. The fact that it is being debated at all shows that the Government have failed to create a system of local finance that it can leave to local authorities to operate. The Government have not created an accountable system in the way that they claimed that they would when they first suggested the poll tax.
The order creates more chaos, adds to the overwhelming cost of the tax and will mean that some poll tax payers will have been faced with a multitude of bills within the space of a few weeks. Another round of capping shows how far the poll tax has failed to deliver on one of its prime aims, which was to increase accountability between councils and the electorate. It is also a reason--admittedly one of many--why the poll tax has had to go.
It must not be forgotten that the poll tax was supposed, in the Government's terms, to rescue voters trapped in high-spending Labour authorities. The Government's logic was that once all those who did not under the old rating system have the burden of huge bills faced huge poll tax demands, they would vote Conservative for lower bills. However, all that has happened is that those who were trapped by high rates are now hit by high poll tax. The local elections showed that across Britain the electorate is voting against the Conservative party which introduced those poll tax bills. The electorate is clear about where the responsibility lies.
However, it is not the promise of high bills and services that creates the Lambeths of this country--it is the electoral system. The Government have been prepared to sacrifice Lambeth residents and others to protect their fiefdoms in areas such as Wandsworth. The figures for Lambeth, which is being capped again, show how one-party domination of the borough is not supported by the voters. In 1986 and in 1990, most of the votes cast in Lambeth were against the Labour party, but at both elections the Labour party was returned with a majority of seats. In 1990, Lambeth had the highest poll tax in the country and the majority of voters voted against the ruling party, yet Labour still controls the council. Therefore, the accountability argument is meaningless in the face of an unrepresentative electoral system. A fair voting system would ensure that, in party terms, the voters had the council for which they voted. I believe that that would inevitably mean that they were able at last to exercise control over the financial direction of that council.
Capping is thus a product of a corrupt and unfair electoral system combined with a corrupt, unfair and unworkable local tax and a grant equalisation system about which one can say, at the very least, that there is a suspicion that it arbitrarily helps some councils while penalising others.
Capping as a solution not only takes away local democracy, but means real cuts in services--cuts that will affect people's welfare, whether they are cuts in swimming
Column 853
pools and libraries or cuts in social services and education. Poll tax capping is a particular evil if the council is also the local education authority because the education budget is usually the largest and is, therefore, inevitably the one most cut.Let us consider Tory-run Warwickshire, for example. We have heard much about Warwickshire and I am delighted that at least one Conservative Member who represents a Warwickshire constituency will vote against the Government tonight. I hope that others will follow him because, as he said, they have good reason to do so.
Warwickshire county council set a budget of £278 million, which meant cuts of £7 million in services. The capping limit was £272 million, although that has now been changed to £275 million. At the £272 million capping level, 211 teachers faced redundancy, and even now it is estimated that 20 to 40 teacher redundancies will still be necessary--all this when class sizes in some schools are still in the high thirties. Other cuts include those in in-service training for teachers, in- school maintenance budgets, the removal of support for standard assessment tests and for national curriculum preparation. There will also be cuts in the youth service, in the careers service, in the peripatetic music service, in library services and in adult education--the list goes on. Warwickshire is not a high-spending Labour council ; it is a so-called cost -conscious Tory council. So much for the practical effects of the Government's actions on councils run by their own party.
Wirral is a classic example of a council where people have been caught between Government policies and local Labour irresponsibility. Cuts of about £7.9 million now have to be made which could have been avoided had the ruling Labour group made savings last year. Instead, it decided to pick a collision course with the Government, and the Government were only too happy to oblige with a collision course of their own.
Of the £7.9 million in cuts, almost £5 million will be taken from the education budget. That includes a cut of £1 million from the Wirral metropolitan college--so much for the Government's statement yesterday on education if colleges are having their budgets cut rather than increased. The schools budget will be cut by £1.3 million. What type of system allows and encourages education to be a political football and which means that the children in the classroom end up the losers?
Those examples cause me to wonder what cuts we should be facing in Cornwall if the county's Tory Members had had their way. When Cornwall county council was setting last year's budget, the county's four Tory Members called on the Government to cap the county. Fortunately, they did not get their way, not least because the county was not by any stretch of the imagination an overspender. If the Tory MPs had had their way, Cornwall would be facing the same devastation of services suffered in the areas that have been capped. Would we be sacking teachers, cutting vital social services and leaving school buildings in bad repair? Would children have the books and equipment that they need? Would village schools have closed? What did those Tory MPs have in mind?
Inadequate Government funding means that Cornwall county council cannot spend what it needs to spend on education and cannot respond to the cry from parents for
Column 854
the investment to improve decaying Victorian schools which do not have the facilities to meet the Government's minimum standards, to bring them up to the level that parents and children should expect. In an effort to keep the poll tax as low as possible, Cornwall county council has this year set a budget under the standard spending assessment, as it has done every year but one. That one year was not because it wildly spent money, but because, quite extraordinarily and without any discernible reason, the SSA suddenly dropped and the council became, we were told, an overspender instead of an underspender. We are told it is an underspender again this year. This is the ludicrous and laughable system which the Government call fair and equitable but which is about as steady and measured as a yo-yo. The fact that Cornwall county council was fortunate not to be cut back is shown above all by the comments of Conservative Members who represent Warwickshire and who have experienced just how harsh, unfair and unrepresentative is the reality of poll tax capping. If the order were the final throw of a doomed system, it would not be so bad, but we know that we have years yet to come of the poll tax and that we have years yet to come of the capping system--if the Government get their way. For the country, the demise of the poll tax is not so much a sudden death as like an old-fashioned B-movie horror film in which the monster sinks back into the depths, swiping out all around and taking many with it.Ministers must tell us tonight what will happen next year if there is a late election. Will the grant system continue unamended ? Will we continue to have ludicrous, unaccountable decisions taken in Whitehall as at present ? What will be the likely levels of the poll tax ? Who will be capped next year ? Above all, what will be the impact on council revenues of the additional non-payment resulting from people thinking that the poll tax has been abolished ? How easy will it be for local authorities to collect payments from people when the Government now acknowledge that the bills are unfair, and unworkable, and should be abolished ? The councils are being put into an impossible situation and the result will be even more chaos and difficulty.
The tragedy is that an alternative is available to the Government. An alternative has always been available. It is fair, accountable, used in other countries and recommended by many independent bodies including the Layfield committee. The alternative is a local income tax, which is the only system directly related to ability to pay, the only system that uses a structure that is already in place and the only system that uses the system of taxation that the Government use nationally because they recognise that it has a measure of fairness. Such a tax would win great local support and would allow devolution of control to local authorities which no other system can do because no other is fair enough. The link between the charge and the council would be there for all to see with a local income tax. The fairness between one individual and another would be there for all to see. The Liberal Democrats can promise what the other parties cannot--that, under our system, we will not have capping because we will not need capping. We would honour what a local authority decided democratically because, under a fair electoral system and a fair taxation system, there would be genuine local accountability. Under the council tax, the Government have already made it plain that they will thwart local democracy and
Column 855
introduce vigorous capping powers. It is, as usual, unclear what the Labour party will do and how they will tackle their own party's extravagance and overspending. The truth is that Labour dare not introduce the one thing that would measure the accountability that it claims to want, which is a genuinely representative electoral system. It appears that the only option to which Labour can resort is the wholesale expulsion of its awkward councillors around the country. The Government may claim that the powers in the order are welcome in the areas affected. Everybody who has contacted me from those areas and everybody from those areas to whom I have talked believes that the powers are anything but welcome. Where we see Conservative local authorities capped, we see Conservative Members denying that the powers are welcome in their areas. They point out how unfair and how harsh capping is. The truth is that the only reason that Conservative Members will support the measure tonight is that most Conservative areas have been removed from any threat of capping by the creation of a ludicrous, unrepresentative and entirely invented system to ensure that most Conservative councils escape. I hope that it will not be simply one hon. Member from Warwickshire who votes against the measure, but that it will be all of them and that they will take many of their colleagues with them.8.43 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : I shall not fall into the temptation of following the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in a discussion of all the different methods of raising local government finance. However, I know that my constituents would not welcome a local income tax, which would be highly expensive for many of them and would set up new bureaucracies within local government organisations. The hon. Gentleman's party needs to rethink that aspect of its policy.
I support the Government's decision to cap overspending local authorities. I also favour such action in the case of Norwich city council, which takes in part of my constituency. I will be fairly critical of the Labour politicians who are in charge in Norwich, but that criticism is not intended to be a criticism of the many people who work in Norwich city council and who help to respond to my constituency cases--I say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who will, I am sure, agree--in a very efficient way. However, I shall be very critical of the Labour politicians who run Norwich city council.
Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : The hon. Gentleman represents part of the city of Norwich which may explain why his visibility in that great city is within a glimmer of vanishing point. Before he starts his attack on Norwich city Labour councillors, will he agree that that city has been under Labour control for 55 years, that in the past two May local elections the Tory party came third and that the representation of Tory councillors on Norwich council is two or three--I cannot remember which-- and will almost certainly vanish completely within the next couple of May elections? Is not that a verdict by the people of Norwich on the councillors whom the hon. Gentleman is about to attack?
Mr. Thompson : I should be very much out of order if I were to pursue that point. However, the hon. Member for
Column 856
Norwich, South will know that the Labour vote fell in the most recent local elections in the city part of my constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in two successive general elections, the Tory majority in my part of the city of Norwich--Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the order.
| Next Section
| Home Page |