---

Column 406

the general movement in the level of business rates or decides on the case for or against any transitional provision.

Opposition Members have complained about the procedure adopted in relation to the Bill and the inability of organisations to make their views known, but after I tentatively prepared some amendments which raised a number of issues that concern people, several organisations wrote to me setting out their views on the regional impact of business rates. Those views differ around the country.

Barnsley chamber of commerce, to which I referred earlier, believes that people in the south have received all the benefit of the Secretary of State's provisions in past years because they have had the largest part of the transitional arrangements. Some of its views have been echoed by, for example, the east midlands chambers of commerce and industry.

It is surprising that the Government had to admit earlier this evening that they have not received representations. I would not say that my desk has been flooded with representations, but I have had a reasonable spread from around the country.

The east midlands chambers of commerce say that they do not believe that the north and the midlands have benefited from the Secretary of State's provision in the past. They, too, believe that the south has done better.

On a previous occasion I mentioned the contribution that I received from Southampton chamber of commerce. It believes that the southern part of the country experienced the worst impact of the 1990 revaluation and that, although some transitional relief was made available, it did not compensate for the increases that businesses have had to face in that part of our nation. Therefore, it believes that the north has done best from the changes that have taken place since 1990.

My purpose in giving only a flavour of some of the evidence that I have on this matter is to show that different parts of the country have different perceptions of how they have been affected. The Secretary of State would be wise in future, if this legislation receives the approval of the House, before a decision is made on the question of relief, to consult widely regional organisations of one form or another, whether they are based on industrial and commercial associations or whether they are individual organisations. The representatives of these bodies should be consulted to give the Secretary of State a flavour of how businesses are performing and of what the impact of rates increases will be--and hence an assessment of the need for transitional relief. It would be both democratic and wise if the Secretary of State set off in that direction. A whole spread of views has been put to me about amendment No. 5. Those views relate to the impact of the changes and to what sort of policies organisations want. They have mentioned, for instance, that they would prefer their local authorities, not the Secretary of State, to make decisions on these matters. They feel that local authorities would be more sensitive to the needs of local industry. They also believe that businesses would be more able to influence the decisions of local authorities and they feel remote from the Secretary of State and unable to have any great impact on his decisions. The onus is now on the Secretary of State to dispel those worries and to show himself open-minded when he takes his decisions.

---

Column 407

8 pm

Most organisations identify industrial, commercial and retail premises and they often take a regional view of the possible impact on different types of premises. The Government should be aware of the strong feelings that prevail before they take decisions on these important matters. That is why amendment No. 4 was drafted. Many of these organisations may have wanted to make more concrete representations but they have been unable to do so because of the way in which the Bill has been rushed in, but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities tells me that it is aware of the views of various bodies representing sections of industry. If this debate were longer, I would be able to read out much more evidence in support of amendment No. 4.

I have had some interesting correspondence about the 1995 revaluation from an organisation known as Gerald Eve Research Forecasts, a company that acts as consultant to many local authority associations and major business organisations. In a word, it has many important clients and it has drawn together a number of different views on the projected impact of the 1995 revaluation. The AMA has been given an interesting paper on the subject by Robin Goodchild, who says that the rating changes will have different impacts in different parts of the country. He forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates on central London retailers of the order of 15 per cent., but an increase of about 20 per cent. in the east midlands, and of between 15 and 50 per cent. in the north-west and the north. He predicts that office developments in the east midlands will face a 50 per cent. increase in the burden of rates, while in the north-west and the north the increase will vary between 15 and 30 per cent. He also forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates for some southern parts.

The consultant predicts increases for all industrial premises following the revaluation, but smaller increases of between 5 and 10 per cent. in London and the south-east, and increases ranging up to 30 per cent. in the east midlands, the north and the north-west. I would expect the Secretary of State, when considering the transitional relief arrangements to apply from 1995, to want to be aware of these views of various consultants and I expect that the local authority associations may want to make their views known to him by way of representation.

My group of speculative papers written by Gerald Eve includes a number of other views, too. The office of Stephen Tutcher FRICS predicts that the burden of rates will not increase as much for offices in the southern part of the country after 1995, but that there will be an additional burden for offices in the north--a factor which I am sure the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding on transitional relief. I should add that the assessments of the impact of the revaluation vary among the consultants who have assisted local authority organisations.

My folder contains the views of other consultants on this issue, but I hope that I have established the general point, although if Conservative Members doubt what I say I am quite prepared to enlighten them further with more evidence. I hope, however, that they have taken the point already.

It is widely recognised that the state of the economy differs in various parts of the country. Likewise, the impact of rates on businesses differs. It is clear that the various consultants who have applied their minds to the detail believe that there will certainly be changes in the regional impact of the rates following the 1995 revaluation. For our

---

Column 408

part, we believe that the Secretary of State would be wise to undertake formal consultation with representative organisations before reaching decisions that will have a long-standing impact on the business community and, in turn, on the economy.

I look forward to hearing what my colleagues and the Minister have to say on this subject.

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) : A fairly small and select class of right hon. and hon. Members who were here for the Second Reading debate are here again tonight. Those in that class will remember that yesterday I opposed an amendment moved on Second Reading by the Labour party. On this occasion, I want to show the even-handed way in which Liberal Democrats act in the House by supporting an amendment moved by the Labour party.

The fairness of my efforts will become even more apparent when I mention that my support is given in an attempt to persuade the Government that it is in their best interests that the amendment be agreed to. The Conservatives have often claimed to be a party which favours consultation with all sorts of people. Unfortunately, they do not often act in accordance with their words. The result has often been that legislation has been passed which has later had to be reversed--one has only to think of the poll tax legislation, and there are other examples.

I cannot help feeling that had the Government consulted properly on those occasions, the legislation that they later had to reverse would never have been introduced in the first place. That would have been much to their benefit, not least because of the waste of parliamentary time and of taxpayers' money caused by legislation that should never have been introduced.

I support the principle of consultation in general, and, in this instance, I think that the Government would be wise not only to consult but to listen to the results of their consultation. They could argue that there is no point in consulting, because--as everyone knows--even when they do consult they never pay any attention to what is said by the consultees ; rather than being as cynical as they might be tempted to be, however, I suggest that they consult widely and take note of the responses. I think that they have been granted an opportunity that they should grasp with both hands.

Mr. Baldry : The amendment would simply oblige the Secretary of State to consult on a statutory basis. I consider it unnecessary. We fully recognise that consultation on matters relating to local government is extremely desirable, and we always engage in such consultation.

Mr. Vaz : I am astonished to hear what the Minister is saying. He was in the Chamber when the Minister of State replied to the debate on the allocation of time ; he must have heard the Minister of State mock the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and local authorities. He also mocked the Archbishop of Canterbury--although you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Morris. He said that he had had no representations from them. The Minister says that the Government wish to consult. To what extent did they consult before introducing the Bill?

Mr. Baldry : Any reasonable person who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that what the hon. Gentleman has said does not accord with the facts. We have just

---

Column 409

completed the most comprehensive review ever of the methodology for allocating grant to local authorities, which has involved Ministers and officials in numerous meetings with local authority representatives and organisations. Of course, we are always interested in the views of such bodies as the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors. We fully understand the need to consult widely on any proposals for the introduction of transitional arrangements following the 1995 revaluation, and subsequent revaluations. I therefore see no need to make the Bill longer by making that a formal duty. Yesterday, we made clear our intention to consult businesses on the effects of the 1995 revaluation by early summer. We also recognise that local authorities will need warning of our proposals, and we will certainly take their views into account.

I consider our record on consultation on business rates exemplary--as, indeed, is our record on consultation on all matters relating to local government finance. We consulted widely on our proposals for the current transitional arrangements before introducing them in 1990, and we have continued to listen carefuly to the views of individual businesses and their representatives ever since. My officials have regular discussions with members of the valuation profession about the effects of revaluations and the detailed operation of the non-domestic rating system ; we also have regular meetings with local authority associations.

Mr. Rendel : Does the Minister consider it "exemplary" to consult people and then ignore the result of their consultations? That is what happened in the case of the poll tax legislation.

Mr. Baldry : Whenever Ministers consult widely on matters of public policy, they must ultimately make value judgments ; that is their duty. I could consult every shire county in the country about the methodology involved in local government finance, but I could not possibly secure the agreement of all those counties on the relative weighting of the area cost adjustment. All the authorities that benefit from the adjustment want to keep it ; those that do not will not want it to continue.

Consultation does not mean having to accept all that every organisation says : it means listening intelligently, being prepared to consider and being prepared, intelligently, to take on board the suggestions that are made. I believe that this Bill, like previous Bills, is a good example of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of businesses and other consultees about the operation of the business rate system.

8.15 pm

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South) : Has the Minister consulted businesses on a regional basis? One of the advantages of the old system was the fact that such consultations took place at local level. If we accept that the Department's consultations with business cannot take place at local level, surely the Minister accepts that there will be great regional variations in the effect of the measures. Has he consulted the regional organisations of either the CBI or the chambers of commerce? He might receive different messages from different regions, and he might be able to take those differences into account.

Mr. Baldry : Of course. I am more than willing to take into account representations that might be made to us by

---

Column 410

the CBI at regional level--or, indeed, by local government at regional level. We are intent on ensuring that we secure the best possible system. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by the imposition of a statutory duty on the Government, given that our actions make it clear that we are more than willing to consult widely. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Vaz : The Minister tells us to judge the Government by their actions. I am glad that the Minister of State has returned to the Chamber, because I intend to refer to comments that he made during the debate on the allocation of time motion. He made mocking remarks : I use the word "mocking" advisedly, because I was astonished at his demeanour when he challenged the Opposition on whether people were pressing at our doors and writing letters to make their views known on this important subject.

The Minister mocked the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the chambers of commerce and local authorities, and threw in an aside about the Archbishop of Canterbury ; he said that he did not know whether the archbishop had decided to write a letter about the matter. The fact is that not even the Archbishop of Canterbury has had enough time to consider the Government's proposals. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tabled the amendments. They would place a duty on the Government to consult a number of organisations and examine the various regions to observe the effects of their rating policy on local businesses.

The Under-Secretary says that this Government listen intelligently, and are intelligently prepared to take on board representations made by various organisations. When I challenged him about the number of organisations that the Government had consulted, however, he was unable to give me a single example. All that the Leader of the House and the Minister of State have told the House is that the Bill was published on 16 December.

The Minister implied that, if we had been diligent, we would have spent the Chirstmas period writing to organisations and asking for their comments. That is exactly what we have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North read out a number of comments made by chambers of commerce, selecting letters from Barnsley and Southampton from the pile that he had received ; but I have not even had the chance to consult those organisations.

It is important that the Government accept the amendments. We feel strongly about them because the best way to proceed is to ensure full consultation not only with local authorities but with the regional branches of organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who is a former leader of Leeds city council, has vast experience in this sphere. From his membership of that fine council he knows about the level of consultation required by councils on various aspects of policy. We often hear Ministers from the Department of the Environment lecturing councils about the need to enter partnership agreements with local businesses. All urban regeneration policy is now based on the concept of a partnership between local authorities and the private sector, a partnership which has been spearheaded in places such as Leeds and Sheffield. The amendments have the same aim. They would ensure that the words used by the

---

Column 411

Government for a number of years were put into effect and that there was an attempt to rebuild the relationship between the local private sector, the local authority and the Government. We want to create a climate that will enable local businesses to form an equal partnership with local authorities.

I recently visited Luton to see the regeneration work being carried out by Luton borough council. Local councillors told me of their initiatives with the private sector. Every few months, members of Luton borough council hold meetings--they call them business breakfasts--with the business community and ensure that they are kept fully in touch with the needs of local business. That is precisely what we are asking the Government to do. We want to ensure that the people most affected by the Government's proposals are properly consulted.

The Under-Secretary says that it is not necessary to include every duty in the Bill. He says that he is a reasonable chap, is prepared to talk to anyone and attend meetings with anyone as long as he hears various points of view that can help to formulate policy. He mentioned the Government's review of local government finance, but we know where that led--it led to enormous cuts in resources for the rate support grant. The House will look forward to discussing that in the near future.

The Under-Secretary also said that we did not need to add more clauses to the Bill. The Bill has only four clauses and we are proposing small amendments. There is no reason why the Government cannot accept an amendment to a four-clause Bill, which would mean that the Government would formally consult a number of organisations which could assist them in the discharge of their duties. I hope very much that, even at this late stage, the Minister will accept the amendments, as he has not really spoken against them. He accepts the principle behind them, but says that what the amendments suggest will be carried out in any event. It is not possible to predict who will be in the Department in a year's time, or even next week. For example, the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who introduced the Bill last year, gave some commitments, but things have changed. We would, therefore, much prefer to have commitments included in the Bill so that it is clear to local authorities and businesses what they need to do to bring their views to the Government's attention.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments and ensure that we make rapid progress.

Mr. Gunnell : I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) so that I do not offend another hon. Member. My hon. Friend did me the singular honour of describing me as a former leader of Leeds city council, but that was in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). I am a former member of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council and was its leader until it was abolished by the Conservatives. Usually, when an authority is abolished, something similar is substituted for it. West Yorkshire county council consulted thoroughly with the local chamber of commerce and the regional branch of the CBI, but that consultation has not been replaced. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to change that tonight.

---

Column 412

Mr. Henderson : I hoped that the Minister might respond to some of the additional points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but it seems that he is intent on maintaining his sedentary position.

I have many times in Committee discussed amendments that have called on the Government, one way or another, to give a legislative commitment to consult various bodies. Many times I have heard Ministers say that they have a great deal of sympathy with the points being made and that they consult in any case, but that they are not prepared to include such a commitment in legislation. It is not good enough for the Government to adopt that attitude on a matter such as this.

It is important that formal consultation is carried out through the official channels representing interested bodies. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has a wink and a nod and various chats with friends around the country and that that gives him a clear impression of what is happening in industry and of the views of the industrial, retail and commercial sectors.

The amendments are necessary because of the, perhaps wrong, perception that people in the business community have about the impact of rates. The Government should try to meet any difficulties and set up a formal consultation process so that no one is in any doubt about the information according to which decisions are reached. However, as the Government are being so obstinate, I feel bound to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The Committee proceeded to a Division--

The Chairman : Serjeant, will you investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby and report back, please?

The Committee having divided : Ayes 94, Noes 295.

Division No. 66] [8.27 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Austin-Walker, John

Barnes, Harry

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Betts, Clive

Boateng, Paul

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Cohen, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Ms Jean

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Dewar, Donald

Dowd, Jim

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Godsiff, Roger

Gunnell, John

Hain, Peter

Hall, Mike

Henderson, Doug

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Kate

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Jowell, Tessa

Khabra, Piara S.

Leighton, Ron

Lewis, Terry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Macdonald, Calum

Mackinlay, Andrew

McLeish, Henry

McMaster, Gordon

Mahon, Alice

Michael, Alun

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, William

Pickthall, Colin

---