| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting,
Column 59
but I am extremely intrigued about how the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss in detail a Bill which has seven clauses, only two of which apply specifically to England and Wales, three of which apply specifically to Scotland and two of which are shared. How can he entertain the House with a graphic description of the detail of the Bill when he persists in telling us that all questions about Scotland will be deferred until the reply to the debate?Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : That is not a point of order.
Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer his question specifically. The first answer is on clause 2 which deals with Scotland and will bring the Scottish capping powers into line with those in England and Wales. Experience has shown that the existing powers have proved inadequate given local authorities' lack of regard for the interests of their charge payers. Yet under the present legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken action against only one authority. That authority has been referred to already. It is Lothian regional council. My right hon. Friend took action against only one authority notwithstanding that Scottish authorities chose to increase their charges by an average of 30 per cent. That outrageous increase was despite a very fair grant settlement of 10.4 per cent. which should have enabled local authorities to keep charges at reasonable levels. Clause 2 will amend the Scottish capping powers, thus enabling my right hon. Friend to take capping action where he is satisfied that an authority's planned expenditure is excessive or that there is an excessive increase in such planned expenditure compared with the previous year. With these amendments for the first time my right hon. Friend will be able to take action against excessive increases in budgets. My right hon. Friend will also for the first time be able to set out the principles or criteria by reference to which he will take his capping decisions.
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : The Secretary of State says that, for the first time, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to take action against excessive increases in budgets. Will he explain why that was not possible under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 ? The Secretary of State has smoothly referred to the increase in the community charge, but will he tell us the increase in local authority expenditure in the same period ?
Mr. Heseltine : I do not remember any 1966 Act. I thought that the position was clear and that the Labour party had not introduced specific capping measures. Any measures that we introduced must have come in the 1980s and I was not asked questions about them.
Mr. Douglas : Will the Secretary of State give way ?
Mr. Heseltine : No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
Mr. Dewar : I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the foundation legislation in which powers to take action against excessive and unreasonable expenditure are taken is section 5 of the 1966 Act. Of
Column 60
course, that Act has been amended many times. I ask the Secretary of State to explain the exact change in terms of the excessive expenditure of a threatened authority. Will he also answer the other question ? When he says that excessive increases in expenditure are important, will he give the excessive increase last year in the expenditure of Scottish local authorities ?Mr. Heseltine : I have given the figures for the increased expenditure of local authorities and the effect on their charges. In our view, it was excessive and unacceptable. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to bring the powers in Scotland into line with the powers in England. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the position that arises out of the 1966 legislation. However, the capping provisions were introduced under this Government some 20 years later. So it is not realistic to think that the Labour Government in 1966 ever sought to constrain Scottish local authorities under the type of legislative controls that we are discussing. If they did-- [Interruption.] I do not know what the fuss is about, or why the Labour party constantly carps about what we are doing. I hope that the Labour party will vote with my hon. Friends and me in the Lobby because apparently we have reached unanimity about the need to cap Scottish local authorities. This Bill therefore, if approved, will strengthen our capping powers for 1992-93. It is our intention, as this year, to announce in advance the capping criteria that we intend to adopt. We are seeking rapid enactment of this measure so that our capping powers are clear before we come to make that announcement in the autumn and before authorities come to consider their budgets. All authorities will know before they take their budget decisions what are our intentions for capping. Neither my right hon. Friends nor I are seeking next year to cap large numbers of authorities. It is our hope that authorities will choose to budget sensibly. But let there be no doubt that we shall not hesitate to cap any authority which budgets excessively or budgets for an excessive increase and thus burdens its charge payers. With our new powers, if this Bill is approved, charge payers everywhere will have the protection which they have the right to expect.
Clauses 3 to 6 of the Bill deal with valuation and are the first step towards our objective of introducing a council tax from 1 April 1993. We published our consultation paper on the new council tax to replace the community charge on 23 April. I told the House that there would be no need for precise valuations of every house or flat for the council tax.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we are short of time and I must get on with this section of my speech. Instead, our plans for the council tax involved allocating properties to one of seven broad bands. The Bill provides the necessary powers. I remind the House that under the scheme that we have proposed, people in the lowest band of property will pay two thirds of those in a property in the middle band in the area. People in a highest band property will pay two thirds more than those in the middle band in the area. That means that, in each case, a household in a highest band property will pay two and a half times as much as one in the lowest band.
Column 61
We are committed to avoiding the very high bills which discredited the rates.Dr. Godman : Will the Secretary of State give way?
This year, on the assumptions that we set out, a council in England which spent at the standard level--
Dr. Godman : With his usual courtesy, will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Heseltine : A council which spent at the standard level would have charged a household of two or more people in a top band property no more than £668 and such a household in a lowest band home no more than £267.
Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Clause 3 deals with the assessment by local assessors of the value of domestic properties in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State intend to say anything about a right of appeal? Will such a right be part of the extant Scottish legal system or will an independent appeals tribunal be created in Scotland?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There will be a right of appeal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, assessors in Scotland come within the local government system, which is different from the arrangements for England. The Bill contains special arrangements to deal with that contingency and, particularly, to make grants available to local authorities in Scotland to meet the additional expenditure involved.
There are specific provisions for Scotland, and certainly there will be a right of appeal in Scotland as there will be in England and Wales.
Mr. Dewar : I am sure that that will be a matter of discussion later in the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been much curiosity in Scotland about clause 5(3) which states :
"A local assessor shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
In Scotland, the assessor has always been an independent authority, and I am anxious to know what those directions might be.
Mr. Heseltine : That is an important point ; there should be parity of valuation in Scotland, England and Wales. It is our intention for the Inland Revenue to mastermind the valuation exercise, using assessors in Scotland. It is important that it should be possible for the Inland Revenue to give appropriate directives so that the Scottish valuations are in line with those in England and Wales. That is the purpose of the exercise.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : My right hon. Friend will remember that when we debated the community charge legislation a lot of his hon. Friends supported it on the basis that we thought it would be introduced at a relatively low level. In the event, it came in 50 or 60 per cent. higher than we anticipated.
My right hon. Friend has just said that, on his calculations, when the council tax is introduced--bearing in mind the fact that people spend according to needs and are effective and efficient in their use of resources--the tax
Column 62
levels reached will be acceptable to his hon. Friends. Will my right hon. Friend say how confident he is that the council tax will be restricted to those levels ?Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will want to join me with enthusiasm in the Lobby tonight. It is precisely because we do not want to get caught again that we now have comprehensive capping arrangements to prevent the Labour party from frittering away the benefits that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available in his recent Budget. Taken together with the personal discount, this year households with one adult would have paid no more than £501 in the top band and no more than £200 in the lowest band. People on low incomes will receive rebates in addition to any discounts to which they are entitled and there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. It will be seen, and it has already been seen by public opinion, as a fair tax and much to be welcomed.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Does my right hon. Friend not think that there is a logical case for introducing the council tax at the same time as local government reform or for bringing local government reform forward to coincide with the introduction of the council tax in those areas which have already had the benefit of a Boundaries Commission recommendation? Will he confirm that the discretion on the 50 per cent. reduction rebate for second homes will remain with local authorities and not be taken by central Government? I was robust in ensuring that all my second-home owners paid a full charge and were not subsidised by the local community. Will he also confirm that 100 per cent. rebates will be available when necessary because that has been a particular problem with the community charge?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions. We have made it clear that there will be a comprehensive rebate system and that there will not be a minimum assumption as under the community charge arrangements. Our arrangements for empty properties have also been made clear. They will be subject to two personal discounts, and that will be a standard arrangement across the country and without discretion.
My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of phasing in the new council tax. I do not think that that would be practical or, frankly, desirable. I believe that people want to see the council tax in place at the earliest possible opportunity, which we believe to be 1993. The phasing of the structural changes to local government will start in 1994 and will follow on from that. It would not be appropriate to wait for that to coincide with financial changes and there would be a great deal of pressure on us to introduce the community charge replacement scheme in 1993 as we intend.
Mr. Adley : I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. It sounds as though there will be a perpetual motion of changes to local government finance and local government boundaries. That causes some concern.
The Association of District Councils seems to be encouraging chief executives to tell their Members of Parliament that, whatever the Government's intentions, there will be a need to establish a register for the council tax. Will my right hon. Friend disabuse us of that proposition? Will he say a little more about how rebates
Column 63
can be claimed? Will he do his best to ensure that that information is disseminated as widely as possible? How will he go about that?Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will understand that they are matters for the principal legislation, which will be introduced in the autumn. When I made my first announcement to the House, I made it clear that we did not see the need for a register to make the system workable. One of the attractions of a broad banding system is to avoid the need for a register. I believe that that was widely welcomed when I made that announcement.
Details on the specific nature of the rebate system will be announced in good time for people to understand them and to make comments on them as we move towards legislation. They are not covered by the narrow and specific Bill that we are debating today. The provisions in the Bill will enable progress to be made as soon as possible towards the new system we decide upon after considering the suggestions put to us during consultation. The provisions are enabling provisions covering two crucial aspects of preparation for a new property-based council tax.
First, they provide the power for the allocation of domestic properties to bands to be carried out--that is a power to prescribe principles for the exercise in regulations. Secondly, they ensure access to the information needed to ensure that the allocation is soundly based. There are tough safeguards on the use that can be made of that information.
We have made no secret of our intention that private sector valuers should undertake much of the work involved in the valuation. This will be effective and economical. It will ensure speedy action and, most of all, it will make use of the great expertise available in the profession which it must be right for us to tap. I can, however, assure the House that the overall process of valuation will be supervised by the commissioners of Inland Revenue to ensure the uniformity of treatment that is essential if the valuation is to be fair and sound.
I have already described how those provisions interrelate with those for Scotland where the assessors will be responsible for carrying out valuation. The expertise which they have accumulated in undertaking large- scale valuation exercises makes them well placed to do the job promptly and thoroughly. It is important that the valuation task is tackled consistently throughout Great Britain, and the commissioners of Inland Revenue are given a power--which hon. Members have mentioned--of direction to ensure that consistency in Scotland. The assessors already work with the Inland Revenue valuation office to achieve consistent treatment of non-domestic valuations, and this collaboration will now be extended to the domestic sector.
Mr. Douglas rose --
Mr. Heseltine : I have already given way three times to the hon. Gentleman.
As the assessors are local government employees the clause empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay local authorities' grant towards the assessors' costs. In other respects, the provisions for Scotland follow the parallel English provisions.
Column 64
Clause 4, for England and Wales, and clause 6, for Scotland, enable those carrying out the valuation to obtain the information necessary to do so. Information is a sensitive subject, and I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the protection we have built into the Bill. In particular, clause 3(6) provides that disclosure of information obtained for the purpose of valuation could lead to imprisonment or a heavy fine, or both. I cannot stress too highly the importance that we attach to securing that the information which is obtained as part of this exercise is used properly and only for the purpose for which it has been provided.We have set out our firm intention of introducing a council tax on 1 April 1993 and have been advised that to do so requires urgent action if the preparations are to be made properly. We have listened and have brought before the House practical measures which will result in a fair and soundly based system of local government finance operative from 1 April 1993.
The Bill prepares the way for the introduction of the council tax. By strengthening our capping powers, we can be confident that expenditure will be restrained and that charges will be at acceptable levels. We are now bringing forward serious practical measures designed to secure our firm objective of introducing a fair and practical council tax from April 1993.
6.10 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : The only remarkable feature of the otherwise unremarkable speech that we have just heard is the fact that it was the Secretary of State made it. After all, he has shown a marked reluctance to come to the Dispatch Box to spell out his views on capping. Just two days before the Whitsun recess, he ducked out of the capping order debate and delegated it to his Minister of State. He originally intended that this measure, too, should be handled by his junior Ministers. At least this time we have shamed the right hon. Gentleman into coming to the Dispatch Box to explain the measure, but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does not appear to be present.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is not usually a shrinking violet--he does not normally shun the limelight. That leaves us puzzled about why he has shown uncharacteristic reluctance and reticence, an impression that was reinforced by his speech today, in which he scarcely concealed his distaste for some of the proposals that he had to put forward. We are also puzzled about why he has been prepared to show that he has little enthusiasm for the measure. The most likely explanation is that the Bill represents a series of defeats. It is a compendium of the defeats that the Secretary of State has suffered at the hands of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. As a consequence, he regards the Bill as an embarrassing record of his failures and therefore feels little commitment to it. Indeed, he feels antipathy for some of the provisions.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould : No, I wish to complete this point.
The fact that the Secretary of State does not mind who knows his position speaks volumes for his relationship with the Prime Minister. Even his speech this evening can only fuel speculation that, in common with the rest of the
Column 65
country, the right hon. Gentleman has decided that the Prime Minister's days are numbered and that he does not mind whether his conclusion becomes public knowledge.Mr. Nicholls : The hon. Gentleman spoke of embarrassment. As he is on record as saying that he approves of capping and also that he does not approve of it, will he share his embarrassment with us and say which of those alternatives he supports?
Mr. Gould : The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck ; there is little doubt about our position, which has been established on many occasions and which I am happy to repeat now. We oppose wholeheartedly and thoroughly the principle of capping and, as we advocate the independence and value of local government, we believe that the right controls over local government spending are those exercised by the electorate through the ballot box.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould : I shall give way in a moment.
It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is less than enthusiastic for the Bill.
Mr. Nicholls : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is on record as having said that, in extremis, there must always be a reserve power. Is it in order for him now to say that he said no such thing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Gould : It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is less than enthusiastic about the Bill. After all, its first objective is a massive and comprehensive extension of capping powers, something against which the Secretary of State has consistently--at least he has been consistent on that issue--set his face. The Bill achieves nothing short of the universal capping which the right hon. Gentleman proclaimed, in his famous article in The Times on 10 May last year, would be
"an act of centralised power outside our experience. On those grounds alone it should be resisted."
The mere fact that the Secretary of State has nailed his colours to that mast does not mean that he will not chop it down at the first opportunity. After all, he cannot pass a revolving door without spending a couple of enjoyable turns within it.
Mr. Marlow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould : If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point, I shall give way in a moment.
It is significant that, despite his U-turns and climbdowns, the Secretary of State has so far not recanted on that subject. His enthusiasm for the position that he has taken has been consistently maintained, as he has showed this evening. On this measure, he has been clear and vehement. In his article in The Times, he virtually issued a call to arms in defence of local government independence. Little wonder that he is so reluctant to have to eat those words and to introduce universal capping, which he so eloquently condemned in that article.
Mrs. Currie : We should all like to know the hon. Gentleman's views on capping. I heard him say, on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, on 27 March 1990, that,
Column 66
in extremis, there would have to be a reserve power. Does he still think so? If not, how on earth does he propose to control public spending and inflation?Mr. Gould : The Labour party is opposed, and always has been, to the principle of capping. We would control local government spending through the discipline exercised by the ballot box, which we would ensure was more effective because of our provision for annual elections.
Mr. Heseltine : I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's questions. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by the words "in extremis"?
Mr. Gould : If the right hon. Gentleman really wants me to spell it out, I am glad to do so. I was answering a question that was put in such terms as to suggest that no legal controls could ever be exercised over local government spending. The point that I was making was that, in extremis, in cases of illegality or fraud, a reserve power would always be available. Anyone who understands local government would accept that point.
Mr. Heseltine : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers George Bernard Shaw's well-known phrase, "We have established the principle ; we are now haggling about the terms."
Mr. Gould : I happen to know the full story, but it is clear from the frozen reactions of the Secretary of State's colleagues that not many of them do. I am sorry that he failed to make his point.
Mr. Marlow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould : No, I wish to make progress ; I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind.
By eating his words even on capping--the one issue on which he steadfastly maintained his position for well over a year--the Secretary of State presents a sad spectacle. He is embarrassed not only because he is now forced to act inconsistently with his stirringly stated principle, but also because he knows that he was right on 10 May 1990 and he is wrong now.
No Secretary of State who claims to value local government can come to the House and proclaim that henceforth every budget for every local authority must be set within limits prescribed by central Government. However, that is the sad end of a long process that began a long time ago--it certainly seems so--with fine words that many hon. Members will remember about the poll tax reinforcing local democracy and imposing renewed accountability. The process then took refuge in a limited capping power, which the Secretary of State said was designed to restrain the largest overspenders. That process has now been swept away, and all pretence has gone that the Government are interested even in paying lip service to the principle of local government autonomy.
Let us be clear what the Bill is about. It is no longer a question of restraining the largest authorities or the most irresponsible overspenders or even--this is the point for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)--those Labour-controlled authorities so beloved of Tory mythology. The Bill is a comprehensive statement of no confidence in the whole of local government. It does not matter how big the authority is, what its record on
Column 67
spending might be or what its political control is or has been. All local authorities are now on notice that they are not to be trusted. Under the new powers, every budget will be set within the limits imposed by the Secretary of State. Let us be clear on how extensive those powers will be. If the £15 million protection had not been in force for 1991-92, 37 districts would have spent more than 25 per cent. above their standard spending assessment, 42 would have been spending 20 per cent. above their SSA, and 55 would have spent 12.5 per cent. above their SSA. On the criteria applied for this year, huge numbers of local authorities would have had to be capped, including many Tory-controlled smaller districts.So much for local democracy and the power of local electors to decide what services they want and what they are willing to pay for them. Henceforth, the man in Whitehall knows best. It is far from clear on what basis his judgment is to be made. Is it to be made on the basis of SSAs, which everyone now knows to be unrealiable, in which confidence is completely lacking and which, in the case of small authorities, even Ministers conceded during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, provided too blunt an instrument to fine-tune the budgets of small authorities? Is that to be the basis of the judgment imposed from Whitehall, or is it to be a criterion that measures a year-on-year increase in spending? If so, the Secretary of State may well find himself capping many districts that have restrained their spending to lower than the SSA. The process is the apotheosis of that centralising power that the Secretary of State described. It is not an exaggeration to say that it will be the end of local government as we have known it for more than a century, until that happy day comes when we can get rid of the Government who have imposed the dead hand of Whitehall on local democracy.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is saying that, under his policy, the ballot box will be arbiter. If that is so--I believe that he will accept that in some authorities 20 to 25 per cent. of the electorate pay nothing ; indeed, there are some authorities where about 80 per cent. did not pay the full rates--where on earth is the democracy ? How is it democratic for that percentage of people to vote for an ever smaller number of people to pay more and more in totally unlimited spending within a local authority ?
Mr. Gould : In the light of the local government election results last month, I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman is nervous about the judgment of voters at the ballot box. The answer to his question has been most eloquently provided by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said--I do not have his exact words, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember them--that it was a complete myth to assume that large numbers of people did not pay the rates. He said that virtually everyone made some contribution, perhaps under an informal arrangement within a household or as part of a rent payment.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not do a cartwheel on that, because I have always thought that he was right on that issue, and has stuck to being right. It was a
Column 68
well-taken point in favour of rates and a property tax, and in view of the wholesale conversion among Conservatives who now condemn the poll tax, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has not caught up with the new orthodoxy. The fact that the Secretary of State has doubts and hesitations about capping is eminently understandable and is no doubt matches by his reservations on the Bill's second major objective--the preparations that it makes for the council tax. It enables the Secretary of State to give instructions to valuers so that a new valuation register can be prepared. The Bill's provisions must surely be an embarrassment to any Government who still pretend to be competent. We are still no nearer to knowing what the basis of that valuation will be. We have been told by the Secretary of State that it will be solely capital values.We were then told by the Minister of State on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, of which Conservative Members are such avid listeners, that other factors might also be taken into account. When we challenged the Secretary of State in the House on which of the conflicting views was correct, he said that they both were. The Bill does nothing to clear up that confusion. That is surely one of the questions on which the process of consultation is intended to cast light, so why not wait until the consultation has taken place ? The answer to that question reveals another Government embarrassment. They have to give the impression of making rapid progress to deflect the widespread scepticism about the timetable that they have set for themselves. The Government still say that they are aiming for 1993, despite the experts' publicly stated doubts about whether that date is remotely achieveable. Only by going through the motions can the Government keep alive--at least until the election--the illusion that the poll tax is rapidly on its way out. That illusion matters, because the poll tax, far from being dead, lives on and will be here for years to come.
Already, there is widespread anger on the part of nearly half of all poll tax payers as they discover that they do not qualify for the full £140 reduction that they were promised. That anger will mount as people realise that the poll tax bills will keep coming, they will still have to live with the unfairness and unworkability of the tax and, for each year during which it survives, they will have to pay, on average, £140 per household more than they need.
That is to say nothing of the nightmare facing local government as it grapples with the problems of collecting a tax that the Prime Minister describes as already uncollectable, and which can only become more so the longer it lingers. That is why the Government have to pretend to a certainty that certainly does not exist, and why they have had to truncate the process of consultation, revealing it to be the sham that it truly is.
While I am talking about truncating processes, I understand that we are to be subjected to a guillotine motion next week for the purpose of rushing the Bill through. I give notice that we shall oppose that motion with all the strength at our command.
Another vexed question involves the number and range of the bands. The Bill specifies that it is intended that valuations should be made on the basis of bands, but it does not say how many. It does not state whether individual valuations will first be made and then assigned to bands, or whether the exercise will simply push whole chunks of property into certain bands. Whatever the
Column 69
answer, we should be clear that, contrary to the optimistic noises from Ministers, there is the prospect of huge numbers of appeals when people feel that they have been placed in the wrong band. Or course, the Government have committed themselves outside the terms of the Bill to a seven-band system, on the basis of which they have produced some figures--the Secretary of State used them again this evening--which purport to tell people the size of the bills that they will have to pay. It is worth rehearsing for a moment the history of this disreputable exercise.At the end of February, the Government set in train an exercise that required district valuers to make an estimate--no field work was done, no valuations would be carried out--in the course of about five days which would allocate all the properties in their areas to one of 14 bands, the top band of which was £500,000 or more. Once that exercise had been done on that very shaky basis, it was presumably taken by the Secretary of State to Cabinet. When the Cabinet and the Prime Minister saw it, they did not like it : they threw it out. They insisted on substantial change, and the Secretary of State suffered yet another of his defeats.
The Prime Minister insisted that a 14-band system would be too painful for well-heeled Tory supporters, especially in the south, and he further insisted that a seven-band system, with a new top band of only £160,000, should be substituted. None of the seven bands then defined corresponded with any of the 14 bands delineated in the earlier exercise. So we are left with a 14-band exercise based on guesstimates which were then translated into seven wholly different bands--
Mr. Gould : The hon. Lady reveals a great deal about the psychology of Conservative Members, and thereby invalidates the very figures that the Secretary of State advanced this evening to try to persuade people that the council tax would somehow produce lower bills. We are left, as I said, with a series of inventions based on estimates. It is on the basis of these wholly fanciful statistical inventions that the Government have produced their supposed figures for average bills. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government were panic-stricken, not to say gobsmacked, and were so intent on producing any figures, however wild the assumptions on which they were based, that they rushed out figures based on total invention.
Mrs. Currie : I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has even less experience of government that I have. Had he any experience of government, he would know that the intelligent, sensible way for Government to go about their business is to invite papers from their civil servants and to discuss various possibilities. That is exactly what the Government did. Does he not consider that a matter not for criticism but of great credit to the Government?
Mr. Gould : I do not want to be too cruel to the hon. Lady, but I think that, in the light of her record in government, she would do well to be a little less patronising. I suspect that, if we compared experiences in a year or two, we might find that the balance had changed somewhat.
The hon. Lady does not understand why a 14-band exercise which was abandoned and converted to a
| Next Section
| Home Page |