Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the instrument brought forward today makes a practical provision to continue support of the effective administration of elections. It does this by extending the Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 for a further 12 months. These temporary regulations were first introduced ahead of the May 2021 elections. They allowed electors to appoint an emergency proxy, or change their existing proxy arrangement, up until 5 pm on the day of the poll where they were, or in fact their previously appointed proxy was, unable to attend a polling station due to Covid. This was without any form of attestation, which is normally required for a standard emergency proxy. It was part of a range of measures that helped ensure elections have been able to take place safely over the course of the last year.

While much has changed in the intervening 12 months, and is changing, extending this measure is prudent. While we have been able to remove a great many of the restrictions that Covid has made necessary, it is still the case that those who test positive for Covid are legally required to isolate—as some of their close contacts may be. While that is the case, and as the situation and exact nature of any isolation requirements going forward remain difficult to predict, we must ensure that those required to isolate are not, in the process of doing so, deprived of the ability to participate in the vital democratic process. So this is a tested and appropriate way to continue to protect that process during the pandemic. Now is not the right time to abandon this necessary temporary measure.

I will now move on to the specific details of the statutory instrument. The key purpose is to extend for a further 12 months the regulations brought into effect by the 2021 instrument, which is due to expire on 28 February 2022, so that instead it expires at the end of February 2023. We will keep this under review, and we will also consider repealing the regulations early, should they no longer remain necessary and proportionate.

The instrument will also remove the existing reference to the “clinically extremely vulnerable” and people who are

“at the highest risk of severe illness from coronavirus”

from the 2021 regulations. This terminology was used in England and Scotland respectively and its removal will bring the wording into line with the latest respective government guidance. Anyone following advice from a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse to isolate will still be able to apply for an emergency proxy under these rules. This ensures that electors unable to attend the polling station for Covid-related health reasons will not be adversely affected.

The instrument applies to UK parliamentary elections in Great Britain, police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales and local elections in England. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have also either extended their equivalent arrangements for their respective devolved elections or are in the process of doing so.

It is essential to our democracy that people are able to cast their vote. The 2021 regulations brought into effect a temporary measure to ensure that those required to isolate shortly before a poll could still vote, or that a proxy arrangement could be amended where the appointed proxy was unable to attend a polling station for Covid-related reasons. This instrument is a simple, yet vital, extension of that measure. It will cover local and mayoral elections in England scheduled for May 2022, as well as any applicable by-elections or unscheduled polls that occur before the May 2023 polls. However, as I outlined earlier, we will keep these measures under review and we will consider repealing them early, should they no longer remain necessary and proportionate.

I can assure noble Lords that we have consulted with the Electoral Commission and that it is supportive of this measure. I note also, and am grateful for, the cross-party support that the 2021 regulations received when brought forward last spring, and I hope very much that there will be support for their sensible and necessary extension. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this proposal to extend the rules governing late proxy vote applications as a consequence of coronavirus medical advice, including self-isolation, is appropriate and, as the Minister has just said, prudent. The consultation on the measures with the Parliamentary Parties Panel elicited no comments and the Electoral Commission seems content as well, so there is no reason, in my view, for this Committee to take a different view. It is anyway a sensible measure that is time-limited to a further 12 months.

I understand the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the clarity of the territorial and temporal limitations imposed by Regulations 1 and 2, but I also understand the complexities of drafting these regulations. The commitment of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to bear in mind the comments made about clarity should suffice, since this is in effect a one-year extension to an existing set of regulations.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

The noble Lord in his opening comments made reference to the previous SIs, which were debated in the Chamber on 4 March last year and which included a number of changes, as he indicated. One of them was in relation to the number of signatures that could be required for nominations for local elections: it was previously 10 and was reduced to two in the circumstances relating to coronavirus.

At the time the subject was debated, I indicated that I regretted that the change was time-limited to end in February 2022. Since then, consultations have taken place. I know that I speak in support of the views of the LGA and that this matter has been discussed informally at the Parliamentary Parties Panel in the presence of the Electoral Commission. There is therefore general all-party support—although I say this without having consulted the Green Party; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is due to speak in a moment so she may express a view. But there is a general all-party view that the one, time-limited exemption to the end of February 2022 should now be lifted and that there should be an ongoing exemption. That would fit in with the spirit of the SI to which we are referring today.

I failed to say at the start of my comments that I had given the Minister and his office notice that I was intending to cover this point. Given that we are nearing the local elections, I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that something which has all-party support can be expedited, that the time limit should be removed and that we can go on using two signatures, which is more than is required now in Wales and Scotland.

Budget Statement

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the valedictory speech by my fellow Novocastrian the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I express my thanks to her for her hard work both in this House and in her diocese, and for her work in addressing issues of inequality and disadvantage so effectively.

To be a success, the Budget depends on our economy expanding and interest rates remaining low. This strategy is very risky because businesses face rising costs, particularly in energy, and shortages in the supply chain and staff in some sectors, with inflation heading over 4%. The Government’s policy of spending now to reduce taxes later may prove hard to achieve. Indeed, the OBR forecast in March that if interest rates were 1% higher than forecast, additional debt interest of £20 billion a year would be needed, which would be twice that raised by the planned health and social care levy from next April.

The Chancellor’s opening words in his Budget Statement were:

“Employment is up, investment is growing, public services are improving, the public finances are stabilising and wages are rising”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/21; col. 273-4.]


He failed to add that prices are rising, taxation is rising, and that low-income families are particularly exposed to that higher inflation and those rising taxes.

Some experts have said that there will be a cost-of-living crisis for the lower-paid and that the average worker will be much worse off over the next five years, with taxes now rising to the highest level for 60 years. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, mortgages will no longer be cheap.

I have not understood how the Government can claim they are pursuing a levelling-up agenda while they pursue a policy of regressive taxation to fund local services. Levelling up cannot be delivered without progressive taxation. You do not level up people, or the areas in which they live, by putting up their tax bill well above either the rate of inflation or the growth in their incomes.

That takes me to council tax—I suppose I should remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Since 2016, the Government have been pursuing a policy of increasing council tax to help fund adult social care at levels well above inflation. And council tax is a regressive tax. Council tax payers have been required to pay up to 15% more over the past five years. Council tax will go on being increased in this way through the life of this Parliament. It may even get to 6% a year. This approach means that councils able to generate higher receipts from their council tax base can raise more money for social care than poorer councils, when it is often the poorer councils that have the greatest demand for social care.

Council tax needs reform, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, advocated earlier. Some poorer areas pay 20 times the level of council tax of the wealthiest areas, compared to the value of their properties. The system represents an excessive tax on poorer people. Council tax should reflect the ability to pay and should be based on up-to-date property values, yet valuations are 30 years old. Extra bands and a full revaluation are urgently needed.

Let me say something about business rates. The Government have been promising a review of business rates for several years, not least because of the damage being done to high streets by online retailing with its lower business rate levels. But now the Government have decided to avoid that full review. I am surprised, but then I suppose that a tax worth some £25 billion a year is too attractive to the Treasury even though the tax can be unfair, does not take account of the profits and losses of individual businesses, and can be a barrier to investment.

I welcome the cancellation of next year’s planned rise and the 50% temporary relief for retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and other targeted temporary reliefs, but, as my noble friend Lord Fox said earlier, it is a temporary fudge. I am disappointed that the Government will only explore the arguments for and against an online sales tax. We need a much deeper review of local taxation to include both council tax and business rates.

What consideration are the Government giving to the potential benefit of a proportional property tax, as recommended for consideration by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this year? It could replace council tax and business rates as well as stamp duty. To be revenue-neutral, it would need to be a flat rate charged annually at 0.48% of a property’s value. Many of the problems I have identified today could be eased by its introduction. Inevitably, it would take time and effort to achieve, but it could be fairer for those on lower incomes and with lower-value properties.

In conclusion, this Budget has introduced some temporary palliatives both in extra spending and in reduced taxation, but, as so many speakers have said, some serious underlying problems remain.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like others, I was very surprised by the speed with which the Bill passed through the House of Commons. I was even more surprised by the lack of challenge to it. As we have heard from right across the House this afternoon, national insurance is the wrong tax to use. Calling this a levy makes no difference. It is a tax. It is a change to the tax system worth £12 billion a year for three years—indeed, inevitably, longer than that.

It is a tax on work and it is more regressive than income tax because the rate charged reduces at higher earning levels. Those earning under £967 per week pay national insurance contributions of 12%, but those earning over that level pay only 2% on earnings. If speed is needed, using income tax would be fairer, because the threshold for paying national insurance is lower than it is for income tax. Thus, this levy hits the lower-paid more. As we have heard, those paying income tax have a personal allowance of £12,570, but the national insurance threshold is £9,568 for employees and £6,515 for the self-employed. Most of the revenue for the new levy will come from workers earning under £50,000. That is particularly unfair to younger workers.

Reference has been made to the briefing note from HMRC. I repeat this point, because it is important. The briefing note says that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has agreed that:

“There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”


It is astonishing that the Government find this acceptable. They have declared that they are pursuing a policy of levelling up. You cannot level up places without levelling up people, but you cannot level up people on low incomes by increasing the amount of tax they pay.

The context of the Bill is a tax burden which will be the highest in 70 years. At the same time, inflation is rising to over 4%, energy costs are spiralling and there is now talk of council tax rises of over 5% each year for several years. I submit that we cannot go on imposing high council tax rises year after year to help meet the cost of adult social care. The Government introduced the social care precept in 2016 at up to 3%, yet council tax is regressive. Council tax rises impact disproportionately on poorer people.

Yet the demand for social care is rising. Councils need an extra £2.6 billion a year simply to maintain current levels of social care, but they will get only £5.4 billion from the new levy over three years. Will there be enough money for social care? What is the spending profile for social care over those three years? How much will go to the NHS and how much will come to social care?

It could be argued that national insurance is easier for the Treasury to impose since it is relatively easier to administer. However, it hits the lower-paid and younger people most. A 1p increase in income tax, as my noble friend Lady Brinton has suggested, would at least raise contributions from better-off pensioners.

Council tax is being used to support adult social care based on property values of 30 years ago. It is, as I said, a regressive tax: those in lower tax bands pay higher effective tax rates than those in higher bands. One policy suggestion made recently by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in the House of Commons is for a proportional property tax to replace council tax and business rates. I hope the Minister will agree that the time has come to look very closely at that suggestion.

This is an inadequate Bill, rushed through and ill thought-through, which will not solve the care crisis. I hope the Government will take note of the fact that most speakers today have found the Bill wanting.

Covid-19 (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. First, I congratulate the committee on its report and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for her introduction. She is absolutely right in calling for us to learn the lessons of how public services have been delivered—or, indeed, not delivered—during the pandemic. She also talked about the importance of resilience and of engagement with people and communities. I subscribe to everything that she said.

As the title of the report says, this is a critical juncture for public services. The committee was right to use those words. It is urgent that we learn the lessons of the Covid pandemic. It brings into stark relief the delay in this report reaching the Floor of the House for debate. It was published in November 2020. The Government replied three months later, but it has taken a further five months for this House to hold a debate. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay?

I want to make one crucial point this afternoon, and it is this: you cannot run England out of London. The Government’s replies to paragraphs 117, 139, 140 and 141 of the report, on the need for decentralisation and local integration of services, are, frankly, inadequate. I submit that it is not enough to promise a White Paper “in due course” based on directly elected combined authority mayors and regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and the Northern Powerhouse. This leaves out counties, public health structures and local government generally. It does not address the need for a single, unified health and social care service and for greater investment in prevention, which could in turn save public money, as the report makes clear.

Crucially, and as the report also makes clear, we cannot continue with a system of overcentralised delivery of public services, poor communication from the centre and a tendency for service providers to work in silos. This, my Lords, is a hub and spoke model, so beloved of bureaucracies, which promotes silo working rather than service integration. As the committee has pointed out, local authorities often receive divergent messages from different government departments. As worrying was the need for local areas to interpret public announcements by the Government without prior consultation.

I said earlier that you cannot run England out of London. We do not try to run Scotland like that, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, so why, for example, do we run Yorkshire like that? The argument the Government have used has been that decisions have had to be made quickly. Of course they have, but that is no excuse for national attempts at recruiting volunteers not being aligned with locally co-ordinated responses, nor for national public health executive agencies not using local public health resources effectively, nor for the expertise of local authority contact-tracing teams being unused in the design of test and trace. These are fundamental matters. It is vital that local areas are seen as partners with far greater decision-making powers.

Very wisely, the committee, on page 14, described the German public health system, which has local and regional governance structures with 375 local health offices empowered to make decisions. We could learn much from them, and I hope we will.

I want to raise a final issue, which relates to schools and which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned. The Prime Minister appointed an adviser, Sir Kevan Collins, as education recovery commissioner. He produced a report, supported, it seems, by the Prime Minister, calling for substantial funding over three years to assist pupils who had lost school time, but the Treasury refused to fund it. Just £1.4 billion was allocated for one year—about a 10th of the money asked for, albeit over three years. The commissioner resigned. This is not joined-up government.

Covid has exposed serious flaws in our systems of government. I hope this is understood by the Minister and his colleagues, because they have the power to drive the change we need.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I agree entirely with what he has just said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for the opportunity afforded by his Private Member’s Bill, which I warmly welcome for both its proposals and its timeliness. It offers a resetting of how we construct public policy, and, for that reason, it is to be strongly welcomed. I hope that the Minister will speed the Bill and give the principles behind it government support.

On the timeliness of the Bill, the Covid pandemic has brought a number of policy issues to the fore, meaning that the concept of well-being must now become more central to public policy-making. I am pleased that the Today for Tomorrow report is being launched next week, with the ambition of putting long-term planning in place for public policy decisions today. I venture to suggest that, had we been doing that, we would not have had the rise in poverty, particularly child poverty, now being experienced. We would not have the crisis over unaffordable housing for so many people on low incomes. We might not have had such a serious pensions crisis, which is now facing so many younger people, or the wide gap in access to broadband or catch-up funding for young people who have missed substantial parts of their education in recent months.

Well-being requires clear goals in relation to an individual: having good educational opportunities and the security of a decent home and job. But it also needs to reflect places, such as rural areas, where house prices are very high, where there is substantial fuel poverty and where the cost of transport is high for those who live there to reach further education or work. That is one example of the importance of place, and I hope that we explore it further in Committee.

We know that future forecasting can be difficult, but we should have known that a pandemic would be likely to reduce employment for those in temporary employment or the gig economy. We should note that three-quarters of job losses in the last year are among the under-35s—yet we seem to have been unprepared for that.

I see the Bill not as anti-democratic but as enabling us to understand better the impact of today’s policy decisions on the future and future generations. We would benefit from the Bill, perhaps after it is strengthened in Committee. We do equality and environmental impact assessments, which make a difference. Surely we should now be undertaking well-being assessments to inform our understanding of our policy decisions today and their impact on tomorrow.

Budget Statement

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first, I congratulate all noble Lords making their maiden speeches today. I will talk about English regional policy. The Industrial Strategy Council, now abolished, said that, in Europe, only Poland and Romania had larger regional productivity gaps than the UK. The Government seem to want to recognise that in Build Back Better: Our Plan for Growth. But, as my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others have said, the plan lacks strategic focus and a unifying theme. I hope that the Government really do understand the potential growth jobs, particularly in green industries in the English regions.

The success of levelling up will depend on the willingness of the private sector to invest strongly alongside the Government, but also on the willingness of the Government to devolve power within England, which should lead in turn to greater growth in jobs. We still await of course the Government’s much-heralded devolution White Paper.

I welcome the opening of both the Treasury’s northern base in Darlington and the UK infrastructure bank in Leeds. Both are a sign of confidence in the north, as is the second Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government headquarters in Wolverhampton and the West Midlands. These decisions by the Government raise the question of what else should be in the pipeline. I suggest that the Department for Transport opens a base in the north of England. I have never understood why it is essential for it to be in London. The example set by the Treasury and MHCLG is surely one for others to follow. We could create a network of government departments right across the country, where civil servants and Ministers can better understand the problems outside London.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2021

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, on his maiden speech. We very much look forward to his future contributions to the work of this House. I want to pick out one thing from his speech. He said that we need to give more meaning to the importance of casting a vote; I agree entirely with him on that.

I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have nothing to add to the points made by earlier speakers this afternoon on the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order. However, I do wish to address the order being debated alongside it—the Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Coronavirus, Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) Order—which is clearly sensible given the coronavirus pandemic and given similar decisions already made for other elections in May.

I want to put this order in context. When we discussed the West Yorkshire Combined Authority order in January, I referred to two matters, both of which remain highly relevant. One was the importance of scrutiny and the need to review how the new mayoral combined authorities have worked—that is, an assessment of how each is performing and what we can learn from their achievements or failures. When mayoral combined authorities were first introduced, their bespoke nature was understandable because it meant that different areas could take on powers and responsibilities that suited their local circumstances. From the perspective of the Government, it meant that further approaches to spreading power in England could be tested. That approach has proved valuable, but we need to review how more power and responsibility might be devolved from Whitehall and Westminster, and not just to those existing combined authorities. That could take place in the context of the promise by the Government of a White Paper on English devolution, which was due last year.

The Minister may also recall that, at the last election, the Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to a constitution, democracy and rights commission. I understand the reasons why these have not happened yet, given the pandemic, but perhaps the Minister might tell us what the Government’s plans are now.

The elections for police and crime commissioners, to which this order also applies, are the third set of elections since the introduction of the role and, as the Minister knows, there has been a consultation on police and crime commissioner powers recently. No doubt a number of proposals will arise from that in due course, but assessing the role of police and crime commissioners should not be done in isolation.

There are several issues of principle to consider. Should elected mayors have responsibility for policing or is that model too centralised? How should elected mayors and police and crime commissioners be held to account? London has an elected Assembly, but other parts of England do not. Is the police and crime commissioner model sufficiently resilient, and do police and crime panels succeed in holding police and crime commissioners to account? Do funding streams, divided between local government, mayors and police and crime commissioners, work as smoothly as they should? To what extent should governance of fire and rescue lie with police and crime commissioners?

There are many similar questions. In the past decade, we have seen a patchwork of new structures created. We have learned a lot from the many common approaches and the piloting of different approaches, but the time has come to try to review what has been achieved and what more should be done. This takes me back to the government plans for devolution in England and a constitutional commission. There would now be a benefit from the Government moving ahead with their White Paper on English devolution and saying more about their proposed commission.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I should say that I disagree profoundly with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has said. That is because we learned when the Bill was debated last week that the Government think of sovereignty largely in relation to themselves. They do not think much about individual sovereignty or the sovereignty of UK businesses and producers to export free of red tape and bureaucracy.

As we know from today’s news, there are big concerns now about the cost of exporting to the EU and about the delays inherent in the system for the export of some goods. The trade agreement may have reduced tariffs but, as we are now learning, non-tariff barriers can be just as important. In particular, barriers have now been created which limit the ability of UK citizens to work in the EU.

One advantage of the UK being part of the single market was the mutual recognition of professional qualifications with all other EU countries. That has been ended and instead there is a framework for the discussion of possible future agreements between qualification authorities. It may be possible to negotiate bilateral agreements with each country—that is, 27 times —but any such discussions must be initiated and conclusions must be reached, and that whole process could take a long time. This is not in the interests of our services sector or the individuals affected, but it is one of the consequences of changing our trading relationship with our largest trading partner.

I ask the Minister if he would expand on the Government’s plans for the recognition of UK qualifications in the EU, because many individuals and professional bodies are facing very significant barriers and dislocation.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

In today’s debate, we have heard a lot about sovereignty. The Government have prioritised sovereignty over the benefits of frictionless trade but by “sovereignty” they have meant the sovereignty of the UK Government, not that of the nations of the UK or of individuals, and there are consequences of that approach.

First, as demand rises in Scotland for independence, this Bill represents another step towards the break-up of the UK, as many in Scotland seek their own sovereignty rather than being constrained by UK sovereignty, having voted to stay in the EU. Several speakers have recognised the dangers, but there has been a more constant assumption that sovereignty relates only to the UK level—that is a dangerous assumption.

Further, this Bill represents a clear loss of sovereignty for individual UK citizens. For example, UK citizens working in the EU will in future be able to travel visa-free within the EU only for 90 days in a six-month period. A work visa will now automatically be needed for a UK citizen selling goods or services in an EU country. Surely we need easier travel arrangements for those working. In addition, there should be visa-free cultural work passports to cover the whole of the EU in one document.

As we have heard, a UK citizen may well have professional qualifications, but those qualifications will no longer be recognised across the EU as they are now. There is hope for bilateral agreements, but they will, even if successful, take time to negotiate.

Each of those matters represents huge barriers for very many individuals, many of whom are young and just trying to earn their living. For young people, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and several others that the abolition of the Erasmus scheme is short-sighted.

What about all the broken promises over sovereignty in fishing? There were promises to regain control of British waters, but they have not been delivered. There will no longer be quota swaps, as there are now, and there will be no exclusive 12-mile limit, which used to be a red line for the Government. So there is no return of real sovereignty for our fishing industry. What about the sovereignty of Gibraltar 24 hours before the end of the transition period? I hope that the Minister is going to tell us.

From tomorrow, we begin years of continuous negotiation with the EU from the position of a supplicant trying to make an agreement work that is thin in content but heavy in regulatory structures. There will be lots of technical committees, new customs checks, rules of origin checks, customs forms, systems of arbitration and lots more red tape than we have now. I fear that the complexity will not prove attractive to potential future inward investors wanting access to the EU single market from the UK.

Spending Review 2020

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I first remind the Grand Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to talk about council tax and the deliberate government policy over the past five years to force it up well above the rate of inflation. These increases have been caused in part by the introduction of the adult social care precept in 2016, because central government decided to divest itself of carrying all the responsibility for rising social care costs. At the general election last year, the Conservative Party manifesto guaranteed not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT across the next Parliament. It was a bold and, undoubtedly, a popular step. This was intended to,

“protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next Parliament.”

These three taxes bring in almost two-thirds of UK tax revenue. The decision not to increase them means that the Government intend other taxes to bear the burden through this Parliament. Council tax is one of them, and in the spending review last week, the Chancellor continued government policy towards council tax for a sixth year: that is, increasing council tax well above the rate of inflation. An increase of up to 5% is permitted next year, of which a maximum 3% increase is for the adult social care precept and 2% is for general service provision. This constant rise in council tax forced on councils impacts most of all on poorer families.

The pandemic is impacting most on poorer families. The freeze on public sector pay will impact most on poorer people. The failure to increase the living wage by more will impact most on poorer people. I understand the reason for wanting to avoid tax rises at a national level, to enable the economy to grow again, but why does this policy not apply to council tax?