| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or as a result of—
(a) any option under which he or his nominee may acquire an undertaking or property from British Energy plc or a company that is or has been a subsidiary of British Energy plc, or
(b) any agreement entered into for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of such an option, or of continuing or modifying their effect,
(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury in respect of the acquisition of securities of a company to which transfers authorised by the Act are made or in respect of the acquisition of rights to subscribe for such securities,
(3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown for or in connection with the carrying out of any of his functions under the Act, and
(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.
ENERGY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords] ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the making of provision for the purposes of corporation tax, capital allowances, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax,
(2) the making of provision in connection with the responsibilities of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (as established under the Act) for—
(a) requirements for payments to be made to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the levying of charges by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,
(3) the transfer of property and rights to the Secretary of State or the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,
(4) the making of payments under the Act to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in connection with benefits received in respect of the use or disposal of interests or rights in installations, sites and facilities,
(5) the imposition, by virtue of the Act, of charges under licences issued under the Electricity Act 1989 or the Gas Act 1986,
(6) the levying of charges under the Act in connection with powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by or under the Act or other enactments or provisions of Community instruments, and
(7) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Document No. 15529/03, Commission Communication 'Reviving the Doha Development Agenda negotiations—the European Union's Perspective'; welcomes the European Commission's commitment to the successful conclusion of the negotiations and urges the European Commission to show leadership in taking this forward; welcomes the signs of the European Commission's flexibility, particularly on the Singapore issues, and urges other World Trade Organisation members to do likewise; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that the negotiations deliver benefits for all countries, especially the world's poorest, recognising the contribution this could make to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th May, do adjourn till Monday 7th June 2004.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Michael Jabez Foster be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
10 May 2004 : Column 127
10 May 2004 : Column 129
Treasury Policy (Housing)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
10 pm
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): I am pleased to secure the opportunity to discuss Treasury policy in respect of housing, partly because the issue has a significant impact on my constituency, which covers west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and partly because I am certain that it also has a significant impact on many constituencies throughout the country.
I am pleased to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I have tried before, in Budget and other debates in which I have had the opportunity to speak about Treasury matters, to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of one of your colleagues, to discuss this matter, but without success. I am pleased to have the opportunity now to debate serious material issues, which I hope the Minister will accept I am raising in a spirit of constructive engagement.
Following the theme of constructive engagement, a few years ago, after I was first elected, I raised the subject of the impact that council tax discounts were having on second home ownership in my constituency and in many others. I argued at the time that I was disappointed that a Labour Government had been responsible for giving me such complacent ministerial replies on the subject, both written and otherwise.
I am pleased to say that on 9 February 2000, in a debate that I had called on second homes and council tax, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is now a Foreign Office Minister, acknowledged that I had received a rather complacent response from his ministerial colleagues in previous years and months, and then went on to say:
"indeed, I have here a rather complacent response, which I will not read out."—[Official Report, 9 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 112WH.]
Indeed, he suggested that we discuss the matter later, and we did.
Later that year, in November, the Government proposed to withdraw the council tax discount for second home owners. I was pleased with that outcome, and I was also pleased when, this year, the Government honoured their promise to reduce that discount from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. That was the result of constructive engagement. I would like the Government to go even further, but what has happened already demonstrates that constructive dialogue can result in what I consider to be a beneficial outcome.
I want to raise with the Minister an issue that was rather hidden away in Treasury papers following the pre-Budget statement in early December last year—the subject of self-invested personal pensions. I shall make a few remarks about the Kate Barker review, and then, as I cannot hand it to him across the Floor of the House, I would like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a briefing from the National Housing Federation outlining its concern about various tax impacts on social landlords.
10 May 2004 : Column 130
What I, and other people far more expert than I who work in the industry, are concerned about is the likely impact of the Government's proposed changes to self-invested personal pensions from April 2005. What concerns me is that, having largely closed one tax loophole by removing the council tax discount for second homes, the Government are about to open a new one that could provide even greater encouragement to those wanting to invest in second homes. From April 2005, self-invested personal pensions will enable a pension plan to invest in residential property for the first time. That will have clear implications: 40 per cent. tax relief on money used to purchase property, and exemption from capital gains tax on the sale of property where the proceeds are reinvested in the pension plan.
Although personal use of the asset held by a pension fund will be subject to a tax charge, we all understand—just as local authorities understand—the distinction between council tax and business rates on second homes. Frankly, local authorities are prepared to turn a blind eye to businesses that let out second homes for more than 120 nights a year and that would otherwise be subject to business rates. Similarly, it will be very difficult to police the extent to which second homes are used by those with a beneficial interest in the property and the pension plan.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |