---

Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill

Our debate on amendment No. 3 has given the House an opportunity to press the Government on why they insist on pressing ahead with a request for the House to authorise expenditure in preparing for a tax that they have not yet decided to introduce. The sum of £52 million—or, potentially, even more—of public funds is a lot of money to shell out on what is only a lead option. By definition, another option might eventually be adopted instead. It would be preferable to delay any expenditure until the Government have definitively decided whether to go ahead with the substantive measure of the planning gain supplement. The Government’s approach was criticised by Mr. Peter Bill, the editor of the Estates Gazette, in a December 2006 editorial, in which he said:"““In the face of a set of negative responses to a consultation paper, Ministers have baulked at driving a stake through PGS—well, for now. Instead they have executed the classic Whitehall manoeuvre: the introduction of PGS has been postponed for a year and no less than three more consultation documents have been issued. Read Paying PGS from the Revenue and weep.””" In the light of all that, we believe that the Government are indulging in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly described on Second Reading as ““pre-legislative legislation””. We have not been sufficiently persuaded on this matter, and I should therefore like to test the will of the House. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House proceeded to a Division.