HC Deb 22 April 1977 vol 930 cc659-76

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prohibit the creation, and provide for the extinguishment, apportionment and redemption, of certain rentcharges, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.—[Mr. Graham.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

I object. I object to the way in which the Government have tried to prevent Back-Bench Members from having any rights at all. We go through the farce of allowing Members to have Private Members' Bills only to find that there is objection after objection.

I hope that hon. Members will join me in calling for a vote. I do not think that the Government will be able to produce enough bodies. They will not be able to produce enough of those who are on the payroll to get this measure through if hon. Members are prepared to join me in calling for a vote. I shall call a vote and I hope that there will be another Teller.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right to say that the time taken up by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) comes out of the Adjournment time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

The answer to that is "No". There is three-quarters of an hour for this debate, should it be so desired.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I came along to say a few words about the appearance of the motion on the Order Paper at a rather curious time of the week It is not normal for Money Resolutions to be placed on the Order Paper at 4 o'clock on a Friday. This one, I think, was placed upon the Order Paper at 4 o'clock on a Friday in the hope that there would be few, if any, Members around who would wish to say a word about it in the three-quarters of an hour during which we can debate this matter before it must come to a Division.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) at least will stick around with me for this business and the three following items of business.

I have absolutely no objection to the Rentcharges Bill. It is a thoroughly desirable measure, which was given a Second Reading in the middle of February. It will bring very great advantages to residents especially around the cities of Bristol and Manchester, and it should not be delayed.

However, for a start, when the Government are moving a motion in this House an explanation should be offered to the House of the case for the motion, anticipating any arguments against it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

If the Government are so short of Ministers, who are on the payroll, is not it possible for them to get their Liberal paymasters to do the job in their place?

Mr. Cunningham

I do not go along with the language used by my hon. Friend. I know the explanation for the appearance of such an item as this on the Order Paper late on a Friday. It has to do not with the Rentcharges Bill. It has to do with a hospital that serves the interests and the constituents of my hon. Friend as it does of my own. It is the affairs of that hospital that have led me to block a number of the bits of business going through the House recently. This business was put on at 4 o'clock today in the hope that I would not be here to block it. That is why it is on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I was not aware of that, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Perhaps we can do a deal and make an arrangement such as that which the Government have with the Liberals. Then, when my hon. Friend could not be here, I would be here to help see that the matter was blocked. In that way, we could make sure that we continued to block the Government's business.

Mr. Cunningham

I think that there is great benefit to the people of our common area in the event of our working together. As my hon. Friend knows, in this place, although one hon. Member can cause trouble two can cause a good deal more than twice as much trouble. The proportion is roughly in relation to 15 to 2, two minutes being the amount of time that one hon. Member can force to be wasted an any Division and 15 minutes being the amount of time that two hon. Members can force to be wasted on any Division.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), who is waiting anxiously to proceed with his Adjournment debate, which is no doubt on an important topic, but I am sure that he will be the first to realise that an hon. Member has to take the opportunities available to him to protect the interests of his constituents and to enforce the answerability by democratic processes of the various authorities, governmental and quasi-governmental, which the House has been pleased to set up. When hon. Members have a grievance, they are entitled to use whatever means are necessary to show that that grievance can be ignored by the Government if they wish, but not with impunity.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend, but I want to be helpful. He mentioned grievances. Is not he aware that we go through a farce of balloting for private Members' time and private Members' Bills which are supposed to allow hon. Members the right to raise their grievances, but that here we have a new system where the Government object to Private Members' Bills? They do not even go through the farce of getting their stooges to do it. They do it themselves from the Treasury Bench. Like me, my hon. Friend has been here long enough to know that at least the Government used to go through the mock procedure of getting one of their stooges to object, who, by the way, was eventually rewarded for helping them by being given a job of some kind. But the Government do not even go through that farce now.

Mr. Cunningham

I am delighted to hear of that change. I would much prefer a Minister of the Crown to object to a Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will address himself first to the Chair and secondly to the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cunningham

I am addressing myself to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in every word that I speak. I hope that my voice is carrying that far.

I feel obliged to interpret for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the helpful interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I think that it is better for Ministers of the Crown to speak for themselves from the Front Bench in relation to the Rentcharges Bill or anything else, rather than through other hon. Members.

I want to know why this motion is on the Order Paper, particularly at this curious and unusual time of the week. The motion relates to a Private Member's Bill and it could have been moved on another day during the week. Normally Money Resolutions are considered on other days of the week. This is not an unimportant matter. This quite lengthy Bill says, in Clause 15: Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament. That is our curious way of saying that no money can be spent until we have given further authorisation in the Estimates. As usual, we have something that is not quite the exact meaning of the words.

With Government-sponsored Public Bills the Money Resolution follows immediately after the Second Reading debate on a day during the week. It is not unusual to have a debate of a up to three-quarters of an hour on a Money Resolution after a more prolonged debate on the the Second Reading of a Bill. But if a motion of this kind comes on at 4 p.m. on a Friday, in practice many hon. Members who might wish to address themselves to the issue or take another opportunity to talk about the Rentcharges Bill in general will not be able to do so.

I do not think that business of this kind should be brought on at 4 p.m. on a Friday. I know that the Chief Whip—the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks)—has a strong personal interest, but I think he must agree that the passage of this highly desirable measure would be facilitated if this resolution were brought on at a different time.

The Financial Memorandum associated with the Bill says: Clause 15 provides that the expenses of the Secretary of State under the Bill are to be paid out of public funds. The Bill, however, will not involve any increase in the expenditure or manpower requirement of the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales, who administer the existing procedures for apportionment and redemption. On the fact of it, this is a bit odd. We are told that no extra expense is involved, but we have to have a Money Resolution to authorise some expense. I assume that the explanation is that although in future there will be expense attributable to the Bill it will not be additional to what the Government would have spent anyway. That is a very difficult concept. George Bernard Shaw once said that one could never tell what would have happened to the patient if his leg had not been sawn off. We do not know how much the Government would have spent anyway. We do not know if this will be additional money. We can assume that there will be some amount of money attributable to the passing of this Bill if it does get through, and I fervently hope that it does.

How much will be involved? Let us assume that it is about £3,000 a month. That would be exactly the sum that is being saved by the closing of a ward in St. Mark's Hospital in my constituency. The ward that is closing dealt with diseases of the bowel, particularly cancer of the bowel. However desirable this Bill may be I am not sure that it is right that if the cost is £3,000 a month that cost should be incurred in relation to the Rentcharges Bill if the consequence is the closing of a cancer ward resulting in long delays for people who are waiting for treatment at the world-famous cancer hospital of St. Mark's in Islington. Therefore, we need to know something about the costs.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend. I should like to declare an interest. I, too, represent some very poor people in the East End of London. Because of the closing of our hospitals, they have had to go to my hon. Friend's hospital. They are suffering in the same way. However, am I to take it that my hon. Friend's point is that if this matter had been discussed following the Second Reading of the Bill, during the evening, as is the normal custom, he may well have obtained much more support and could have explained his case in more detail to more Members? If that is his objective, that he would rather have the chance of debating the matter with more Members present, I would support him 100 per cent.

Mr. Cunningham

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Certainly an issue such as this, which might encounter opposition in the House, ought not to be brought on at 4 o'clock on a Friday. That is not the time for controversial business to be passed. That is why 15 minutes ago it was possible for one Minister of the Crown, by his single word, to stop the passage of a number of Bills to which a large number of hon. Members are devoted—because we must not pass a Bill on a Friday after 4 o'clock if there is one Member who objects to it.

That is not the case with the present motion. That will come to a normal Division some time between now and 4.45 p.m., but it ought to have come to a Division earlier in the week, in order that I would have my normal facilities for saying to the Government that if they want to proceed with what they are doing—or, rather, not doing—in relation to this hospital. I would exercise my normal powers in relation to a motion of this kind.

Certainly, those constituents of my hon. Friend who urgently need treatment in a hospital such as St. Mark's will find it far more difficult to get it now, because of the closure of 14 beds out of about 90. That is a very large number of beds in a tiny hospital such as St. Mark's. Although tiny, it is a centre of excellence, not just for London and Britain but for the world, for the treatment of that particular disease. The medical profession is appalled that by the say-so of one district administrator—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that many hon. Members have had the privilege of hearing that hon. Gentleman on the subject of the hospital to which he is now addressing his attention. What I should like him to do is to enlighten us as to why he objects to the Money Resolution.

Mr. Cunningham

I am not saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I object to the Money Resolution. I might be speaking wholeheartedly to urge the House to pass it. I hope that it will do so. I hope that no one will oppose the Money Resolution. Certainly I shall not oppose it. I do not know whether you are familiar with the Rentcharges Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a tremendously important Bill, which will have the effect of removing what a Scotsman such as myself would call feu duties—duties that freehold owners, particularly in the region of Manchester and of Bristol, are obliged to pay to feu owners, as I would call them, des- pite the fact that the subordinate has a complete freehold on the land.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me again for interrupting him. I must get this matter clear in my mind. It is only he, it appears, who will be able to help us. The Minister did not explain and there is no one else present to explain. I thought that my hon. Friend was explaining, prior to Mr. Deputy Speaker calling him to order, that he was objecting to the Money Resolution because, as he said £3,000 per week might be spent which would be better spent in maintaining the hospital and its beds. If that is so, I would support him in his objection. I have had about 16 letters from constituents who have objected because they have been prevented from getting into the hospital concerned because of the cuts that have been made. I am hoping that my hon. Friend will explain at length why we should object to this. I thought that my hon. Friend was objecting to it.

Mr. Cunningham

It depends how much the amount of money is. One would like some information about that. What I was saying was that if the amount of money involved as a consequence of the Bill was in the order of £3,000 a month it would be pretty well exactly the same as the amount of money involved in the closing of this cancer ward in that hospital. Although I must not go into the details of that hospital, it is legitimate, when passing a Money Resolution, to compare one use that one could make of £3,000 a month with another use. But in itself, taking it in isolation, the Rent-charges Bill is a highly desirable Bill.

Mr. Bowden

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some guidance? The hon. Gentleman is saying that because this Bill may save £3,000 a month he is putting forward an argument that he can see a very good way of spending that £3,000 a month in his constituency. Would it be permissible for other hon. Members, if they catch your eye, to explain how they think that £3,000 might be used even more effectively in their constituencies?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I was trying to indicate to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the relevance of his hospital was not all that clear to the Chair. I still feel that the missing link in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no assurance that the money will in fact be spent in the way in which he would like it to be spent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the strict terms of the motion.

Mr. Cunningham

Some confusion is arising. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) seems to think that the effect of the Rentcharges Bill will be to save £3,000 a month, or something of that nature. The effect of the Bill, as stated in the financial memorandum, is that it will cost money and that any money it costs will have to be met out of the estimates. No figure is put on it. The Financial Memorandum says that the expenses will be paid out of public funds and adds: The Bill however will not involve any increase in the expenditure or manpower requirements of the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales, who administer the existing procedures for apportionment and redemption. Presumably it is saying that extra expense will have to be ascribed to this Bill in the Estimates but that it will not increase the amount of money that the Government would otherwise have spent. Presumably something will he reduced to take account of that, or the amount of money is so small that it is lost in the lines between the accounts. I would have thought that that was the true position.

I remember that when speaking on the Second Reading of the Rentcharges Bill the Minister indicated that no significant extra expense, if any, was involved with regard to the Department of the Environment besides what the Government are now doing. But in future the cost of whatever they are doing now will have to be ascribed to this Bill. I do not understand it very well, but that, I understand, is why we need to have a Money Resolution at all.

I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown will realise that there is not £3,000 a month up for grabs. But if £3,000 were up for grabs, I have got a better claim to it than any other hon. Member in the House can think of. Taken in isolation the Rentcharges Bill is without doubt a highly desirable piece of legislation. During the Second Reading on 11th February there were about eight speakers. The debate did not take up more than one hour of the time of the House and there was universal support on both sides—certainly on the Back Benches and the Front Benches—that this is a highly desirable measure.

Besides clearing up this nonsense in England, I hope that we can be sure that the Bill's provisions in relation to Scotland will be pursued, because the existence of feu duties in Scotland is a long-standing grievance. Whether in England or in Scotland, it is not right that a person who has bought a freehold should be lumbered with paying a continuing charge in respect of the land of which he is supposed to be an outright owner.

I say "outright owner", but my understanding is that, historically, in English law no one is an outright owner of land. Everyone holds only an interest in the land, and therefore there is nothing particularly illogical about having a freehold and yet being required to make some payment to some other person in respect of that land.

If we pass the Money Resolution the Bill will go through, but it will not terminate such things as the payment of ground rent by leaseholders. Perhaps that is something to which we ought to turn our attention next. I do not see why, if someone pays a lump sum for the leasehold of land and/or property, he should be obliged to go on paying a monthly or annual rent in addition.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend said that if the Money Resolution were not approved the Bill could not go ahead. He also said that someone who owns a freehold should not be expected to pay rent, or tithes, or whatever it is. I accept that, but will he dig a little deeper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot recall anything about that in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Lewis

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps because you were otherwise engaged in seeking advice from some quarter, or at least confirming your knowledge, you did not hear my hon. Friend explain that the object of the Money Resolution was to provide money, and that if it were passed the Bill could proceed. If the Money Resolution is not accepted, the Bill cannot proceed. My hon. Friend went on to explain that he agreed with the objectives of the Bill, and that if the Money Resolution is not passed we shall be left to deal with the question of rent on freehold properties. I think that the Money Resolution covers that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not able to follow the logic of that argument, and prefer to deal strictly with the Money Resolution.

Mr. Cunningham

The difficulty is that the Money Resolution is very wide. Unlike others, this Money Resolution refers not to the Bill but to any Act of the present Session". It says: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prohibit the creation, and provide for the extinguishment, apportionment and redemption, of certain rentcharges, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act. The word that really matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I ask the hon. Member to concentrate on the last line of the Money Resolution, which seems to be the important part of it.

Mr. Cunningham

Perhaps I may explain why one part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West was saying seems to be legitimate, and why what I am saying is in order.

The essential phrase is that the Bill is for the extinguishment, and so on, of certain rentcharges. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that "rentcharge" is a term of art, but it has to be defined, for the purpose of the Bill, and it is. Clause 1 defines "rentcharge", and other clauses of the Bill go on to add further words of limitation. One of the definitions of rentcharge is that it is said to except—that is, to exclude—rent reserved by a lease or tenancy.

It is those words that ensure that a ground rent on a leasehold will not be extinguished or otherwise covered by this Bill, but if I were to introduce some other Bill this Session for the extinguishment of such ground rents on leaseholds, it would be covered by the Money Resolution, because the Resolution is not restricted to that Bill or to rentcharges as defined in Clause 1 of that Bill.

I could therefore move another Bill and it would come within the Money Resolution. Therefore the resolution with respect, goes far wider than the Bill. In my submission, it allows me to speak about the desirability of further legislation that would have to be introduced by some of us to extinguish ground rents on leaseholds.

That would, of course, be a very arguable matter. Many people have sold leaseholds in the clear expectation that they would receive a sum of money for a period that might stretch for 20 or 30 years or often up to 999 years. Those sums of money are frequently very small—£10 a year or something like that—and are sometimes expressed as a mere peppercorn. But there is an increasing tendency for the ground rent insisted upon by the terms of a lease to be expressed not as a fixed sum for the duration of the lease but as a sum which either is subject to periodic renegotiation or goes up at fixed intervals in accordance with some programme set down in the lease.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that this Money Resolution, if passed, would enable any hon. Member to introduce a Bill for the abolition or amendment of "certain rentcharges" and that any costs would be met by the Secretary of State? If so, would it be possible for my hon. Friend or me—preferably me—to introduce a Bill providing that the rentcharges which the Church now has on the mineral rights of land subject to some of these leases should also be abolished and that the Church should not have the right to claim those mineral returns? That would open up a fascinating prospect for me. We could then deal with such things as oil and mineral rights. Is my hon. Friend saying that I could get away with that?

Mr. Cunningham

It certainly seems to be one of the most widely drawn Money Resolutions to which I have given any attention. I am afraid that my hon. Friend loses me when he talks about the rights of the Church to minerals under the ground. I am not familiar with that matter and I do not know whether the terms of the Money Resolution would go that far, but they certainly go as far as I have described and would authorise considerable extension to this Bill or a separate Bill.

When the Government come forward with the Money Resolution on a major Government Bill or with the Ways and Means Resolutions on the Budget, they draw them very tightly, so as to stop anybody moving an amendment that would increase expenditure or taxation. It looks as if this one has been rather sloppily done.

I suppose that it was thought that since it would come up at 4 o'clock on a Friday no one would be there and it would not matter.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson)

I am here.

Mr. Cunningham

I am very apologetic to my right hon. Friend, but he knows as well as I do why these things happen at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend has now convinced me 100 per cent. I had some doubt when he started, when he mentioned the Second Reading debate on the Money Resolution and the fact that not much money would be involved probably only about £3,000 a month, and perhaps even that would be lost in the wash. My hon. Friend may have been right then, but since then he has gone much further.

My hon. Friend is now suggesting that the expenses arising under any Act of Parliament that could be introduced to deal with this would cost only about £3,000 a month, but we might have a dozen Acts of Parliament, so it might mean the expenditure of 12 times £3,000 a month. It would be virtually unlimited. My hon. Friend said that he could not see my point about mineral rights. In Norwich all mineral rights for the county of Norfolk belong to the Bishop of Norwich. I might want to take away those rights from the Bishop of Norwich and vest them with those who have the freehold. I could get my hon. Friends to introduce a dozen Bills, of which the total cost might be £1 million. I would then claim that as this was an Act of Parliament and the expenditure was incurred by the Secretary of State under an Act of the House, the Minister had to meet the cost, which would be unlimited.

Is not this against all Government policy? My hon. Friend has explained that the Government want to save money, and are cutting out expenditure on schools and hospitals, yet now we find that this Money Resolution enables more money to be spent. Perhaps the Downing Street £47,000 might come under this.

Mr. Cunningham

I do not know anything about the Downing Street £47,000, but that is one and a half times as much as would be needed to keep open the wards in St. Mark's Hospital and to treat 14 cancer cases in hospital for about a year.

This Money Resolution would cover the expenditure of virtually unlimited amounts. If, for example, I were to move an amendment to the Bill or to have another Bill that provided that ground rents associated with leaseholds—something that is covered by Clause 1(a) of the present Bill—would be terminated and would cease to be payable to the leaseholder, but that the owner was to be compensated by payment out of public funds, that provision would not, as I see it, need a further Money Resolution because it would be covered by this Money Resolution.

If I were to provide that the owner was to get 10 times as much as the ground rent that he received previously, that, too, would be covered by the Money Resolution. The House would still have to authorise or appropriate expenditure in the annual Estimates. It could not be spent unless the Estimates provided for it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I wish to raise a serious point of order. My hon. Friend has been speaking very lucidly, but, with respect, neither I nor, I think, you, have been able to follow exactly whether my hon. Friend is right or wrong. He has been giving his own views and his own interpretations.

Now that he has got on to the question whether something can or cannot go ahead legally, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Minister I do not think that there is anyone in the House with any legal background at all. Surely I have the right to ask the Law Officers to come to the Chamber to answer the legal points.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) may have no legal experience, but he has enough experience of the House to know that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Cunningham

We have shown, no doubt to the surprise of some people, that the Money Resolution seems to be peculiarly wide. I do not want to criticise that, but I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Minister to explain this motion.

I do not want to criticise there being wide Money Resolutions and Ways and Means Resolutions. However, it is wrong that the House and individual Members should be limited and restricted as to the amendments they can move to Bills and as to the Bills they can bring forward by the exclusive privilege that the House has so unwisely given to the Executive in the moving of Money Resolutions and Ways and Means Resolutions.

We should abolish Money Resolutions and Ways and Means Resolutions. They are an anachronism. After this afternoon some might be more inclined to think that such resolutions should be abolished. There is no reason why the House should not authorise expenditure under a Bill without a precedent Money Resolution. Nor is there any reason why the initiative for it should not come from the individual Member.

The motion on which we are shortly to vote is in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has nothing to do with the Bill. The motion should stand in the name of the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). If it had stood in my hon. Friend's name, however, it would not have got on to the Order Paper. It would have been an invalid motion. The House could not have passed such a motion, because this stupid House of Commons is so incompetent about doing its proper job that it gives the Executive excessive control over expenditure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Not on this Money Resolution.

Mr. Cunningham

True, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you can see why I am provoked. Having made those remarks, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I now give him an opportunity to state his views on the desirability of the motion and, in particular, the width with which it has been drafted.

4.42 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson)

However much my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) may have provoked you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene from time to time in these proceedings, there was no need for him to apologise to me.

I well understand the point my hon. Friend was trying to make. I appreciate that he seeks to exercise his rights as a Member of Parliament and to take this opportunity to give voice to a grievance that he feels. Some people consider that to be a questionable use of parliamentary procedure. I do not take that view. There may be many untidy things about our parliamentary system. What has happened today has highlighted part of that untidy system. However, there is a great value in the procedures that allow it to take place.

I turn to the points which have been put to me in so far as I have any responsibility for answering them. It is not for me to say what should be on the Order Paper from day to day—that is the responsibility of another Minister—but my understanding is that the Private Member's Bill concerned—the Rentcharges Bill—is due to go into Committee next Wednesday. It is necessary for the House to approve the Money Resolution before the Bill can proceed to Committee.

Further, the Rentcharges Bill was introduced on a Friday in the second week of March. It was therefore considered appropriate for the Money Resolution for the Bill to be on the Order Paper on a day when Private Members' business is being dealt with—that is today—before the Bill can proceed into Committee.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

As the Government wholeheartedly supported the Bill—indeed, the Minister in charge said so at the time—would it not have been possible to do the ordinary thing and to have the Money Resolution immediately following the Second Reading so that those who had taken part in the Second Reading debate knew what it was all about?

Mr. Freeson

I have no reason to query that. I do not think that that is a question which I can answer. I am concerned simply with the Money Resolution. I am not even in a position, as I understand the rules of order, to discuss the Bill, except by a passing reference to its contents. Questions about the procedural aspects ought to be addressed elsewhere. However, the point is taken. I can think of no particular reason, offhand, why the resolution could not have been brought forward in the way suggested but think that convention or protocol was being followed in choosing a Private Member's Day to table it.

We were glad to see the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). It will prohibit the creation of ordinary rentcharges and extinguish existing ones after an appropriate period of time. It also provides for simpler and quicker procedures for apportioning and redeeming rent charges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is glad of the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the existing procedures and to make some much-needed improvements. The Money Resolution provides that expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the measure are to be paid out of public funds.

Before I proceed to make any further observations, perhaps I could seek, although I am no lawyer, to deal with the point of definition that has been pursued latterly by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, he was seeking to make the point that, although the Money Resolution is directed to the Rentcharges Bill, it would be possible, were some other legislation to be introduced—for example legislation to extinguish ground rents—that there would be no need for a specific Money Resolution to follow such a Bill because this resolution would cover it. That is not my understanding of the position.

I have before me the report of the Law Commission dealing with rentcharges, among other things. The point is dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 9. Paragraph 8 says: Our first task is to define our subject-matter and to state some general facts about rentcharges.

I am concerned with the definition. Paragraph 9 says A rentcharge is an annual or periodic sum of money payable to someone who is not entitled to the reversion to the land charged with its payment. This feature distinguishes it from ordinary rent payable under a lease.

It then goes on to give the history of rentcharges. The point is that we are not, when we specify rentcharges in the Money Resolution—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencment of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ted Graham and Mr. Michael Ward were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Arthur Lewis was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prohibit the creation, and provide for the extinguishment, apportionment and redemption, of certain rentcharges, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together—

Mr. George Cunningham

Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Very well. We come to the next item.