---

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Can the Minister be objective and non-partisan, just for a moment? From her remarks, it appears that she regards as irresponsible any local authority, whatever the colour of its controlling group, that has exceeded the 4.5 per cent. increase. Is that really what she is saying to the Local Government Association and to a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities?

Ms Armstrong: I have certainly not said that. That is why I have emphasised that we never set 4.5 per cent. as a figure above which councils should not go. We said that, if they went above that figure, they would have to share with Government the burden in terms of council tax benefit--

Mr. Tyler: The Government penalise them.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand that it is the taxpayer who funds council tax benefit, so the penalty is paid by the taxpayer. The Government are concerned about that, even if the hon. Gentleman is not.

Today's debate has not been called to highlight how responsible Liberal councils are. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam appeared almost embarrassed to mention Liberal councils.

Mr. Burns: She wrote that before the hon. Gentleman had even spoken.

Ms Armstrong: It is not written down here, so there you go.

We know that the average council tax per dwelling in Liberal areas is higher than in Labour areas, just as the average increase in Labour councils is lower than in Conservative councils. The debate has not been called to draw attention to the shires, because average council tax per dwelling in shire areas is lower in Labour areas than in either Liberal or Conservative areas. The debate has not been called to demonstrate how responsible Liberal Front Benchers are, because we know that they would let council tax rise faster and further without trying to protect the taxpayer, while their hare-brained local income tax scheme would cost millions to introduce and lead to a massive increased burden on business in implementing it.

22 Mar 1999 : Column 49

Local councils such as Wandsworth, Torbay and Herefordshire are responsible for pushing council taxes up, just as local councils such as Bristol, Lambeth and Greenwich are responsible for keeping average rises down.

Jackie Ballard: Liverpool.

Ms Armstrong: Liverpool, I grant the hon. Lady.

The Government are responsible for putting in place the necessary resources for local services, and we have done just that; the Liberals would have done even less. The Government are responsible for protecting the taxpayer, and we shall do so through our new reserve powers; the Liberals would do nothing. The Government are responsible for driving the modernisation of local government, just as we are doing through the introduction of elected mayors and a new ethical framework--the Liberals and the Conservatives simply do not know what to do.

It would do the House some good and do local government a great deal of good if we moved away from the yah-boo politics of spend and blame. It is time for a grown-up relationship, where councils take responsibility for their decisions and central Government intervene only in the national interest. Today's debate has been called by the Opposition, but they would do better to join the Government in taking a mature approach to the politics of local government. That is the Government's approach, but it is clearly not shared by the Opposition. I hope that, over the next few years, we can foster such an approach and demonstrate that there can be a fruitful relationship between the centre and the localities, in which both accept their responsibilities and work to ensure that local people get the best for their money.

5.15 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): I congratulate the Minister on her Alice-in-Wonderland speech. The only thing that I can say in her defence is that at least she could not keep a straight face for most of it.

I listened to Labour spokesmen making speeches from the Opposition Dispatch Box during the previous Government. They would have been horrified to think that, only two years after its return to Government, Labour's approach to local government spending would be turned on its head and changed so dramatically. I thought for a moment that it was a Conservative rather than a Labour Minister speaking--let alone an old Labour Minister from an old Labour Department.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point: it sounded more like a right-wing Conservative speech than a new Labour speech. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why no more than three Tories have been present for the debate so far? At one stage, only one Conservative Member was present. If they are so concerned about local government elections and council tax rises, where are the massed ranks of the Tories?

Mr. Burns: There is a simple answer to that question. I will go down the same road as the Minister and say that I suspect that the Liberal Democrats called today's debate not simply to discuss local government finance. I think

22 Mar 1999 : Column 50

that several Liberal Members have other agendas. It is sad to see that three prospective leadership candidates have now left the Chamber. No doubt, when more electors are present, they will return to their rightful places--as they now do every morning in the Tea Room at breakfast.

The first sentence of the Liberal Democrats motion reads:

"That this House notes that the prime determinant of council tax levels is the amount of funding allocated by central government to local authorities".

That is such a truism that I suspect that no hon. Member disagrees with it. In fact, it is almost as straightforward and simplistic as the statement that the battle of Hastings was in 1066--as every schoolboy knows.

When announcing the local government finance settlement last December, the Deputy Prime Minister declared, in his normal rumbustious way, that he expected council tax to increase by an average of 4.5 per cent this year. In a flight of hyperbole, he described it as

"the best deal for years for local people."--[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 886.]

In the cold light of day, with council tax levels set for next year, the Deputy Prime Minister's view is not shared by most people around the country who are receiving their council tax benefits on their doormats.

Ms Armstrong: Council tax bills.

Mr. Burns: Many people will receive benefits as well--I shall come to that later.

If the Deputy Prime Minister's comments had been included in a prospectus designed to sell a commercial product or service, I suspect that the Serious Fraud Office would want to interview him. The situation that he described is far removed from reality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) rightly said, the Deputy Prime Minister is a bit like a used car salesman. As we know from the figures released by the Government this morning, the average council tax increase in England is 6.8 per cent.--which is significantly more than his overly optimistic forecast. On band D precepts, Buckinghamshire faces an increase of 9.8 per cent.; Oxfordshire, 11.8 per cent.; Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire and Cambridgeshire, 9.9 per cent.; Hertfordshire and Norfolk, 9.8 per cent.; Shropshire, 9.7 per cent.; North Yorkshire, 9.6 per cent.; and Northumberland, 9.5 per cent. Even my county of Essex faces an increase of just under 7 per cent. Those figures do not include council tax increases for borough and district councils, which will have to be added to them, or certainly amalgamated into them.

Unitary authorities, especially in London, face horrific rises. Brent will experience an increase of 15.2 per cent.; Kingston, 12.7 per cent.; Redbridge, 10.9 per cent.; and Bromley, 9.9 per cent. Wandsworth, which the Minister mentioned, faces a increase, when the figure is rounded up, of 16 per cent. Outside London, to mention only a few, Torbay faces a rise of 16.5 per cent.; Rutland, 9.4 per cent.; Milton Keynes, 10.7 per cent.; and Telford and Wrekin, 9.5 per cent. So much for the Deputy Prime Minister's statement last December and his forecasting skills. It is no wonder that no one outside Millbank and Blair's on-message babes thinks that this is the best deal for local people for years.

22 Mar 1999 : Column 51

Will the settlement, which the Government claim is so wonderful, enhance local services? Sadly, the evidence from budget setting throughout the country is that it will not. All over the country, there are cuts in crucial services, such as the police, due to budgetary pressures. In Essex, the mounted police section is to close down. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but that is not funny for the people of Essex, who want a decent police force to combat crime.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman should know that Durham had to close its mounted police section some time ago, but such policing is necessary only in certain areas and at certain times, and that is frequently an operational, rather than a budgetary, decision.

Mr. Burns: I suspect that the right hon. Lady is, to coin a phrase, speaking on the hoof. The police authority in Essex has made it clear that, due to the lack of £7 million for funding the police this year, it is having to close down the mounted police for budgetary, not operational, reasons. The same is true of cuts in the motor cycle section of the Essex police and the closure of several rural police stations.

---