| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.15 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). His last point was very powerful and I hope that it will persuade him to join us in the No Lobby when we vote on the motions.
Today's debate could easily be entitled, "council tax debate limitation". It is clear that the Government are really about trying to restrict hon. Members--particularly Labour Back Benchers, but also Opposition Members--in the debate.
I was struck by the fact that the Minister avoided telling the House the most important figure in the settlement--the national average council tax at standard spending. We know that that figure is £695, and that, last year--which is the current year--it was £664.88. We also know that the difference between the two figures is just over 4.5 per cent. It is not surprising that the Minister did not want to
admit those facts. If she had done so, she would have been admitting that the Government themselves realise that there will have to be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax bills even if local authorities spend in line with their standing spending assessment.
The 4.5 per cent. increase is no less than four times the amount of the pension increase--which brings me to the petition that I had the privilege of presenting to the House, on 8 July 1999, from Daniel Charles Tissington, of Christchurch, which was supported by 8,500 other people from the borough of Christchurch.
Mr. Tissington is a pensioner, as are most of the other people who signed his petition. He pointed out that, living in his band D bungalow situated in the borough of Christchurch, since 1993, his council tax has increased from £491 to £815. That is a 66 per cent. increase, whereas the retail price index has increased by 17.5 per cent. His petition, which was signed by those thousands of people, called on the Government to reduce increases in council tax to below the level of inflation.
The Government--rather than giving a direct response to the petition, saying that there was no way in which they would support such a policy--ducked the issue. However, now that the figures have been revealed to us, we can see that the Government's policy is that, in the coming year, council taxes should increase by at least 4.5 per cent., as that is the percentage by which council tax at standard spending will increase.
I therefore urge the Government to face up to the problems that are being caused to pensioners across the country. If Mr. Tissington and other people living in band D properties in Christchurch have to pay 4.5 per cent. extra in council tax, almost all the extra pension that they receive next year will have to be used to pay it.
The Minister started her speech by saying that she believes in establishing a higher quality of life, but there is no way in which pensioners will be able to have a higher quality of life if almost all their pension increase has to be spent on higher council tax. We hear today that there will be a £15 increase in the television licence fee for pensioners under 75. That will only be salt in the wound.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke eloquently about the Government's imposition of extra burdens on councils at the same time as they are telling councils to act reasonably and keep council tax at a reasonable level. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions sets itself a target of dealing with all call-ins within seven weeks. Why did it take 22 weeks to decide to call in the planning application made by Bournemouth international airport for a new passenger terminal? That delay had enormous consequences. It will be an expensive exercise for the borough of Christchurch and everybody involved. The application was first submitted on 28 November 1997 and was the subject of extensive and exhaustive consultation. After sitting on it for 22 weeks, the Government decided to call it in, ensuring that it would be delayed for at least another year. That is typical of their cavalier attitude to my constituents.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
The problems in local government finance were created by the previous Government. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was part of that, having been a Minister at some stage. He helped to create that situation and, when he replies to his constituents, I hope that he tells them about his role in the whole sorry business.
On the surface, Derbyshire seems to have done well out of the settlement. It has the top percentage SSA increase of any shire county--up by 5.8 per cent. whereas the average increase is 5 per cent. Neighbouring Staffordshire, which is in 34th and bottom position, has only a 4.3 per cent. increase. The situation looks superficially good for Derbyshire. When the money that has come from the Department for Education and Employment for schools, often in specific grants, is added to that, Derbyshire is again in a high position in the league and is often top. The only problem with the grants is that they make it difficult for us to work out who stands where, because some money comes from one Department and some comes from another, some comes in bits and pieces and some comes in the general settlement.
However, when considering Derbyshire's apparently good settlement, we need to look at what that 5.8 per cent. comes on top of. Between 1989-90 and 1998-99, East Sussex had a 30 per cent. cumulative increase above the average in the then capping levels. Derbyshire was bottom of the shire counties league table, with a 37 per cent. fall below the average increase. That was the result of the previous Government fiddling the arrangements for standard spending assessments and of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which also introduced the poll tax. The poll tax may have been replaced by the council tax, but the rest of that Act is still in place.
Band D council tax levels for North East Derbyshire district council show part of the problem. The figures include the district council precepts, the county council and the police. I shall contrast them with the English average and the figures for Westminster. In 1996-97, the last year of Conservative rule, the figure for North East Derbyshire was £758, and the English average was £688--a difference of £70. For Westminster, the figure was £304--£454 less than in North East Derbyshire. In 1999-2000, the figure for North East Derbyshire is £905, and for England, £747--a difference of £148. The figure for Westminster is £350--£555 less than North East Derbyshire. Although slight differences have occurred in this period between North East Derbyshire and Westminster, there is a ghastly distinction between the figures. I will try to explain some of the details later.
The House of Commons document No. 160 on the subject shows what is wrong with the methodology. Page 9 deals with the formula for primary education, and the principles are the same for secondary and post-16 education. Money is given per pupil in various areas,
which is a fair formula. Money is then given for additional needs and free meals, which is perfectly reasonable. However, if an area is mixed--Derbyshire, like all shire counties, is certainly mixed--money given for particular provisions is diluted by what happens in other areas. It is almost as if money is given with one hand and taken away with another. We need to devise a formula in which the extras stick and do not dilute the other arrangements.
There has been an improvement in terms of the money given for sparsity, but there is a claim that that is necessary for village schools and other matters. One of the big problems is the area cost adjustment, which is listed in detail within the document. This must be tackled, although it need not necessarily be done away with. However, if there were less weighting, and money were available for distribution--and not pinched by the Treasury--that would be important.
In Derbyshire, the area cost adjustment goes across the board--to police, fire services and highway maintenance. The problem is thereby extended. Derbyshire's funding plight cannot be corrected by tiny creeping percentage increments, welcome though they are. There has to be a change which takes into account the cumulative problems that Derbyshire has suffered year by year. We cannot wait another two years for a change in the hideous legislation--I served on the Committee--that is the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
I turn once more to the situation in North East Derbyshire district council. I hope that, if I keep saying these things, Ministers--it used to be Conservative Ministers, but it is now Labour Ministers--will respond and take some of it on board. One problem from which we suffer is the enhanced population figures. If people move out of the area in which they are resident to work or to travel for other purposes, a quarter of their SSA money is transferred elsewhere. Some areas will benefit considerably from those arrangements because they have people coming in. I am not saying that Westminster, the seaside resorts and other places benefiting from the arrangements should not have any of the money. However, the weighting is excessive and was one of the Conservative Government's major fiddles. Let us correct it. A myth is perpetuated--for instances, by a journalist on the Sheffield Star--that the people of North East Derbyshire who work and use leisure facilities in Sheffield are freeloaders, making use of the facilities without paying from them. That is far from the truth, because we pay through the nose for provisions in the Sheffield area.
The outdated 1991 census figures are used to help to work out the allocation, and some of our money is transferred to the Bolsover and Chesterfield areas because they used to have people going there to work in the pits. The pits were closed by the previous Government, but North East Derbyshire is still getting hammered by the transfer of money. We lose £3 a head to neighbouring authorities because of the weight given to the enhanced population figures.
We also suffer from the provision designed to accommodate social mix. We suffer even more seriously from that, because we lose £14 a head. In any case, the population in the east of the constituency has an almost identical social structure to Bolsover, but that area does
much better from the arrangements. The money allocated to North East Derbyshire should not be dissipated by other considerations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |