My Lords, this is a large group. I shall speak first to Amendments 129LZZZA, 129LZZG, 129LZZH, 129LZZJ, 129LZAA, 129LZAB, 129LZC, 129LZE, 129LZF, 129LABZA, 129LABZB and 129LBA.
These amendments from my noble friend Lord Jenkin would require a referendum to be held only in response to a local petition signed by local electors. I understand what my noble friend seeks to achieve. That may indeed be purer localism than the Government's approach, but there would be grave practical difficulties in going down that road. My noble friend seeks to allow the timing to be determined locally, but time will be very short for such a petition to be organised, as council tax must be set in early March. If democratic control is to be effective, and not just cause financial confusion, the electorate's endorsement or otherwise of the authority's decision should follow very soon after. Given the binding nature of the referendum, it would be necessary to establish that each signatory of the petition was a local government elector in the area. That would be a difficult, time-consuming, contentious and potentially expensive precursor to the main event, the referendum itself.
The amendments leave in place of the notion of substitute calculations, but do not resolve with any certainty the basis on which those calculations should be made. In effect, the authority will be saying, ““If you do not like this level of council tax, we will adopt that one””. Who is to say that the electorate will not feel the substitute to be excessive as well?
The amendments leave in place the Secretary of State’s power to direct that the process should not apply. This is sensible in principle but will leave the authority in difficulty. As the Bill stands, the test he will use is: will this authority be unable to discharge its functions or meet its financial obligations if it is not allowed to set an excessive council tax? The approach proposed in the amendments is much less clear cut. They would leave unclear the arrangements that would lead to a referendum challenging a major precepting authority’s council tax. Apparently the process is to be triggered by a petition to a billing authority. What happens if a precepting authority covers several billing authority areas but only in one of them is a qualifying petition raised? Is there to be a referendum across the precepting authority’s area, or not? A further concern is that several petitions could be launched without central organisation.
Our approach, while preserving a principal role for central government in these local matters, is more practical, much more coherent and less likely to cause undue delay and confusion. We think it is right that authorities themselves should determine whether they have set an excessive council tax—one that has breached the principles set down for the financial year by the Secretary of State and approved by the House of Commons. We also think it is right that if an authority has set an excessive council tax it should arrange a referendum to give its electorate the final say on whether the decision should stand.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c137-8 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:07:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756837
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756837
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756837