House of Commons
Wednesday 22 October 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Hereford Markets Bill [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
Council Tax
1. John Barrett (Edinburgh, West): What estimates he has made of the cost to local authorities of administration of (a) council tax and (b) council tax benefit for 2002–03. [133433]
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): In 2002–03, budgeted council tax benefit administration costs in England totalled £205 million. Council tax collection costs totalled £318 million.
John Barrett : I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the costs of the administration of council tax, which remains one of the most unjust, unfair and regressive taxes, will the Minister, in the balance of funding review, follow the leader of the Scottish Executive and consider scrapping the council tax and replacing it with a tax based on ability to pay?
Mr. Raynsford: Yesterday, there was a meeting of the balance of funding review at which we agreed to look at a number of options. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be pleased to know that the issue of a local income tax is one that we have thought worthy of the consideration. He and his party, however, should not be so optimistic about the potential savings that they have trumpeted—some £500 million. The letter that I have received from the Liberal Democrat spokesman confirms that on virtually every point that I raised they are considering options for the administration of a local income tax. They have not worked it out. It is the usual Liberal
Democrat story—their talk is good but they have not done their figures. I suspect that they will be in for a nasty shock.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): I hope that the Minister will not be beguiled by the seeming attractions of local income tax. Is it not true that some of my constituents who live in mansions worth millions of pounds would find themselves not paying anything to the local council, whereas hard-working families in much more modest accommodation would find themselves paying thousands of pounds more?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is why we are approaching this whole issue in an extremely open-minded and thorough way. We are not going to come out with glib promises of quick improvements. We want to look at this closely, because it is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend rightly highlights one of the obvious anomalies that would flow from the abolition of the only property tax that currently exists in this country. One of the bizarre features of the Liberal Democrat proposals—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister can tell that to the hon. Gentleman privately.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): Capping would have an effect on the costs of collection. I would like to commend and endorse the views of the right hon. Gentleman on capping. I am sure that he spoke for many in the House when referred in this Chamber on 24 June 1992 to
- "the unfairness and unsatisfactory . . . process"
- "We see a sad and sorry picture of the imposition of centralised diktats by Ministers who cannot possible understand the intricacies and the detailed implications for local communities".—[Official Report, 24 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 344–46.]
Mr. Raynsford: I find that somewhat rich coming from a party that capped, capped and capped again when in power. What the Government are doing is rightly focusing on the real concerns that are felt by many people throughout the country at the unreasonably large council tax increases that have been imposed, interestingly, predominantly by Conservative councils—councils such as Wandsworth, which cut its council tax by 25 per cent. in election year, and put it up by 45 per cent. last year—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) should hear the Minister's reply.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many people who are just above council tax benefit level, the council tax increases are becoming increasingly unacceptable? That is why I welcome the type of statement that he made a few moments ago—that the Government are looking at the matter in a positive way. In the meantime, will he recognise that councils should look more positively at people who are struggling to pay and not incur a cost by summonsing them if they clearly show that they are going to pay by 31 March? Being late with one or two instalments should be accepted if people are struggling to pay.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that people are increasingly concerned about the council tax increases that have been imposed by some councils. As I said, it was predominantly Conservative councils that had an average increase in council tax this year of 16 per cent., which is by far and away the highest and should cause concern.
It is right that people should pay council tax, but it is equally right that those responsible for administering it should be sensitive in its collection and accept the fact that some people have difficulties. A firm but sensitive approach is obviously correct.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): Will the Minister confirm that the total administration costs of council tax—the figures that he has announced today and other related figures such as the valuation appeals costs—amounted to a massive £569 million last year? Will he also confirm that that means that 4 per cent. of council tax revenue goes on bureaucracy alone? That compares with 1 per cent. for income tax administration costs. Will he therefore say that, in the balance of funding review, the Government will not only get rid of this unfair tax, but make sure that hundreds of millions of pounds of savings can be given back to hard-pressed council tax payers?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not done his figures right, and this is the usual story with the Liberal Democrats. The figures that I have just given show that expenditure on council tax collection and council tax benefit administration is £520 million. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is a pretty fantastic proposition to put to the public that the Liberal Democrats expect to save £500 million and that their whole scheme for local income tax could be administered for a mere £20 million. He admits in his letter that he has not yet worked out what administration system he will use, so he is telling us something that is totally non-credible.
Air Conditioning
2. Sue Doughty (Guildford): What plans he has to introduce inspections of air conditioning systems with an effective rated output of more than 12 kW. [133434]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): We plan to introduce inspections of air conditioning with an output of more than 12kW in order to support improvements
to energy efficiency as part of the implementation of the energy performance of buildings directive, which needs to be transposed by 2005.
Sue Doughty : I thank the Minister for that reply, but we need to recognise that the directive could save 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2010. Given the number of requirements in the directive, would it not be prudent for it to be incorporated in primary legislation so that the Government can get on and deliver as rapidly and effectively as possible the huge environmental benefits resulting from the directive?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right. There are clear environmental benefits from the directive and, as air conditioning becomes more popular, this issue will become increasingly important. As part of the review of building regulations, we are consulting on how the measure should be introduced. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the information on the departmental website if she is interested in the detail in that respect.
Councillor Payments
3. Bob Russell (Colchester): When he last discussed with the Local Government Association the level of payments made to councillors. [133435]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I have not held any recent discussions with the Local Government Association about the level of payments made to councillors. The level of allowances payable to elected members is for each local authority to determine. However, before we introduced the current regulations on councillors' allowances in May this year, we consulted extensively all local authorities and a number of local authority organisations, including the LGA, on the proposed changes.
Bob Russell : When the Minister next meets the LGA, will he inquire what its view is of the benefits—financial and otherwise—to council tax payers of the introduction of cabinet systems in local government and, with them, the higher payments to councillors? Are council tax payers getting value for money and better democratic decisions as a result?
Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is a matter for local councils to determine the level of payments. The new system of basic payments and special responsibility allowances is there to enable local councillors to make their own decisions. They have the freedom to decide the levels, and with that comes responsibility and accountability to the electorate for the levels of payments that they decide to make.
In addition to the responsibility payments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I would also like to refer to the new dependant carers allowances that are now available to local authorities. I hope that they will allow more parents, particularly women, to consider standing for office as local councillors.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |