| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the precepts that parishes
might set can affect district councils. Does he know whether the Government have made further progress in tracking down the parish councils, as I understand that in Committee they were unable to supply a list?
Mr. Sanders: I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the important question posed by my hon. Friend.
The view of the Labour-dominated Local Government Association is that even if, despite the effects that I have mentioned, the Government still go ahead with the scheme, it should be postponed for a year. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
Mr. Gray:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Local Government Association, the former Labour leader of Newcastle city council, Sir Jeremy Beecham, commented that the council tax benefit subsidy regime would
"mean the nearly poor paying for the really poor"?
Mr. Sanders:
As I have already explained, that is precisely what will happen.
The Liberal Democrats believe that local government suffered under the previous Government. Even some of those from the previous Government admit that. We happily concede that the new Government genuinely believe that they are attempting to rebuild a relationship of trust with local government, but they need to give a date for the phasing-out of capping if they want to establish such a reputation.
Capping should have ended the day after the general election. That is what local councillors expected. Labour councillors thought that it was going to happen, but it has not. We believe that capping should end as soon as possible. Amendment No. 1 would end capping by 2005. Many would say that that is too late. I hope that those who choose to vote against the amendment will do so because they believe that capping should be phased out earlier. Sadly for Labour Members, I do not think that the Government Whips will allow them to put that spin on their vote.
We know what the Minister is likely to say. The Government view has been that capping is needed to defend the national interest. Ministers have argued that they have a responsibility to retain reserve powers to protect local council tax payers. That is a strange argument, because it contradicts what Labour Members said in the House and outside before the election. Labour won many friends in local government for defending local democracy against the Conservative Government's capping rules.
That leads to the second argument for the claimed central Government responsibility to protect local council tax payers. We elect local councillors to run local councils, but, like the previous Government, this Government do not trust the voters to make the right choices--and nor do they trust their councillors to protect council tax payers. Of course, they are right not to trust the electoral system to facilitate a truly democratic result, but the lack of a proportional electoral system is not a good enough argument for retaining the reserve power to cap.
The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between central and local government. Is it to be based on trust in local people and local democracy, or on suspicion and fear of the cap? If the Government are sure that their best value policies for local government will be so successful that capping will fall by the wayside naturally, why not set a date for phasing it out? Even the Conservatives have seen the light on capping. Their leader sees the restoration of the power and independence of local government as an important part of the platform for renewing his party's popularity. I hope that Conservative Members will support our amendments.
Amendment No. 1 would set a deadline of 2005 for the end of capping. It is a sunset clause first proposed by a Labour Member. By accepting the amendment, the Government could demonstrate that they are genuine when they claim to be rebuilding trust between central and local government. It would show that they were confident that best value and other proposals were likely to work as they have claimed. To do otherwise would be to admit that the previous Government were right, even though the Conservatives have changed their views on capping since the election. The politics may be topsy-turvy, but the principle of local people using the ballot box to determine local needs is important, and I urge hon. Members to support it.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). I was grateful for his interest in the renewal of my party during this brief period of opposition. He was right to draw attention to capping. He referred to the recent comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that our policy is to move away from capping. The hon. Gentleman said that the situation was topsy-turvy. It is ironic that while my party is moving away from capping, the Labour party in government is moving to embrace it.
I pay tribute to the excellent and authoritative manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) dealt with the amendments, and particularly new clause 6. He was right to talk about a heavy-handed and subjective set of capping rules. From his vast experience, he was able to demonstrate the perverse results of the proposals in relation to individual authorities. He put up a spirited and effective defence of those Conservative-controlled councils which, year after year, have delivered good services at reasonable prices, and are continuing to do so--despite suffering under the new regime.
New clause 6 is a novel and exciting concept; I suppose we must call it the Milton Keynes clause. I am not saying that I necessarily endorse the Milton Keynes experiment, but it has attractive features that should make all ofus take stock of how we approach council tax,
local government spending and finance and--above all--capping. From that point of view, it has some attractive features.
We cannot allow local councillors or any elected people to abdicate responsibility entirely. Why elect local councillors at all if they are not there to make the big decisions? Surely local people should have a voice; whether through their elected representatives every year--as tends to be the case in local authorities such as mine--or slightly less often, or possibly through the limited use of local referendums, as happens in Milton Keynes.
Mr. Gray:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about the Milton Keynes experiment was that it was a matter not of the council and the people, but of the Secretary of State and the people? The people of Milton Keynes decided to allow their council tax to rise by more than the Secretary of State would have allowed it to rise under the capping regulations--thereby fundamentally undermining the capping regulations.
Mr. Waterson:
My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Torbay said that if the measure is not to have a sunset provision, it is equally valid to argue for another way of ameliorating the effect--in this case, by letting local people have a voice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) will have the chance to develop that point in the debate.
There are wider issues--not least the promises made not just to local government, but to the British people before the election. In its 1997 manifesto, Labour promised the abolition of "crude and universal capping". It is fair to say that that was met with almost universal approbation throughout local government. When the Government announced their provisional caps for1998-99 in December 1997--and subsequently capped Derbyshire county council--they confirmed that 1998-99 would be the last year of universal capping.
It is a feature of the Government that not everything in the manifesto comes to pass, and that not everything that comes to pass was in the manifesto. In Committee, the Minister conceded that the proposals were not in the manifesto.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong):
Not true.
Mr. Waterson:
If the Minister wants to correct what I have said, I will happily give way.
Ms Armstrong:
It was clear in the manifesto that in abolishing crude and universal capping, a Labour Government, if elected, would retain reserve powers. We have done that. Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not capping.
Mr. Waterson:
I do not necessarily disagree, save to say that to describe the powers as reserve capping powers is to stretch the word "reserve" significantly.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) put it to the Minister that the proposal to have council tax benefit subsidy limitation was not in the Labour manifesto. When my hon. Friend the Member for
North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pressed the point, the Minister rightly--it is a subtly different point, and it is important to get it right--said:
"No, it was not. However,"
she continued, ever the mistress of understatement,
"the Government are doing several things that go beyondmanifesto commitments."--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 465.]
I think, however, that she has claimed public support for the measure in the run-up to the general election, which cannot be right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |