House of Commons
Tuesday 5 May 1998
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
The Secretary of State was asked--
Council Tax
1. Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): What has been the average change in council tax levels for 1998-99. [39503]
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The increase in council tax for the average household is 96p per week.
Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, which is meaningless to my constituents. Thanks to the Government's first local government finance award, £14 million has been taken out of the budget for Norfolk and the council tax has gone up by 16 per cent. For the people of Norfolk, that means new Labour, new taxes. What hope do the people of Norfolk have that things will get better next year?
Ms Armstrong: The increases in council tax this year reflect the changes that the previous Administration intended to introduce as part of the rebalancing of central and local taxation. Hon. Members will remember that, to get themselves out of the poll tax, the previous Administration put 2.5p on VAT and centralised local government spending enormously. They recognised that that was a mistake and began to amend it just before the election. We have continued that process and shall continue to set fair and meaningful taxes in our local government settlement next year.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): My hon. Friend is right when she draws attention to the problems that she and her colleagues inherited from the previous Government. Does she agree that one of the problems inherited from the Tories was the width of the gap between local authority spending and the standard spending assessment allowed by the Government, which increased throughout the 18 years of Tory government? I hope that my hon. Friend will work to correct that error and to narrow--and eventually close--the gap between local government spending and assistance from Government.
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend will know that we are currently consulting on changes to local government
finance and trying to make it fairer and better balanced. Local people need to know that they are getting the quality of services that they expect, at the price they are prepared to pay. Our settlement this year has begun to move us in that direction, but we must go further.
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): Does the hon. Lady remember that, in the previous London elections, the electors of Croydon were promised that Labour would not raise the council tax? I have a copy of the pledge in my hand. Can she therefore explain why, this year, council tax in Croydon under Labour is going up by 11 per cent., and why, over the past four years, it has increased by 30 per cent?
Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman will also want to reflect on why his party, with the support of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), is telling the electorate that education is not a priority this year. The Conservatives are prepared to see the equivalent of two schools close in Croydon rather than allow relative rises in council tax to ensure the very best service provision. The council tax increase in Croydon this year reflects the decision that the Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member made last year.
Sir Norman Fowler: I think that the phrase the hon. Lady is searching for is, "No, I can't explain it". That being so, can she at least explain why the 20 highest charging councils in England, from Liverpool to Greenwich, are under Labour control? Why does it cost an average of £300 a year more at band D to live under a Labour council in London than under a Conservative council?
Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he has neither ears to hear nor nous to understand. I have explained the changes in Croydon. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has looked, but he will find that the top six increases in council tax have occurred in Tory areas.
Housing Benefit
2. Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): If he will end the system of paying housing benefit for council tenants out of housing revenue accounts. [39504]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Removing the cost of rent rebates for council tenants from housing revenue accounts would cost the taxpayer an extra £1.3 billion this year. We are considering housing finance as part of our comprehensive spending review and we expect to announce conclusions from the review in the summer.
Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the system of paying the housing benefit of council tenants from housing revenue accounts is inherently and monstrously unfair. It means that the poor are subsidising the poorest, it costs every working council house tenant £1,000 a year and it prevents a reduction in rents, which are higher than they otherwise would, or should, be.
I am sure that my hon. Friend--who is a fair man--agrees with me, so why will he not give a date for abolishing that monstrosity?
Mr. Raynsford: I have answered my hon. Friend's question by saying that we are considering these matters in the context of the comprehensive spending review. I put it to him that a consequence of simply ending the current arrangement would be windfall gains to areas of relatively low need and no help for areas of high need. That is why his proposal is not on. Abolishing the current arrangement would provide a benefit of more than £1,000 per dwelling per year in Guildford, but no benefit whatsoever in Manchester. That cannot be right.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I support the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and stress that this is not a party political matter. Council tenants are furious that the system penalises them and that they must subsidise an unrelated issue: housing benefit. It is not a matter of whether the subsidies differ between authorities; it is whether individuals pay for the services they receive or pay for others to receive services that are unrelated to them.
Mr. Raynsford: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue because the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)--which the hon. Gentleman supports--would not benefit his tenants in Southwark, but there would be an immediate benefit in Wokingham of £970 a year. That cannot be right or equitable.
London Government
3. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): What action he plans to take to encourage Londoners to vote in the referendum on 7 May. [39505]
4. Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North):
If he will make a statement on his Department's role in publicising the arrangements for the London referendum. [39506]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott):
My Department has mounted an extensive public information campaign to ensure that the people of London are fully informed about our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London and to encourage them to vote yes or no on 7 May. This has included posters, radio and newspaper advertisements, a neutral leaflet through every letter box in the capital, an internet site and a telephone helpline, which to date has answered well over 10,000 calls.
Mr. Dismore:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that as many people as possible vote on Thursday and that they vote yes for a London government committed to looking after London Transport, economic regeneration and the police and fire services in London? Does he also agree that the Conservatives' late support for the plan is a welcome, but tardy conversion to democracy throughout London?
Mr. Prescott:
I agree, and hope that the people will vote yes in the referendum. I welcome the support of
Ms Buck:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many black and ethnic minority Londoners feel that their situation has worsened considerably in the 12 years since the previous Londonwide authority was abolished? Will he congratulate Operation Black Vote on its work to encourage black Londoners to participate in the referendum on Thursday and send a message to black and ethnic minority Londoners that a mayor and an assembly would strengthen their representation citywide?
Mr. Prescott:
It is important to congratulate those who have encouraged people, especially the ethnic minorities, to vote. We have produced a leaflet that summarises the proposals. Copies had been distributed to 3 million homes across the capital at the end of March. It has played its part, along with advertisements in newspapers and on radio stations. I hope that everyone will vote and that the referendum proposals are endorsed.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that in my extensive canvassing for the forthcoming London borough elections, few of my constituents have remarked on the referendum? The few who have greatly resent not being asked separate questions on whether they want a Greater London authority and separately elected mayor and the lumping together of those issues in one question, in spite of the warning given by Conservative Members. On reflection, does he think that he is listening to the people of London by putting the omnibus question?
Mr. Prescott:
In my canvassing in London, I have found that Londoners welcome the opportunity to participate in the vote. They are being given a chance, by a Labour Government, at least to have a say in whether they should have local government, which was denied them when the previous Government abolished the Greater London council.
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a high turnout and a strong yes vote in the referendum on Thursday to give the new authority the clout to do its job? Will he accept that, by refusing a two-question referendum, the Labour party has stifled debate that would have guaranteed a high turnout? Labour will reap its reward, which will be a feeble result and an enfeebled authority.
Mr. Prescott:
I do not accept that proposition. I hope that as many people as possible will vote in the referendum. In Wales, the turnout in the referendum for a Welsh assembly was 50 per cent., and in Scotland the turnout was 60 per cent. It behoves all of us to get across to as many people as possible their democratic obligation to participate in the vote.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
A crucial issue in the referendum is the way in which the parties select their mayoral candidates. We know that the Conservatives are committed to one member, one vote. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there
Mr. Prescott:
I do not know whether that question warrants a yes or no answer. When the people of London have decided on 7 May for the election of a mayor and an assembly, as I hope they will, we shall make the appropriate procedures, which is the proper way to select and elect candidates. The Tory choice of Lord Archer, the Tory answer to Dick Whittington, is not the one they are likely to turn to.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |