New Clause
2
Expiration
of Act
‘This Act
ceases to have effect on 1st May 2008 unless the Treasury has
announced before that date its intention to introduce
legislation to impose the tax referred to in section
1(1).’.—[Mr.
Francois.]
Brought
up, and read the First time.
Mr.
Francois:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
seeks to introduce a sunset provision into the Bill to time-limit its
provisions if the Government do not resolve to go ahead with the
introduction of the planning gain supplement by spring 2008. I
reiterate that we are opposed in principle to its introduction, but
given that the Budget statement now usually takes place in March, this
provision would give the Government several chances to confirm their
intention to go ahead with the PGS before the sunset clause would come
into operation, effectively cutting off the expenditure permitted by
the Bill.
Although
the Government could in theory make a decision and provide an
accompanying statement whenever the House is sitting, the window of
opportunity provided by our proposal would mean in practice that they
would use Budget 2007, pre-Budget report 2007 and Budget 2008 to
clarify their intentions on the planning gain supplement before the
sunset clause kicked in. After that time, if the Treasury was still
undecided on whether or not to go ahead, the opportunity to spend money
allowed for under this paving Bill would be lost.
Given that the Treasury has
already been discussing the possibility of introducing the planning
gain supplement for three years, it does not seem unreasonable to seek
to put a backstop on the decision process, lest the Treasury go round
in circles for even longer.
Mr.
Burns:
The new clause is eminently sensible, but, as its
co-sponsor, I wonder whether we missed something. My hon. Friend talks
about going round in circles and he mentioned the Budget and the other
pressures on the Chancellor. However, he has forgotten that the current
Chancellor will not be Chancellor in May 2008, by any stretch of the
imagination. Should we not have been a little more generous in our time
scale, to take into account the change of circumstances and the fact
that a new Chancellor will probably be going round in circles trying to
fix the mess that he
inherits?
Mr.
Francois:
My hon. Friend tempts me to summarise the
Chancellor of the Exchequer’s record, but I shall not indulge in
doing so, lest you rule me out of order, Mr. Hood. I could
say that the massive amount of borrowing that the Chancellor has
incurred
is not particularly impressive for a start. Nevertheless, my hon.
Friend’s concern for the Chancellor is touching, and I am
pleased that he has him constantly in his thoughts, as indeed we all
do. Our thoughts may be somewhat different however.
I was seeking to argue that it
does not seem unreasonable to put a backstop on the decision process,
as we intend to do with our new clause. I hope that that seems
reasonable and that the Committee will give a fair wind to our new
clause as a result. We cannot allow the Government to go round and
round in circles for ever.
5 pm
John
Healey:
Again, I have some recognition of the concerns
that lie behind the new clause. The hon. Member for Rayleigh said that
his main concern was that no time limit or sunset point on the
authorisation of expenditure is set in the Bill. My response, however,
is similar to that on the previous new clause: in practice, I do not
believe that a case can be made for it.
The Bill is not a
blank cheque. I make it clear that, if the decision is taken not to
introduce a planning gain supplement, no further expenditure will occur
under the Bill. The Government do not spend significant sums on
programmes unless we are sure that we want to proceed—the PGS is
no different—and to do so would not be in our interests, nor in
the wider national interest.
If we want to introduce a
planning gain supplement within a reasonable time—it cannot be
introduced before 2009, because we are committed to providing
sufficient time for the markets to adapt to a prospective planning gain
supplement—the decision to proceed must be taken in good time,
depending on a satisfactory analysis of the consultation that we are
undertaking.
Anne
Main:
May I take the Minister back a little? He said that
the Government do not spend money on things that may not go ahead.
Would he throw home information packs into the mix? He should remember
how much that cost and how much training was involved, but it fell
apart and it is now being introduced in a completely different
form.
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady cites an example of something that
is going ahead. The forms have been modified in response to
representations. I repeat that it is not in our interests to spend
significant resources on things that we do not intend to proceed with.
That is precisely the approach that we will take with the planning gain
supplement. The decision will need to be taken before beginning the
detailed design work on the IT systems that would be authorised under
the Bill.
My priority
is to make the right decision about a workable planning gain
supplement, rather than constraining that decision by statute. On that
basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will not press the new
clause to a Division. If he does, I shall ask my hon. Friends to
resist.
Mr.
Francois:
I sense at this hour that we are moving towards
the sunset of our deliberations. I know that
that will be a great disappointment to Labour Members. However, I shall
make a few quick points in response to the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for
St. Albans made an apposite point, as she has done a number of times.
She gave the example of HIPs: a lot of money was spent preparing for
them, but it was spent mostly by people training to become HIPs
inspectors. Private individuals lost money, rather than the taxpayer.
That was not well handled by the Government, and it does not set an
exciting precedent for what may follow the Bill.
It is important to reiterate
the matter of timing. The Government have issued four consultation
documents on the process—they have talked about it a great
deal—and the current consultation will end on 28
February. They know that there is much opposition to the proposals. At
some point, the Government have to take a definitive
decision—one way or the other. As an American friend who fishes
says, they either have to fish or cut bait. I hope that the industry
will not have to wait much longer before the Government’s
intentions become clear. I hope that they will back away from this
errant and mistaken tax.
I should like to thank you,
Mr. Hood, as we draw to a conclusion, for the good-humoured
way in which you have chaired our proceedings. You kept us ticking
along nicely. In a spirit of equally good humour, I give a parting shot
to the Minister. It might be said that this is a bad paving Bill, that
it is bad paving. I think it represents crazy paving—and I can
tell the Minister that, by squeezing in that remark, I have won a bet.
I thank you, Mr. Hood, for your services to the Committee. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the
House.
John
Healey:
On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I much
appreciate, as do other hon. Members, the way in which you have chaired
our proceedings. You helped us to give full scrutiny to this short
Bill, but in a way that did not constrain hon. Members from expressing
their natural concerns. We have usefully re-examined many of the issues
that were touched upon on Second Reading. I am glad that we heard
contributions from both sides of the Committee—that is always
important. I am also glad that we have been able to complete our proper
scrutiny well within the time allowed by the programme motion. I look
forward to continued debate on the issues connected with the Bill and
beyond.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Bill to be
reported, without
amendment.
Committee
rose at six minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
