---

Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill

I very much agree with that, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the problem has become even clearer since the Government have had to handle devolution, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. In doing so, they have revealed that the fundamental problem is that they are a centralising Government who do not care about or trust local authorities at all. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh to consider the question of the commitment not just to the 30 per cent. figure, but to the 70 per cent. figure. Of course, this issue is particularly relevant to Scotland, because nothing in the Bill enables us to be sure that any of this money will, in the end, get to Scottish local authorities. Nor do we understand, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, what will happen in reality to a section 106, or section 75, agreement. Is this to be a new-found version of the withering away of the state? Is the provision just going to disappear? I can see nothing in the Bill to suggest that it will, which means that this fundamental contrast and conflict will remain. In Scotland, as in the United Kingdom as a whole, we have to get back to first principles. This planning gain supplement is of course nonsense. We have tried it at least three times before—probably four—and it has not worked. The only way in which the Government can justify its working in Scotland or in England is to say, ““If we have a very small tax, nobody will notice, so the reasons why it never worked before will cease to exist.”” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says, that might be true; however, the inevitable answer is that the one way to ensure that nobody will notice is to have no tax at all. However, that cannot happen if the Government will not let us in on the secret of how much this tax will be. I realise that it is very difficult to talk in these terms about what is a preparatory Bill for a planning gain supplement. However, in most preparations, we have some idea of what we are preparing for. If we are preparing for a birthday and we decide to make arrangements for the party—such as getting the balloons and having the cake made—we normally have a budget: we work out how much the birthday will cost and how we will raise the money. However, this is preparation without a budget, except for a sum that is related not to the ““birthday party””, but to the preparations themselves. That sum will be yet more money for the Government to spend on the subject about which they are most expert: the failed computer system. It will doubtless be more money for the information technology companies, which they can spend showing the Government that they cannot do what they want them to do. I and the people of Scotland want to know how much money we are talking about. What would 70 per cent. of that sum be, and how do we know that it will really go to the local authorities? What, therefore, would 30 per cent. of that sum be, and how do we know that the Scottish Executive will use it in the way that the United Kingdom Government say that they will use such money in England and Wales? None of that information has come our way. We cannot even work out the equation by analogy, because the Government have not told us about the 30 per cent. that they will get into the Treasury anyway. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh makes specific reference to a joint evaluation by Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Scottish Executive. I want to know about that. I want to know what the Treasury intends to do not only with the money that goes to Scotland—that is obviously a matter for discussion between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive—but with the money that goes to England. It used to be said that such money will be used for regional projects. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is absolutely right to say that we need to consider whether some of these schemes need money that is outwith local authorities, but she will agree that we would all be a bit worried if money raised in Milton Keynes was given to fund a proposed extension to a project in Liverpool, for example. That would be very difficult to justify, but when the Government talk of regions, that is what could happen. It could happen in Scotland too. The issue is important for the credibility of the system. The Minister will have some fair words—or even some nasty words—about it, but the truth is that most people are frightened of development. They would prefer it not to take place. One of the ways to get people to accept development is to suggest a direct connection between development and an improvement in their lives and the area in which they live. If we are to have a system in which 30 per cent. is removed and given to the Scottish Executive or the Government without any reference to what it will be used for, it will be more difficult to get people to accept that development.