§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to raise revenue by levying charges on domestic property.I should first of all like to deny the rumour that has been put around unworthily by some of my hon. Friends that this is an unserious or frivolous occasion, and what I am proposing this afternoon is a spoof tax. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious event. This afternoon I am seeking to advance democratic debate and provide alternatives for the people throughout the country to choose between. Recognising as I do that the Labour party is out of practice in introducing legislation into the House, I thought that I would distil the wisdom of the past 12 years to give it the opportunity, through me, to introduce its flagship local government proposals.One thing we know is that the Labour party is firmly resolved to abolish the community charge as soon as it assumes office. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said so on many occasions. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), we also know that the Labour party is determined to produce an alternative. Before the local government elections in 1988, he said:
Our local government campaign must not be, and will not be, a series of attacks on the Government. Simply to oppose is the sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise. We must, and we will, offer our alternatives.Several months later, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, announced:We are sophisticating the policy.I appreciate that sophistication and the right hon. Gentleman are not often found in conjunction. It is certainly true that we have not seen much sophistication since.The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who mysteriously appears to have vanished from the Chamber, announced in January of this year in the House:
We are making very good progress with the work that we have undertaken to prepare our alternative … We have every confidence that in the coming months we shall reach a conclusion that we shall be able to bring forward with confidence."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 438–39.]I am delighted to bring that forward with confidence today.The author of Labour party policy today, Mr. Peter Mandelson, the candidate for Hartlepool, announced on Radio Cleveland on 4 April that the next major policy statement by the Labour party would be on 23 or 24 May. He said that that statement would contain the party's fully worked out alternative to the poll tax. As that document is to be published tomorrow, I am giving the Labour party the first possible opportunity to put into legislative form the announcements that are about to be made.
In anticipation of this event, I wrote in these terms to the hon. Member for Dagenham on 9 May to announce that I was going to present my Bill today:
Although I have my own ideas, I would be grateful for your assistance in drafting the details of the Bill … The Committee stage of the Bill will be an excellent opportunity for Labour to clarify its thoughts and test some of its ideas.In view of the importance which you attach to replacing the poll tax as soon as possible with what you see as a fairer alternative, and the opportunity which I offer of a substantial backbench Tory rebellion if we can construct such an 290 alternative, I am sure you will agree that this is an opportunity to render a service to the country and derive some kudos for the Labour party at a time whem its electoral fortunes appear to be on the slide. Can we meet as soon as possible to discuss tactics?I regret to say that difficult as it must be for Conservative Members to understand, this opportunity was refused.As the House well knows, however, the Labour party in Scotland has produced its alternative; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) announced in February that the party intended to return, in effect, to the rating system and that, instead of notional rental values, the tax would be based on the capital value of a house. This would bring advantages for many hard-pressed sections of the community. Time does not allow me to name too many of them so I shall name only one: chartered surveyors. In the flat condition of the property market today they are, of course, desperate for work. In a
if Labour wins power, the new system could bring an explosion of work through a one-off general revaluation followed by annual sample surveys.Another aspect which should make professionals salivate is the almost unlimited potential for appeals",and so on.Of course, although advantages would undoubtedly accrue to certain members of the community, the great advantage of what is proposed by the Labour party is that no one need be worse off, because if a person is dissatisfied with the liability that he is likely to have on his house, he can always trade down. I believe that the hon. Member for Dagenham has already done that. Recently, in that estimable newspaper the Daily Mail, there was an article about the hon. Gentleman, who recently sold his delightful house in Oxfordshire in order to purchase a small flat near Moreton-in-Marsh.
I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had made this change. First and foremost, an instant's thought will tell the more sagacious Members of the House that Moreton-in-Marsh is represented by our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and we can well understand the eagerness with which the hon. Gentleman desires to become one of his constituents. But as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's flat is in a very large 18th century country house called Northwick park—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure hon. Members that there is no ideological inconsistency in that, because the flat is in the former servants' quarters. It will undoubtedly reduce the hon. Gentleman's potential liability. Its third advantage is that it is further from Dagenham. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman, proposing as he does a roof tax, wants to be as far away from his constituency as possible. As the average price of a house in Dagenham is £65,000, to raise the same revenue as the community charge, the roof tax there will have to be £10.90 per £1,000, so the average roof tax will be £711 compared with a community charge of £278. A single person would be £433 a year worse off than at present and couples would be £155 a year worse off.
Of course there are advantages to the roof tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) tells me that in Scotland many blocks of flats have been assigned a negative value by district valuers. One assumes that when the roof tax is introduced it will be perfectly symmetrical. 291 That means that people in hereditaments with a positive value will pay something while those who occupy properties that have a negative value will be paid to live there.
I hope that what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker, will not alarm you. You live in one of the most desirable of residences, and its capital value is very great. An open market valuation may well add several millions to it. You derive a reasonable salary for carrying out your onerous office, and I do not begrudge a single penny of it. We all hope that you will continue to occupy your residence, just as we all hope that there will not be a Labour Government after the next general election. I hope that we shall not find Mrs. Weatherill putting bed-and-breakfast notices outside your residence to supplement your income so that you can pay the roof tax.
It will he simple to avoid the roof tax in the same way as the window tax was avoided. Just as windows were bricked up, so the roof can be removed and that will considerably reduce the value of the property.
There are reasons why my Bill should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. First, Labour Members should support their party policy by voting for me. Secondly, I should be supported by my hon. Friends who, by voting for the Bill, will show to electors all over the country and especially in London, the south-east and in areas where property values are greater than the average, how much they would lose by the election of a Labour Government. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support me in the Lobby.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
§ Mr. LeighYes, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). As one would expect, he has presented his Bill with his customary wit and wisdom, but the measure is singularly ill-conceived. If I did not know my hon. Friend better, I would suspect that he had consulted the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but surely that could not be the case.
My hon. Friend is a somewhat unlikely champion of socialism. Only this week, I espied him at a society wedding, wearing spats and carrying a cane with a silver top. I know that the vodka-and-tonic version of the Labour party to which the hon. Member for Dagenham belongs may not mind people wearing spats. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition commented on the need for sartorial elegance by his spokesmen. Will they have to wear spats in the House in future?
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has presented his Bill in a mischievous tone, I must speak up on this entirely serious issue. I speak not just on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of those of the hon. Member for Dagenham. We have heard that people who occupy houses in Dagenham with an average value of £65,000 may well be as much as £400 worse off. This is therefore a serious issue for all our constituents.
I do not want to see the Bill proceed further, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, knowing 292 me as he does and as godfather to one of my children, knows that it will hit large families hard. My hon. Friend knows that children need roofs and that large families need large roofs. Only this week, I acquired another member of my family. The Bill is a personal dig at me, and that is another reason for opposing it. It must also be a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham, who occupies a great mansion in Gloucestershire with sweeping valley roofs and great pitched gables. I understand that his roof tax could be as much as £3,000. Is this a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham?
There are some serious points. I oppose the Bill because I want some answers. I see a Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sitting on the Labour Front Bench. Let him answer a few simple questions. I will give way happily. I hope that he is listening carefully.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, as this is a ten-minute Bill.
§ Mr. LeighHow unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman can listen. I am sure that when that part-time Geordie and full-time London sophisticate Mr. Mandelson sophisticates the roof tax on Thursday, he will answer my questions. They have not been answered so far.
These questions can be put simply. First, how can it be fair to pay a tax based on property when a person's income can remain static while the capital value of his home goes up, with the result that, under the Bill's proposals, the roof tax will rise? Secondly, how can such a system be fair if one has no capital stake in one's home—for instance, when one is a tenant? Again, under the Bill's provisions, liability for roof tax still increases.
It is not surprising that this crab-like tax has crept forward, dodged around and come back. It is impossible to get a property tax like this to be fair. If we were to have a system based on income, there would be other problems. For example, Inland Revenue statistics are based not on a person's whereabouts, but on his job. How does one find out where a person is living and how much of his income should be redistributed around the authorities? Furthermore, London and the south-east have a concentration of high income tax payers. How does one redistribute that? It would make the rate support grant look like an easy game of draughts.
The roof tax is riddled through with inconsistencies and is fundamentally flawed. I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. In the manner of Opposition spokesmen, he has proposed a policy without a price tag. He has given us no figures. We still have not heard from my hon. Friend or the Labour party whether this will be a tax on individuals or on households. Only the Labour party would produce a tax without saying who would be taxed, and we must be told.
All this is a diversion from what we should be discussing. The problem is not the nature of local government taxation but the fact that local government taxation is too high. People are paying too much. If Wandsworth and Westminster prove one thing, it is that Conservative councillors, in the next year or two, have rigorously to look at all their budgets and get bills down.
The roof tax is a mere smokescreen. It is confused and confusing. It is unexplained and inexplicable. I urge the House to reject the Bill with a substantial majority.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)
§ The House divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 119.
| Division No. 223] | [3.58 pm |
| AYES | |
| Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. David Evans. | |
| Tellers for the Ayes: |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Irving, Sir Charles |
| Arbuthnot, James | Janman, Tim |
| Ashby, David | Jessel, Toby |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Batiste, Spencer | Kennedy, Charles |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Kilfedder, James |
| Beggs, Roy | Knapman, Roger |
| Beith, A. J. | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Knowles, Michael |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Latham, Michael |
| Boswell, Tim | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Lightbown, David |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Livsey, Richard |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Burns, Simon | McCrindle, Robert |
| Butcher, John | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Butler, Chris | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Cartwright, John | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Cash, William | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Norris, Steve |
| Chapman, Sydney | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Colvin, Michael | Page, Richard |
| Conway, Derek | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Riddick, Graham |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Cryer, Bob | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Day, Stephen | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Devlin, Tim | Shelton, Sir William |
| Dunn, Bob | Skinner, Dennis |
| Evennett, David | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Fallon, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Stern, Michael |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Franks, Cecil | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Gale, Roger | Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Gow, Ian | Thorne, Neil |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Tracey, Richard |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Trimble, William |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Viggers, Peter |
| Gregory, Conal | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Grylls, Michael | Wallace, James |
| Hague, William | Ward, John |
| Hannam, John | Watts, John |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Harris, David | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Hayward, Robert | Whitney, Ray |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Hind, Kenneth | |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. David Nicholson. |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Irvine, Michael |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said on numerous occasions that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a distinguished former chairman of the Labour party. There may have been some confusion during the Division because the hon. Gentleman voted against the Roof Tax Bill. As he is a member of the national executive of the Labour party, whose policy this is, perhaps he ought to come to the Dispatch Box and explain what happened.
§ Mr. SpeakerSince the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been attacked, I shall hear him.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)The record ought to be put straight. The Labour party's national executive, under my chairmanship, never discussed the roof tax. During the course of the subsequent year, it never discussed the roof tax. During the last half hour, the Tories have played a clever and humorous game, but it was based on a figment of somebody's imagination. There has not been a Labour party roof tax, there will not be a roof tax and we killed it long before the Tories played their little game today.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the matter can be taken any further. It is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) voted, as he explained, against the Roof Tax Bill. He must understand what the Roof Tax Bill is all about and what a roof tax involves. We do not. Perhaps you would give him leave to explain during the Adjournment (Spring) debate what it is all about.
§ Mr. SpeakerI thought that we heard what it is all about in some detail from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that decisions affecting Scotland are frequently made in Scotland by Scottish Members of Parliament meeting in Scotland. I understand that a roof tax decision affecting Scotland was decided upon in two minutes in Scotland. We are now facing the imposition of a roof tax that was decided upon in two minutes. However, we have just been told by a senior member of the Labour party's national executive that there will be no roof tax. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please do something about informing the people of Scotland?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me. Since, however, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland, I should like him to know how much I enjoyed my visit to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last weekend.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. The House would like to know whether personal statements can be made today or tomorrow. The figment of imagination referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a figment of the imagination of Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen—the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It would be helpful to them, to us and to the hon. Member for Bolsover if we could be told whether a personal statement is to be made.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot be held responsible for figments of the imagination until they happen and nothing has happened yet. We should get on with the spring Adjournment motion.