---

Malcolm Wicks indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilshire: The Minister is shaking is head. If he thinks that I am exaggerating, I refer him to clause 7(3)(d), according to which regulations allow the Government to

"make different provision for different cases or circumstances."

In other words, the Government want powers not to treat everyone equally, but to treat individuals exactly how they like. Why do they need clause 7? What are they planning; what are they up to? They really must explain.

Clause 8 deals with the interpretation. As I explained earlier, the Government have got themselves into an awful muddle about couples—men and women, same-sex couples, husbands and wives, people who may or may not be living together. Even though it was not possible to get their mindset round to single-sex couples, somebody somewhere—probably in the basement of the Ministry—considered that polygamy should be mentioned. Under clause 8(2):

"The provisions of this Act shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the parties to a polygamous marriage as if they together formed one couple."

They thought about that, but not other relationships, which I find extraordinary.

I come to the last part of the Bill that is worthy of mention. Although for the purposes of my brief examination of the Bill's details I have been prepared to accept that there is a council tax link, there patently is not such a link. Payment is to be made to people aged over 70 and it is being passed off as an attempt to help pensioners pay their council tax. That being the case, why clause 10? The clause makes it clear that the Bill applies to England and Wales and Scotland. If the Bill is part of an argument about the council tax, I understand why Northern Ireland is not included, but since it is not about the council tax, why are the Government discriminating against 70-year-olds who live in Northern Ireland? Are they not UK citizens like the rest of us, who pay the same income tax as we do? Why are they picked on and discriminated against in
 
12 May 2004 : Column 393
 
respect of a benefit that is paid to everyone else, irrespective of whether they pay the council tax? Again, the Government must explain themselves.

We should also give some thought to human rights issues, to which the Bill and the explanatory notes refer. Page 5 of those notes deals with the European convention on human rights, and paragraph 31 quite properly refers to the requirements of article 8 and the "right to family life". I have already pointed out problems with the Bill's treatment of same sex-couples, for example, and the Government will no doubt argue that the ECHR makes it clear that such couples are included in such references to family life. A statement is appended to the Bill to the effect that it conforms with human rights legislation, but I would argue that, if we accept the Government's definition of family life in other debates, the Bill in its current form patently does not comply with article 8. The Government should do something about that.

Paragraph 32 of the explanatory notes refers to the requirements of article 14 on discrimination. It is arguable that people over 70 are less likely to be in work and have less money than people under 70, but I completely reject the argument that over-70s are more likely to have fixed incomes. The Government have offered no evidence to prove it, and my experience of my constituents suggests that people are on fixed incomes from age 60 onwards. I would have thought therefore that there is a possibility that the Bill fails to comply with the requirement of article 14 not to discriminate. I would be grateful for any clarification.

To conclude, I am happy to support the Bill. I am pleased that Conservatives are willing to help elderly people. As I said at the outset, it was shameful that no Labour Members were willing to speak. I believe that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was not present at that time, which is why I made that point. He has since returned and made helpful interventions. I have a great respect for him, but I sometimes wonder whether his help is as welcome to the Government as help from other quarters is to them. I welcome him back to the debate. I am sure that he, like Conservative Members, is trying to do his level best to dig the Labour Government out of their hole.

I will take the Government at their word and accept that the Bill is an attempt to put right the catastrophe of the council tax, which was caused entirely by them. I also accept that the Bill is a one-off, temporary measure. I take that as an admission that, by this time next year, the Government will have lost the election. All I can say is good riddance.

2.49 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who brings to the debate a wealth of local government knowledge and experience, as well as an incisive criticism of some of the Bill's important details.

This is called the Age-Related Payments Bill, but it might better be described as the Election-Related Payments Bill. All those who have spoken so far agree that that is the motivation of a Government who are in severe panic. They realise that sustained increases in council tax and manipulation of the grant system have
 
12 May 2004 : Column 394
 
resulted in council tax poverty for pensioners. I have spoken about that many times in the House, and I have also presented a petition on the matter on behalf of thousands of my constituents who are worried about being forced into council tax poverty by the Government. Obviously, the Bill will mitigate that to a small extent for some of my constituents, but I doubt very much that it will help the Labour party's electoral fortunes in the Christchurch constituency, even though the area has one of the largest populations of households containing one or more people over 70.

In my constituency, the council tax bill for many households has increased by between £700 and £1,000 since the Government have been in office. When people heard what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, they asked me why the Government were offering only £100, and only for this year. Although everything and anything is welcome from this tight-fisted and mean Government, my constituents are very worried that what the Chancellor said in the Budget has not been borne out in practice, and is not reflected in the contents of this Bill.

Referring to older pensioners, the Chancellor said:

"The evidence shows that their council tax bills take a higher share of their income than the rest of the population. So for this year, for those over 70, on top of the winter fuel payment, we will pay an additional £100 to each household."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 336.]

That is not what the Bill delivers. We have discussed already the question of households that contained a person over 70 at the beginning of the financial year but which will not contain a person of that age in the critical week in September. The Government therefore have not delivered on the Chancellor's Budget pledge.

It is now a commonplace that we must not listen to the Chancellor's speech so much as look at the small print later, and the Bill is another example of that. I can put it in no other way than to say that the Government have misled pensioner households up and down the country. As the Red Book states, at paragraph 5.36:

"The Government understands the position of older people on fixed incomes facing pressures such as higher council tax bills and thus a reduction in their standard of living. Council tax consumes a greater proportion of the incomes of older pensioners—who have little or no opportunity to increase their incomes—than it does for other households. Alongside Council Tax Benefit the Government believes that it is right to help older pensioner households with their council tax. Pensioner households with someone aged over 70 will therefore receive a £100 payment to help with their council tax bills."

The Bill does not deliver on the assertion contained in that crucial paragraph.

Earlier, the Minister talked about people who are vulnerable. What household could be more vulnerable than one in which a person over 70 dies between now and September? Why should that household be put at a disadvantage compared with one in which a person over 70 remains alive during September, and dies instead in October or November? I urge the Government to reconsider that anomaly, which means that people aged 70 at the beginning of the financial year will not qualify unless they survive the course—and all the vagaries of the NHS—until September.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, there are many anomalies in the detail of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and
 
12 May 2004 : Column 395
 
Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who will wind up the debate, will address some of those anomalies. If he cannot do that today, I trust that he will look at them in Standing Committee.

The phrase "living with" in clause 2 is ambiguous. It may mean that a household in which, for example, two siblings aged over 70 live together—and in my area it is not unusual for a mother and daughter over that age to be living together—may be entitled to two payments of £100. However, that depends on how "living with" is defined. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify that, for the benefit of the House.

In an intervention, I referred to the question of people in prison, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also mentioned it. Why should a person who is in prison for a week forfeit entitlement to the whole of the payment for a whole year, when a person who is in prison during another part of the year will get the full benefit of the payment? That is an absurd anomaly. Do the Government really think that that is a consistent approach? I do not think that it stands up to detailed scrutiny, and it shows that the Bill is very much a rushed measure on the Government's part.

Why does the Bill offer a solution for one year only? The problem of unaffordable, unfair and unsustainable council tax bills will face us next year too. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor implied that, as a result of the balance of funding review, the Government would produce a legislative fix that would change matters in time for next year. If that is the case, I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm as much when he responds to the debate. However, most hon. Members who have had anything to do with the fraught subject of local government finance will say that it is totally unrealistic to assume that the Government will be able to come up with a fix in response to the balance of funding review—a fix that would bring substantial relief to hard-pressed pensioners—that will take effect in time for the next financial year, which starts in April 2005.

My constituents very much resent the fact that their state retirement pension increased this year by 2.8 per cent., when their council tax bills rose by a much greater amount. The Minister earlier seemed proud of the fact that the average council tax bill rise was only 5.9 per cent., but that is double the increase in the state retirement pension. That emphasises that the Government believe that it is perfectly reasonable for pensioner households to dip into savings or cut back on other expenditure so that they can afford their council tax bills.

In effect, the council tax has become a stealth wealth tax. It bears disproportionately heavily on people who occupy properties that have a significant value and which may have increased in value enormously while they have lived in them. Those people must pay a lot more in council tax, even though they cannot afford it.

We know that there are problems with council tax benefit. A pensioner with even modest savings is not entitled to that benefit in any event, so the benefit does not meet the needs and concerns of many of my constituents.

In his earlier remarks, the Minister quoted some rather specious figures, but let us take them at face value anyway. He said that the average council tax bill in a
 
12 May 2004 : Column 396
 
Labour area is £870, in a Liberal Democrat area it is £971 and in a Conservative area it is £1,072. That is because, of course, Conservative-controlled councils tend to be—although it is dangerous to generalise too much—in parts of the country where property values are higher.

Let us consider council tax bills. Why is it that the Bill will give a much higher percentage benefit to somebody living in a Labour council area than to somebody living in a Conservative council area? Obviously, if the bill is £870 in a Labour area and £100 is taken off it, that is a much higher discount than it would be on a bill of more than £1,000. The Minister has played games with percentages and I challenge him to say why it is reasonable that those with smaller bills should receive a disproportionate benefit compared with those who face larger bills.

My hon. Friends have made the point that the Bill takes no account of the means of the individuals. Why will somebody aged 70 who pays a higher rate of tax be entitled to benefit under the Bill but somebody aged 69 who does not even earn enough money to pay tax at all will not get any benefit?

---