English Votes for English Laws
Jonathan Lord Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I thank the hon. Lady for inexplicably promoting me to the Privy Council; perhaps she could have a word with her friend the Prime Minister and see whether she can make that happen, because she is probably very influential. What I am trying to argue is if we are going to do this to give an English voice, it has to be done in a cross-party way with consensus, not in a partisan way that is clearly designed to assist only one party in this House.
Jonathan Lord
It is one thing to ask the Government about detail, but we have failed to hear any detail at all from the Labour Opposition. Labour had 13 years in government to consider this matter and has had five years in opposition, but after 18 years Labour has provided no detail at all, even on the suggestion that it might get to its fabled constitutional convention.
Ms Eagle
There is the constitutional convention and a lot of the issues of powers also—[Interruption.] Because the hon. Gentleman represents the Government, and it is for them to put forward legislation in this place and for the Opposition then to deal with it. I do not know whether he knows his constitution, but that is how it is meant to be. If we had been the Government, we would be dealing with this. His party is the Government and therefore we are dealing with their proposals. That is what I am trying to do.
General Matters
Jonathan Lord Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
It is currently a proposal across London to close certain custody suites. I am obviously concentrating on my own constituency, but my hon. Friend should be clear that a similar proposal might well come forward for his own constituency, which will impact on his own borough of Bromley. We have to be careful about this across London.
I am particularly concerned because I know that when people are arrested in Harrow, at certain times of day it can take almost an hour to get to Wembley or Kilburn police station. Members can imagine a scenario involving violent criminals kicking off in the back of a police van that is dragging policemen or policewomen to another station where they will be tied up for several hours. Resources in Harrow will be severely stretched, and I suspect that there will be proposals for other custody suites to be closed throughout London, which I think would be wrong. We need to make it clear that custody suites should be in the most locally appropriate area, so that criminals can be processed in a humane and orderly fashion rather than transported for huge distances, tying up police resources unnecessarily.
I am sure that a Minister will respond to me in writing, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take the issue on board as well, so that we can be given an answer. I know that all three Harrow Members are very concerned about this, as are the Harrow public.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to call on the Government urgently to investigate how a land value tax might be introduced to replace, first, business rates, and then council tax. I call for this because it would be more progressive and fair, it would help to prevent property speculation and it is a potential means of redistributing wealth. I am also encouraged by the fact that land value taxation has long been a key policy of one of the coalition Government partners. I hope that the robust reports on LVT from the likes of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as debates such as this, might help to persuade the other partner.
As hon. Members know, LVT is a tax or levy on the value of land that takes account of any planning permission associated with it but not of any improvements made to the site such as buildings. For domestic property, for example, the house price includes both land and building values, but LVT would apply only to the land that the house stands on. LVT encourages efficient and sustainable use of land, as owners of derelict land or properties that they have deliberately allowed to become run down pay the same as those who take care of their properties. It therefore has the potential to bring more brownfield sites into use and to ease pressure on green belt. Building in towns and cities would become more efficient, urban sprawl could be reduced, and speculative land banking—for example, by big supermarkets—could be discouraged.
Jonathan Lord
The hon. Lady cites all sorts of terrible, egregious cases, but what about the widow who wants to carry on living in the family home but does not have much income or spare capital? Would she force her to move home because of these taxes?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, not least because it gives me the opportunity to reassure him that I certainly would not be asking that widow to leave her home. What I am asking the Government to do—I have drafted a private Member’s Bill to this effect—is to research how we would implement a land value tax. Among the provisions that we would need to consider is how to protect the widow in the case to which he alludes. For example, one could give her the option of continuing to pay council tax until she dies or moves house, and if she moved house one could think about how to introduce the land value taxation at that point. I assure him that I certainly do not envisage a scenario where this measure would force people to leave their homes. It would have to be brought in gradually. I stress that my private Member’s Bill asks the Government to research this and look into the modalities of introducing it, transition periods, and so on.
One of the great advantages of a land value tax is that it would be very hard to dodge, avoid or evade. It would encourage more efficient and sustainable use of land and avoid distorting business behaviour, as our current business rates do. Business rates are levied as a percentage of the estimated rental value of the property, and the effect of that is to skew economic activity away from property-intensive production and to create a perverse incentive not to use or properly develop brownfield land first. Crucially, an LVT could discourage boom and bust in property, giving incentives against disproportionate amounts of capital being tied up in property and unsustainable accumulation of debt.
Support for this idea comes from interesting quarters both historically and today. For example, in February this year, Samuel Brittan said in the Financial Times that
“the case for a land tax is one of the oldest and least disputed propositions in economic thought.”
He went on to explain:
“Many chancellors have said that they would jump at a tax that had no disincentive effects on work or enterprise but had a strong redistributive element.”
Samuel Brittan is in very good company. Winston Churchill, speaking in 1909, put the argument in favour of LVT rather eloquently:
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced.”
In addition to that, last year we had the heavyweight report from the IFS that was commissioned from the Nobel prize winner, Sir James Mirlees; it is known as the Mirlees review. It clearly recommends that the Treasury take LVT seriously. It says:
“This is such a powerful idea, and one that has been so comprehensively ignored by governments, that the case for a thorough official effort to design a workable system seems to us to be overwhelming.”
In responding to the questions that I have put to the Government so far on LVT, they have always fallen back on the work done by Sir Michael Lyons in his 2007 inquiry into the role, function and funding of local government. There are many criticisms of the Lyons report and there have been dramatic economic changes since it was released, the most obvious of which is the 2008 crash, which make Lyons’ analysis of land value taxation out of date.
We need a study into the practicalities that looks at how we would bring in an LVT, who would be the winners and losers, and what transitional measures would be needed. The evidence suggests that such a measure would be broadly progressive. In other words, those who can afford it would pay the most and those who can least afford it would pay the least. I hope that the Government will use the response to this debate to reply positively to the broad cross section of people who are saying that this idea has potential. We now need research into how it would be implemented.
The practicalities of land valuation at the necessary level of disaggregation might seem daunting, but that does not mean that it is not possible. There is already a substantial apparatus designed specifically to record land and property values for business rates. Rating lists are compiled by the Valuation Office Agency, which in 2009-10 employed approximately 4,000 staff. New lists are compiled every five years. The infrastructure is therefore already there and could be used.
As I said, I have introduced a private Member’s Bill which, if we are lucky, will be discussed in November. It calls on the Treasury to do a serious piece of work that looks into how land value taxation might replace business rates and, subsequently, council tax, and that takes account of transitional arrangements as necessary. I hope that the Government will take that proposal seriously. The economic case is strong. If we took the wider view to see how such a transition could be made, I think we would find that such a tax would be sensible, efficient, effective and progressive.
General matters
Jonathan Lord Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on bringing some festive cheer to this Adjournment debate with your red socks with green flashes. I am not sure whether those are holly leaves. [Interruption.] I can see things which other Members in the Chamber may not be able to see.
Unfortunately, the topic that I wish to raise today is a little more serious. In his statement of 14 December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), announced plans for a more modern justice system that has
“more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 816.]
I support the broad intention of those proposals, and I believe the Surrey courts service has supported this approach for some time. Since 1990, the year in which Woking court opened as the county’s new, purpose-built building, seven courthouses have been closed in total and just four magistrates courts now operate—in Guildford, Redhill, Staines and Woking.
Woking is still the best equipped court in Surrey with excellent disabled facilities, including wheelchair access and hearing loops in each court, and terrific youth and child witness provision. Woking is also the most efficient court in terms of the number of cases seen per hour relative to utilisation rates. The case throughput rate has risen from 5.43 per hour in 2008 to no less than 7.65 in 2010.
The Minister wrote to me on the day of his statement to tell me that Woking court was to close and that its workload would be transferred to Guildford and Staines. In his letter he said:
“By closing courts with low workloads, or facilities which do not meet the modern standards society expects, we have been able to release £22 million to improve and modernise the courts to which work will transfer.”
Presumably he is including potential Woking court receipts within this figure, despite it having neither a low workload nor poor facilities. However, he is closing Surrey’s most modern and best equipped court and he will find it almost impossible to raise the remaining three courts in Surrey to an equivalent standard. For example, the other courts have severe limitations with regard to which courtrooms prisoners can be produced in, whereas Woking can have prisoners produced in all three courtrooms.
The Government’s consultation response pointed out that the public areas of Staines and Guildford courts are accessible to disabled people. That is a wonderful thing for disabled visitors, but not so much use to a disabled person who wishes to access the actual courtrooms independently and safely.
While we are on the subject of the Government’s response, I am told that six financial advisers have been left off Her Majesty’s Courts Service list of staff affected by the closure. I hope the Minister will be able to correct this. There are also significant maintenance backlogs at Guildford and Staines, and I would be grateful if the Minister provided more details on them, as I believe the figures have recently changed.
If Woking court is so wonderful, why is it being closed? The reason seems to be that the Ministry of Justice has been unable to identify one of the older, less efficient courts—which would have been more in keeping with the terms of the consultation and the overall strategy—because the other magistrates courts in Surrey are co-located with county courts. Yet after seven closures in 20 years, I do not believe the county can afford to lose another court.
In 2008, Surrey had a population of just over 1.1 million people, which amounts to just over 278,000 people per court. Only one area had a higher figure—south Yorkshire—which has more than 316,000 people per courthouse, and it is not suffering a closure. If Woking court closes, Surrey’s figure will be comfortably the highest in the country, at over 371,000 per courthouse.
Elizabeth Truss
My constituency has also faced a court closure, at Thetford. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important not just that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done locally? We need to make sure that our justice system does not become over-centralised, and that people locally need to be involved.
Jonathan Lord
I could not agree more, and I think the Government’s proposals tread a fine line in respect of the issues my hon. Friend mentions.
Not only would Surrey have 371,000 people per courthouse, but Surrey’s population is increasing, by almost 20% over the next 23 years according to Surrey county council. I will also send figures to the Minister showing that Surrey already has one of the highest numbers of crimes per courthouse of any police authority outside London.
Neil Parish
My constituency also faces the problem of a courthouse closing, in Honiton. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of defendants might not get to court if they have to travel a great distance? If they do not get to court, the police will have to arrest them later, so there could be much more bureaucracy and problems as a result of shutting a local courthouse.
Jonathan Lord
My hon. Friend makes a valuable and pertinent point. Woking also has a significant Muslim population, and it has built up good links with Woking courthouse, so the problem my hon. Friend mentions could be exacerbated in this instance.
If Woking court closes, the target utilisation rate for Staines and Guildford, where the work is due to transfer, will be 93%. That is very high, especially considering the need for significant remedial work and modernisation at those courthouses. Where will the cases go if the courts have to close to be repaired or updated? Where is the margin for error for the population growth I mentioned, or for the unexpected?
Finally, what possible grounds are there for stating that the court’s relationship with Woking’s Muslim community and with our Shah Jahan mosque
“will be maintained should the closure be ordered”?
The relationship between the mosque and the local court has been built slowly and sensitively over many years, involving specific officials from the court, who will no longer serve the current local justice area, and chairmen of a bench, which will cease to exist. The mosque will lose its link to the court because that link will be fractured, and its relationship with new and unfamiliar personnel, in an area outside its community, can neither be anticipated nor relied upon.
I urge the Minister to review all these points—I will elaborate on them when I write to him shortly—and to reflect on his decision. Several Members have intervened on me, and I sympathise with many colleagues who have also suffered closures, but I say to them that we have a court that is purpose built, has high utilisation rates, has a terrific bench, dedicated staff, fantastic disabled access and all the facilities I have mentioned, and it would be a tragedy for the county of Surrey to lose it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In the spirit of Christmas and acting as Father Christmas, I now intend to extend the time limit from six to seven minutes.