HC Deb 23 March 1999 vol 328 cc180-92

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.—[Jane Kennedy.]

4.40 pm

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

As ever with a money resolution, I am sorry that the Minister did not rise to move it. Therefore, it falls to me to explain why we have the money resolution at all. We have it because the Government have tabled amendment No. 12, the purpose of which is to give the Secretary of State powers to make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of local authorities and the national health service in England and Wales.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Has my hon. Friend, uncharacteristically, made a mistake? He suggests that we are debating a money resolution before an amendment has been considered, or even passed, by the House. Has he got this the wrong way round? Is he saying that we are being asked to consider, debate and—presumably—approve a money resolution before the amendment that gives rise to it has even been considered?

Mr. Lansley

My right hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters—from his years of service in the House—will doubtless be greater than mine. The Bill has had the benefit of a money resolution earlier, but a second money resolution is now required because the Government have tabled an amendment that, if it is agreed to on Report, will give an additional power to the Secretary of State to make grants to the Audit Commission—a power that was not in the Bill beforehand. Therefore, the preceding money resolution did not encompass such a power.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chides me for being wrong, but I think that I am right. The Government are proposing that the House should vote on a money resolution and then debate for the first time, by way of amendment No. 12, whether it is expedient for the Secretary of State to have such a power to make grants to the Audit Commission. While my right hon. Friend thinks about that, I will state what I see as some of the difficulties that might ensue from such a money resolution.

First, it is not a small change in the character of the money resolution—and it may well not be small change in monetary terms, either. Sometimes a change of this kind might be a small matter, in that the Bill is an expenditure Bill and the money resolution is simply to make sure that grants can be paid to a particular authority, rather than another. However, the change in the character of this money resolution is substantial.

As I understand it, the previous expectation of the effect of the Bill was that it would reduce public expenditure, rather than increase it. Essentially, the previous money resolution would have been based on explanatory notes published alongside the Bill, which foresaw three effects on the public finances. The first was that the Government proposed that continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of local authorities through best value would lead to a significant cost saving. That is a debatable point—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would stop me if I were to debate that at length.

It is clear from the way in which some local authorities have responded to best value that they are more concerned with finding ways, through consultation, to justify increases in expenditure on services, rather than finding ways through best value of reducing such expenditure.

The second aspect relates to the compliance costs of local authorities. It is anticipated in the explanatory notes that such compliance costs will be encompassed within existing budgets, and will not therefore lead to an increase in total expenditure. The Minister may be aware, because of the Labour control of Brighton and Hove council, that the costs involved for that council are £180,000. If one extrapolates that to other local authorities, one is looking at potentially millions of pounds within local authorities.

The third example relates to costs for central Government, but there is no mention in the explanatory notes of any costs arising for central Government. Only the capping powers, which will control the total expenditure of local government to some extent, are mentioned.

The money resolution proposes for the first time an increase in central Government costs arising directly from the Bill. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I come to these matters relatively new—although I believe I spoke on Second Reading—but I get the impression that the Government are acknowledging at a very late stage that costs will arise and that they will need to make additional grants to compensate the Audit Commission for its extra activities as the inspection authority. As I understand it, Ministers resisted that notion in Committee.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong)

We recognised it in new clause 5.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)

New clause 5, which is now clause 12, adds to the complications. A scale of fees will be set, but there is no upper limit and the Bill merely requires discussion. The answers that we got in Committee were inadequate, to put it mildly. I strongly support my hon. Friend in seeking an explanation before we even consider the resolution.

Mr. Lansley

In his usual perceptive way, my hon. Friend has come precisely to my next point. It is perfectly clear that clause 12 provides a requirement on local authorities to pay the Audit Commission fees for inspections. What are the additional costs to the Audit Commission that will not be recovered by way of fees and need to be the subject of a central Government grant?

Normally, we debate a money resolution in the light of explanatory notes that offer some guidance about the expenditure to be incurred, but there is no such guidance in this case. In particular, we do not know how much of the cost will arise from inspections not covered by fees and how much will relate to other activities undertaken by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Government.

The money resolution may be inadequate, because inspection of best value will not be a function that is confined to the Audit Commission. New clause 4 refers to a whole range of inspection authorities—including the inspectorates of fire services, schools, police and social services—that will need to co-ordinate their activities with the Audit Commission.

My understanding—I hope that the Minister will not disabuse me of it, as that would negate many of the purposes of the best value process—is that many of those inspection authorities will also incur costs in implementing best value, which they will not necessarily be able to recover through fees under clause 12, because the power does not extend to them. Should not the costs that they are likely to incur be the subject of grant-making powers on the part of the Secretary of State?

A large part of the Bill is devoted to the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can intervene in respect of a failing authority. The Secretary of State can exercise those functions, or can do so through a nominated person. The Bill does not make clear, however, the extent to which the Secretary of State is able wholly to meet his costs or those of any nominated person through charges levied on the local authority that is subject to an intervention. That is not explained in the Bill or in the explanatory notes.

If costs will not be wholly met, they will arise for central Government, and may arise for persons nominated by the Secretary of State to intervene in a local authority that is failing in the exercise of a specific function. There may, therefore, be public expenditure that is not allowed for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is enlarging his argument beyond the narrow terms of the money resolution. He must relate his remarks to likely expenditure incurred by the Audit Commission.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are quite right. I was talking about what I see as a deficiency in the two money resolutions on the Bill. They may not correctly anticipate where expenditure will arise, or provide adequately for the Secretary of State to incur expenditure as a consequence of the Bill. I seek guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order to speak further on that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the part of his speech that I have ruled out of order.

Mr. Lansley

Thank you, Mr, Deputy Speaker. As you have correctly brought me to order, I shall not elaborate on the point.

It seems remiss of the Government to introduce money resolutions without telling us how much money is involved and without offering guidance in the explanatory notes. In my limited experience of these matters, money resolutions are not necessarily debated, but that is often because expected costs are set out in detail in the explanatory notes.

The Bill, however, gives grant-making powers in respect of the Audit Commission without any indication of what costs will arise or what they are intended to defray. Is the Audit Commission to receive the costs of undertaking best value inspection in local authorities, or will it be compensated by the Secretary of State for intervening in local authorities—or for any other matter—on his behalf? Neither the money resolution nor the explanatory notes sets out the maximum level of costs likely to be incurred.

Money resolutions are not normally contentious, but the Government have begun today's proceedings badly by tabling a late amendment that has given rise to a new money resolution. They have not provided the House with the information necessary to reach a decision on the resolution.

4.53 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

I echo and reinforce the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Ministers seem, individually and collectively, to be slow learners. They must know by now that it would help the House—and even, occasionally, foreshorten debate; I do not think that is desirable, but some people wish it—if they did the House the courtesy of speaking to their money resolutions.

It matters not whether the resolution has to do with a private Member's Bill—I take an occasional interest in such matters—or a Bill of the Government's own. Money resolutions are an important part of our proceedings. Bizarrely, however, and time and time again, money resolutions appear on the Order Paper but there is silence from the Government. The House is presumably expected either to pass the resolutions on the nod without scrutinising them, or to wander around in something of a speculative fog, awaiting some explanation from a Minister.

I do not for one moment suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was in a speculative fog. I thought his analysis as sharp and clear as ever it is, given the lack of information offered to him and to the House. I must, perforce—though not at length, as more of my hon. Friends may have questions of their own—speculate a little myself.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I did not have the privilege and pleasure of serving in Committee, so I come to the issues with a fresh mind—even, one might say, a delightfully innocent mind—and not one with well formed views. My mind is open to being moulded and persuaded by the Minister about the virtues of the money resolution.

I have picked up enough information from my hon. Friends to realise that the basis for the money resolution is clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill, which set out the responsibilities laid on the Audit Commission in the policing of the best value concept. That much I understand, but then I get confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, amendment No. 12—to which we shall come later—repeats the provisions in relation to the Audit Commission and the National Assembly for Wales. However, my hon. Friend did not mention amendment No. 19 which provides that The Audit Commission may delegate … its functions … to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission), or… an officer or servant of the Commission. I assume that that means that it is possible that activities of the Audit Commission that go beyond those originally envisaged by the Bill could—and almost certainly will—involve additional expenditure. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have had to table another money resolution. Colleagues more expert than myself may elucidate the possibility that, for the first time, persons who are not members of the Audit Commission would be part of committees or sub-committees to fulfil the responsibilities laid on it by the Bill. That is new territory for the Audit Commission, its structure and activities and I can see why the Government have had to table another money resolution to support the amendments, although—paradoxically—they are not yet part of the Bill.

What would happen if we were to approve the money resolution now but did not approve one or more of the amendments later? We would he in a peculiar position. Having said, perhaps reluctantly, to the Government, "All right, we accept that more money is needed, but we do not agree with the reason why more money is needed", would the Government return with what might be called a negative money resolution—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is a procedural difficulty that we will address if we have to. We can discuss at present, in anticipation of the new clause that the House is greatly looking forward to discussing, only the narrow scope of the extent to which expenditure may occur as a result of the Audit Commission having those powers.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it puts us in an odd position, as you may agree. We would have been saved all this trouble if the Minister had elegantly and succinctly told us, at the beginning, what the money resolution was all about. I have no doubt that she would have been able to persuade us quickly, but as it is we must ask the questions and wait for the answers.

5 pm

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)

I was a member of the Standing Committee and I also spoke on Second Reading, when considerable concern was expressed, especially by those of us who realise the difficulties that local government may face in respect of the expenditure that will result from the Bill. The greatest concern was about the expenditure that would be landed on local authorities by the Audit Commission and the auditors. It is worth touching on the peculiar relationship between the Audit Commission and the auditors in that it involves pay and rations but limited control. There were distinct concerns about the load that the Bill would put on local government and about the fact that there seemed to be no form of restriction or hold.

It must be a relief to local authorities that the money resolution has been introduced, because it seems that some of the expenditure will be drawn away from them. However, we have had no explanation of that, and there has been no anticipation of the size of that expenditure. If one wants to get a sense of the size of expenditure involved, one needs only to look at the recent activity of the auditor for Westminster council. After his investigation, local council tax payers were charged between £3 million and £4 million. If that amount were extrapolated—I realise that it would be an exaggeration— or even if half the amount were extrapolated across all the sizeable local authorities in the country, the expenditure would be enormous.

The debate on the money resolution came as a surprise to many of us, because we did not know about it until we saw today's Order Paper. We have no idea what the resolution applies to; we have been given no idea of what the total expenditure might be, nor of how great a load it will remove from local government. We do not know whether there will be any hold or restrictions on the amount of the expenditure and, if there are to be such restrictions, who will hold the reins. Is this to be one of those measures where the Secretary of State offers a broad-brush approach, saying, "Yes, I will pay", but that when we consider the secondary legislation that may or may not apply? We have yet to consider some of that legislation. Is the answer to be "yes, if and but", but, at the end of the day, local government will still pick up the tab? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have been landed with this resolution; there is to be a formal nod instead of an explanation. The least that we can expect is a full and clear explanation from the Minister.

5.2 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

The money resolution arises from an intention expressed by the Minister in Standing Committee. When we discussed fees, she said—

Ms Armstrong

It has all been explained before.

Mr. Jenkin

The right hon. Lady is now saying from a sedentary position that it has all been explained before, but, as she well knows, a large number of hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister wants to contribute to the debate, she should do so from the Dispatch Box and not from a sedentary position.

Mr. Jenkin

I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady would explain the matter, because many hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. In Standing Committee, she said: We expect best value to lead to efficiency savings of 2 per cent. per year in each authority, which more than outweighs any additional costs arising from audit inspection arrangements. She was obviously talking about global figures and the assumption on which the Bill was drafted was obviously that no additional expenditure from central Government would be necessary in terms of grants to the Audit Commission to cover its expenses.

The right hon. Lady continued: Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238.] However, the very fact that the matter is being introduced as an amendment at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings is a confirmation that the Government had not considered that the construction of the Bill would have implications for how it is likely to operate vis-a-vis local authorities. The right hon. Lady gave the Standing Committee various figures for the cost implications. It would at the least be a courtesy to the House if she explained the cost implications of the money resolution. Obviously, the Audit Commission has a budget of its own, but will the Minister explain the financial implications, in millions of pounds, of approving the money resolution, so that we have some idea of the cost consequences of the Bill? There is plenty of time remaining for the Minister's reply.

5.5 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but came to participate in the later debate on the various new clauses and amendments to the Bill, for which the House anxiously awaits. However, my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), have pointed out a major constitutional issue that arises from this money resolution. The reason why we have money resolutions is an interesting question. After all, it would have been perfectly possible, over time, for our predecessors to have so arranged matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It may indeed be fascinating to discuss why we have money resolutions, but if he is to keep in order the hon. Gentleman must address the particular money resolution before the House and the question of expenditure that may be incurred by the Audit Commission.

Mr. Letwin

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was coming to that precise point. The purpose of money resolutions is to draw to the attention of the House the purposes for which money is to be spent and the fact that money is to be spent; otherwise, it would be possible to avoid having money resolutions.

As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is not possible for the House sensibly to discuss whether the money to be spent—in this case, on the Audit Commission—is the right amount of money, or whether money should be spent at all, without having some prior explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made it admirably clear that the Minister and her colleagues were intending that the money resolution should go through on the nod. That would be perfectly appropriate, had the House understood what was going through on the nod from the explanatory notes that would normally have been provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order if I make a slight aside—

Mr. Forth

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Letwin

Of course.

Mr. Forth

Is my hon. Friend endorsing the concept of something being considered and approved by the House, to use his words, on the nod, if a written explanation has previously been given? Is he seriously suggesting that Members of Parliament should play no part by reading and absorbing the written material and asking questions about it?

Mr. Letwin

I was about to say, in an aside that I hoped you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would think was in order, that I have some reservations about that general practice. However, it would have been within the normal conventions of the House if the money resolution went through on the nod, had it been understood what the money resolution was about; but for Ministers to move a money resolution and expect it to go through on the nod without that sort of explanation is to subvert the nature of money resolutions as a whole.

I hope that this debate will have not only brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Housing the immediate importance of explaining this particular money resolution, but reminded the Government as a whole of the future importance of ensuring that, when a money resolution is moved and the House has not had previous notice of its contents or of the sum involved—if I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) correctly, that sum could run into hundreds of millions of pounds—it is incumbent on the Minister to begin the debate by making a full statement and explaining to the House what is involved. Otherwise, there is no purpose in having money resolutions.

Our predecessors did not invent money resolutions purely for the purpose of amusing themselves, their successors, or any members of the media who may be observing the proceedings. They are here for a serious purpose, which is to bring to the attention of the House the sums involved so that they can be discussed and their appropriateness properly weighed. That was not done in this case, so I hope that the Minister will now give a full explanation.

I also hope that the right hon. Lady will take back to her Department and to the Treasury the message that we shall pursue the strategy of exposing to maximum debate any money resolution that has not been previously explained and for which the Minister does not come forward with a clear statement at the start of the debate. If Ministers do that, we shall all be spared the tedium of making speeches repeating that point, and the constitutional arrangements that our predecessors so splendidly gave us will be justified and followed in the spirit in which they were intended to be followed.

5.10 pm

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong)

This has been an interesting debate. We might take the implications raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) more seriously if he and his hon. Friends had not briefed the media this afternoon about their disruptive tactics—but there we go.

Opposition Members have a view about how the House should address local government issues, and I am interested in that view. I am pleased to explain to the House precisely why this money resolution is required. I was taught that we should pay attention to all parliamentary proceedings—both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. If some of the hon. Members who have spoken had read the Committee's deliberations—not just that part referred to by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—they would have found a full explanation of the way in which we approach such matters. The question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was answered in Committee, but I know that he intended to speak today, come what may. However, that takes a little of the gloss off his contribution—and we must ensure that everyone knows it.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for this legislation, is not responsible for Ofsted, the social services inspectorate or for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money resolutions relating to those inspectorates are matters for the Departments concerned. A money resolution is required so that funds can be made available from Parliament in respect of the provisions set out in clause 31. Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments—

Mr. Lansley

Perhaps the Minister will accuse me of misunderstanding again, but how can she say that this money resolution relates only to the Audit Commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility only for that body when it is a Government money resolution? If the Government intend, through this Bill, to allow expenditure to be incurred by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, that can be included in the money resolution. If such expenditure is planned, why does it not say so in the money resolution?

Ms Armstrong

The money that Ofsted, the SSI and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales need is catered for in the legislation that established and govern those institutions. The clause relates to the ability of the Audit Commission to work effectively with those organisations. [Interruption.] I wish to goodness that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would stop winking; this is a serious business. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seek a serious response but they treat this issue as if it were a joke. It is public schoolboy humour yet again. I wish that they would grow up.

Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments, moneys shall be made available from Parliament to meet such increases. It also provides that any costs that the Secretary of State incurs in discharging his functions under the Bill should be met by Parliament.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I was about to call him the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the right hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency—now understands the measure. He asked me to attempt to mould his mind, but that would defy anyone. I have heard of his exploits at Glasgow university, where Elvis Presley was his hero and he was the magnificent leader of a tribe of rockers or teddy boys. We look forward to him displaying his teddy boy behaviour today.

Clause 31, however, happens to be important in a number of practical ways. It will allow, for instance, for the provision of funds to best value authorities to meet any new costs in fees for best value inspections which they incur under the Bill. It will also be used to ensure that where best value inspections are funded by central Government grant, moneys can be paid to the Audit Commission for that purpose. It will also allow for the Secretary of State to be reimbursed for costs that he incurs, for example, by using his intervention powers. Those are three practical, important examples of why the money resolution is important.

Sir Paul Beresford

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way now that she is getting to the facts instead of throwing brickbats that have nothing to do with the resolution. I welcome the fact that she is moving more funds to local government to help councils with proposals that they anticipate will require heavy expenditure, but has she any idea of the costs involved? Will she give us ballpark figures? Is there any way in which the Secretary of State will be able to impose limitations on that expenditure, such as an annual ceiling imposed by order or a percentage-based ceiling?

Ms Armstrong

I cannot, in all honesty, give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks. If I attempted to do so, he would say that they were not believable because we are not in a position to give them. In the same way that we and the previous Government negotiated with local government and the Audit Commission, we shall make the figures clear, and we are discussing with the Audit Commission its expectations of those figures. As the hon. Gentleman has implied, we would need regularly to revise those figures. I assure him that we intend to make public those agreements and to apply the principles of best value to any money involved.

Mr. Jenkin

I am now extremely confused because in Committee, on 9 February, in answer to my question, the Minister said: We anticipate that the annual costs of a strengthened audit and inspection framework will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year, once the best value framework is fully operational. When asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) what that £50 million refers to, she replied: We took account of that in the comprehensive spending review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 243.] However, we still do not know what that £50 million refers to, and I am sure that if the Minister takes this opportunity to clarify that point, the House will be grateful.

Ms Armstrong

We made clear in Committee precisely what we believe the increased costs will be, but we have not yet agreed the exact balance between the Audit Commission and local government, and we know that it may have to vary in particular circumstances. We want to introduce clear guidelines so that the House and people outside will know what is happening year by year. I honestly cannot give anyone those figures today, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have always tried to be absolutely straight with hon. Members.

It is important that there is a balance between the amount of central Government grant and the amount to be contributed by local government. We discussed that fully in Committee. We discussed the importance of a balance that enabled both elements to be part of the settlement. That is how we intend to proceed.

Clause 31 will enable the introduction of the duty of best value in such a way as to avoid penalising best value authorities in terms of the financial resources available to them. It will also ensure that the Secretary of State has the resources that he needs properly to discharge his functions in accordance with best value. All parties will therefore be able to meet their legal obligations without fear of suffering financial disadvantage.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 39.

Division No. 125] [5.21 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick Clwyd, Ann
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Coaker, Vernon
Allan, Richard Coffey, Ms Ann
Allen, Graham Cohen, Harry
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Coleman, Iain
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Colman, Tony
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Connarty, Michael
Atkins, Charlotte Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Austin, John Corbett, Robin
Ballard, Jackie Corston, Ms Jean
Barnes, Harry Cotter, Brian
Barron, Kevin Cousins, Jim
Battle, John Cranston, Ross
Bayley, Hugh Crausby, David
Beard, Nigel Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Begg, Miss Anne Cunliffe, Lawrence
Beith, Rt Hon A J Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Bennett, Andrew F Dalyell, Tam
Benton, Joe Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Bermingham, Gerald Darvill, Keith
Berry, Roger Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Best, Harold Davidson, Ian
Blackman, Liz Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Blears, Ms Hazel Dean, Mrs Janet
Blizzard, Bob Denham, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Dismore, Andrew
Borrow, David Dobbin, Jim
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Donohoe, Brian H
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Doran, Frank
Bradshaw, Ben Dowd, Jim
Brake, Tom Drew, David
Brand, Dr Peter Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Browne, Desmond Edwards, Huw
Buck, Ms Karen Efford, Clive
Burden, Richard Ellman, Mrs Louise
Burgon, Colin Ennis, Jeff
Burnett, John Etherington, Bill
Burstow, Paul Fearn, Ronnie
Butler, Mrs Christine Field, Rt Hon Frank
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Fitzpatrick, Jim
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Fitzsimons, Lorna
Flint, Caroline
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Flynn, Paul
Campbell-Savours, Dale Follett, Barbara
Cann, Jamie Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Caplin, Ivor Foster, Don (Bath)
Casale, Roger Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Caton, Martin Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Fyfe, Maria
Chaytor, David Galloway, George
Chidgey, David Gapes, Mike
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Gardiner, Barry
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) George, Andrew (St Ives)
Gerrard, Neil
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Godman, Dr Norman A
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Godsiff, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Goggins, Paul
Clelland, David Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen McCafferty, Ms Chris
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McDonagh, Siobhain
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McDonnell, John
Grogan, John McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hain, Peter Mclsaac, Shona
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) McNamara, Kevin
Hancock, Mike McNulty, Tony
Hanson, David MacShane, Denis
Harvey, Nick Mactaggart, Fiona
Healey, John McWalter, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) McWilliam, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hepburn, Stephen Mallaber, Judy
Hesford, Stephen Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Marek, Dr John
Hodge, Ms Margaret Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hoey, Kate Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hoon, Geoffrey Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hopkins, Kelvin Martlew, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Newport E) Maxton, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Howells, Dr Kim Meale, Alan
Hoyle, Lindsay Merron, Gillian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Miller, Andrew
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Mitchell, Austin
Humble, Mrs Joan Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hurst, Alan Moore, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian Moran, Ms Margaret
Illsley, Eric Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Morley, Elliot
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Johnson, Miss Melanie Mountford, Kali
(Welwyn Hatfield) Mudie, George
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Mullin, Chris
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jones, Ms Jenny Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Wolverh'ton SW) Norris, Dan
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Oaten, Mark
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald O'Hara, Eddie
Keeble, Ms Sally Olner, Bill
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) O'Neill, Martin
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Öpik, Lembit
Keetch, Paul Osborne, Ms Sandra
Kemp, Fraser Palmer, Dr Nick
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) Pearson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Pendry, Tom
Khabra, Piara S Perham, Ms Linda
Kidney, David Pickthall, Colin
Kilfoyle, Peter Pike, Peter L
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) Plaskitt, James
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Pond, Chris
Kirkwood, Archy Pope, Greg
Kumar, Dr Ashok Pound, Stephen
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Powell, Sir Raymond
Lawrence, Ms Jackie Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Laxton, Bob Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Lepper, David Primarolo, Dawn
Leslie, Christopher Prosser, Gwyn
Levitt, Tom Purchase, Ken
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Quinn, Lawrie
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Radice, Giles
Linton, Martin Rammell, Bill
Livingstone, Ken Rapson, Syd
Livsey, Richard Raynsford, Nick
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Rendel, David
Lock, David Roche, Mrs Barbara
Love, Andrew Rooney, Terry
McAllion, John Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McAvoy, Thomas Rowlands, Ted
McCabe, Steve Roy, Frank
Ruane, Chris Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Ruddock, Joan (Dewsbury)
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Temple-Morris, Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Salter, Martin Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Sanders, Adrian Timms, Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm Tipping, Paddy
Sawford, Phil Todd, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian Tonge, Dr Jenny
Shaw, Jonathan Touhig, Don
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Trickett, Jon
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Truswell, Paul
Singh, Marsha Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Skinner, Dennis Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Vaz, Keith
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) Ward, Ms Claire
Smith, Miss Geraldine Wareing, Robert N
(Morecambe & Lunesdale) Watts, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Webb, Steve
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) White, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) Whitehead, Dr Alan
Soley, Clive Wicks, Malcolm
Southworth, Ms Helen Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Spellar, John (Swansea W)
Squire, Ms Rachel Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis Willis, Phil
Steinberg, Gerry Wills, Michael
Stevenson, George Winnick, David
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Woolas, Phil
Stinchcombe, Paul Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stott, Roger Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin Wyatt, Derek
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela Tellers for the Ayes:
Stunell, Andrew Mr. Keith Hill and
Sutcliffe, Gerry Mr. David Jamieson.
NOES
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Hunter, Andrew
Baldry, Tony Johnson Smith,
Bercow, John Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Blunt, Crispin Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Body, Sir Richard Lansley, Andrew
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Leigh, Edward
Brady, Graham Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney Mates, Michael
(Chipping Barnet) Page, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth Randall, John
(Rushcliffe) Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Colvin, Michael Soames, Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Flight, Howard Viggers, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Gray, James Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Greenway, John Yeo, Tim
Grieve, Dominic
Hawkins, Nick Tellers for the Noes:
Hayes, John Mr. Eric Forth
Horam, John and Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.