---

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mudie, George

Murphy, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, William

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Patchett, Terry

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L.

Pope, Greg

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Raynsford, Nick

---

Column 775

Reid, Dr John

Richardson, Jo

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Roche, Ms Barbara

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowlands, Ted

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Spellar, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Straw, Jack

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Don' C)

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Welsh, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wise, Audrey

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Wright, Tony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Clauses 19 and 20 be committed to a Committee of the whole House ;

That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee ;

That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.-- [Mr. Dorrell.]

7.57 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I rise briefly to put the arguments against the detail in the motion. For clauses 19 and 20 to be the only clauses to be considered on the Floor of the House rather diminishes the role that this House should have in full Committee on the Floor when considering the details of clause 52.

---

Column 776

I will not make a speech about the merits of the issue. The House very infrequently goes in for retroactive legislation. As Front-Bench Members have said, that is normally done for the benefit of taxpayers. In this case, the proposals in clause 52 would mean that, whatever the courts decided in a judicial review case, Parliament would have to do what the Government say that it should have done two or three times before.

We should have a debate on clause 52 on the Floor of the House of Commons. If I do not succeed in blocking this committal motion by shaking my head vigorously when the Question is put, I hope that there will be a full debate on Report. I cannot rely on the Committee going any further than it did a year or so ago, when the issue was last considered.

Parliament should not believe that the Government have got away with it. In effect, they are going for hybridity, although the way in which the clause has been drawn would probably avoid it being technically hybrid. The issue will certainly arise when a building society takes the issue to the European courts, something that it can do only when all the domestic remedies have been exhausted. As the House will recall, in this case the domestic remedies include the Government three times reversing the law as determined by the courts : twice after the courts determined that the Inland Revenue had got it wrong and once in advance of a likely decision. The justification for the sledgehammer of clause 52 is that building societies paid £15,000 million in taxation over four years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that £15,000 million is too much to have hanging at risk. As the Government consider their stance for Standing Committee and for the Committee of the whole House, I hope that they will find a way to limit the affect of clause 52 so that it deals with only 99 per cent. of £15,000 million and leaves the claim to £57 million including interest to be determined either by the courts in a judicial review or by negotiations with the Government. I ask the House to support my contention that, one way or another, clause 52 should be aired in a full debate on the Floor of the House. Question put and agreed to.

---

Column 777

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse

in the Chair ]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Increasing non-domestic rates

8 pm

Mr. Nigel Jones (Cheltenham) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out X is 100', and insert X is 95'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means : With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 27, leave out 100', and insert 95'.

Mr. Jones : I move this amendment because the recession is continuing for most businesses and I want to push the Government a little further in helping businesses to survive the recession. I welcome the main thrust of the Bill. The amendment would increase help for people on transitional relief. The Government's calculations will lead to a real- terms increase of zero this year. I want to bring about a small cut in businesses' rates this year because increases in uniform business rate bills have recently been very large for many businesses, and have tipped many small businesses over the edge into bankruptcy. A small decrease in their bills this year could help some companies to survive.

Administration of the UBR has been chaotic in terms of the valuation process, appeals and administration of the transitional relief scheme, which has led to great anxiety and frustration among many businesses, particularly small businesses, at a very stressful time. With this amendment, I ask the Government to help those businesses to survive the recession.

If the Government are ever to provide extra help in the business rate arena, now is the time to do it, when many people think that we are still in recession. Although the Government have said before, during and after the election that they believe that we are coming out of recession, there is much evidence to show that the recession is continuing for most businesses and that a cut in the business rate would help. That evidence is that unemployment is still rising at an underlying trend of more than 30,000 a month, and that bankruptcies, mostly of unincorporated businesses, continue to rise. In the first three months of this year, there were 8,604 bankruptcies--an increase of 67 per cent. on the first quarter of last year.

Smaller businesses are going bust as fast as ever, and the Government's talk of recovery must mean absolutely nothing to such firms. The Government can send a message to small firms considering going into liquidation to keep going because help is on its way. Liquidations of larger companies are also increasing, although not quite so fast. In the first three months of this year, there were 5, 835 such liquidations--an increase of 17 per cent. on the first quarter of last year.

There is evidence that the recession is still with us. I press the Minister to ask the Treasury for more money to help small businesses through this difficult period.

---