|
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a housing crisis in Wales and that young people cannot afford to buy homes in their own communities. Does he also know that the National Assembly unanimously proposed the Housing (Suspension of Right to Buy) (Wales) Bill, which
Column Number: 14
unfortunately did not see the light of day? Does he share my concern that there is no reference to that housing crisis in the Queen's Speech?
Lembit Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall discuss that in a moment.
The opportunity for a joined-up transport policy in Wales is huge. The Welsh Assembly clearly has significant energy to achieve that. If the Transport (Wales) Bill is formulated sensibly and with cross-party consultation, we will have a real opportunity to generate a model for others to follow. Northern Ireland probably stands tall in the United Kingdom as a region that already has greater integration between, for example, buses and trains, than elsewhere. I counsel Wales Office Ministers to consult their opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that best practice is exported from Northern Ireland to Wales.
I cannot help but mention my continuing campaign to ensure an integrated air network in Wales; I know that the Secretary of State has a similar interest. While the Welsh Assembly considers how it can make progress with that important initiative, I hope that Westminster will give whatever support it can and needs to give. I have little doubt that the Secretary of State for Wales shares my desire to see that method of transport being developed.
I do not imagine that there will ever be a large number of people who need to travel that quickly from the north and west of Wales to the south and east of Wales, but the numbers are sufficient to justify a regular scheduled service. Such a service would significantly improve the opportunity for Wales to operate as a single economic unit rather than as two, or perhaps even three, disparate units.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, it turns out that there are several omissions in this Queen's Speech, one of which is the Housing (Suspension of Right to Buy) (Wales) Bill, for which the Welsh Assembly asked. It is a great disappointment that the Bill was not published, not least because, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a housing shortage in urban areas and particularly, in my experience, in rural areas. That shortage causes prices to rise and makes it more difficult for there to be affordable housing for those who want to stay in the area but who feel forced to moved out as a result of the absence of homes for them to buy and sometimes even to rent. Will the Secretary of State share his perspective on whether the Government might reconsider that decision and whether a housing Bill might be included in the current Session?
We heard warm words from the Secretary of State about a commissioner for older people in Wales. I believe that this is the first time that such a commissioner has been asked for, and those who have asked for it will be interested to hear the Secretary of State keeping the door open.
One of the greatest frustrations for the Opposition in Wales is to hear the Secretary of State's resolute unwillingness to tackle some of the issues that the Liberal Democrats and others repeatedly highlight. The Secretary of State commented on the council tax,
Column Number: 15
which we believe is not the fairest way to raise money for local government. He will know that Wales has suffered even more than other parts of the United Kingdom and that 33 per cent. of houses have been re-banded upwards, but only 8 per cent. downwards. Some 25 per cent. of houses—one in four—are now in a higher band. That simply highlights the difficulties of implementing a complex and ultimately rather imprecise way of raising taxation from Welsh citizens. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman and the Government feel so obliged to defend that methodology for raising that money, which was created by a Conservative Government. What causes them to converge with the Conservatives on a method that obviously does not link directly with people's ability to pay? Why have they refused so far to propose or support recommendations for a local income tax based on ability to pay? Local income tax is not about raising more money, but about raising money in a fairer way. Obviously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to be included in any discussions about such a profound change to the way in which we raised money, but it was very much in the Government's gift to include it in the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Hain: The reason why we do not intend to go down the Liberal Democrats' income tax route is that doing so would place huge extra tax burdens on hard-working families with relatively modest incomes. The hon. Gentleman's party should come absolutely clean about the issue in its ''Focus'' leaflets, and its candidates right across Wales should do so in the coming elections. They should explain to the young police constable and the young nurse why their income tax would jump enormously under the Liberal Democrats' policies.
Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen to all of what I say, not half of it. I will remind him of my comment just two minutes ago: local income tax is not about raising more money for local government, but about raising the same amount in a fairer way. Although the Committee is not here to debate the Budget, let me say that the Liberal Democrats would use our taxation plans to ensure that there would be a comfortable buffer during the transition, as we moved from where we are now to where we wanted to end up. When we got there, some people would, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, pay more, but others would pay less.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Budget, and if he wants to make his comments relevant to Wales, it would be helpful if he could be a bit more precise.
Lembit Öpik: I am a bit concerned to have the debate on the Budget today because—
The Chairman: Let us move on then.
Lembit Öpik: I will give way.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman think about the impact of his local income tax on local communities in Wales? He could raise the tax from income nationally, so why does he want to raise it
Column Number: 16
locally, thereby doubling the amount of administration?
Lembit Öpik: My last comment on this matter—I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Griffiths—is that we manifestly already have an infrastructure for raising income tax. It is not that difficult to raise local income tax using that infrastructure, while allowing the flexibility to introduce different rates and different levels of support to reflect need throughout the United Kingdom. That would be simple to implement; it would certainly be much less complicated and much less heavy on administration than the current system.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lembit Öpik: I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) in a moment, but that should perhaps be the final word on the issue. I am sure that we will return to it when we discuss the Budget. Suffice it to say, however, that the Liberal Democrats regret the fact that the Government did not take the opportunity in the Queen's Speech to introduce legislation to replace the council tax with local income tax. For Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, that would have required primary legislation.
Mr. Jones: I am provoked because the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is a simple one. The Inland Revenue's tax records are based on where people work, not where they live. A massive database would need to be transferred from where people work to where they live. Another problem would be that the income base of some areas would be much greater than others, because of the groups that lived there. That would need a huge transfer of funding. It may be a good system, but simple it is not.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been provoked by the Liberal Democrats. That is the normal process of politics. I am sure that he will find himself being even more provoked as we move towards the general election.
It is not our intention to provoke the hon. Gentleman directly; we want to make it clear that we have alternative proposals when it comes to paying the costs of local government. The question is simple. If people feel that the council tax is the fairest way to fund local govt, they should support the Labour party's local government funding policies. If they regard local income tax as a more effective and fairer way of being charged for local services, the Liberal Democrats offer such an alternative.
To move on from that and to make a slight reference to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said about complications, I am ceaselessly amazed by the faith that Ministers have invested in information technology systems. We have seen repeated fiascos in their implementation by previous Administrations and by the present Government. They introduce highly complex systems that then fail, and that causes practical difficulties for local people who cannot get their payments.
It would have been nice if the Queen's Speech had not depended so heavily on IT for its success. Perhaps
Column Number: 17
the starkest example of that is the blind faith that Ministers seem to attribute to identity cards, saying that their introduction will give them the opportunity to reduce crime and the risk of terrorism. The Home Secretary failed to explain why anyone in the United Kingdom would feel safer after the implementation of identity cards than they would under the present system. We must remember that identity cards profoundly alter the relationship between the state and the individual. I shall not go into the fairly well rehearsed arguments that we heard on the Floor of the House, but it remains the resolute position of the Liberal Democrats to oppose identity cards.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Wales to wish for a change in policy from the Liberal Democrats. He will know how damaging identity cards will be to the Government's popularity when the public recognise that not £3 billion but something like £6 billion—and possibly even £10 billion—will have to be spent to implement an identity card system. The public will also be at a loss to understand why identity cards should be an effective method of controlling terrorism when, by his own admission, people who come into the country will not be required to have one. He may correct me if I am wrong, but a recurring theme in international terrorism is that such crimes are committed by people who come into the country and not necessarily by sleepers.
| 
