| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. It was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Scott. I have answered it. We have increased next year's amount by #680 million. Having said that, we recognise that the service is under great pressure. Therefore, we are constantly in discussion with the LGAs about how best to deal with those pressures. I do not underestimate the problems in relation to that important area. As I say, we have increased the amount by 6.5 per cent in cash terms for next year. That is 3.9 per cent in real terms, which is #680 million.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I declare an interest as the leader of a council which is not yet, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in a state of despair. We could certainly raise half a cheer in relation to the Statement that my noble and learned friend has given on behalf of the Secretary of State.
My noble and learned friend will recall that in July he attended the conference and a dinner of another organisation of which I am a member—SIGOMA. That represents the most deprived metropolitan areas of the country. Its view is that the current system cannot go soon enough. We get an average of #140 per head less on SSAs, yet end up paying 15 per cent more on council tax. I am sure that we do not need any lessons or any advice on local government finance from the party opposite in view of its record in running it for many years when in power.
I want to press my noble and learned friend on the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked him. What is the status of the council tax benefit limitation scheme after today's announcement? One of the odd things about the settlement is that the money which the Government say is in the system—the total standard spending—is an absolute fiction. It does not represent the total amount spent by councils up and down the country. It is about time that the figures were brought into line with this fiction which the Civil Service pretend we spend. Perhaps we can then have a system that is less distorted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, can I respond to the second point by saying that it is noted. As to the first, the council tax benefit limitation scheme, I apologise for not answering the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness to wait a little longer until the local government White Paper is issued.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, having sought to grapple with some of these problems in an earlier incarnation, I am not just astonished but enormously encouraged if we are to have a system introduced that will be transparent, fair and just. I look forward to the realisation of the categorical pledge given by the Minister that that is what we shall receive next year. Having said that, I agree very much with the comment made—having had to make this Statement on a number of occasions in another place—that a great many of the numbers are fairly meaningless and usually incomprehensible to anyone listening to them.
One feature emerges clearly from the Statement and the questions. I endorse what the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches said. When I departed from my constituency earlier this year, it was to the accompanying sound of the closure of private care homes and the serious crisis that that presents. In putting forward these proposals, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact that the amount of money announced will have in terms of the provision of greater facilities in private care homes and for the elderly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures in relation to what the assessment is. An assessment obviously has been made in relation to it.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will write to me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. As I have said in answer to all the questions about social services, we fully recognise what the pressures are at the moment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a member of a local authority—Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council in Yorkshire. Looking carefully at the words used about Xlocal authorities" being Xa vital part" and Xlocal
government being valued", I wonder when Xlocal" will be put back into local government. From my reading of what I have seen, the die is cast as far as concerns education and social services and highways. Members of local authorities will make spending decisions in other areas.The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that it looked as though council tax rises would be in the region of 6.7 per cent, which would be two or three times the level of inflation. Will the Minister express his view as to what the percentage will be? Is that position right or is it some other figure? If it is right, can he give his view to those members who make these decisions? They are saying to their local electorates, XWe must lift council taxes by 6 or 7 per cent and therefore we must look for some reductions". Where do they look for the reductions but in the areas where they have discretion—local amenities, whether it is parks and gardens, museums or theatres or grants to voluntary organisations? What kind of advice would he give to those members who are exercising their discretion? People in those areas are saying to them, XLook, you are the council. You send out the rate bills. It is not the Government who send them out. Why are you sending this out with two or three times the level of inflation on it?"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's question related to Xlocal" community leadership. We would be very keen to see local authorities as local community leaders. By that I mean, identifying the priorities for the locality for which they are the elected local leaders. That will be dealt with in much more detail in the local government White Paper.
As to levels of council tax rises, that is a matter for local community leaders to decide upon. They must decide where their priorities lie in the light of the settlement announced today. They must make the decisions about what level the council tax should be at. They should do it having regard to what their local electorate regards as a sensible level at which to set the local council tax. It is plainly not for me to speculate as to what the average level may be. Nor is it for me to say to local authorities at what level they should set it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he not agree that the Statement made today must have some degree of influence on what those local leaders have to decide?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that, yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question. I may be wrong, but I understood that when we legislated in your Lordships' House about the community care of the elderly, large sums of money were going to be paid by the health service for nursing as opposed to community care. How is that health service money treated in this Statement? Is it treated as part of the increase that local government gets, in which case it is somewhat fictitious, or is it
simply not there because it is in the health service budget? Can the Minister answer that question? I was waiting for it to be asked. I thought that it would come from somewhere. It interests me following all the discussion we had about community care.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that I should be very careful before I answer that question. Can I write to the noble Baroness?
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
4.48 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 94.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 157A:
- Page 54, line 13, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I have slight difficulty in my mind about Amendment No. 157A and the opinion of the Committee. However, my motivation in tabling the amendment is that the Bill gives power to remove items of clothing used for disguise purposes in potentially riotous situations. I was not clear about the drafting of the clause and to that extent this is a probing amendment. I am unclear as to whether the normal protections—for example, searches and the removal of clothing would in other circumstances normally be undertaken only by people of the same sex—would apply in relation to this particular matter. It is apparent that Clause 94 does not make that a specific requirement as in other parts of the Bill.
Having faced that hurdle, it is not impossible to envisage somebody, who for religious reasons is sensitive about these matters, quite inadvertently being caught in circumstances where the police require the removal of facial cover. This could create problems of great sensitivity for people in that situation. I believe that we should do what we can to ensure that in so far as possible in the circumstances their sensitivities are acknowledged. That deals with the motivation behind the first part of my amendment.
I have recently been exposed to masked demonstrators. At first sight—even half an hour later—I could not tell whether they were male or female. I thought that my senses were reasonably gender-attuned. When people wear black head coverings which also conceal the eyes and modern clothing that is generally shapeless and formless it is difficult to tell whether they are men or women. I sought to deal with the situation where an individual refused to remove a head covering on the grounds of sensitivity and tried to delay proceedings by claiming to be a woman when he was not. That gives rise to paragraph (b) of the amendment which would make a
X( ) Where a person who has been required by a constable to remove an item under subsection (2)(a) claims to be female—
(a) removal shall not be required until a female officer is present; and
(b) prior to the removal of the offending item, the person required to remove the item shall be informed that there is a fixed penalty of #50 if they have made a false declaration of gender."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page