Plenary, 08 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 8, 1999

Official Report 617KB pdf

---

Local Government Finance

Our first item of business is a statement by Mr Jack McConnell on local government finance. The minister will take questions at the end of his 10-minute statement and therefore will take no interventions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Have you had notice of a statement by the Executive on the position of Mr John Rafferty? I would like a ruling from you on whom Mr Rafferty is accountable to. Is he accountable to the Parliament, through the First Minister, or is he bound by the civil service code, which says that civil servants

"should not deceive or knowingly mislead, Ministers, Parliament, the National Assembly or the public"?

If Mr Rafferty is bound by the civil service code and the press reports are accurate, his position is now untenable and if the First Minister resists making a statement on the matter, his position will be greatly weakened.

I am asking for a ruling that will uphold the Parliament's ability to hold the Executive and its array of expensive spin doctors to account.

The answer to the first point of order is that I have not received a request for a statement and, if I had, it would be in the business bulletin.

As to the second point, whomever civil servants are answerable to, it is not me. They are answerable to the First Minister, whom the member will have a chance to question tomorrow.

On a similar matter, Mr Presiding Officer. Given that members are responsible for the conduct of their advisers and employees, does the matter raised by Mr Salmond fall under the remit of the Standards Committee, which should be investigating this serious matter?

Having read the proceedings of the Standards Committee, I can tell members that the committee is examining the civil service code of conduct and the way in which it relates to our activities. The committee has that matter under review.

My statement today covers local authority revenue finance for 2000-01 and decisions related to the non-domestic rates revaluation.

The Scottish Executive is committed to a partnership with local authorities in Scotland. Together we aim to deliver high-quality, modern services. Local government is responsible for delivering key local services in ways that best recognise the diversity of local needs and circumstances. Stronger local government is a key element of the new democratic partnership in Scotland.

This is the first year of our new Parliament and our new relationship with Scottish local government. I want our financial relationship to be stable, but to respond to the issues that affect vital local services.

Our first priority is to give local authorities stability. That is why we have confirmed that we intend to uphold the figures for local government that we inherited. Local authorities have three-year figures for spending and grant; they know where they stand and can plan accordingly. Crude and universal capping has been abolished, and we will continue the system of indicative spending guidelines, at least for the next 12 months. However, those are indicative figures and we are prepared to be flexible. We will discuss the guidelines approach over the next 12 months to establish whether it is the best way forward.

In my financial statement on 6 October, and in the consultation document "Spending Plans for Scotland", which we published last month, I set out the planned totals for local authority spending and grant—the figures for Government-supported expenditure and for aggregate external finance— for next year.

We have made some technical adjustments to the figures. Most notably, the resources for the social inclusion partnership fund—some £57.6 million—are not part of local government expenditure, but are being paid as a specific grant instead. That money is still available; it is simply being accounted for differently.

As a result of those and other adjustments I am now able to announce revised figures. Next year, Government-supported expenditure—the provision we will make for council spending on the delivery of services—will be £6,746 million, which is an increase of 3.7 per cent. Total aggregate external finance—the support that the Executive provides from revenue support grant and business rates— will be £5,630 million, which is an increase of 2.9 per cent. This is a good and stable settlement, which increases total resources and encourages long-term planning.

Within the settlement, we give priority to the key public services: education, social work, police and fire. That focus underpins the programme for government and has been agreed with local authorities. Education, in particular, is a key service, as our children are the future of Scotland

and we are committed to giving them the best possible start in life. I am particularly pleased that the grant-aided expenditure figure for education next year—which does not even include £134 million for pre-school grants—will now be £2,718 million, which is an increase of 4.3 per cent over the comparable figure for this year.

The figures for spending and grant assume that, on average throughout Scotland, council tax will increase next year by 5 per cent. Individual councils will set their own tax rates around that average. In doing so, I hope that they remember that most councils will receive a substantial increase in their grant next year and will exercise some restraint. The average increase in council tax this year came down to 2.7 per cent, which is a significant achievement by councils, welcomed by taxpayers.

I intend that, next year, we will continue the scheme for limiting the benefit subsidy that is paid to councils by central Government when council tax increases are above the guideline. The rules will be the same as for this year.

I should also like to make a statement today about non-domestic rates—the business rates. The next revaluation for the purpose of non- domestic rates will take place from 1 April 2000. Revaluation does not mean that more money will be raised from the rates over the next five years. I emphasise that I regard stability and certainty for business as being of paramount importance. The clear priority is to maintain the level playing field that exists with regard to valuation treatment and practice north and south of the border.

I want to make it absolutely clear that Scottish business, as a whole, will not pay more as a result of this revaluation. The non-domestic rates that will be raised from businesses in Scotland after the revaluation will be the same, in real terms, as before. That does not mean that every business will pay the same. Revaluation will change rateable values to reflect market conditions and the rates bills for some individual businesses will go up as well as down.

I can announce today my provisional decision to set the non-domestic rate poundage for Scotland at 45.8p in the pound in 2000-01. That compares with a figure of 48.9p this year. That figure is provisional and I intend that the final figure will be confirmed by next February at the latest. I shall publish the detailed calculations underlying the announced poundage as soon as possible.

There may be some concern about the different numbers in England and Scotland, but I reassure Scottish businesses that the level playing field remains. In addition, to reinforce the transparency of our calculations, I undertake each year to publish the figures that result in the poundage that is announced and to convene an annual forum of representative business organisations to explain and discuss that calculation.

I have been considering whether some form of relief will be appropriate to avoid significant cost shocks for businesses—in particular, small businesses. I can announce today that there will be a Scottish transitional relief scheme. That scheme will, as far as possible, follow the principles of simplicity, phasing in of increases and unwinding, by which I mean that the relief will end before the next revaluation. Those are key issues that were raised by respondents to the consultation paper that was issued in October. I am determined to help businesses to cope with the revaluation in as fair and as affordable a way as possible, and I will consult further on the specific details in January.

Furthermore, I can announce today that all businesses that have a rateable value of less than £10,000 will receive a 1p reduction in the poundage that is used to calculate their rates bills from next April. That discount will apply for one year, during which time I shall examine the case for establishing a more permanent rate relief scheme for small businesses. I look forward to continuing the useful dialogue on that issue that has been established between representative business organisations and the Local Government Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Over the next 12 months, Henry McLeish and his team will examine the case for small business rate relief and consider the best way forward.

Finally, following consultation in September on the decapitalisation rate that is used for properties that are assessed on the contractor's principle of valuation, I can announce my decision to keep the rates at 5.5 per cent for most properties and 3.67 per cent for churches and educational, health care and Ministry of Defence properties. They are consistent with those in England and so maintain parity of approach. This decision will ensure that those ratepayers whose property is assessed using the contractor's principle will have more certainty over their rates bills, which will provide further stability.

I intend to announce the detailed proposals for distributing grant and spending guidelines to individual local authorities next week. While we will review the fairness of the distribution system in partnership over the next 12 months, a number of changes have already been implemented. These have been agreed in partnership with the local authorities themselves. I am particularly pleased that next year we will distribute £6.5 million of the grant available for Scotland's councils as a special one-year deprivation payment. This will benefit nine authorities with the highest levels of poverty

and deprivation in Scotland, among them West Dunbartonshire and Dundee, with Glasgow City rightly getting the largest share of this payment, amounting to nearly £3 million. This is a one-year payment because the review of the allowance made for deprivation and poverty in grant distribution will begin soon.

In reaching my decisions on revenue spending, I recognise that there are serious concerns about the fairness of the present distribution. As the programme for government made clear, we will improve the fairness of the distribution over the next twelve months. Crucially, we are setting up a review of the allowance made for deprivation and poverty so that we can be sure that those councils with the greatest problems in urban and rural areas are getting the resources they need. This fulfils the commitment we gave in the programme for government. The review will move quickly and will report late next summer, ready for changes to be implemented in 2001-02. We are going to look separately at the treatment of councils with islands needs. Related to that, we need to bear in mind the cost of delivering services to the most sparsely populated areas. So there is a big programme of work that we want to carry forward in partnership, to look at the fairness of the system. But we cannot make these changes to a big and complex system overnight.

However, I do want to further respond to representations on local spending and I believe that there is additional money within the settlement that I am announcing today. The extra capacity arises as a result of recent reductions in the estimate of pool interest rates which determines the amounts local authorities pay in loan and leasing charges. This means that local authorities will now pay less in loan and leasing charges next year than the provision we had previously planned.

Left alone, these funds would have been distributed in proportion to the loan and leasing commitments of authorities rather than based on social needs. This money can be better used and, as a consequence, I intend to hold back £15 million when I announce the allocations for individual authorities next week. The Deputy Minister for Local Government, Frank McAveety, will discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how best this money can be used to reinforce our policy priorities, including tackling poverty, and we will announce our intentions before February, when the final decisions on the allocations for next year require to be reached.

I will announce next week the distribution of spending and grant that we will provide in support of Scotland's 32 councils next year. Full details will be made available to the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Those proposals will now form the basis for further consultation with COSLA in January, after which I will lay the local government finance order in February and the Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss it.

This settlement is important because it confirms the figures announced at the time of the comprehensive spending review and it gives Scotland's councils stability to plan confidently for next year and the year beyond. But we are also determined to take advantage of this stability, particularly over the next 12 months, to review those aspects of the system which everyone acknowledges are creating problems. As we carry out those reviews, we will fulfil undertakings given in the programme for government. We will also work with local authorities to determine a fairer system by this time next year and to make sure that those councils which have to tackle the most serious problems of poverty and social exclusion are getting the resources that they need.

Today's statement delivers stability, but it builds on our constructive dialogue and evolves our partnership locally and nationally. It is good for local communities, businesses and services. It is also good for Scotland.

On a point of order. The Local Government Committee has spent many meetings considering in detail the substance of today's statement, in particular business rates and the need to provide a special package of relief for small business. The Local Government Committee convener sent a letter to the minister asking whether such a package could be introduced. Instead of responding to the Local Government Committee, and showing respect for the committee system, the minister has announced a paltry package today and small business will continue to be hammered throughout Scotland. Is that in order?

That was a point of argument; it certainly was not a point of order. The minister is quite within his rights to make statements to the Parliament rather than to any one of its committees.

On a point of order.

Is it a real one?

I am sure that you will be able to judge, Presiding Officer.

I am sure that I will.

I spy that Mr George Lyon has crossed the aisle to sit with the Liberal Democrats and not with his Labour colleagues, as we are used to seeing. To save members from any confusion, is there any particular place where we

should sit?

That was certainly not a point of order, and I should have seen it coming. We are wasting valuable time when many members want to speak. May we have short questions and exchanges, please?

I thank the minister for his statement. I would have liked to respond to it in detail, but the entire question-and-answer session has been allocated half an hour, which I consider to be an absolute disgrace. It shows the Executive's contempt for local government.

I notice that the minister made no commitment to restore funding to the level that new Labour inherited in 1996-97. I notice also that the minister was especially pleased with the £6.5 million deprivation payment that was made last week, half of which went to Glasgow. Excuse me for not dancing in the streets, minister, but that works out at 9p a week for every Glaswegian, which is hardly a cure for poverty in that city.

May I ask the minister a straightforward question? On St Andrew's day, he wrote to Norman Murray, the president of COSLA, who is— of course—a Labour councillor. I quote:

"The approach of scaling down the expenditure increase to promote convergence with GAE will continue."

Given that the difference between the GAE figure and what local authorities spend is currently £375 million, will the minister tell us the time over which that scaling down will take place, and what the impact on jobs, services and council tax will be? Does he accept that the new burdens and the promotion of convergence mean, in effect, a double whammy of a £700 million increase in council tax—or its equivalent in cuts in services and jobs—over an indeterminate period? That is hardly a recipe for stability.

It is depressing that Mr Gibson's main comment on the local government settlement—which covers a comprehensive range of items—concentrates on the Parliamentary Bureau's decisions about the time allocation for statements. I would have thought that there were much more important issues to be discussed today.

The nationalist party never recognises that the settlement for local government—for this year and next year—contains hundreds of millions of pounds more than would have been the case had the Conservative party still been in government. It would be nice if that fact were recognised—just once or twice—by the nationalist party or, indeed, by the Conservative party.

This is a good settlement for local government. It allows for convergence over a very long period. It allows for flexibility among local authorities. It gives them resources increased above the rate of inflation. We are proud of the settlement. It is good for local communities and services.

I call Keith Harding.

Presiding Officer, we must be allowed to come back on that.

Order.

We must be—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Gibson, you must ask for permission to speak. Mr Harding.

Thank you. I thank the minister for the early delivery of his speech. I had half an hour to read it, which is quite good. In Stirling, when we were in opposition, we got only two minutes.

I want to respond to the minister's response to Mr Gibson. In 1994-95, the Conservatives spent £19.8 billion in real terms, while in the Labour party's first three years in office, it has spent only £17.4 billion each year; please stop blaming us for all the Labour party's problems.

I agree with Mr Gibson that there will be no dancing or celebrations in the council chambers tonight. It appears that, once again, the minister expects councils to fund pay awards from efficiency savings. If they are not, there can be no growth. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about that.

How much will councils spend on new burdens, and have they been fully resourced? Does the minister agree that services, other than those that he deems key services, will face cuts yet again? For example, will there be fewer road and pavement repairs, reduced grounds maintenance and further reductions in leisure and community facilities, to name but a few?

I am also interested to learn how the minister will respond to the motion approved by the leaders of COSLA and those that will probably come from other councils during next week.

The modest council tax increase of 5 per cent amounts to an average increase of 36 per cent over the past three years. People who live in some cities will have to pay an extra £200 or £300 a year, which is hardly modest.

It is instructive to see the Scottish Conservative party clutching at the very few years in which it was generous to local government in Scotland.

We were generous?

I apologise, but Mr Harding asked a question and I am delighted to provide the answer.

I remind Mr Harding that, in this financial year, the Conservative party would have been prepared to spend £250 million less than this settlement allows for. By the end of the comprehensive spending review period and of the period covered by the spending plans that I announced on 6 October, the difference between what the Conservative party planned to spend and what we will spend on education, social services, the police and other vital local services across Scotland would have been a grand total of £550 million. It is simply not true to suggest that this is a poor settlement for local government.

The settlement includes money for new burdens. We have not specified those burdens, but we included extra money for them. The settlement includes a rise well above the rate of inflation, both in total local government expenditure and in Government grant. It includes provision for the key local services of education, social services and police and fire services, which are the agreed priorities of local and central Government in Scotland. After many years of neglect, we are proud to deliver on those services.

I welcome many parts of Mr McConnell's announcement—I will leave it at that. [Laughter.] We are allowed only to ask questions, not to give eulogies.

Mr McConnell aims, correctly, at stability, but does he agree that he does so on a downward path, that almost all councils will have to make cuts and that many non-priority services will get worse? Will he seek more money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he try to find more money from his budget for local government?

Will Mr McConnell consider relaxing the rules on guidelines, which have seriously harmed several councils most unjustly? It would be much better if he was more relaxed about those guidelines.

Will Mr McConnell take account of the document produced by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, in which the society complains about the unco-ordinated flow of initiatives and consultation exercises emerging from the Scottish Executive? Will he set up a bumf-busting committee to stop that ridiculous waste of councils' time and energy?

Will Mr McConnell fund, at least to some degree, pay increases? That is a serious issue, as other members have said.

Finally, if Mr McConnell has available the valuable amount of £15 million, will he consider discussing with his colleagues the possibility of channelling it through councils to the voluntary sector, to help that sector to provide social inclusion services? The voluntary sector, which is funded by councils, has suffered severely and Mr McConnell has an excellent opportunity to help.

Donald Gorrie made a number of wide-ranging points.

I want to make it clear that I am keen to discuss with COSLA and other interested parties the future of the system of guidelines and the other controls on local government spending. Such controls are important, as local government expenditure in Scotland is part of the budget assigned to the Parliament and therefore is part of our total public expenditure in Scotland. While we have a responsibility to take that seriously, we also have a responsibility to discuss the future of that system with local government and we intend to do so, starting in January.

Those discussions will also include the co-ordination of initiatives and the mix of general, hypothecated and ring-fenced expenditure that exists between local and central Government. A number of Mr Gorrie's points will be included within those discussions.

As for pay awards, the system across the whole of local government is that, apart from specific circumstances, such awards are funded from efficiency savings. If we accept such a discipline centrally, we are right to continue to insist on the same at local authority level. Although that means hard decisions at times, it also means that we are all in the same boat, which is only right and proper.

Although it would be good to have more discussions on the number of initiatives and how they are funded locally and centrally, I am not convinced that setting up another committee would be the best way of doing that. I look forward to more relaxed and informal discussions that might lead to a good conclusion.

I welcome the review of the distribution formula, which is long overdue; furthermore, I am delighted that a Labour minister in a Scottish Parliament will be implementing it. Dundee expects, if I may say so.

Will the minister confirm that the £6.5 million deprivation payment to nine councils this year can be used by those councils only to reduce their council tax levels? Furthermore, will the additional £15 million that he has identified be given to local authorities in a form that allows them to invest the money in council services? The poor, in particular, depend heavily on such services.

The use of the special

deprivation payment will depend on the circumstances of individual councils and how they choose to spend that money. The use of the additional £15 million that has been identified through savings in loans charges will be decided over the next six weeks in discussions between Mr Frank McAveety and COSLA. Although it is right and proper that we do not pre-empt those discussions, I strongly expect them to lead to money being spent on areas of local expenditure that need it most.

Will the Minister for Finance provide some points of fact, rather than interpretation, on the issue of finance? Is it a fact that, in the first three years of the Scottish Parliament, the minister will support local authorities by £2.4 billion less than the amount provided in the last three years of the Conservative Government? Is it also a fact that, on average, council taxes are 7.4 per cent higher in Scotland at band D than in England, which represents a real north-south divide?

Furthermore, will the minister confirm that he has just announced that council taxes are set to rise by twice the rate of inflation, despite the already large differential north and south of the border? As a follow-up to Mr McAllion's point, will the minister also confirm that of the 405 councils in Britain, two of the top three most expensive council tax rates—in Dundee and Glasgow—are in Scotland, which is a direct result of his lack of support?

I am surprised that Mr Wilson has changed his tune in the past six months and is now, apparently, opposed to increased taxation. However, I welcome that conversion and I hope that it will continue to be reflected in his party's policy.

This is serious.

It is very, very serious that, week after week in this chamber, if it is not Mr MacAskill demanding about £250 million more for the roads programme, Mr Gibson demanding the same for local government, Ms Sturgeon demanding the same for education, or Ms Ullrich demanding the same for health, it is some other SNP member demanding the same for some other programme.

We cannot simply magic up £200 million or more for every single programme week after week. It is not good enough to complain in different contexts and in different departments that the money provided is not enough. The truth is that the amount of money allocated in today's statement for local government in this financial year is £250 million more than would have been spent by the Conservatives and will be £550 million more by the end of the comprehensive spending review.

Not only have we sorted out the mess in which the Conservatives left the economy, but we are spending more money.

Bearing in mind the attempts by vested interests to block the implementation of the Arbuthnott recommendations, which would bring health allocations more in line with health needs, will the minister ensure that the discussions about local government allocations that he mentioned will be concluded in time for early implementation of those recommendations? That would assist poorer areas such as West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow and Dundee.

We are determined to move ahead with those reviews as speedily as possible and to ensure that the areas that most need extra money receive it.

COSLA estimates that the last rounds of teachers' pay negotiations cost local authorities £600 million. Does the minister agree that central Government did not properly fund those increases and that local councils had to make cuts in other services to meet those payments? This could be a yes/no answer if Jack is really lucky.

We believe in local democracy; the councils are responsible for negotiating those settlements. We are prepared, as was the case with this year's teachers' settlement, to allocate additional money to help finance such settlements when it is right and appropriate and meets our, and the councils', priorities. We did that this year for education and we will do it again whenever it is necessary.

I welcome the review of grant distribution that the minister referred to in his statement. The review— rightly—recognises deprivation. Will the review also address the distribution of grants to authorities that are experiencing substantial population growth?

Population growth is a major issue. It is an issue in Mr Muldoon's constituency and, for example, in Aberdeenshire, where I met the council last week to discuss its circumstances. A number of councils across Scotland want that issue to be taken on board—perhaps in different ways—in the distribution formula.

I intend that the discussions over the coming year will take account of councils' concerns about guidelines and the distribution formula. However, it is important that we try to retain the support of all councils for the distribution formula system and do not try to skew it against councils that feel that they too have needs.

I ask the minister

to depart from the Mystic Meg school of economics and to recognise the facts. In the last three years of the Conservative Government, local government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product was 11.72 per cent, 11.02 per cent and 9.77 per cent respectively, whereas at the end of the period that is under review today, the Labour party's commitment will be 7.11 per cent.

Bearing in mind the fact that stability is the watchword today, will the minister instruct Mr Frank McAveety to ensure that there is stability for council tax payers, so that we do not have three years of substantial increases, followed by a year of minimal increase—coinciding with elections—or would that be a classic case of the poacher becoming a gamekeeper?

I think I made clear my views on council tax increases for next year, and I hope that they were heard in the chamber and elsewhere.

I thank Mr Aitken for what, I presume, are his congratulations on the success of the economy, which has led to such an increase in GDP that the percentage is reduced.

Presiding Officer, I hope that you will comment on statements that are given to the chamber. A number of members have mentioned how little time they have had to prepare serious questions on points made by the minister. I have had no notice at all. An hour and a half is completely inadequate, and I hope that you will raise the matter.

Does the minister agree that the £3 million extra for Glasgow is far too little, far too late? Does he agree that it would have been much better for Glasgow if he had insisted on the repeal of the capital receipt payback regulation, which this year would have given Glasgow not an additional £3 million, but an extra £18 million to spend on its housing account?

Does the minister also agree that what is most important is how the money is spent on the ground? When Labour was elected in 1997, 3,000 home helps were employed by Glasgow City Council. Today, 2,500 home helps are employed by the council. Will his statement lead to the employment of more home helps in cities such as Glasgow, where people rely on those services?

The minister gave a figure for anticipated council tax rises. What are the anticipated increases in local authority wages? Does the minister agree that it is far too rich to make any comparison between us and local authority workers, given that our salaries are six and seven times what local authority workers get?

The statement did not refer to

MSPs—it referred to a comparison between local and central Government pay policies.

The overall policies and the framework in which we operate are important. It is not good enough to consider individual figures and ideas in isolation. It is important that we manage our national finances and that we support local government, but we must do so within a national framework. It would not be appropriate for the Executive to determine the number of home helps who are employed by Glasgow City Council—that is a job for the council and it must make that decision in the light of its available resources. I hope that it can make such decisions.

Of course, no amount of money is ever enough, but it is wrong to describe £3 million as insignificant or irrelevant for Glasgow; it is a helpful contribution. Other authorities that could have made a claim on that resource agreed to the decision and I thank them for that. It will be good for local government services in future if we can make more decisions in that way, based on need.

Does the minister agree with the Labour and Liberal Democrat joint motion that was passed by Fife Council and subsequently endorsed by COSLA? If Fife and all other local authorities must deliver—in Mr McConnell's own words—"high-quality modern services" we cannot expect indefinitely that they will fund pay awards without assistance from central Government. Will the minister have a quiet—but, I hope, effective—word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point?

Mr Raffan would be surprised if I agreed with the motion that he mentions— obviously I do not.

It is important to mention finance in relation to improvements to local services. Improving local services is not about just spending more money, or about the existing budgets. Those are important, but they are only part of the picture. If we want to deliver high-quality modern services, local and central Government must also work together to find efficiencies. We must look for better, newer ways of doing things. Those ways might be cheaper, but they will not necessarily always be worse—that is important. Finding those new ways is a task that the Executive has set itself, and on which it will work next year. It is a task that will always—I hope—override examination in isolation of individual figures.

I was pleased to hear what Mr McConnell said about relief for small businesses and I welcome his remarks about a comprehensive review of non- domestic rates. Will he tell us more about the details of the relief scheme?

Certainly. If you will allow me, Presiding Officer, I will also address Mr Ewing's remark, which I think was on the same subject, although I found it hard to follow.

The small business relief scheme is almost identical to the existing scheme, but is a slight improvement on it. In line with its other decisions, the Executive has chosen to go for stability for the next 12 months. That is partly because every business in Scotland has a different proposal for a small business relief scheme or for Government assistance to small businesses. No two proposals are the same. It would, therefore, be wrong for the Parliament to choose one of those proposals and to run with it for next year.

It is entirely appropriate that the two committees I mentioned—and gave a proper place to in my speech—examine the matter over the next 12 months. My colleague Mr McLeish and his team will also examine the matter. We will get proper recommendations on the best method of helping small businesses. That might be rates relief, but it might be something else. In the next 12 months, we must examine in an open and transparent way how we can afford that, rather than rushing into a decision this afternoon.

I hope that that decision is welcomed by small businesses—it certainly should be.

I have allowed this statement and questions to overrun. Six members remain to be called, but we must protect the main debate of the day.