| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gummer: If the exemption is already in primary legislation, why does the Minister have to include it in primary legislation again? Will he assure the Committee that all the exemptions in the amendment will appear in the regulations about which he will consult?
Mr. Woolas: The first question is on a point of logic and the second makes an important point. The exemptions relate to the time period for them—that is why they are in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst spotted that the variables below the dividing line cannot exceed two. If they did, I would have the power to increase the rate by more than 100 per cent. However, the time period is the important factor.
The right hon. Gentleman’s second point is important. It relates to matters that affect listed buildings and so on. I am surprised that he and others did not mention the exemption for agricultural buildings.
Mr. Woolas: Indeed, the matter did come up—I had forgotten. There is no intention in the Bill to change policy on exemptions. However, partly because of the point that the right hon. Gentleman made and partly as a matter of good governance, we intend to consult on those matters in the summer.
To provide the flexibility that Sir Nicholas Ridley needed and that is still required, it would be wrong to include the exemptions in primary legislation because it would lock them in and not allow us to decrease the rates as well as increasing them.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Woolas: Is it on the point that we are discussing?
Mr. Knight: On that very point, because is it not the key to the whole debate? If the exemptions were locked into the Bill, a successor to the Minister could not reduce the list of them.
Mr. Woolas: I would have to come to a judgment on that. The flexibility exists for local authorities to go further in respect of the amount of the exempted rate, but the problem would then be the same as the one that our predecessors faced in 1988—that the overall tax take has to be considered at some point in time. The hon. Member for Poole chided me for the alleged lack of consultation on the Bill. It is, of course, a finance measure that has developed out of the Budget and I would argue that consultation took place through the Barker and Lyons reviews. The regulations will also be consulted on, but this is a finance measure being dealt with, after consulting the House authorities, through a Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, rather than through a Finance Bill Committee. This is a matter of local government finance.
I hope that I have given adequate time—I certainly had until today—to debate the Bill. I felt that the consultation that flows from it on account of it being a finance measure would be better done this way. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raises a reasonable point, but it is a question of balance. I have to do what anyone in my position has to do, which is to protect
business rate payers from too many exemptions. One can envisage circumstances in which many organisations could argue for exemption—the agriculture industry did so successfully, for example, and there may be others—so it is a question of balance. He raises a reasonable point, but I disagree with it.
I hope that I have explained the logic of our opposition to the amendment. I genuinely believe that it achieves the opposite of what it intends. I studied the amendment carefully and saw that that was the case. I hope that our debate on the exemptions does not cloud the fact that this Bill is about the time period for the exemptions for empty property rates, not about the exemptions themselves. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Poole will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Syms: We have debated a detailed and wide-ranging amendment, covering subjects as broad as castles, historic cars, violent husbands, labour clubs and cemeteries. That has demonstrated the Bill’s impact on communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) made the point that the provision in the Bill is the fourth largest revenue raiser in the Budget, so it is bound to have a large impact. That is why it is important to debate the exemptions thoroughly.
I was pleased by the Minister’s reasonable response to the debate and he dealt with many of the concerns of hon. Members. Regretfully, however, I still feel that we should press the matter to a vote. Bills with only one substantive clause may be short, but because of the range of concerns expressed today, I believe that the Committee should have the opportunity to vote. I therefore press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 236.
AYES
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Alexander, Danny
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Bercow, John
Bone, Mr. Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Clark, Greg
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Evennett, Mr. David
Foster, Mr. Don
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Hayes, Mr. John
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Horam, Mr. John
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hughes, Simon
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Kramer, Susan
Lamb, Norman
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Mulholland, Greg
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
Öpik, Lembit
Osborne, Mr. George
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr. David
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Teather, Sarah
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Watkinson, Angela
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, Mr. David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr. Roger
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Robert Goodwill and
Mr. Tobias Ellwood
NOES
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Atkins, Charlotte
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Begg, Miss Anne
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clelland, Mr. David
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Dai
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, John
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howells, Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jowell, rh Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meale, Mr. Alan
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, Edward
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffatt, Laura
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Morgan, Julie
Mountford, Kali
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tami, Mark
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wills, Mr. Michael
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:
Tony Cunningham and
Mr. Dave Watts
Question accordingly negatived.
Michael Gove: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘subsection (4A)’ and insert subsections (4A) and (4B)’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, page 1, line 9, after ‘(4A)’, insert—
‘Where subsection (5) applies, the chargeable amount for a chargeable day shall be calculated in accordance with the formula—
No. 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(2) For subsection (5) of that section substitute—
“This subsection applies where on the day concerned, the hereditament is the subject of—
(b) an application for approval of reserved matters or for the approval of details under a condition of a planning permission, or
(c) an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
No. 5, schedule 1, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of any regulations, the state of any property shall not be deemed to have been changed by the carrying out of operations in accordance with a planning permission.’.
Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank you for the advice that you and your office extended to me, and to my hon. Friends, in framing and tabling the amendments.
I apologise for not having been here for the opening of the Committee stage. I spoke in the debate on the Ways and Means resolution, and also on Second Reading, and opposition to the measure and scepticism towards it are close to my heart. I was genuinely sorry that I could not be here for the beginning of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). I know that he made an admirable and
cogent case, but I am afraid that I was detained elsewhere on family business.
The amendments fall within two groups. They deal with the broad question of planning and land use, but amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are naturally grouped together, because they form part of one coherent argument, and amendment No. 5 is separate, because although it deals with planning matters, it relates to a different part of the Bill and is meant to deal with a different specific eventuality.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are essentially tests of the Government’s integrity. Amendment No. 5 is an attempt to achieve the Government’s intentions more effectively than we believe the Bill itself is capable of achieving them. In that respect, whether the Government accept amendment No. 5 is a test of their sincerity. If Ministers genuinely want to achieve the goals stated in legislation and argued for by them in earlier debates, we believe that they will have to accept the amendment.
Let me briefly explain why we tabled amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They deal with a new and specific exemption that we wish to introduce. In our debate on amendment No. 6 we discussed the whole question of exemptions, their appropriateness, and whether they should be contained in primary legislation or in secondary regulation to be presented at a later date.
The Minister accepted that there were exemptions that should be included in primary legislation. We had a brief exchange on the subject when I intervened on him. I am afraid, however, that his customary authority lapsed at that point, because he presented us with a circular argument. We pointed out that we wished to introduce a whole set of exemptions that were entirely in accordance with custom, practice and previous legislation. Cases for all those exemptions were made with exemplary clarity by my hon. Friends. The Minister’s case against the exemptions was that it would be inappropriate to deal with them in primary legislation, but he accepted that the Bill contained exemptions for charities and sporting ventures—because, he said, they were in primary legislation.
That is a circular argument. The Minister is saying that an egg is an egg is an egg, because he says that it is an egg. I am afraid, however, that this combination of yolk, albumen and shell is not an egg, because it does not pass muster with me. There is no logical reason why one exemption is in primary legislation and another set of exemptions are considered appropriate for secondary legislation, other than precedent and ministerial edict.
We know that the Minister is capable of logic, reason and fluent argument. We have seen him display that capability many times at the Dispatch Box. It is incumbent on him now to explain to us why certain exemptions must be in primary legislation while others are fit only for regulation. It will not be good enough to argue, as he did earlier, that a period of consultation is necessary before we introduce exemptions. That argument would strike at the heart of the Bill. On Second Reading and in the Ways and Means debate, Conservative Members argued for consultation. Why? Because when Sir Michael Lyons introduced the idea of removing or amending the relief for empty properties, he argued explicitly that there should be consultation before business rates were reformed, probably in about 2010. The Government chose not to engage in that
period of consultation. Instead, they decided to legislate precipitately in what was characterised in the previous debate as a rush to plunder.
The Minister, and the Government, cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, “We need to consult on the exemptions before we produce secondary regulation. All that can happen in good time, my dear man”, and at the same time say, “We need to produce this legislation quickly.” They cannot say, even by implication, “I am afraid that when he requested consultation, Sir Michael Lyons was insufficiently seized of the importance of legislating quickly,” and then, when it is convenient to them, say, “We believe that Sir Michael Lyons was wrong to call for consultation then, but we need consultation now.”
3.30 pm
The Government must explain why when consultation occurs, it is always on their terms and never on anyone else’s. They must also explain why, having gone to the trouble of asking Sir Michael Lyons to make a series of recommendations on this measure and on local government finance in general, they accept only the measures that they can introduce quickly, and which automatically yield revenue, and why they have not given adequate consideration to those other thoughtful—and perhaps more complex, but none the worse for that—series of arguments that enjoined on them a degree of caution in proceeding. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury asks from a sedentary position, “What about the amendment?” As I am sure he is aware, there are in fact three amendments—Nos. 2, 3 and 4—which come together, and there is also amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 deal with planning and land use. The Financial Secretary and his junior—although perhaps not junior for much longer—the Economic Secretary put it to us in the original Ways and Means debate that the principal aim of the Bill was the more efficient use of land.
That cause is dear to the hearts of all Members present. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) serves on the board of a housing association, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is greatly interested in housing matters, and I know that they are keen that land should be used more efficiently, whether for housing or commercial purposes. However, the suggestion that the Bill is all about the more efficient use of land was undermined by the presence at the Ways and Means debate and on Second Reading of the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary. Why were they invited in to make the case for Department for Communities and Local Government legislation? Did the Treasury have no confidence in DCLG Ministers? Did the Treasury feel that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning were not capable of making the case? Heaven forfend.
The Chairman: Order. I might equally say heaven forfend that the hon. Gentleman move into more general territory than he should. I ask him to stick to the subject of the amendment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |