---

Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): I agree with my hon. Friend and I am fascinated by his speech because, as he will know, Herefordshire suffers a similar social distribution and has received equally unfair treatment from the Government. Perhaps I am being cynical, but does he agree that the measure has been exclusively designed to score political points and that it has nothing to do with any impact on local people?

Mr. Moss: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I tried to make that point earlier in my speech and concurred with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South that that was what the Government were attempting to do. They needed scapegoats and decided that they had to give the impression of being tough by bearing down on councils in which council tax was increasing above a certain level. However, they are being dishonest because council taxes throughout the country have been going up by double
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 86
 
the rate of inflation or more over the past six or seven years. Everyone's council tax has gone up because the Government have depressed the level of grant as a proportion of what they expect councils to do.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Mr. Moss: The Minister shakes his head, but my point is true. The fact that 15 per cent. of the total money is taken out for specific grants means that there is less money to go around for the provision of basic services.

The situation gets worse for Fenland. For as long as I can remember—certainly this was true when I was a councillor 17 years ago—we have been asking for the same area cost adjustment for Cambridgeshire as that enjoyed by Essex, Hertfordshire and the south-east planning region as a whole. We had the incongruous situation of a school in Royston, Hertfordshire, getting almost double the per capita spend for education as a commensurate school just over the border in Cambridgeshire. That made no sense, so we tried for some 20 years to get fairness and equalisation in the system. To give the Government credit, they finally examined the formula about two years ago and decided to revamp the system by giving a form of area cost adjustment, albeit probably with a different name, to councils throughout the country. The county of Cambridgeshire and its shire districts were included in the revaluation of the amount of grant needed to deliver the right level of services.

Instead of getting the money, however, we now find that the crazy policy of floors and ceilings has come into play. Last year, Fenland was short-changed by more than £500,000, while £420,000 was not given in grant this year, despite the fact that it was calculated under the new formula. Fenland is supposed to find £300,000 under the capping arrangement, but that is less money than we should be getting under the new formula. Where is the logic in that? I wish that the Minister would intervene to put me right because I cannot understand the situation at all.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): Nor can anyone else.

Mr. Moss: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for his interjection.

Some £420,000 has been withheld from Fenland this year to provide the level of services that it wants, but the Government have also come in with a pincer movement. They have set up the comprehensive performance assessment, but it probably costs our councils a large amount to pay for that because people come in and take up officer time for weeks on end, and councils have to jump through hoops set by the Government to get a comprehensive performance assessment grading. There are four grades: failing, poor, good and excellent.

What does my poor Conservative council do? Foolishly, in my opinion, it decides to strive for excellence. I do not know why, but it decided to do that. It was a poor council two years ago, so the incoming Conservative group, under fairly able and aggressive leadership, cleaned out the old guard and brought in new ideas. Within two years it is two half-points away from being assessed as "good". On a different day it
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 87
 
would have scored those half-points, got 41 instead of 40 and been categorised as a good council. Why are the Government setting up these systems for councils to measure themselves and then kicking them where it hurts most for other sorts of reasons? Here is a council striving to measure up to the Government's standards, almost getting into the "good" category, and being carved up by an illogical decision by the Government.

I do not think the Minister is responsible for that. I have clashed with him on many occasions and I have always had him down as an extremely sensible, practical, pragmatic Minister, but not for one minute can he justify what he is proposing tonight.

Mr. Pickles: I did not want to let my hon. Friend's speech to go by without confirming what he said about floors and ceilings. Fenland, according to the Government, should be spending more. It has moved to a position where the Government say it should pay and it is being penalised for following Government guidelines.

Mr. Moss: That is right. If one adds the £300,000 that the council now has to save to the £420,000 that it did not get, that is £720,000 out of a budget of £12 million. It is an enormous amount of money.

The council has attempted to jump through the Government's hoops. It has even started on the Government's pet projects, such as recycling. That is not yet mandatory but it will be eventually, and we all agree that it is probably a good thing. So what is Fenland doing? It is spending £204,000 setting up a recycling scheme. The Government are also keen on e-government. The council is spending £100,000 on that. That is £300,000 on those two features alone, in which the Government are encouraging councils to become involved. That sum matches the saving that the council must produce.

I am not usually spiteful, but I have said to my council, "Ditch at a stroke all these Government requirements. Just ditch them. Why should we play the Government's game and then find that we get knee-capped for doing it? It is ridiculous."

The hon. Member for Nottingham, South made three proposals to the Minister. I am not sure I could endorse the third option. It comes more powerful from the Government Benches than from ours. We ask for it all the time and get nowhere. However, the two other options are important. What is proposed is illogical. It makes no sense to anybody. It is a spiteful action. The case has not been made tonight or on a previous occasion, and no one to whom I speak who has any understanding of these matters understands why the Government are doing it.

If the Government want to set a few councils apart and appear to be disciplining them, fine, but we will be two thirds of the way through the year when the new bills go out. There is only a 10-month direct debit system and the bills cannot be prepared and sent out until October, which will be about the sixth month of the 10. People will already have paid, so what is the point? Figures have been mentioned tonight—in the case of Nottingham, £250,000—for the re-billing. We think that in Fenland the figure will be about £80,000. That is an extra cost that the council tax payer will have to bear.
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 88
 

Why penalise people in low-value properties? We should be looking to support them, rather than adding further burdens to their council tax payments. If the Minister wants to make his point and rap a few knuckles, that is fine, but instead of going through the irresponsible and stupid procedure of re-billing, why do we not say to the councils, "Next year you will rebate the amount we calculate that you should save, or just have a zero rate increase in your council tax." That is not a problem. While he is at it, why does the Minister not pay Fenland the money that his Government, by their own formula, deem that it needs to deliver a standard service?

7.45 pm

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): I always find it easier to attack a Government policy, or anything for that matter, if I understand the logic that lies behind it. I cannot begin to comprehend the logic that lies behind the order that we are considering tonight. I genuinely do not understand it. The Library has produced a helpful summary of the capping order and points out that the savings are tiny in relation to the budgets of the authorities being capped. Without doubt, Nottingham is the most bizarre case, with a projected saving of £180,000 out of a budget of £131 million. It literally defies description. I cannot understand why that is even being considered.

I shall speak particularly of the Hereford and Worcester fire authority, which has one of the larger percentage savings, but even then, it is less than 4 per cent. of the budget. That is hardly the stuff of the heady days of capping under the last Conservative Administration, when real sums of money were being discussed. Whatever the merits of capping, real sums were then being discussed. One can make the case, and I made it at the time in private, that capping is a bad thing, because the folly of local authorities should be exposed. But there is no justification for such extraordinarily small percentage savings.

On top of that, as the debate has so clearly highlighted, there is the folly of the costs of re-billing. Again, Nottingham is the most bizarre case, with the cost of re-billing being about one and a half times the money saved. My authority, the Hereford and Worcester fire authority, is the second most bizarre. The cost of re-billing will be half the sum saved, and that cost falls back on the authority and has to be found from its resources, magnifying the effect of the cap. I heard nothing from the Minister tonight that helped me understand the logic underpinning the order.

The Minister alluded briefly to future issues that will arise, should maximum budgets for next year be imposed. Both my fire authority and my police authority are extremely well run. The police authority has led the way in civilianisation. It has been an outstanding authority, but we now hear of the possibility that it will be capped in future years. The Minister will shortly receive a letter from the police authority that tells him that, were that to happen, it could not deliver the Government's declared aims for law and order. That is the consequence of the other, unspoken part of tonight's debate.
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 89
 

It is true that we have seen massive increases in the portion of the council tax bill for West Mercia constabulary to meet the Government's objectives. I heard the Home Secretary today boasting from the Dispatch Box about the increased number of police officers. The only reason that we have increased numbers of police officers in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire—the West Mercia authority—is that the council tax payer has to pay for them. The Government would not. No credit attaches to the Government for any of those officers.

---