---

Andrew Bennett: Somerset did not lose £30 million. The money that it received was not cut. It did not receive extra money that it had hoped to receive.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 383
 

Sir Paul Beresford: That is a slightly slanted way of looking at it. Somerset says that if the existing funding formula had continued, it would have received the £30 million. In effect, it lost the money year on year. The hon. Gentleman—who chairs the Select Committee—nods. I am grateful for that.

Council tax benefits provided part of the solution, but, as the Committee is finding out, take-up is pitiful. When we asked yesterday why that was so, we were told that the forms were too long, complicated and intrusive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, this is a panic reaction from the Government—their second panic reaction. The first manifested itself in capping and sudden handouts to selected local authorities.

The Liberals, who never miss a bandwagon, have jumped on the bandwagon of local income tax. Treasury figures suggest that a married couple in my constituency on average earnings would pay an extra £886 a year if such a tax were imposed. They would not gain from any of the benefits proposed today.

ODPM Ministers tell us that we have been helped by threats of capping. Some local authorities have, in fact, been capped. Although that is welcome and has generated the right response, it does not deal with councils' main problem—the exorbitant cost of the Government's intrusion on and management of their affairs, and the additional cost of gearing, which lands on the doorsteps of our pensioners and everyone else. Rather than presenting us with this Bill, the Government should do what they should have done long ago. They should get off local authorities' backs, and reduce the costs that have been generated by their interference.

Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry to interrupt to hon. Gentleman's flow, but I want to apologise to him. When he intervened on me earlier, I reminded the House that we had both been Croydon Members, and implied that he had been thrown out by the electorate. In fact, he was the innocent victim of a boundary change. He must now feel very satisfied about the fact that he did not become a candidate for the new Croydon constituency, which fell to a Labour swing. I wanted to place that correction on the record and apology to a former colleague in Croydon.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his apology. An interesting question, which will never be answered, is whether I would have been elected had I stayed in Croydon.

Here we sit, looking at a little Bill that will give a few people in my constituency and across England £100. That pales into insignificance in comparison with the damage that the Government have done to local authorities and to council tax bills, multiplied by gearing. For most local authorities, an extra £1 in costs means another £4 on council tax. For some, particularly in London, it means another £11.

It would have been practical for this paranoid Government to get off the back of local authorities and to go back to the approach of the Conservatives in 1992.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 384
 

2.9 pm

Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): The Bill applies not only to England but to Wales and Scotland. Obviously, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party welcome this modest payment to older people, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does not go far.

We note with interest that it is a flat-rate payment on the basis of age, using age as a proxy for poverty, as the Government have noted themselves. People over 80 will get a higher payment. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish that the Government would apply that principle to the retirement pension. That would address some of the poverty that is prevalent in my constituency and throughout Wales among older pensioners.

We note with approval the Minister's argument that the payment is transparent and that the administrative costs will be modest. Would that he and his colleagues applied the same argument to the growth in means-tested benefits, which are opaque, complicated and expensive to operate, as is council tax benefit. As has been said in the debate already, one of the reasons for the low take-up of council tax benefit is its complexity and opacity. This payment in some ways seems to be a sticking plaster—a recognition by the Government that council tax benefit is not working.

I am pleased to say that some local authorities in Wales have had significantly lower council tax increases than others. The increase in my own local authority, Gwynedd county council, is well below the average. Caerffili and Rhondda Cynon Taf have also had low council tax increases. Happily, council tax payers in those Plaid Cymru-controlled areas will have more disposable income, but this is hardly fair to those council tax payers in Wales still groaning under the weight of council tax increases in Labour and independent-controlled councils.

Mr. Weir: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the same is true in Scotland, where SNP-controlled councils such as my own in Angus have low council tax, despite the fact that the Liberal and Labour coalition in Edinburgh has distributed funds unfairly? The £100 will make little impact on the many people paying huge council taxes under Labour-controlled councils and indeed independent-controlled councils such as Moray, the council tax of which is increasing by almost 10 per cent. this year.

Hywel Williams: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point—all the more so since there are no elections in Scotland and his comments are untainted by the considerations that have led the Government to bring in this electoral bribe. He is clearly a man principle.

As far as I can see, there is no direct link between this payment and council tax rises. As has been said, pensioners over 70 will receive the full payment. Pensioners receiving council tax benefits will still qualify. Significantly, the payments will be made with the winter fuel payment. Therefore, it is highly likely that older people will not make a particular link with council tax. They are far more likely to see the payment as linked to their fuel bills. They may see it as being consolidated with the £200 that they already receive. In that respect, questions regarding the fuel payment are especially pertinent.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 385
 

I wish to highlight my concern that the new payment will be a single payment—one payment at one point. Many local authorities offer the facility of monthly payments of council tax, often by direct debit. I take advantage of those arrangements and find them extremely convenient. I do not see why older people should not be enabled to take advantage of that convenience and why the payment could not be staged in some way, although it may not be practical to have 10 payments. I presume that the Department for Work and Pensions' computer could facilitate that, although perhaps I am assuming too much in that respect.

I was approached recently by a constituent, Mrs. Beryl Williams of Nefyn, who asked me a couple of questions that I could not answer, but the Government might like to suggest answers to them. She asked why the payment is for one year only—why it is a one-off—when older people's needs are likely to be the same over a number of years. Clause 7 will allow the Government to make other payments, but that is no reassurance to my constituent, who is trying to think ahead and to plan her income and expenditure. She needs some reassurance.

Mrs. Williams also asked me why the Department for Work and Pensions will assess qualification for the payment on the basis of residence and age in one relevant week. She asked, and I could not answer her, why there could not be some move towards a rolling assessment, so that people could be paid closer to their birthday. Those sensible questions have occurred to her as a practical consequence of her experience as an older person trying to make ends meet. Those are questions that the Minister might address when he sums up. I am sure that he has a ready answer and I look forward to hearing it.

2.16 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) (Con): May I start by seeking to help the Minister? His ministerial colleague has left, but he got very excited earlier when he was anxious to know whether Opposition Members were going to support the Bill. Let me clear that one up to save the Minister asking me in a moment or two. I make it clear that I welcome the principle behind the Bill, in that the principle, as I understand it, is that the Government are offering pensioners more help. I, and I am sure all other hon. Members, have no difficulty in supporting more help for pensioners, so the principle is fine. It is just that some of the detail is not quite so clever. We need to look at that.

Not only do I welcome the principle, but I have some pleasure in being here this afternoon. It is pleasing and worth while for a Conservative MP to come along this afternoon to offer support and help to clear up the Labour Government's mess. That is what we are doing: clearing up their mess. It gives me even greater pleasure because it is only Conservatives, with a bit of help from the Liberals and from Plaid Cymru, who are prepared to come to help the Minister out of the hole into which he and his colleagues have got themselves. Not a single Labour Back Bencher has come here to help the Minister to do more for pensioners and to sort out the Government's mess. That must speak volumes.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 386
 

---