Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill [Money] (Hansard, 27 April 1993)

§ The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood)
I beg to move, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other Act. It gives me great pleasure to move the resolution so that the money is available to provide the relief that business is seeking—the relief that the House seems to favour.
The Bill has two main financial consequences. The big one is the reduction in the amount of money to the rates pool, which the Bill will make good. The second is that there will be some additional expenditure to local authorities in implementing the Bill, and we are proposing to allow authorities to set that expenditure against the pool to adjust the rates bills. I hope that the House will welcome those two features, which are reflected in clauses 2 and 3.
The cost of making good the shortfall for the pool in England is estimated to be £340 million in 1993–94 and £220 million in 1994–95. That is on top of the substantial relief that was made available last year as a result of a similar Bill to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has already referred. In Wales, which has separate pooling arrangements, the cost will be £9 million in 1993–94 and £5 million in 1994–95.
The money issues were given prominence on Second Reading. It is interesting that the Liberal party in particular favours a different approach to the financing of local government—one which would be deeply damaging to many businesses. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) seemed to be particularly interested in Newbury and in Berkshire. He failed to tell the House, or the people of Newbury, however, about the impact of his proposals upon the butchers, the greengrocers and; the grocers of that town.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancashire)
It would be disastrous.

§ Mr. Redwood
Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. It would put such businesses under intense pressure. We are glad that Liberal policies are not threats but spectres, or their effects would be considerably more serious.
We can always tell when there is a by-election, county council election or even a general election in the offing, because it is then, in spring time, that we begin to see the first "Focuses". They come out of the woodwork after a year of absence and a year of neglect and appear in Newbury or wherever else containing all sorts of claims about how the Liberals have done everything that has, in fact, been done by the Conservative party for the good of local people.
The Liberals claim the credit, but they do not do the work, as is evident from the "Focus" publications. I am sure that another "Focus" will be issued to say that the Liberals were behind the money resolution, which is so instrumental in helping local business.
Site value rating should be condemned by all men, and women of good will and by all sensible parties in the 884 House, because it would be extremely damaging. It is symptomatic of the Liberal party that it usually supports the Labour party in local government. Recently, I believe that the Liberals have encouraged the Labour party to withdraw candidates from the county elections in Berkshire. Obviously, they have struck some kind of deal.
When we hear about Liberal party policies, they seem to be Labour policies in fiscal drag. They are dressed up in a new kind of style, with local income tax and site value rating on top of the other imposts that the Labour party would like to impose. As always, it is the Liberals who want other people's money. They may well vote for the money resolution today, but, secretly, they would like to impose far more taxes and to waste far more money.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said, it is a curious paradox, some might say that it was a two-faced approach, that the Liberal party reveal. It claims that it wants much more devolution and local autonomy, but as soon as any measure offers such autonomy to Liberal councils, the Liberal party will not use its local discretion and gets its spokesman to come to the House to say that the Government must order councils to exercise such autonomy.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
The Minister's claims are erroneous, as is his interpretation of his colleague's remarks. The Under-Secretary said that parties of all colours in government in local councils throughout the country have used the hardship relief. In my speech on Second Reading, I was able to quote the impeccable record of Newbury district council and North Cornwall district council on their use of the hardship relief. The Under-Secretary was right to acknowledge that.
Why is the Minister trying to stir things up? He said that election time was when "Focus" appeared, but that is not the case in my part of the country. It appears throughout the year. We always know when the Government are expecting a defeat at the hands of the electorate, however, because they attack us.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. We are actually debating the money resolution.

§ Mr. Redwood
I thought that a little circumlocution about the money might be appropriate at this stage. As I understand it, there is no great pressure on our parliamentary business, and I thought that it was important to elucidate these crucial—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Chair allows no circumlocution dependent on time. I am afraid that the Minister must stay in order regardless of the time factor.

§ Mr. Redwood
I shall, of course, endeavour to do that —and with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can I fail?
The money issues at stake are clear. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has said that more use should be made of hardship relief. He said that that should be incorporated in Government proposals in a Government mandate to local government. I am sure that he would like that proposal to be added to the money resolution, if that were possible.
The answer to that request is that the powers are there, and councils can use them if they see fit. That is local judgment and local autonomy in action, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman wanted us to insist that that power be used. Now he is, as always, 885 backtracking on this very point. He now accepts that there is local discretion, and he is trying to claim that Liberal councils use it well.
The money resolution is important for business and the continuing economic recovery. It is an important means of building on the improved figures and prospects that we have seen in recent weeks. It is important that the House now gives more stability to local authority taxation and expenditure measures. The resolution is part of that process, and it will mean that local government has the money for the job so that the burden on business is not unacceptably high. I have pleasure in commending the resolution to the House.

§ Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
We have witnessed a somewhat unorthodox approach to a money resolution. I did not intend to speak, but I feel bound to make some response to some of the Minister's remarks. I shall endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to circumlocute; I am sure that, if I do, you will bring me back into line.
A number of cuckoos have been flying around Westminster and Fleet street, and Wapping, I suppose, over the past two days, and it seems that one of them has got into the House. Claims are being made about the recovery from which the country is now beginning to benefit. The Opposition want to see the economy recovering, business pulling itself out of recession and output picking up. We want jobs to be created in our economy.
The statistics announced by the Government yesterday —a 0.2 per cent. increase in output in the first quarter of 886 1993—have been mentioned. There has been a 0.2 per cent. increase in output in the first quarter of 1993, but does that constitute the beginning of a recovery? That is the question that businesses will be asking as they face business rates.
It is interesting to note the way in which the Government claim that a 0.2 per cent. increase in output —if my arithmetic is correct, that means a 0.8 per cent. annual increase in output—constitutes a recovery in Britain. When Germany and France enjoyed increases in output of 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent., the Government said that those statistics represented part of the world recession and constituted a recession in those countries. There seems to be some contradiction in the Government's position. I hope that the House will reflect on that when it considers the money resolution.
The Opposition supported the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill as a means of assisting the business community, and they also wish to extend their support to the money resolution. However, we wish that the Government—and, perhaps, the Liberal Members—

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
There is only one.

§ Mr. Henderson
Yes, there seems to be only one Liberal Member. I wish that they would stick to the business before us, not squabble over one election that will take place on 6 May. The country and the business community will look to the state of the country on 6 May, and the verdict delivered in the other county council elections may be different from that given in one specific part of the country.