| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I do not propose to compete with him in thoughtfulness, but his was a thoughtful speech which I will read again with care after this debate is over.
My constituency has a wonderful quality of life—let there be no doubt about that. Consequently, my constituents do not, in the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is no longer in her place, want a Member of Parliament who wants to
change the world, even for the better. They want a Member of Parliament, a local authority, and most particularly in this context, a Government, who will not get in the way of their enjoyment of their quality of life and will not diminish the quality of life that they enjoy. Many of them subscribe to the view that I have outlined several times, which I shall repeat once more, that no problem in the world is so great that Governments, of any colour, cannot make it worse.The key factor that determines people's quality of life is how well and comfortable they feel in their communities, and I shall examine several of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with that in mind. He did not identify why communities in Norway, Sweden and Denmark were so trusting—perhaps he did not know. He did not identify which communities in this country are more trusting than others. I do not have any evidence to identify those communities either because I did not know that he was going to mention them, but I shall hazard a guess. The communities that are most trusting are those that are the smallest and most stable. There is confidence in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, which is not shared in all parts of this country—I cannot speak for Canada at all—since there is more community cohesion in those countries because of cultural homogeneity and for reasons of stability.
We must carefully address the extent to which our communities are changing and the speed at which that is happening. I have a lot of information about that because many people choose to move to my constituency from London, other metropolitan areas and parts of the country that would have been regarded as pleasant suburban areas until quite recently. Many people no longer feel happy in such places, so they have moved to my constituency and other parts of the south of England, especially. They move not only for the wonderful weather that we enjoy but because they are dissatisfied with the areas that they counted as home before they moved. When such people arrive in my constituency and enjoy the quality of life there, they become worried about the well-being of their friends, daughters and sons who remain in metropolitan areas.
There are two key problems in metropolitan areas about which we must be clear: the cost of housing and the quality of public services. The Government are right to try to address those, although they have chosen the wrong route in some instances. Conservative Members are right to identify the problems as key issues, too. The factors that drive people out of metropolitan areas to areas such as mine are the quality of public services, schools and hospitals, the cleanliness of streets, the amount of graffiti present and the fear of crime.
A further problem is overcrowding, and part of that problem is associated with migration and alienation. People are becoming alienated from the communities in which they have often lived all their lives. If areas change rapidly, as change they do, people start to feel insecure and choose to move. There is large pressure on London and south-east England owing to migration. The Government accept that there are 100,000 migrants a year, while organisations such as Migration Watch UK suggest that there are 200,000, so a new town the size of Slough is required in the already overcrowded south-east every one or two years. Given that, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate why people move
from such areas and why they worry about overcrowding. We must address the stability of communities.We must consider the quality and calibre of local government and its ability not to interfere or intervene, but to set the right priorities. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) talked about where money to fund local government should come from. It is easy to propose a different taxation system—we did that twice when we were in government—but the taxation system does not make a difference to overall demands on the local public purse. The quality of decisions taken by local councillors makes the difference because they have to balance the amount that they take from the public and are given by the Government with the amount that they choose to spend on providing what are hopefully good quality public services.
Irrespective of whether local income tax, the rates system, the community charge or the council tax is used, there must be a means of redistribution to areas with greater need or fewer resources from areas with less need or greater resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said in reply to my intervention. It is not wholly honest to suggest changing the system unless the method of distributing resources among local authorities is also considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow is now listening to me. Perhaps he would like to tell us how the system of distributing money among local authorities could be reformed, because it is that system that matters, not the means of taxation.
Matthew Green: However a local government finance system is created, there will have to be some money redistributed from the centre to balance it out. Irrespective of whether houses or local income are used as the basis of the tax, a redistribution system will be needed. The details of such a system have managed to mess up Ministers with responsibility for local government throughout history, so I would not dream of outlining them during a mere intervention.
Mr. Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his honesty. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will help him further.
Mr. Hammond: I would not dream of trying to help the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). Does my hon. Friend agree that given the hon. Gentleman's admission that the so-called local income tax would have to be redistributed nationally, it would be nothing more than a Liberal Democrat stealth increase in the basic income tax?
Mr. Turner: Indeed, it would be. I think that the Liberal Democrats admit that their proposal would lead to a 25 per cent. increase in income tax for most people in this country.
Richard Younger-Ross: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The system would effectively move money away from the national income tax pot toward the local
income tax. Most people would therefore experience no difference. The system would lead to savings because of lower collection costs.
Mr. Turner: If the only advantage of the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman can put forward is that it would change collection costs and that a lot of jobs would be lost in many local authorities—perhaps that would be justifiable, however—he is not getting us very far. A local income tax capped at 5 per cent., which I believe to be the Liberal Democrats' proposal, would represent a 20 per cent. increase in income tax for everyone throughout the country on average. What matters is not the way in which the tax is collected but how the Government distribute money between rich local authorities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and poor local authorities such as mine. It is no good for the Liberal Democrats to propose a local income tax as if it is a magic wand, because the distribution method of the revenue support grant must be right if a difference is to be made.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Turner: I shall not, if I may.
It makes good sense to spend locally—that is an equally important consideration. If a local authority such as mine were advised by the county treasurer that it needed an 11 per cent. council tax increase to meet the effects of last year's Government redistribution, it could say, "But we're not getting enough money from the Government". I could then say that I would lead a delegation to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the relevant Minister could generously give us an additional £1 million—as he did—with more to come in future years. If those who run my local authority then said, as they did, "Well, that's wonderful. Now we'll put the tax up by 14 per cent.", they would not be exercising careful control on their expenditure.
Dr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's strictures about good sense when it comes to spending in local communities, and his view that a local income tax is a bad idea, would his party approve of returning the setting of the business rate to the discretion of the local community?
Mr. Turner: I suspect that my party would not approve of that, for the good reason that some local authorities drove businesses out of their areas before the nationalisation of the business rate. I am sorry that that solution had to be adopted, but business could not afford the taxation placed on it. That had a detrimental effect in the long run on the economy and jobs in local communities.
If local authorities are to set the level of local tax, and I believe they should, that brings with it the responsibility of applying common sense to the taxes they set. To do that, they must identify priorities, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions. Sometimes the priority is to keep public lavatories open, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) reminded us. At other times, it is to provide a bus shelter, as on the Pan estate in my constituency, which
my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do, or to provide litter bins on the seafront at Sandown, something else that my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do. It could involve not providing a cycle track that costs £600,000 or a pop concert that costs £400,000, two of the things that my local authority, which does not have enough money for litter bins, bus shelters and public lavatories, has provided.Making such decisions requires sense among local politicians and that requires effective accountability. When they stand for election, they must set out what they intend to do and be held accountable for that. If they do that and are accountable at the end of those four years, we will have a much better quality of life and of local government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |