Sutton Borough Liberal Democrats

The following is the text of an email that I sent to a constituent earlier today. He wrote to me to ask about my views of the government's proposals "to re-define marriage", which he believes "will have far-reaching consequences…[that] will have an adverse effect on the stability and flourishing of our local community." I beg to differ.

Dear sir,

Thank you for your email regarding the government's proposals to change the law on marriage in the United Kingdom. This is not a local authority matter, and so has no relevance to my role as a local councillor. However, as you have asked to know my views on this matter, I am happy to oblige.

There are, in my view, two discrete roles that marriage plays in society. The first is legal: it creates a clear contractual basis between parties that enables them to share property and divide the proceeds of their joint enterprise between them. It protects each party in the event of the other's demise. And it provides a sound legal footing for children. In so doing it ensures that, in the event of bereavement or separation, each party is protected. Spouses and children are assured their inheritance; property is fairly shared in the event of break-up. This is especially important in an environment where it may be rational for one party to specialise in wealth-creation while the other specialises in non-financial contributions to the household, including rearing children.

The second is ceremonial. A marriage - and in particular a wedding - is an opportunity to signal to the world that one is entering into a special, unique and (one would hope) permanent relationship. It is also an opportunity for religious people to consecrate their union in the appropriate manner, and for all people to celebrate the union with a big party.

Both these functions are valid and serve an important social role.

Neither of them require the involvement of the state.

The legal function, like other legal contracts, could be facilitated by anybody with a sufficient level of legal expertise. There are thousands of solicitors and professionals with legal training who would be able to draw up appropriate contacts. It is likely that, very soon, a few standard forms of marriage would emerge as the most popular. Some of these would undoubtedly have been commissioned by religious organisations that would incorporate them into their ceremonies alongside the consecration of the union. The different forms that would emerge spontaneously would enable tailoring the contract to the parties' needs. The role of the state would be limited to ensuring freedom of, and honouring of, contacts and adjudicating contract disputes.

As for the ceremonial role, it seems utterly unnecessary for the state to provide for ceremonial functions - indeed, existing civil marriages are very streamlined affairs, with the celebrations being organised privately by those getting married.

To suggest that marriage should be defined by the "roles that a mother and a father play in the raising of children" implies that those who are not going to have children do not benefit from, and should not be allowed to enter into or enjoy, marriage. That would exclude not only homosexuals, but also (inter alia) the infertile, those who fall in love after childbearing age, and those who choose not to procreate.

As the above should make clear, individuals who fall into any of the above groups can derive a huge benefit from entering into a legal contract of marriage that protects them against unforeseen (or unavoidable) events. Equally, many such individuals will share the desire to celebrate their union. Consequently I do not accept that childbearing is integral to, or should define the nature of, marriage.

The government seeks to create a fair system for everybody who wishes to get married, while at the same time retaining the monopoly on defining and licensing marriage. I believe that it is the government's ongoing wish to be the final arbiter of what is, what is not, and who can engage in, marriage that is the source of the conflict over this issue today. I hope that we can one day move to a system whereby individuals are free to define their union, celebrate it and - where appropriate - have it blessed in whatever manner they chose. In the meantime, I welcome the current proposals as a small step forward in creating a free and fair system.

If you have any questions about this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,
Cllr Tom Papworth

* Cllr Tom Papworth is the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on the London Borough of Bromley.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech last week. This is an issue which the Liberal Democrats in general, and Andrew George in particular, have campaigned on for many years. I can remember meeting with farmers shortly after I was first elected back in 2001, and hearing from them the difficulties they faced as suppliers for the biggest supermarkets. A commitment to introduce "a powerful independent regulator of Britain's food market" featured in our last manifesto (in fact, Labour and the Conservative manifestos both included a similar pledge).

Following the Competition Commission's report in 2008, which highlighted the danger of supermarkets abusing their power by transferring "excessive risk and unexpected costs" to farmers, growers and suppliers, the last Labour government did introduce a statutory Groceries Code of Practice. However, laws aren't much use without the police and courts to pull up those that break them, and with no body charged with enforcing the Code there was nothing to stop retailers simply ignoring it if they wanted to.

That is why I am delighted that this Government is introducing the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which was published last Friday. This will create an independent ombudsman to ensure that the Code is respected - and to sanction supermarkets if they break it. Those sanctions include naming and shaming offenders, and if that doesn't prove effective then ministers can give the Adjudicator the power to levy fines.

The Adjudicator will also be able to hear complaints in complete confidence not only from suppliers but also from third party organisations such as the National Farmers Union or War on Want, for example. This means that suppliers don't have to fear being singled out by supermarkets for putting their head above the parapet.

Supermarkets contribute a great deal to our economy, and bring huge benefits for customers. However, their sheer size and dominance should not be licence to treat suppliers unreasonably.

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations (1776) was an early proponent of land taxes as was that great radical Tom Paine.

John Stuart Mill was an advocate and Henry George put the case in 'Progress and Poverty' (1879).

The economist David Ricardo gave us the concept of economic "rent" - that land or property derives its value from scarcity rather than investment.

In the debates before and after the peoples budget of 1909 both Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George argued strongly for the introduction of a land tax.

The economists John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman recommended Land Value Tax (LVT) for its fairness and intrinsic efficiency.

In recent years, prominent commentators have continued to argue for the introduction of LVT.

"Land value taxation is a no-brainer…It is both fair and efficient. It should be adopted" - Martin Wolf - Financial Times.

"The taxation of future growth in land values - to eliminate the fever of land speculation that has ended up destabilising the entire global economy… is what Labour should have done and should commit to in future." - Polly Toynbee - The Guardian.

"The wealth produced over the centuries by the efforts of the community is reflected in land values and is therefore a proper target for taxation." - Vince Cable in 'The Case For A New People's Budget'

"The underlying intellectual argument for seeking to tax economic rents retains its force." - Mervyn King, in the standard textbook on the British tax system: Kay & King, 1990

The Mirrlees review of UK taxation proposes the conversion of business rates to a site value only base and reform of council tax. Sir James Mirrlees, who led the review, said that his findings showed that the current tax system imposes "unnecessary costs" on the economy." There is no getting away from the political difficulty associated with some of the proposed changes. But there is also no getting away from the enduring costs of failure to reform," he said.

How much money can it raise? Levied at a flat rate of between 0.5 per cent or 0.6 per cent it has the potential, based on the current value of land in the United Kingdom, which accounts for 38 per cent of our wealth, to raise between £30 billion and £35 billion. That's enough to replace the council tax while also giving a tax cut to all those living in properties worth less than £350,000-£400,000.

The replacement of the council tax is long overdue. It is heavily weighted against the poor and the "squeezed middle". Its eight bands lead to the absurdity of people living in properties worth half the national average paying half the tax of someone owning property worth £1 million or more. The council tax hits the poorest hardest. According to the Office of National Statistics, the poorest fifth of households pay 5 per cent of their household income in council tax. The middle fifth pay 3 per cent and the richest fifth pay less than 2 per cent.

.

* Joe Bourke is an accountant, former parliamentary candidate and Treasurer of Hounslow Liberal Democrats