§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
11.15 pm§ The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry)I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.The Non-Domestic Rating Bill includes provision that requires the Secretary of State to make good the reductions in contributions paid by authorities into the non-domestic rating pool arising from changes made by the Bill. The Bill would directly reduce business rate payments in 1994–95 by limiting the increases for properties under the non-domestic rating transitional arrangements for those years.Properties that, without those measures, would face increases of as much as 20 per cent. in real terms would now pay no more than 10 per cent. extra after allowing for inflation. Smaller properties that would otherwise face real increases of as much as 15 per cent. would have their increases limited to 7.5 per cent. in real terms. Small part domestic and part non-domestic property would face no real rate increases next year.
Clearly those measures reduce the income that would otherwise have been available to the pool of business rates, and the cost of making good the shortfall in the non-domestic rating pool for England is estimated to be about £90 million in 1994–95. In Wales, which has a separate pooling arrangement, the cost would be about £5 million. The Bill would require the Secretaries of State to add those sums to the amounts paid to billing authorities out of the non-domestic rating pool for their respective countries in 1995–96.
The Government already have powers under existing legislation to introduce fresh transitional arrangements to phase in changes in rates liability brought about by the 1995 and subsequent revaluations. We shall need to consider carefully whether and how to use those powers once firm information on the likely effect of the 1995 revaluation becomes available in the spring. We shall certainly use the powers if the circumstances warrant. However, the Bill would allow us greater flexibility in making any such arrangement.
In particular, it would enable the Government to make arrangements that were not self-financing. We would therefore be able to devise rules that would reduce the increases in the rates burden for businesses adversely affected by that revaluation, without requiring other businesses to pay more. If we chose to do that, we should be able to make up the loss of rates yield by making further Exchequer contributions to the non-domestic rating pools in subsequent years.
We would decide whether or when to exercise those powers in the light of the economic circumstances of the time. The regulations governing the transitional arrangements are subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, so any decision on the extent of any Government subsidy for the arrangement would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny at the time, by affirmative resolution. I commend the motion to the House.
§ Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)Before the House is an unusual and, I believe, unacceptable procedure. We are being asked to approve a money resolution—in other words, to approve the amount of money that will be spent for purposes arising out of proposed legislation—before the House has had an opportunity to consider in principle, on Second Reading, the contents of the Bill concerned. Such a procedure makes an outrageous presumption about the intentions of the House, amounting to a contempt of the House.
If I were a question master and I asked the House when such a procedure was last used, I believe that I would have to give out a lot of first prizes. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the only other occasion on which this procedure has been used in the past five years was during our proceedings on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. That was the last time that the Conservative Government were presumptuous enough to come to the House with a money resolution before hearing hon. Members' views on the principles involved. That tells the House a lot, not only about some of the Government's intentions in the Bill, which will be discussed later this week, but about the current state of the Government in general.
The House will recall the procedure that was adopted last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that it was a sweetheart agreement. It was not a sweetheart agreement. It was an understanding between hon. Members on both sides of the House about how a matter affecting many businesses throughout the country could be dealt with in a reasonable, objective and reasonably sensitive way.
The Second Reading of last year's Bill, which froze business rate increases, was dealt with in late April. A fortnight later—after people had had the opportunity to consider the general principles involved—the rest of the stages of the Bill were dealt with on the Floor of the House. That was acceptable to everyone concerned. Hon. Members who wished to receive representations from interested bodies were able to do so, and to make those views known to the House. The Bill could then be expedited. That was a reasonably acceptable way of dealing with such business.
I may say that the Opposition have no argument with the Government about the general timing of such debates. In previous years, Bills limiting the increase in rates for business properties were introduced after the Budget—in May or June. The problem was that the effect of such legislation had to be retrospective so councils had to adjust their business rate bills and many businesses up and down the country could not make cost projections because they did not know what business rate liability they might face. I am not defending that structure; that was not the best way in which to conduct business.
Yet what the Government are doing tonight—and I believe what they are to do later this week—is equally unacceptable. They are asking the House to curtail a parliamentary procedure. The Government will try to get the House to give the Bill a Second Reading tomorrow evening—and I believe that that may be the appropriate time for a Second Reading debate. What is not appropriate is what the Government intend to do after that, which is to curtail parliamentary procedures—not giving democracy a chance in the House—by forcing through the rest of the Bill at the beginning of January. Presumably we will hear arguments later today, and almost certainly tomorrow, that 138 that is necessary in order to counteract the difficulties that arose last year because the legislation had to be retrospective.
What the Government propose is not acceptable and is not a practical solution to the problem. It might have been practical to consider Second Reading tomorrow and then to deal with the issues on the Floor of the House or in Committee—that matter could have been subject to discussion. I should have thought that it would not have been beyond the ability of the House and the other place to have expedited all the business by the end of February or March and to have given Royal Assent to any necessary legislation. But that is not what the Government propose and that is not their intention in the money resolution.
This year's procedure is not so acceptable as that adopted last year. There are other reasons—in addition to those that I have sought to draw to the attention of the House—why the Government's procedure is unacceptable. This year's Bill is not as straightforward as last year's was. Last year's Bill basically said that many businesses throughout the country face enormous economic problems because of the recession and cannot cope with the full effect of the rates increases that they face. With the Opposition's support, the Government said that there should be an abatement to help those businesses and that the increases should be restricted to the level of inflation. That fairly straightforward Bill only affected the position last year.
This year's Bill is quite different. There is no freeze in this Bill. As the Minister said, even with the Government's abatement, some businesses will still face increases in their business rates of up to 10 per cent. That is a major difference between last year's Bill and this year's Bill.
This year's Bill incorporates a complete change in principle for the future determination of business rates. Last year and in the previous year, the Government said that some businesses should be given relief on their business rates, but that where that relief was given the Government would top up the aggregate rating pool so that the amount of money allocated to local authorities—and I will not argue whether that was the right amount—would still be given to the local authorities. That provision was included in regulations that came before this House.
When the Non-Domestic Rating Bill receives its Second Reading tomorrow, it will be clear that the clauses that cover the provisions to which I have just referred will no longer apply. It will be entirely at the Government's discretion to decide whether any transitional relief will be given to businesses in 1995. We all have businesses in our constituencies. Many of our constituencies will tell us that their business premises will be revalued for 1995. Unless there is some transitional provision, they may face substantial hikes in their business rates.
The problem will not go away. A future Government of any colour will have to consider the transitional arrangements for changes in business rates. The difference between this year's Bill and earlier legislation is not just that there is no commitment that that will be done. Even if the commitment is given and businesses receive relief, there is no requirement in future for the Government to top up the business rate pool. Therefore, the total amount of money allocated to local authorities could be reduced substantially. That is a major change and departure from the legislation which has been considered in this House over recent years and which has been accepted to a degree by businesses.
139 There are several procedural problems in relation to the money resolution and the subsequent stages of the legislation. As I have said, the House will be asked to vote on financial matters that will depend on discussions on structures that have not yet taken place. Hon. Members will be asked to decide whether the Government have allocated an appropriate amount of money for the Bill. Hon. Members are being asked to make that decision without knowing the future structure and whether the Secretary of State will make good losses to the aggregate rating pool that arise from the transitional relief that is provided.
When making a judgment on this year's legislation and when deciding whether the amount of relief given to businesses this year is appropriate, many hon. Members will want to make that judgment in the context of what is happening this year and in relation to what will happen to businesses in their constituencies in future. That will depend very much on our discussions of the principles of the Bill on Second Reading. It is wrong of the Government to ask Conservative Members to make a decision before they have had a chance to express their strong views or those held by their constituents.
We should address the costs of the changes that might take place. Interested parties may want to ask the Secretary of State many questions about the Bill and those questions may have major implications for the costs of the legislation. The business community will want to make representations. It is unreasonable and unacceptable that the business community will have no opportunity after Second Reading to make its views known to hon. Members or to make representations about amendments or changes to the Bill. That is unacceptable when, in 1993, 57,000 businesses went bankrupt, compared with 28,000 in 1990. A serious situation is affecting businesses. Many businesses will want to consider whether that 50 per cent. relief is acceptable in the context of the climate, that they face.
Many people in the business community will want to know the regional impact of the Government's proposals and which parts of the country, which industries and which aspects of commerce will be the winners and which will be the losers. Many businesses will want to know the effects on different businesses. Many speculative representations have been made to me, and many businesses throughout the country are extremely concerned about the impact upon them. They consider the possible impacts on industrial and commercial premises. I have received many representations from companies in the retail sector, especially in the south, which are extremely concerned about the impact on their business.
All such businesses, in a democratic parliamentary system, have the right to make known their views before legislation is dealt with in detail. They do not even have the chance to consider the principles involved on Second Reading before hon. Members decide the amount of money involved. That will not be satisfactory to organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry which have always had firm views on business rating. They would want to make known their representations on many of the details in the Bill. In procedural terms, organisations such as the Institute of Directors will not find acceptable what the Government propose. I have received representations from that institute also, but at the moment they seem to 140 have escaped me. Howeve, I suspect that there will be many other opportunities during our considerion of the Bill for the important views of the Institute of Directors to be made known. Bearing in mind the time, it is just as well that I was not immediately able to put my hands on the views of the Institute of Directors.
However, the House will be pleased to know that I have before me the views of two typical chambers of commerce which have very firm views on this important matter which affects their affiliates and businesses in their communities. There are many other chambers of commerce that I could have chosen, but, for the purposes of this debate, I refer to only one, Southampton chamber of commerce, and an affiliated organisation called Lyon Pilcher, chartered accountants. A representative of that firm chaired the business rates sub-committee of Southampton chamber of commerce. That firm wrote to me on 6 January to make known some of its strongly held views about this matter. The letter has a strong bearing on the debate. I shall quote briefly—
§ Mr. HendersonThe Minister is urging me to quote the whole letter, but I am much more restrained than that. I shall restrict myself to the salient points of the letter. If the Minister cares to tempt me on another occasion this week, I might be able to oblige.
That firm of chartered accountants in Southampton sayst:
The revaluation in 1990 produced greater increases in gross rateable values in the South than in other parts of the country. The abolition of rating boundaries by the NNDR has meant that the actual rates paid by properties in the South have increased significantly (particularly in the Retail sector) in order to pay for the downward movement in other parts of the country,In other words, that chamber of commerce has a much worse deal than many of its counterparts. It continued:This has hit the South particularly badly at a time when it was probably suffering the effect of the Recession worse than other parts of the country in any event.Our Survey indicated that Office and Industrial space in Southampton had not suffered under the NNDR as badly as had Retail.Those are points that the Southampton chamber of commerce would have wanted to make in the context of whether this year's regulations are acceptable. That is the sort of important representation that bodies have not been able to make, unless by chance they have got in touch with hon. Members. They will not be able to consider the matter in cost terms after hearing what the Government have to say on the principles.Just to show that there are no common views throughout the country, I shall quote the Barnsley chamber of commerce and industry, which is terse but salient in its view. It says:
transitional arrangements can be unfair to owners in northerly or depressed areas where rateable values are low, relative to owners in southerly, wealthy areas. Unfortunately, the latter shouted the loudest and to a greater extent got relief.Clearly, there is no unanimity among the chambers of commerce. Had I had more time, i would have been pleased to inform the House of some of the other differing views. I never believe in having too much of good thing. I am tempted to make another remark on those lines. Those views show that there is strong feeling, and that people have not had the chance to make known their opinions. The 141 TUC has similar views that it would have liked to make known to the House, after having heard the issues of principle set out in the Second Reading debate.Local government is another interest group that will be extremely anxious about the contents of the Bill, which will affect all local government. It has a clear interest in the size of the overall rating pool, which is then distributed on a basis that we can sometimes agree, though not always. If there is no guarantee that what is called in technical terms the aggregate external financing limit will take account of the need for the Government to replace moneys that have been lost by relief, local government will be extremely concerned about many of the clauses in the Bill.
In making a judgment about whether this year's limit will be acceptable, local authorities of all colours in all parts of the country will be looking at what the impact will be on their finances in later years because of the other structural parts of the Bill. If there are no guarantees on the aggregate external financing limit or on the size of the rating pool, local government, and indirectly many other people, could suffer seriously because of the impact.
Hon. Members who have taken a keen interest in local government matters will know that last year was a difficult year. Many local authorities have to make deep cuts in their services. Many jobs in local government were lost. There are arguments about how many, but few would deviate from an estimate of 50,000. Most of them were lost because of the reduction in the resources available to local government. This year, the situation is a little better, and there are again estimates of the exact impact of the Government's financial statement on local government. I believe that there will be a debate on that soon. Local government is clear that it will in all likelihood face great difficulties this year.
Like business, local authorities will not have the same view. Among the local government interest groups there will be many differing views because the impact of the Bill will not be the same in all parts of the country and in all types of local government. London boroughs will have a specific view that they will want to put to the House, although they will not be able to do so because of the lack of opportunity to make representations after the Second Reading. Counties and districts will want to make their views known, and they may also have differing views depending on which parts of the country they represent.
Given the differing regional impact of much of the legislation, a wide spectrum of regional organisations will want to make representation about how they expect business rate relief and other proposals in the Bill to affect them. That spectrum will include regional business organisations, regional workers' representatives' organisations and regional local government organisations: they will all want to make their views known.
I believe that the timing of the legislation constitutes an abuse of the House. It prevents representations from being made to the Government before the Committee stage; it prevents many representations from being made to hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a keen interest in the matter and would like to contribute to the debate. There is a presumption that the House can consider the amount of money involved before considering the content and principles of the Bill.
The move deviates from the relatively satisfactory procedure adopted last year. Worst of all, perhaps, it establishes a new pattern of contempt for workable, tried 142 and tested and in my view sensible procedures and for the assumption that it is wise for the House to debate principle before committing itself to expenditure.
This rush is not necessary. It would have been entirely possible to debate Second Reading this week, and to time debate of the money motion appropriately. It would have been entirely possible to begin the Committee stage, either on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee, two weeks or so after Second Reading and for the House to complete consideration of the Bill in time for Royal Assent to be given before the end of February. That would have been four months earlier than Royal Assent was given to similar legislation last year. Instead, however, we are discussing a motion on a costing that we have still not debated.
I have no doubt that all sorts of bodies around the country will accuse Parliament of acting in undue haste. There will be complaints that organisations have had no time to consult their members before making representations to various interested parties. Inevitably, hon. Members have had to table hurriedly the amendments that they consider necessary to raise points of principle and detail and to request clarification in Committee. I believe that this is an abuse of parliamentary procedure.
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) describe last year's system as relatively satisfactory. He admitted that, last year, local government sent out one set of bills to commercial ratepayers and then sent out a second set; he forgot to tell the House that that involved a cost to the local authorities—[Interruption.] Of course it involved a cost.
§ Mr. HendersonI did say that a cost was involved in last year's procedure.
§ Mr. MarshallThe hon. Gentleman said that the procedure had been relatively satisfactory. I do not know how he can say that it is relatively satisfactory to indulge in the unnecessary cost involved in sending out two bills when one would suffice. He admitted that a cost to local authorities was involved in sending out two bills when only one should have been sent out.
Moreover, there is a cost to industry in such cases. If an industry receives a statement from the local authority in March saying, "This is what your rates bill will be for the next 12 months," it will plan accordingly. Who knows? If that is higher than the bill that it will eventually have to pay, it may get rid of employees to try to make a workable budget. It certainly will not help that industry to plan if it receives one bill first and another in a few weeks' time. Last year's system was not satisfactory for business, jobs or economic confidence and it was bad for local government, because it involved unnecessary duplication. We had quite a lot of that earlier this evening.
We are also told that the Bill is bad because it does not deal with the consequences of the 1995 revaluation. I do not see how a Minister can be expected to come to the House and deal with those consequences when we do not yet know what the figures will be. We do not know what the reductions in London will be. I suspect that when the 1995 revaluation is handed down, shopkeepers in Hendon will get a reduction. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is in his 143 place; I am sure that shopkeepers in his constituency are looking forward to reductions, too. I would have expected a measure of support from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for a Bill that reduces the burden on industry by £95 million. That is surely worthy of commendation, not the pettifogging criticisms that we have heard this evening.
We have also been told that there has been no time for representations to be made against the proposal. Has the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North been asleep since 30 November? The proposals were announced in the Budget. I cannot remember, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman led his troops into the Lobby against the proposals then. Industry has known since 30 November what the proposals were, therefore, and has had nearly seven weeks in which to make representations, I have not received a single representation, and I am sure that very few hon. Members have.
The Bill was published three and a half weeks ago, so there has been longer between publication and Second Reading than is usually granted in the House. This evening, we have listened to a load of synthetic indignation from the Opposition. Having spent many years in local government, including four years as chairman of a finance committee, I can assure the House that what the Bill proposes is for the convenience of local government and of ratepayers, and it is about time Opposition Members admitted as much and stopped engaging in the party games that have been going on late at night in the House for the past few weeks.
§ Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)I have only one major point to make tonight—to ask the Minister to respond to the question about why the money resolution is necessary at this stage. When the new non-domestic rating system was introduced, a certain number of transitional arrangements had to be included because the revaluation of business premises that had been due to take place every five years since 1973 did not actually take place until 1988. By that time several business premises' valuations had changed remarkably, particularly compared with business premises in other parts of the country.
Because business rates had got so far out of step with one another, certain businesses were then faced with enormous increases, while others were lucky enough to enjoy decreases. Because the increases could, to some extent, be offset against the decreases, there was an opportunity to make the transitional arrangements self-financing. That indeed occurred during the first few years, while the NDR system worked as it was originally supposed to.
The Government then encountered two problems. First, they hit the problems of the recession, when a number of businesses faced the possibility of bankruptcy, not least as a result of large increases in their NDR. The Government were also facing a general election, which they thought they might lose. They therefore changed the transitional arrangements and introduced a system under which all the benefits suddenly accrued to those whose rates were due to decrease, while the increases were not put in place for those whose rates were due to increase. That inevitably caused a problem; it meant that money had to be found from somewhere else.
144 It is thus purely as a result of the Government's attempt to bribe the electorate before the 1992 election that the need for these money provisions has become evident today, as it has been over the past few years, when the transitional relief has been changed from the original system brought in back in 1990. Does the Minister agree that it is as a result of that change just before the general election that we need the Bill today? Is not he thoroughly ashamed of himself and of the Government, in that their chickens are very much coming home to roost?
§ Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe)The aspect of the motion on which I want to comment refers to the issue of the discretion which is available to the Secretary of State. I have no objection to the powers which are given for revaluations, and indeed I have been critical in the past of the Government's failure to order revaluations where appropriate.
I do not object to transitional arrangements. I think it is right and proper in certain circumstances to protect people from substantial changes coming from revaluations. The likelihood is that Secretaries of State, when faced with transitional arrangements, will look more favourably at those arrangements which cap increases in the rates to be paid by businesses. On the other hand, they will not put in restrictions on reductions in rates to be paid by other businesses. The potential impact of the arrangements for the year 1994–95 could be that those transitional arrangements will not be self-funding. That would then leave a gap in the amount of business rate collected which of course would pose serious problems for local authorities.
The motion implies that, while the Secretary of State may have the power to make up a shortfall in any business rates resulting from transitional arrangements which he chooses to bring in, either next year or in the future, he does not have a requirement so to do. There can be a shortfall in funding to local government which has no bearing on the needs as assessed by the Government or of the requirement of local government to provide services.
It is simply down to an arbitrary juxtaposition between the impact of the revaluation, which of itself is determined not by the Government but by independent valuers within the Inland Revenue, and the transitional arrangements which the Secretary of State has brought in. We have to be sure of the intention of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the motion does not give us that assurance. It gives a descretion which can be used adversely against local government in the future.
The reality of course is that that could lead next year —if the Government so choose—to a £90 million shortfall in funding for local authorities, and could do so again in the future. If one considers the impact on individual local authorities on that basis, an authority can choose either to cut its services or to put its council tax up to pay for the shortfall. In many authorities, council tax now accounts for only about 20 per cent. of total expenditure. A reduction of 1 per cent. in an authority's income from other sources can lead to a 5 per cent. increase in council tax, because that is a smaller proportion of the total expenditure of that authority.
On the other hand, the cuts can be made. If Sheffield were to have a £90 million shortfall from the Government, £900,000 would have to be deducted from council 145 expenditure or increased in council tax. By my calculations, £900,000 works out at about 90 home helps, or three or four local primary schools. Such a cut would virtually wipe out nursery education in the city. We are talking about substantial sums of money for local authorities.
The Secretary of State might choose mischievously to try to adjust the year-on-year capping calculations. That would prevent local authorities from increasing council tax to take account of the money that he was not prepared to provide to make up the shortfall in the business rate. That would have a completely arbitrary impact on individual authorities and would bear no relation to their needs or requirements.
I suggest that the Government have got themselves in a substantial mess; it is a mess of their own making. It comes from the long history of the 1980s when the Government tried to control and to regulate local authorities. They tried to control the expenditure of local authorities and have reduced their powers to the extent that the money that local authorities should be raising freely from their community in the form of business rates has been constrained and confined by central Government. They want to dictate exactly how much is collected in the centre and want the power not to pass that money on to local authorities where they decide that a shortfall unrelated to the needs of local authorities should not be made up.
For those reasons, it is important that we seriously question the measure's impact on the services that local authorities provide, because it could be substantial.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who claims to have had four years' experience in local government, did not listen much more carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). My hon. Friend came to the Dispatch Box very modestly today, but a year ago he predicted that the Government would come back again to this Chamber to introduce another measure to deal with non-domestic rates. He rightly predicted that because of the mess that the Government had made in fashioning an unacceptable policy for non-domestic rates we have had five Bills on the subject during the past four years.
The fundamental question that the Minister failed to answer when he introduced the measure—rather quickly because he did not want to spend a great deal of time explaining the shift of policy—was why there had been such a fundamental shift in policy since his predecessor announced to the House on 13 May last year that the Government would pay full compensation to the fund and that if there were a shortfall it would not be a power but a duty for the Government to make it up. He has failed to answer that question today and I hope that in the brief time available he will give the House the explanation that it deserves.
§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister is going to reply to the debate, or is the abuse of procedure going to be doubled? Not only are the proceedings on the Bill to be compressed, but the Minister is not going to reply to the debate at all. It is standard procedure that a Minister 146 answers the points raised. Is he going to keep his feet on the Table and refuse to answer the questions that have been raised during the debate?
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has a number of conventions, which are elaborated in points of order when Ministers are required to answer. "Erskine May" lays responsibilities on Ministers to respond to questions in the House. It is clear that the Minister has been asked a number of important questions but he has just sat on his backside doing nothing. I wonder whether you can make it clear that you deprecate such an action.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerIt is not for the Chair to insist that any hon. Member should speak, so that is not a matter on which I can comment.
§ Mr. StrawFurther to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that it is standard practice that in a debate of this kind the Minister opens the debate, listens to the matters raised and then answers at the end?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerThat may happen on a number of occasions but it is not universally so.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be within your recollection that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) challenged this very Minister when he sought to wind up a debate that he had commenced.
§ Mr. CryerI have been listening to the debate and my hon. Friends have asked several questions about the money resolution but the Minister has not deigned to rise to his feet. One of the matters that my hon. Friends and I are concerned about is the way in which the money resolution has been put before the debate on the Bill and the principle which is established on Second Reading. That is generally the way in which we work; the Second Reading debate lasts all day and we discuss the terms of the Bill, although not in great detail, after which we decide on the terms of the money resolution.
Doing things in this order means that people are denied the opportunity to listen to the extent of the debate. The reality is that many thousands—indeed millions—of people outside do not get copies of the Bill or know the details of its extent and nature. They use the focus of attention that Parliament is to obtain that information. It is true that there may well be only a short gap between the principle being debated and the money resolution being forwarded, none the less it is there. It seems to me to be an outrage that the Minister is not attempting in any shape or form to contribute to the debate. That demonstrates that the Government are treating the House with contempt.
I warn the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. There will be shouts. There are procedural means open to Back-Bench Members to use to ensure that if we do not want to listen to Ministers when they are desperate to get to the Dispatch Box, they will not get that opportunity. Ministers treat the House with contempt at their peril. The way in which Ministers have behaved, both in public and in private life, is disgraceful. There are already victims in a minority of instances. The whole tide of arrogant indifference to the democratic processes —
§ It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 59.
149| Division No. 60] | [12.00 midnight |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Day, Stephen |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Deva, Nirj Joseph |
| Alexander, Richard | Devlin, Tim |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Alton, David | Dover, Den |
| Amess, David | Duncan, Alan |
| Ancram, Michael | Duncan-Smith, Iain |
| Arbuthnot, James | Dunn, Bob |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Durant, Sir Anthony |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Dykes, Hugh |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Eggar, Tim |
| Atkins, Robert | Elletson, Harold |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Baldry, Tony | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Evennett, David |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Faber, David |
| Bates, Michael | Fabricant, Michael |
| Batiste, Spencer | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Bellingham, Henry | Forman, Nigel |
| Bendall, Vivian | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Forth, Eric |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | French, Douglas |
| Booth, Hartley | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Boswell, Tim | Gale, Roger |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Gallie, Phil |
| Bowden, Andrew | Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan |
| Bowis, John | Garnier, Edward |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Gill, Christopher |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Brazier, Julian | Goodlad, Rt Hon Afastair |
| Bright, Graham | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Gorst, John |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW) |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Burns, Simon | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hague, William |
| Butler, Peter | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hannam, Sir John |
| Cash, William | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Harris, David |
| Chapman, Sydney | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Churchill, Mr | Hawkins, Nick |
| Clappison, James | Hawksley, Warren |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hayes, Jerry |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) | Heald, Oliver |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hendry, Charles |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hicks, Robert |
| Colvin, Michael | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Congdon, David | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) |
| Conway, Derek | Horam, John |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Couchman, James | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Cran, James | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Jack, Michael | Richards, Rod |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Riddick, Graham |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm |
| Jessel, Toby | Robathan, Andrew |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr) | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Ross, William (E Londonderry) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Key, Robert | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Sackville, Tom |
| Knapman, Roger | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Knox, Sir David | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lang, Rt Hon Ian | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Shersby, Michael |
| Legg, Barry | Sims, Roger |
| Leigh, Edward | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Lennox-Boyd, Mark | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lidington, David | Soames, Nicholas |
| Lightbown, David | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham) | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Lord, Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Luff, Peter | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Spring, Richard |
| Lynne, Ms Liz | Sproat, Iain |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| MacKay, Andrew | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Maclean, David | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Steen, Anthony |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Stephen, Michael |
| Maddock, Mrs Diana | Stem, Michael |
| Madel, Sir David | Stewart, Allan |
| Maitland, Lady Olga | Streeter, Gary |
| Malone, Gerald | Sumberg, David |
| Mans, Keith | Sweeney, Walter |
| Marland, Paul | Sykes, John |
| Marlow, Tony | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Taylor, John M. (Solihull) |
| Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Merchant, Piers | Thomason, Roy |
| Milligan, Stephen | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Mills, Iain | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thotnton, Sir Malcolm |
| Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Tracey, Richard |
| Moss, Malcolm | Tredinnick, David |
| Needham, Richard | Trend, Michael |
| Nelson, Anthony | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Waller, Gary |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Ward, John |
| Norris, Steve | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Waterson, Nigel |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Watts, John |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wells, Bowen |
| Paice, James | Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Patnick, Irvine | Whitney, Ray |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Whittingdale, John |
| Pawsey, James | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Portillo, Rt Hon Michael | Wilkinson, John |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Willetts, David |
| Rathbone, Tim | Wilshire, David |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton). |
| Rendel, David | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Wolfson, Mark | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Young, Rt Hon Sir George | Mr. Timothy Wood and |
| Mr. Timothy Kirkhope. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | McWilliam, John |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Barnes, Harry | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Meale, Alan |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Miller, Andrew |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Mudie, George |
| Clelland, David | Olner, William |
| Coffey, Ann | O'Neill, Martin |
| Cohen, Harry | Parry, Robert |
| Connarty, Michael | Patchett, Terry |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Pickthall, Colin |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Pope, Greg |
| Cryer, Bob | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Davidson, Ian | Purchase, Ken |
| Dixon, Don | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Dowd, Jim | Rooney, Terry |
| Etherington, Bill | Skinner, Dennis |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Gunnell, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hain, Peter | Spellar, John |
| Hall, Mike | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| Hanson, David | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Heppell, John | Turner, Dennis |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Wise, Audrey |
| Hood, Jimmy | Wray, Jimmy |
| Illsley, Eric | |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) | Mr. Terry Lewis and |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Mr. Kevin Hughes. |
| McMaster, Gordon |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is expedient to authorise the 150 payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.