Council Tax Bill
During a debate on the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill, Brooks Newmark spoke against a revaluation highlighting the problems of pensioners who may be asset-rich but cash-poor.
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I shall try to be brief.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made some excellent points, which were relevant to our own stance. Our stance is that we do not want to proceed with the revaluation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) produced a twist on that. Our election manifesto focused largely on pensioners and old people. Conservative Members feel that re-banding, particularly for pensioners, is an extremely blunt instrument.
Many pensioners are asset-rich. They have sat in their houses for 20, 25 or 30 years and, often unbeknown to them, the asset value has increased. Unfortunately, however, those pensioners are also cash-poor. They are stuck in a difficult position. I fear that the re-banding will force many of them to move from the homes in which they have lived throughout their lives. We need to deal with that structural conundrum, which is why I oppose any re-banding at any time.
Let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) by quoting from a press release sent on 20 December by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It announced that the Government intended to suspend the council tax revaluation and extend the scope of Sir Michael Lyons' inquiry, and stated
"The additional work which Sir Michael will undertake will add value to the Government's own current work on a strategic view of the role and functions of local government, under its local vision programme."
I am sure that many Opposition Members cannot but agree that council tax increases since 1997 of up to 94 per cent. in my constituency are more an example of double-vision than local vision.
I go back to my original point. I was lucky enough to be approached by the IsItFair campaign. Last Wednesday, I had an opportunity to present to the House the campaign's petition. The concern of that campaign and the Braintree Pensioners Action Group is not simply that the current system is unfair because of the way it affects pensioners in particular, but that they face a double whammy: re-banding would hurt many pensioners tremendously and ultimately force many of them to move home.
Tom Levitt: I am interested by what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that pensioners can count the cost of their care in care homes against the value of their house and pay the cost at a subsequent date. Would he favour a similar system for council tax, whereby pensioners could run up a bill, as it were, and pay when their estate is realised?
Mr. Newmark: You make an interesting suggestion, but my main concern-
Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was referring to you. I think he meant me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I allow one slip, as has already occurred with another hon. Member, before I pile in, but I understand from what he says that I am being very lax and I will remember that.
Mr. Newmark: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on capital and how one may deal with the capital asset of one's house, but the primary desire of many of the pensioners to whom I have spoken is to avoid moving from their house and into a care home. I hope that the Government will reconsider the issue, because elderly people feel comfortable in familiar surroundings. Care homes are not necessarily, as we all understand, familiar surroundings. As I have said, re-banding pensioners' houses is a blunt instrument and will hurt many of the elderly in our country.
7.42 pm