---

4.26 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): That is all very well, but it does not cover the potential consequences of the money resolution. Since we never see the details of money resolutions, the Minister is asking us to sign a blank cheque, which is what such resolutions always amount to, so it is worth pausing to explore the implications of where we are and where we might be going.

One oddity of the procedure that has always puzzled me is that we are being asked to approve a motion stating

"That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill"—

let us note that it refers to any Act rather than to a specific one—

"it is expedient to authorise the payment of money . . . of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State".

That is asking rather a lot of the House. At this stage in the proceedings, we, the supposed custodians of taxpayer's money, are being asked to say, "Yes, we will sign up to that form of words," relating to any Act and any expenses, and without any knowledge of what they may be.

Although the Minister has highlighted a particular part of the Bill, which I will deal with in a moment, I have quickly perused the Lords amendments that we are about to consider. I make that point because one of our difficulties is that we do not really know—the Minister did not tell us—whether the money resolution purports to cover the assumed expenditure under the previous working of the Bill or whether the Government have attempted to take into account the financial implications of the Lords amendments, which have yet to be considered and agreed by the House. That puts us in a rather odd position. We do not know whether the

17 Nov 2003 : Column 502

House will agree to the substantive and substantial Lords amendments that follow this motion on the Order Paper.

Here is the position: we are being asked to sign up to a motion authorising the expenditure of unspecified moneys, and the Minister has told us in her charming way that it is all to do with high hedges, but I wonder whether that is the whole story. I have glanced through the Lords amendments, and I think I have picked up considerable implications for the courts, local authorities, the Secretary of State, the police, waste authorities and something called the appeal authority, which I may return to in a moment.

The array of potential costs is substantial, and this question arises immediately: are we being asked to assume that all those different institutions will absorb into their existing financial structures the undoubted additional costs that the Lords amendments would impose if we approved them, or will the Secretary of State give more money to each of those institutions in order to offset the additional costs that may or may not be incurred if we agree to the amendments?

We can already see that an awful lot of conditionality is involved here. Nothing is certain—nothing has been clearly laid before the House—so we are being asked collectively, as the custodians of taxpayers' money, to sign up to a whole series of conditional propositions to which we know none of the answers. I might even go so far as to say that it would have been better had we considered the money resolution after the Lords amendments, because we might have had a rather clearer idea of what we are supposed to be financing.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): Did the right hon. Gentleman make any of those proposals when he was shadow Leader of the House?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman perceptively puts his finger on the fact that now, as I glory in the freedom of the Back Benches, I am able more thoroughly to explore what is put before the House. When I was constrained by my responsibilities as shadow Leader of the House and by collective responsibility, I left that to others. If the hon. Gentleman did not do it, he should explain why not; but I do not have to explain myself. I invite the hon. Gentleman to participate in these proceedings as a good parliamentarian: he may seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I have completed my analysis, which has barely started. I look forward to his contribution. He is obviously very keen to participate in matters relating to money resolutions: I welcome that. Perhaps he and I can form an informal partnership—linking arms, as it were, across the Chamber to hold the Government to account on money resolutions and many other matters.

As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman enabled me to make those remarks, let us look at one or two of the provisions that have the potential to affect the money resolution in ways as yet unspecified by the Minister. Amendment No. 1 to clause 13 suggests replacing the words "residing in" with

"with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy".

To my mind, that immediately hints at a considerable broadening of the scope of the clause. That continues in

17 Nov 2003 : Column 503

amendment No. 2, which refers to

"a person with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy other housing accommodation".

Such a broadening of the provisions has a potential impact on court costs. It is self-evident that introducing the potential for more cases to be brought before the courts must have cost implications. The money resolution does not tell us whether the courts will be expected to bear those costs from within their own budgets or whether there are implications for the Secretary of State's budget. One way or another, of course, it all comes back to the taxpayer. Sadly, that is a given in this place—it is always the hapless taxpayer who picks up the bill. Our concern should be to dig underneath that to try to identify whether the additional tax burden falls on the taxpayer through the court budget, per se—which implies that another part of courts' activities will have to suffer—or through the Secretary of State's coming forward to give more money to the courts to recompense them for their additional responsibilities as a result of the amendment, were we to agree to it.

I do not apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the degree of conditionality in my remarks. I think that it is legitimate for me to link the money resolution, which is before us without detail or specification, and the following business—our consideration of the Lords amendments—because the amendments have cost impacts—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will be out of order if he goes into those: he must address his remarks to the money resolution.

Mr. Forth: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind hon. Members that the money resolution says that

"for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill . . . it is expedient to authorise the payment of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State".

I am trying to tease out the extent to which the Secretary of State will have to provide those expenses and the way in which he or she will be obliged to do so. I am unclear as to the exact link between the Secretary of State, who is specifically referred to in the money resolution, and the institutions that are inevitably drawn in by the Bill and the amendments. Local authority costs frequently occur. There is a direct implication of costs in references to guidance by the Secretary of State. One could argue that a Secretary of State can issue guidance cost free because the gigantic bureaucracy of any Department can produce and distribute guidance without additional cost. I query that because I have always believed that simply assuming that bureaucracy can costlessly provide an additional product, in this case guidance, implies either sleight of hand and even dishonesty or poor management. Nothing in life and certainly nothing in Government should be cost free. One should be able to account for everything, even something as apparently simple as issuing guidance. If that cannot happen in a money resolution, where can it occur?

17 Nov 2003 : Column 504

Clause 61 has clear implications for police costs. Again, an additional responsibility has been placed on—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the original money resolution to the Bill was agreed after Second Reading on 8 April.

Mr. Forth: I am aware of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I invite you to follow my logic? Surely the Lords amendments that we are about to consider may materially affect the Bill. If you can tell me that if we agree the Lords amendments, the Government will have to introduce a further money resolution to take account of them, that part of my case will be satisfactorily laid to rest.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point, the money resolution relates only to the high hedges provisions, and nothing else in the amendments.

Mr. Forth: That is an interesting ruling, which I accept, but it does not answer my other question. If a previous money resolution gave effect to the original Bill and if we subsequently agreed Lords amendments that would materially affect the contents, at what stage would the House of Commons be invited to agree a further money resolution to take account of the alterations?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can clarify the position. The money resolution that we are currently debating relates merely to the provision for appeals to the Secretary of State against enforcement notices on high hedges.

---