|
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
I had the privilege of leading Leicester
city council for some 17 years. It has been said that
that is longer than a life sentence, and at times
it certainly felt like it. But in that capacity my
city and I survived the rating system, the savage
revenue and capital cuts of the early 1980s, and the
rate capping and attendant confrontations that took
place in what was a pretty painful period. We also
survived the poll tax and the disastrous disruption
and confrontation that it caused in our city, as it
did elsewhere. We are now surviving the council tax
and the attendant capping.
So it is with mixed feelings
that I speak on this Bill, because I do not know that
many of my constituents are likely to benefit from
a revaluation, were one to take place. I realise that
there are many different predictions about the possible
outcome of such a revaluation, but it seems that my
constituents and others in Leicester have suffered
from the fact that house prices have risen less significantly
there than elsewhere. So there is perhaps some benefit
in revaluation, but set against that is the obvious
pain that would be caused to those whose revaluation
moved in a less favourable direction.
Far outweighing any of those
considerations is the enormous benefit that is to
be gained from a thorough review of the functions
and the funding method of local government. I am enormously
heartened by what the Minister said in introducing
this debate about the Government's commitment to devolution
and decentralisation in respect of local government.
The Lyons review provides a unique opportunity to
look at local government root and branch, and to consider
not just its funding but ways of ensuring that its
future is healthier than the preceding decades have
been.
On balance, I very much favour
the deferment of any revaluation, and I look forward
to a radical reform of the finance and functions of
local government.
Mark Pritchard (Wrekin,
The, Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions his support for
deferment. Does that support extend to supporting
Government Front Benchers in their apparent desire
to abolish local education authorities to reduce future
council tax bills?
Peter Soulsby
As I understand the proposals in the White Paper,
the Government envisage a new role for local education
authorities. I do have some concerns about what that
role might be. However, I look forward to a vigorous
debate over the White Paper to ensure that local education
authorities continue to play a vital role on behalf
of local people who elect them to serve their local
communities. I look forward to vigorous debate, but
I do not envisage that the White Paper will end local
government's vital involvement in local education.
Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt
Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for
International Development)
Conservative Members have got the history
wrong, as I recall that it was the Conservative party,
from Nicholas Ridley onwards, that went into elections
with a policy of abolishing local education authorities.
We need to say categorically—
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy
Speaker)
Order. I have heard quite enough to realise
that we are now moving into a debate on the future
of local education authorities. However, that is most
certainly a debate for the future, not for now.
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was precisely
the point that I was making.
I welcome the Minister's commitment,
in introducing the debate, to a continued role for
a property tax in the funding of local government.
I welcome it because a property tax is predictable,
collectable and just—albeit sometimes a rough
justice. I urge Ministers to pass the message back
to the Lyons review about the vital need for a much
wider range of sources of funding for local government.
A property tax undoubtedly has its place, but we need
a wider range of sources so that the funding that
local government receives from central Government
becomes a diminishing proportion of its total expenditure.
It is certainly not healthy for local government to
depend, as it increasingly has in recent years, on
central Government funding. That is not healthy for
local democracy, so we need a much higher proportion
of local government funds to be raised locally if
we are to increase the accountability of local government
to local people.
Mark Hendrick (PPS
(Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
In achieving that aim, would it be sensible
to review the role of the uniform business rate and
its contribution to local government?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy
Speaker)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go
too far down that road in his reply. We are debating
a Bill about the postponement of the revaluation of
properties in England, and we should stick as closely
to that subject as we possibly can.
Peter Soulsby (Leicester
South, Lab)
I shall certainly take your advice, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, and stick to the matter in hand—except
to acknowledge that I agree with my hon. Friend's
point.
If, as I hope will be the
case, the Bill is successfully enacted, I hope that
the Government will recognise that the postponement
reinforces the need for them to look into the inequities
of the present system of support for local government
and will acknowledge that certain issues must be dealt
with in the interim period before the Lyons review.
I hope that they will reflect on how the area cost
adjustment works at present and how its funding should
be restricted to authorities that experience higher-than-average
wage pressures. I hope that they will look carefully
into how resource equalisation works and the need
for the current system to keep pace with reality.
Full resource equalisation needs to take place every
three years. I also hope that the Minister will look
into the way in which daytime visitors are factored
into the present arrangements, as the present estimates
are long out of date, being based on a survey that
took place some 15 years ago. We should bring the
system truly up to date and make it truly more realistic.
I heard Liberal Democrat
Members argue earlier in the debate—as we expect
them to do—in favour of local income tax. I
know that there is a general view within local government
that such a local income tax would be uncollectable,
expensive, confusing and, most particularly, a burden
on employers. At least, however, Liberal Democrat
Members are consistent in their views. I also heard
Conservative Members argue powerfully for opposing
revaluation. In doing so, however, they were asking
the House to support an amendment that, if approved,
would have the effect of providing just such a revaluation
as they purported to oppose this evening.
|