---

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I agree that the Government proposals are an inadequate mitigation of an unfair council tax, but the hon. Gentleman and his party support the council tax. What would their solution to the problem be?

Mr. Chope: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not support the council tax as it is at the moment. We are preparing for government, and part of that process involves bringing forward detailed policies. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not be disappointed when my hon. Friends on the Front Bench produce cogent and coherent policies for addressing the problems of the council tax before the general election. However, many of the problems of the council tax at the moment do not stem from the legislation but from the way in which the Government have manipulated the grant system to the detriment of councils in the south in order to favour their friends.

I gave the example earlier of the Prime Minister's constituency and Sedgefield district council, which receives eight times as much grant as east Dorset district council. Only a Labour Government could think that that was a fair way to distribute grant. If there is no general election before the next grant settlement, we can expect even more distortions in grant distribution.

The Minister tried to defend the Government by saying that this year the grant has gone up by a larger percentage amount in Conservative-controlled councils. That is a specious use of statistics, because if east Dorset gets only one-eighth of the grant of Sedgefield, even if east Dorset's grant were doubled it would still be only a quarter of that of Sedgefield. To try to equate percentage increases in very low levels of grant with percentage increases in grants that are already much higher is totally misleading.

I raised earlier some other ways in which the Government could reduce the plight of pensioners in council tax poverty. One way to do so would be to amend the regulations to allow council tax payments to be made in 12 monthly instalments. That would not take
 
12 May 2004 : Column 397
 
much effort. Indeed, on one interpretation, the regulations would not even have to be changed and the Government could advise local authorities that they could bill over 12 months rather than 10.

The Bill has been thrown together at short notice. The Government did not realise that they would have to produce primary legislation on the subject and the Bill smacks of panic. It contains some interesting provisions, but much of the detail is anomalous. The most mischievous part of the Bill is the enormous power in clause 7, which the Minister did not attempt to explain and which refers to the age of 60 years. However, the Government claim that it is important to concentrate extra help only on those aged 70 and over. Why then do the powers in clause 7 refer to those aged 60 and over? If those aged 60 and over are in need—many of us have examples in our constituencies of pensioners of that age who find it difficult to meet their council tax obligations—why are the Government resolutely refusing to help them?

The extra payment is a gimmick and an attempt to paper over the cracks caused by the Government's manipulation of the grants system. The damage has already been done, and the extra payment will mitigate it only slightly. It certainly will not make people forget the sustained way in which they have been made to suffer by this Government's local finance arrangements. I shall support the Bill because many pensioner households in my constituency will benefit from it, and I would not wish to prevent them from doing so. However, I would prefer it if the substantive issue of the manipulation of the grants system that has caused council tax bills to rise so much in my constituency were addressed by the Government. If the Government have taxpayers' money to put into the funding of local government, they should put it into the local government settlement, instead of messing around with gimmicks.

3.7 pm

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who summed up many of the arguments in this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who practically took the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. He gave the Bill the kind of scrutiny that it deserves. It is not a Bill of huge constitutional significance, so it would be unusual to have its Committee on the Floor, but perhaps my hon. Friend, who is an Opposition Whip, will put himself on the Committee where he can explore some of his points in greater detail.

Mr. Wilshire: As my hon. Friend may remember from his time in the Opposition Whips office, we can also ensure that certain people do not get on Committees.

Mr. Osborne: I remember that, although I remember spending a lot of time in Committee as a Whip. Indeed, I have spent much time in Committee this year as a Front-Bench spokesman.

We have had an interesting debate, thanks to my hon. Friends and those who have contributed from the minority parties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne pointed out, it has also been interesting
 
12 May 2004 : Column 398
 
because of what Labour Members did not say. It is extraordinary that there are no Back-Bench Labour Members in the Chamber to take part in this debate. We have two Ministers, a couple of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and a Whip, but no Back Benchers. We have not heard a single speech by a Labour Back Bencher on the Second Reading.

Let us cast our minds back to the Budget. The extra payment was the great surprise announcement. The Chancellor produced it, as Chancellors do, with a great flourish at the end of the Budget. He said that he had one final announcement and we could hear the collective intake of breath by loyal Labour Members in anticipation of his great surprise. We also remember the waving of Order Papers, as happens every year, when the Chancellor announced his latest wheeze. Where are they now? Why have they not come and told us what a great benefit the Bill will provide for the pensioners aged over 70 whom they represent? They are not here. Perhaps they are embarrassed because they know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in his excellent opening speech, this is a panic measure. It is a sticking plaster on the gaping wound of the huge council tax hikes made under the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is not an Age-Related Payments Bill but an election-related payments Bill.

Normally, it is difficult for the Opposition and those who watch the Government to know what goes on in the bowels of the Government; it is difficult to tell when something is a panic measure—one can only guess. But we know that the Bill was a panic measure from the way that it was introduced. In his opening speech, the Minister for Pensions was coy about when he knew that the Chancellor would be announcing the £100 payment. He said that he would not bore us with his diaries and that we would have to await their publication, but one can imagine the entry for 17 March: "Listening to the Chancellor in the Chamber today, stunned to hear his announcement on council tax payments. Why wasn't I told?"

David Cairns: Just imagine what it will say for today.

Mr. Osborne: It will say, "Had to clear up the Chancellor's mess today on the Floor of the House of Commons. Had to introduce a piece of primary legislation which I wasn't expecting."

One has to feel sorry for the Minister and his departmental colleagues. The decision was taken by the generals in the chateau—the Treasury—and Captain Wicks and Corporal Pond have to go up the line and implement it; they have to jump out of the trenches with primary legislation that they were not expecting to introduce.

Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's excellent speech, but does he agree that one of the points that the Minister did not answer was my question about how much extra this primary legislation will cost? What will be the cost of all the legal advice, civil service time, printing, effort and everything
 
12 May 2004 : Column 399
 
else? We must be talking about a figure of around £500,000, yet this is the Government who say that they are trying to cut unnecessary expenditure.

Mr. Osborne: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point and is keeping a watchful eye on the interests of the taxpayer. It will be interesting to learn from the Minister how much this fiasco has cost. How much did it cost to draw up this unexpected primary legislation? Even if expletives were not involved, one can imagine that there was a moment of shock when the unfortunate Minister for Pensions was told by his officials, "Excuse us Minister, but the Chancellor seems to have made an announcement and doesn't realise that it requires primary legislation. Shall we call him or will you?" It is clear that the Department for Work and Pensions was left out of the loop.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is all sweetness and light towards the Ministers on the Treasury Bench, but does he agree that some of the blame must go not so much to the Treasury as to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—one of whose Ministers has just entered the Chamber—and to the Department of Health, because they are the primary cause of the problem we face?

---