Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, advanced the argument that the Secretary of State's powers to charge-cap should be exercised only in the event of illegality or fraud on the part of a local authority, and that short of illegality or fraud, local authorities should be allowed to spend to their hearts' content and the Secretary of State should rely on the principle of accountability and the results of local elections.

The principle of accountability is useful and important, but it should not be followed to its ultimate and logical conclusion. In areas of substantial overspending, a minority looks to central Government for a measure of protection against the excesses of overspending. Charge capping is a useful measure to protect that minority.

A community charge of £400 or £500 can represent considerable hardship to those on modest incomes who are not in receipt of community charge benefit. Hon. Members who say that it is wrong not to follow the principle of accountability to its logical conclusion are eloquent on the subjects of accountability and logic, but any success that we have achieved in regulating our affairs has often been achieved precisely by refusing to follow such principles to their logical conclusion.

Charge capping is useful to protect a minority, and in its influence in areas that are not charge-capped but where the minority is afforded a measure of protection by the influence that can be exercised by charge capping. That applies particularly to authorities that are not charge-capped but that are on the borderline of charge capping.

One example is the London borough of Hounslow, part of which I represent. There has been a Labour-controlled council since 1971. Hounslow has escaped capping in every year except one. Its experience of capping in that year makes it wish to avoid charge capping in future. Hounslow's expenditure is excessive by all the standards except the £26 benchmark. It is among the 12 authorities that have escaped capping by the skin of their teeth. Since the beginning of April, many of my constituents have asked me why Hounslow has not been charge-capped and why they have not been given the protection that has been afforded to charge payers in other areas.

In the local elections, the Conservative group on Hounslow council advanced a programme that would have reduced the community charge from £396 to £296. Its detailed programme would have avoided any substantial or significant cuts in services. It did not win the election, but the council is considering closely whether Hounslow can avoid charge capping for the coming year. The ideas advanced by the Conservative group are of considerable value and will be considered by the majority group, but they should have been considered before the risk of charge capping arose.

The council is considering those ideas in the light of experiences of adjoining boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham. I have an interest in the outcome of Hammersmith and Fulham's case because as a resident my charge stands to be reduced from £424 to £325. Hounslow's residents have realised that the charge levied in Hammersmith and Fulham stands to be reduced to £325 and that as a result of the election in Hillingdon the charge has been reduced from £367 to £289. Those reductions have shown Hounslow council, which is on the borderline of capping, that other authorities can provide good services and carefully thought out programmes for significantly less than it is charging.

I was disappointed by yesterday's debate. We spent much time discussing the principles of capping and accountability but little time discussing the appropriateness of the level set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The debate is being conducted against the background of litigation, but I hope that when discussing appropriateness my right hon. Friend did not feel inhibited by the fact that charge capping will shortly be considered by the Lords of Appeal. It is difficult to discuss appropriateness, although in its judgment the Court of Appeal made it clear that it is a matter for the House. I hope that in future it will be possible to discuss the appropriateness of a capping order without the threat of litigation pending. It is better that litigation has been completed more quickly than in previous years, but it is still not ideal to discuss appropriateness when the orders are being challenged in the highest court of the land.

It is important that the charge-capping power is exercised appropriately and is seen to be exercised so as to allow much discretion and diversity to local authorities. Under the capping orders that have been made, whether we consider the difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping, the range of community charges or the gross totals, substantial local discretion and diversity remain. The difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping is substantial—£57 million in Avon, £72 million in Derbyshire and £40 million in Haringey. In Derbyshire, it is £72 million on top of an SSA of £448 million and in Haringey it is £40 million on top of £166 million. Therefore, there is a wide margin of difference.

That is borne out by the community charges that have been set in London, which range from £148 in Wandsworth to £502 in Haringey—a difference of more than £350 or more than 300 per cent.

If we consider the total overspending of authorities that have been capped and compare it with the amounts that have been lopped by capping, the same picture emerges. The local authorities that have been capped have overspent by £766 million. The capping proposals would achieve a reduction of only £214 million. Therefore, by the Government's definition, more than £550 million of excess expenditure remains among the capped authorities alone. The considerable powers that the Secretary of State has under the legislation have been exercised with considerable retraint. They have allowed much room for discretion among local authorities, variety in the community charge and huge differences between what is deemed to be excessive expenditure and the level of expenditure at which capping bites.

That is one of the most important tests of whether the capping procedure has been exercised appropriately but in a way that is consistent with a lively operation of local democracy. Applying that approach of appropriateness, this has been a satisfactory exercise of the Secretary of State's powers.