Community Charges

HC Deb 23 May 1989 vol 153 cc894-923

10 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) clearly said in your hearing and in the hearing of other hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill, was in the pockets of the sponsors of the Bill. That was a clear allegation of impropriety and dishonesty against my hon. Friend. You should ask the hon. Member for Makerfield to withdraw that quite disgraceful slur.

Mr. Speaker

I did not judge that remark to be unparliamentary. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was present, and he should have challenged it at the time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 11 May and again on 23 June, the Second Reading debate lasted for three hours and 34 minutes. We have had two hours and 31 minutes of the debate on Third Reading of a Bill that has no amendments. I seek your guidance on how much longer we might have to debate the Bill. Last night, in just over an hour we had three Third Readings, and this debate has now been going on for as long as a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker

When the Chairman of Ways and Means puts the Bill on the Order Paper we shall know how much longer it will take. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for extending the debate tonight, but I ask that, in the next debate, consideration be given to hon. Members representing coalfield areas. So far in the debate, which has lasted for two hours, less than 25 minutes has been given to hon. Members from such areas.

Mr. Speaker

As always, careful consideration will be given to hon. Members with specific interests.

There are six prayers before the House.

10.2 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

This time, I think that we will need more than six prayers. Perhaps the Minister will join me in one in due course.

I beg to move the first motion on the Order Paper, That the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 438), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. As you have stated, Mr. Speaker, we are also to discuss the next five motions: That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 439), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. That the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunals (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 440), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. That the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 441), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. That the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 442), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. That the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 443), dated 12th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked. Of the six prayers, the most important is the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, No. 438, and that is the one to which we will probably direct most of our comments in the relatively short debate tonight.

Not for the first time, late at night, the Government are trying to slip through important regulations to avoid getting the matter into the media and drawing attention to something that they know is a deeply unpopular tax that will be enforced by regulations that will be equally unpopular. The regulations contain powers and enforcement orders, and many people will be surprised to know their extent. The Local Government Finance 1988—the poll tax and national non-domestic rate—contains no fewer than 736 matters that are left to regulation, determination and order.

Once again, the Government propose to legislate by regulation, order and simple determination of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a centralising and authoritarian Government who choose to act in that manner. I cannot think of any previous Government who included no fewer than 736 matters in a Bill. The Secretary of State for the Environment will have enormous powers. Not for the first time, the Secretary of State has introduced a Bill in which he gives himself powers to do what he likes. That is what he has done in respect of the poll tax and what he continues to do in a number of other Bills before the House.

It is argued that in some way the poll tax will be an easier tax. It is claimed that it will be less bureaucratic, simpler to administer and easier to understand. It is said that it will carry the public with it because, unlike the rates, everyone will understand what the poll tax involves.

It is worth bearing in mind that there is a lot more to administer in the poll tax. The cost of administration will be much higher than the cost of administering the rates. Regulation 23(7) deals with joint and several liability. It contains a sentence which has more than 139 words with eight cross-references to other regulations, which contain another 30 cross-references. We are told that that is designed to make things simpler. It will not make them simpler; it will make them considerably more complex—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How much longer are you going to allow 15 separate conversations to take place at the same time? This is a Tory tax, but there is no excuse for Tory Members trying to drown what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Soley

Tory Members are trying to kid the electorate that somehow the poll tax is simpler. I will quote from the regulation which deals with joint and several liability. It states: Regulations 20(5)(b) and 21(8)(b) apply as if the reference to the chargeable person includes, insofar as concerns the difference between the joint and several liability under regulation 22(1) or (2) of the spouse or manager in respect of the appropriate amount or recalculated amount referred to in those provisions and the amount he has paid in respect of the estimated amount so referred to, a reference to the spouse or manager, and as if the reference to regulation 20(8) were a reference to that provision as applied by paragraph (9) below; and accordingly any requirement which may be made by the chargeable person under regulation 20(5) or 21(9) for a calculation of the appropriate amount or for a recalculation of the estimated amount (as the case may be) may also be made by the spouse or manager. That is supposed to clarify the matter for people who are living together as man and wife. What nonsense. Most people will not understand it.

This part of the regulations came into effect yesterday. The Government postponed the implementation of regulations 4 and 5 which give community charge registration officers power to demand information, until 22 May. They did that, they said, to avoid the local elections and because they said that they wanted to enable their canvass to begin after the Government's so-called publicity campaign—or more accurately, propaganda campaign—had taken effect.

Of course, there were no elections in most Association of Metropolitan Authorities areas. Most of the regulations could have taken effect already in some of the areas, but they did not. The purpose of the regulations is to enable community charge regulation officers to address a form to the occupier and require any occupier to supply information in respect of other occupiers, it penalises any occupier for not providing that information.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

I do not want to anticipate a point that my hon. Friend may be about to make, but, in his experience, as in mine, is it not unusual that we should be debating regulations the day after they came into force? The Government cannot even organise their timetable so that the House, which is supposed to debate such matters, can do so before the regulations come into operation.

Mr. Soley

My hon. Friend makes the point that I have made on a number of occasions. The Government not only take incredible centralising authoritarian powers to themselves in a wide-ranging way, as they have done here, but they also slip measures through late at night in the way that he has described by bringing them into effect before the House has debated them.

Regulation 6 deals with information from public bodies.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between an occupier having a duty to fill in the electoral registration form in respect of other people in his House and having a duty to fill in the community charge form in respect of other people?

Mr. Soley

Yes, I can. One gives something and the other takes something away. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the importance of electoral registration as opposed to the poll tax, which is an unfair tax imposed on people in a way that will, in many cases, push them into poverty and is unacceptable. I would be more inclined to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he had lived up to the promise that he gave the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill, on which I too was a member, to meet the homeless people with me tonight. He refused and, instead, went off for dinner. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that he wants to intervene. All of a sudden he wants to be heard. But he did not want to hear the people whom I was going to take him to hear. There is a lesson there for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

rose—

Mr. Soley

When the hon. Gentleman promises to meet people and listen to them and then breaks that promise, he cannot assume that he will be listened to any more than the people to whom he has refused to listen. For that reason, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement to the House that he knows to be untrue and then to refuse to allow the hon. Member to respond to it?

Mr. Speaker

I hope that no hon. Member makes any statement to the House that he knows to be untrue. We are all hon. Members here.

Mr. Soley

I know it to be true.

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Soley

Those who do not think that it is true can read the Official Report.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a long-established practice in the House where one hon. Member refers to another to allow that other hon. Member to give an explanation?

Mr. Speaker

That is certainly our tradition.

Mr. Soley

I do not think that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) heard what I said. I told the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that if he had listened in the way that he said he would, he would be entitled to be listened to. It is precisely because he will not listen to others that I am telling him that he cannot assume that he will be given the respect that he refuses to give to others. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should understand. It is quite good training for people to understand that and behave properly.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that this is a prayer, not a sermon?

Mr. Speaker

Before we proced, let me say that we should all listen to one another's arguments in the House.

Mr. Soley

The Minister is right.

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Soley

He reminds me—

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us listen to one another's arguments.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear you say that it is the tradition of the House that if an hon. Member accuses another hon. Member of something, the first hon. Member gives way?

Mr. Speaker

I certainly did say that. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened and it seems that he did not like the reply that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave him.

Sir Hugh Rossi

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) broke an undertaking. That is a serious matter—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith say that the hon. Member for Pembroke was not listening. I am saying to hon. Members in all parts of the House that we should all listen.

Mr. Soley

It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. and the hon. Member for Pembroke should do something about it. As I was saying—

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Soley

As I was saying to the Minister on the issue of prayers and sermons, the poll tax is a lovely example of the way in which Tory Members pray on their knees on Sundays and on their neighbours for the rest of the week. That is what the poll tax is all about.

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Soley

No, I will not give way.

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has impugned my integrity. He said that I broke a promise, and he now refuses to give way so that I may make it clear that that is not the case. This morning I telephoned his research assistant and explained that because there was a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock and because I was engaged on the previous business of the House, tonight was, not convenient, and I said that we must arrange another night when I could take part in the visit.

Mr. Speaker

If we can get on with the debate, I might be able to call the hon. Member for Pembroke so that he can make those points at greater length.

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I do not want to intrude, as the phrase has it, on private grief, or to raise instances from last April, you will have heard the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) explain—I appreciate that it is not your responsibility, Mr. Speaker—that he was on a three-line Whip at 10 o'clock. From 7 until 10 o'clock we were engaged on private business. It is interesting to hear that the Tory party puts on a three-line Whip—[Interruption.]—for private business.

Mr. Speaker

I know nothing about Whips.

Mr. Soley

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) points out, the hon. Member for Pembroke has given the game away. The Conservatives put on a three-line Whip for private business. But even that does not work, because the agreement with the hon. Gentleman was simple. It was that I would have him back here for the 10 o'clock Division, but he still would not come.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to use your influence to ensure that we get back to the debate, rather than consider the outside activities of hon. Members, because some of us actually want to talk about the community charge?

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that this is a prayer —in fact six prayers—that the debate continues for one and a half hours and that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we may now proceed in good order.

Mr. Soley

I am satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke has got the message.

The exemptions order deals with information from public bodies. The measure permits the Secretary of State to declare some information off limits to community charge registration officers. The Secretary of State has used his discretion nervously in this regulation. Names and addresses held by local authorities are off limits only if they are held for police or employment purposes. That means that if an authority has names and addresses held for sensitive purposes—child abuse or something of that nature—those names and addresses, but not the reasons for holding them, must be passed to CCROs on request.

Social services directors have criticised that—I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raising this issue in a late night debate—because it is seen as a breach of trust and a possible deterrent to those seeking help from, or volunteering information to, social services.

Confusion has also arisen over lists of names and addresses for education purposes. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not available to CCROs but that if the same names and addresses are held by local education authorities for the same purposes, CCROs must be given them on request. The upshot is that local authority employees and parents of schoolchildren will have greater rights of privacy from the CCRO than the people with whom social service departments have to deal in difficult circumstances in respect of child abuse, wife battering, and many other sensitive issues. Such information will not enjoy the same degree of protection.

Under regulation 17, people may have to pay a full year's charge in less than 10 instalments. Ministers say that in almost all cases people will be able to pay in 10 instalments, but that is not so. If the percentage payable falls below a certain level, the chargeable person will have to pay larger instalments or the full sum. That will hit the poor, despite the Government's assurance that it will not do so.

Regulation 23(7) deals with the famous "joint and several liability", which the Government tried to hide from public knowledge in distributing a leaflet that does not make it clear that one will be liable for the poll tax of one's spouse in certain circumstances. Right hon. and hon. Members know about that liability, but the public may not do so. It is important that they are given genuine information. When I forced the Government to withdraw the leaflet "Tenants' Choice" because it was misleading, they did so quietly and unannounced. If the Government know, as they surely must, that the community charge leaflet does not present good factual information that will help the public to understand the poll tax, then they should do the same again. The Government must appreciate that that leaflet can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by people who are trying to understand the complexities of the poll tax.

Part IV deals with enforcement and sets out the full panoply of the enforcement powers available to local authorites. In outline, having obtained a liability order from magistrates, a local authority can demand information from a debtor, make an attachment of earnings order, apply for a distress warrant or the sale of goods, and in certain circumstances apply for attachment of benefits and even imprisonment. We are debating regulations that will result in people who are unable to pay the poll tax being fined, and if they are unable to pay that fine, being sent to prison. We are considering the possibility that poll tax debtors will go to prison.

Conservative Members have perhaps deliberately hidden from the public the fact that if one is imprisoned for a criminal offence such as murder, one does not have to pay the poll tax. But if one is imprisoned because of one's inability to pay the poll tax, one is still liable to pay it even while in prison. The very people who cannot afford to pay the poll tax, and who are imprisoned as a consequence, are still expected to continue paying it while in gaol. One is better off committing a serious crime and being imprisoned for that than being sent to gaol for non-payment of the poll tax. Surely no one believes that that is desirable or necessary.

Other regulations deal with attachment of earnings orders, distress orders, and other provisions. Unfortunately, the debate is limited. It should have been much wider, so that right hon. and hon. Members could discuss the issues in depth. It is important to understand that when poll tax collectors use a device such as a distress warrant, for example, they will have extreme difficulty in identifying the ownership of goods.

Take the example of the young person of 18 or 19 who has just become liable for poll tax and who does not pay it. If a distress warrant is levied against him and an order for seizure of goods is made, that young man may say, "That is not my property. It belongs to my sister or brother." If Conservative Members are naive enough to believe such things do not happen, they should talk to fines supervision officers, for that problem is one that they frequently encounter. The Minister, who I believe is a magistrate, will know that that is right. We are prepared, however, to slip the regulations through after an hour and a half of debate.

Statutory instrument No. 443 deals with student regulations, which govern, among other things, who will receive the automatic 80 per cent. discount. YTS trainees will not receive it; nor will postgraduate students seconded by their employers in, for instance, the police, the armed forces and the Civil Service. Student nurses on the present nurse training schemes will not receive it—although some schemes allow them to do so—and 19-year-olds at school will not either. They are not exempt like 18-year-olds; they must apply for a rebate.

Such issues will hit the electorate suddenly in April next year. The Government may try to slide the regulations through late at night in the irresponsible and authoritarian way that they adopt from time to time, but people in the real world will not forget.

In the Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) Order, the Secretary of State has refused to use his discretion to extend the "severely mentally impaired" criterion to degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease. That, along with the hour and a half that we have been allowed in which to debate the orders, shows what a mean-minded Government we have The exemption of certain mentally handicapped groups had to be squeezed out of them, and it is not difficult to find groups such as those suffering from Alzheimer's disease who are still not exempt.

What will Conservative Members do when people come to their surgeries and ask, "Why should my relative, who is suffering form Alzheimer's disease, pay the poll tax?"? They will use the same dodges as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who slipped out rather than coming out with me tonight to see the homeless in the streets. They will do a big cover-up: they will con and duck and weave to fool people into believing that they care. They will say, "I will see the Minister about this." But tonight they will go through the Lobby and vote for the regulations, and that is why the Opposition will oppose them.

10.27 pm

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

I welcome the instruments, and I do not think that the Government have anything to hide or to fear from them. We made it clear at the time of the general election that we believed that there was a need for reform of the local government finance system, and these measures will ensure that that reform is implemented as fairly as possible. If anomalies crop up during that impression, we shall doubtless be able to take them into account.

I find no difficulty in giving my entire support to a system that replaces the present outdated and unfair rating arrangements. The idea that it reflects ability to pay is absolute nonsense. On Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, I had the opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—whether he thought that the present system reflected ability to pay. It is obvious that it does not: there are so many anomalies.

When, not long ago, my right hon. Friend the Member of State visited my constituency, I was able to take him to an estate agent and show him the huge range of rates payable on properties advertised there, which did not relate at all to the capital value of those properties. So I think it is absolutely right that we press on with the introduction of the community charge under these instruments.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend for clarification on one point, and I am sure there is an answer to it.

I was rather perturbed to see from statutory instrument No. 439, in schedule 1, regarding the setting up of the tribunals, that in the area of each non-metropolitan county other than Essex and Hampshire the appointing body is the county council. It is a rather complicated order and I want to know whether the county council, when appointing these bodies, will have to comply with the Widdicombe demand that there should be a balance of political complexion. I am worried because, if not, in my county, the Labour party will undoubtedly pack the committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me some assurance on that.

There has been some talk about the problem of joint and several liability. I do not think there is any problem here whatsoever. Most people will understand the fairness of this scheme.

In my opinion, the whole point of the introduction of the scheme is to bring greater accountability to local government. Unfortunately, that is sadly lacking with the present set-up. It is important that we have accountability, and by greatly extending the base of people who are paying for local authority services, we shall bring greater accountability.

We need to make it more and more clear that quite a considerable amount of money that local government spends will come either from Government grant or from the unified business rate. The amount that we are asking the community charge payer in each of the boroughs to pay is a very small proportion of the overall community charge. It is a small proportion that will represent an accountability of what a local authority is spending.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain where the accountability comes in? At present, something like 50 or 60 per cent is raised by the local authority—that is accountability—and it is now being put down to 25 per cent. Accountability has been thrown out of the window.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am not quite sure why the hon. Gentleman is complaining. If he is complaining that the community charge will mean that a lower percentage of the money collected by the councils will come from the community charge payer, I should have thought he would welcome that.

Mr. McKay

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin

Yes, because I think that the hon. Gentleman misrepresented his own point.

Mr. McKay

What we complain about is that most of the community charge falls on the community, not on business, as the rates do now. Therefore, 95 per cent. of the people that I represent will pay a vast increase on what they are paying at the present time.

Mr. McLoughlin

If 95 per cent. will have to pay a vast increase on what they pay at the moment, the hon. Gentleman must be representing some very high-spending councils. The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. He cannot suggest to me that the present system is in some ways fair, because I do not believe that anybody can justify the system as it stands at the moment. There is a need for a new system for greater accountability.

Mr. Gummer

I wonder if it would help my hon. Friend in replying to the hon. Gentleman if he were to remind him —I am sure he would like to—that the proportion of local authority spending now covered by the domestic rate is about 25 per cent. That will continue under the community charge, and the business rate will continue to cover about 25 per cent. So the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat.

Mr. McLoughlin

I do not wish to take issue with my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked me why the community charge would lead to greater accountability. Everybody will pay something towards local government expenditure. That will lead to greater participation in local government elections. All too often, we hear of only a very small number of people bothering to vote in county council or district council elections. The community charge will, I believe, lead to more people voting in local elections. They will take a greater interest in local government. Every hon. Member ought to welcome that. If they believe, as I do, that local government plays an important role, they ought to regret the abysmally poor turnout at local elections. There are no problems over joint and several liability. That is an Opposition red herring.

Ministers and many of my hon. Friends have criticised Greenwich for taking the Government to court. However, by doing so, Greenwich council ensured that my right hon. Friend's leaflet was given a great deal of publicity. We should be glad that Greenwich drew the nation's attention to the fact that the Government were telling people about the important changes that are to take place. Many county councils and other councils that are controlled by Labour have told ratepayers all sorts of falsehoods about the community charge. Rather than criticise Greenwich council, as many of my hon. Friends have done, I pay it a tribute. It has done a great service to the Government and to the nation. People now know what the community charge is all about.

We have nothing to hide. The regulations should be passed so that local government finance and accountability can be made much more fair.

10.37 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

These measures are the latest substantial step down the road towards three dangerous conclusions. For many people it is a step towards greater poverty, and for many people and many local authorities it is a step towards more bureaucracy. For many people it is also a step towards less liberty.

The poll tax will result in greater poverty because the system requires that, no matter how poor one is, in most cases one will not be exempt. The instruments implement attachment orders if people cannot pay. In the end, they will be unable to escape. I was once asked at a public meeting whether I advised people not to pay. I said, "I can't advise you to do that, because they will get you in the end—it would be far worse to suffer the penalty of going through the courts and your goods being taken than to stand up, argue the case and try to ameliorate the effects of the poll tax."

Like every other hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, I opposed the Bill but came to the conclusion that if the system could cope with the bureaucracy it would eventually catch people. The legal penalties are in place. Those who already have to bear exceptional financial burdens will be susceptible to pressure from those who implement the distraint mechanisms provided for in the instruments. To escape that pressure they will have to borrow money. They will then fall prey to the abhorrent alternative of getting even further into debt to those who charge high rates of interest to help them out.

Secondly, some people who are extremely poor will not be exempt, for no good reason. The Government decided that students should pay only 20 per cent. If we have to have the system, that concession should be made. But people on training schemes may have an income substantially less per week that many students have, even on their low grants. The payment on a youth training scheme might be only £30 per week, whereas a student at a university, college or polytechnic might receive the equivalent of £50 per week. There will be differences between students and student nurses. Some people with higher activity costs will be expected to pay an undiscounted rate.

Thirdly, there are exemptions—thank goodness—for some mentally handicapped people. Those are the least of the concessions that could have been made. But other categories of people in equal mental adversity whose condition physically or mentally is equally problematical in terms of their ability to play a ful part in society, will still be required to pay. There is a specific exemption in the definition of residential homes for people who live in residential accommodation run by the Abbeyfield Society. That is specified in statutory instrument 222, paragraph 9(1). I welcome that—the society was founded in Rotherhithe—but I find it difficult to understand why it should be mentioned by name and be exempt when many other organisations running residential homes are not.

Next, there will be massive bureaucracy as a result of the measures. The estimate by the Department of the Environment of the amount that people will pay in poll tax was based on 100 per cent. compliance, with everybody being found and everybody paying, but I gather that it is now accepted that there was a substantial under-estimate of the cost of collection. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us in his reply what was the original estimate for the cost of collection in Scotland and what is the latest figure in practice. I understand that the cost of collection in Scotland is about 20 per cent. higher than the Government estimated. That means that a massive additional cost will have to be met by the people paying the poll tax.

There is dangerous bureaucracy, as evidenced in the issue that my colleagues in the Isle of Wight county council have taken up with the Government and challenged. The Department of Education and Science has ruled that names and addresses of parents held by schools are not to be made available to the registration officers, but that if the same names and addresses are held by the local education authority they are to be available. Names and addresses might well be held by an education authority, because it might also be the social services authority, and might therefore know who the adults were in the house in which a child lived. The registration officer may acquire the information, but only by a bureaucratic procedure that will add to the work load not just of the collecting authority but of another authority as well.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to but did not amplify the gory details of perhaps the most classic piece of drafting in any of the six orders —paragraph 23(7) of SI 438 on joint and several liability, a one-sentence paragraph of 139 words with eight cross-references in turn referring to 30 other regulations. If that is clear legislation, there is something wrong with the definition of clarity used by Government Departments.

There are also illogical and bureaucratic differences between people of 18 who are at work and have to pay, and people of 19 who are still at school. There are all sorts of ridiculous provisions which will make the system impossible to work. The worst aspect is tracking people down. Let us consider students in London. Students move around. They do not have the same accommodation for three years; often they do not even have the same accommodation for one year. In London there are more than 100 colleges, and there are 33 local authorities. Often the colleges do not know where the students are staying. There is a shortage of accommodation. Students move and cannot be tracked down, but local authorities will be charged with the responsibility of trying to find them.

Equally, there are many homeless people in constituencies such as mine. People live on the floors of other people's homes. They stay for a week or a fortnight at their brother's, sister-in-law's, aunt's or friend's and then move on. It is naive to imagine that when they move their first act will be to go to the local treasurer's office to inform him that they have changed flats and will be living somewhere else for a short time. The administration involved is ludicrous.

Another bad bureaucratic development has to do with payment by instalments. Apparently, it will be possible to pay in this way. That is fine. We can pay our rates in instalments now—10 of them per year—if we ask to do so. But the regulations require a minimum instalment of £5. The Government said during the debates on the legislation that poor people would have maximum rebates and would be able to pay, for example, on a weekly basis—with their rent, if they were council tenants. If the minimum instalment is £5, they will not pay small amounts regularly over the year. To a basic pensioner, £5 is a substantial sum if he has little else on which to live.

Finally, there are the dangers to liberty, which constitute the most frightening aspect of the six regulations. I hope that all hon. Members are aware that the enforcment officers can demand that occupiers of houses give information about other occupiers, even if they have no legal responsibility for them. We can be required to grass on other adults to whom we are not related. Two other adults live in my house now. As the occupier of the house, I shall be obliged by the regulations to divulge information—if I am asked—and there is a penalty if I do not comply. The system should be directed at making us personally responsible, not at creating a nation of sneaks to do the Government's job for them.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes

I will not give way unless the hon. Gentleman is generous enough to concede that grassing should not be included in the legislation and to vote against it. It is an unjustified invasion of the civil liberties of a country which is supposed to be setting an example—

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Hughes

I will not give way, unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the concession that I asked for, and I do not think that he is.

Local authorities will be given a wide brief to collect information for the register, including collecting from the commercial sector. If they collect information from every Tom, Dick and Harry, there will be even more risks of data-based private information being leaked.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

I hesitate to interrupt, but unless there are extreme differences of which I am unaware in the English and Welsh legislation, it is the poll tax registration officer and not the local authority who collects the information—and is responsible to no one.

Mr. Hughes

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Technically, he is right. The poll tax officer is responsible to the Government, if to anyone. The problem is that he will be perceived as going out on behalf of the local authority, because unless the local authority receives the money it will not be able to spend it. So local authorities face a horrendous dilemma—if they want the full whack to spend on social services, home helps and care for the mentally ill, they will have to employ a large number of people to do the impossible bureaucratic job of securing maximum compliance with poll tax, and they will waste a great deal of money in the process, so their other budgets will suffer accordingly.

Reams of sensitive information about people's past records, their relationships and their mental and physical history will be around. If all such information is to be open so that the system can acquire it, people will be able to pry on behalf of the Government to collect money in a way that we have not seen before. It is already clear that the Government are centralising our society. Through these measures, they are taking steps that will allow them to pry and probe into homes in England and Wales as well as those in Scotland in a way that has never before been tolerated. If we had a representative Government, we should never have these instruments. The sooner we get rid of the present Government and replace them with a representative Government, the sooner we shall get rid of these measures.

10.50 pm

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I shall first place on record the facts of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said yesterday and today, rather than what he chose to say in the House, after which he refused to let the hon. Member whose honour he impugned have the opportunity to reply. He wrote a letter to me yesterday, saying: I have arranged for us to be in Centrepoint (hostel for homeless youngsters) at 8.45 tomorrow as agreed. I shall have to return to the House of Commons to lead the Poll Tax debate at 10 pm but workers at Centrepoint would like to take you to meet other youngsters who can't find a hostel place. When I got that letter, I pointed out to his research assistant, as I could not get hold of the hon. Gentleman, that I also had to be in the Chamber for the debate at 10 o'clock, and that I had to be there before then because I was acting as Whip for the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I offered the hon. Gentleman's research assistant another date. I said that I would be very happy to go on another occasion.

I am still happy to do that, but I am not happy to go with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who has been so dishonest in his suggestions that I had tried to get out of an engagement. I put that on record as an example of the behaviour that we had from the hon. Gentleman in Committee considering the Local Government and Housing Bill, and what we are getting now. That is cheap, dishonest and contemptible.

The debate on the community charge is an important one, but I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who has just said that it is outrageous that he, as the occupier of a house, should declare who the other adult occupiers of his house are. He has to do that for the electoral roll. That is the duty imposed by law on the citizen. The Liberal party always supported it. The Representation of the People Act 1918 was a Liberal Act. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should think it right for the Government to impose a duty on the occupier to declare who is living in the house in order that they may vote, as is their right, but that he does not think it is also his duty, as the main occupier of the house, to declare, for the purpose of paying the charge for which they get that vote—

Mr. Douglas

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he has repeatedly told the House that he intends to break the law, and that he does not intend to pay the community charge, so we do not want to listen to him.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the hon. Gentleman take on board this point? The difference between the two, as I am sure that he understands, is that the opportunity given to the occupier to declare who is there so that they have a vote gives those people a right and an intitlement. This is different. It imposes on them an obligation with financial consequences and prospective penalties for them as well as for the occupier. This, in legislation, where people are meant to be individually accountable, by his Government's definition.

Mr. Bennett

That is an interesting proposition. The hon. Gentleman thinks it right that the law should say that where someone is to get a right, that must be declared, but when there is a duty or an obligation on them as a citizen, we keep quiet about that. That is disgraceful. That is the mentality of someone who does not report accidents to the police and does not want to know when there has been a crime because that is not a part of his duty as a member of the community. The SDLP should be in favour of citizens playing their full part.

Mr. Gummer

The duty and obligation to pay the community charge occurs not because a person's name has been put on the list but because the person has that duty as a result of an Act passed by the House. Therefore, the person who fills in the form does not extend the duty and the obligation to the people whose names and addresses he puts on that form.

Mr. Bennett

My right hon. Friend anticipates my next point. The Local Government Act 1988 was in the Conservative party manifesto on which I and my colleagues fought and won the 1987 general election. It was clearly set out in that manifesto and was passed by both Houses of Parliament without any difficulty whatsoever.

Opposition Members are seeking to tell the public which laws they should have to obey and which laws they should ignore.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

The Conservative manifesto specifically excluded any commitment to poll tax capping. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that an amendment is introduced to remove that?

Mr. Bennett

The Conservative manifesto contains nothing whatsoever about the poll tax. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the community charge, we might listen to him. It is important that we call it the community charge because that is what it is. It is a fundamental philosophical point that the community charge is a charge for local government services. It is not a tax; it is a charge to all adults who are not exempt to pay for the services that they receive. It is a charge, just as the cost of a television licence is a charge, or the excise duty on a motor vehicle is a charge. People would find it strange if they were charged different sums for exactly the same services. Every person over 18 has one vote and has equal benefit from local government services.

The nonsense of the rates was that they were fixed not on the ability of the person to pay or his ability to use the services, but merely on the size of his house. A ridiculous and unfair situation could occur when four or five adults in a house would pay exactly the same in rates as one person living next door— [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is shouting, perhaps he would like to intervene.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to intervene. Does he not recognise that, on the whole, richer people live in higher-rated houses?

Mr. Bennett

That is totally irrelevant, because it is not the house that uses the services. The people inside the house use local government services. The house is irrelevant. It was a convenience used by Victorian administrators who introduced the rates as a simple way of collecting a charge from local ratepayers. It had no bearing on the services that those ratepayers used. Houses do not use local government services, and five adults living in a house will use those services five times as much as one individual.

Mr. Carlile

Is it not a logical corollary to assume that the hon. Gentleman believes that all people should pay the same amount of income tax, whatever they earn?

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difference between a charge and a tax. Income tax is a graduated tax for all the services available within the community, and quite clearly people are charged according to their ability to pay. The community charge applies to local authority services, and there is a limit to the services that a person can use.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)

Does my hon. Friend accept that people on higher incomes would be paying more for local government finance as they will be paying more taxes towards central Government funding of local government? Does he accept that there is a rebate system of up to 80 per cent. so that those who are less well off will pay less under the community charge?

Mr. Bennett

Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) anticipates my next point. In England, 46 per cent. of local government services are provided by central Government grants, and in Wales the figure is 66 per cent. Therefore, those paying the top rate of income tax will pay 15 times as much towards local government services as those on the bottom rate.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Is my hon. Friend aware how much pain the Labour party's proposals will cause poor people in Northolt and other parts of my constituency who are fortunate enough to own their own home? They would be forced to pay rates according to the updated capital value of their home, as well as local income tax, under Labour's proposal. Those people are already in great difficulty trying to pay rates that have been doubled by the Labour-controlled Ealing council in three years. Many have to go without food to pay those rates.

Mr. Bennett

I have the most perceptive colleagues possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) anticipates what I was going to say. In Ealing, the rates are currently £537 per head, for those who pay them. The community charge will be £234 and on the Labour plan of 80:20 for capital value tax and local income tax, the unfortunate Ealing resident would pay £695.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)

May I take my hon. Friend back briefly to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? Surely my constituency is not unusual, in that it contains many elderly couples and many elderly people who, sadly, have lost their spouse. They are living in houses that represent what they were earning many years ago. The houses no longer represent their current income, because the owners are pensioners. Those are the people who are paying outrageous rates at present and for whom the community charge will deliver justice at long last.

Mr. Bennett

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as usual, speaks for the under-privileged in his constituency in a way that Labour Members do not.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the relation of individuals to the service that they require that those who have the most children and who need the most social services should be paying even more because they use more services?

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman used the word "require". I said that the community charge was fair because it imposed the same charge on each individual who had a vote. The important point is, if it is related to voting, that people have a vote in local government elections, so they should make an equal contribution if they are able to do so. For those who cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, there is a rebate of up to 80 per cent. of the full charge.

It is a misnomer to talk about "student nurses". They are receiving a salary and are earning twice as much—if not more—as students on a grant. To describe them as students is not correct. They earn as much as many other young workers and those other young workers will be in the same position with the community charge. I regret that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should speak about student nurses without making that point clear.

The Social and Liberal Democrats want to have some form of local income tax which would mean, in most cases, the doubling of what people will pay in the community charge. The Labour party wants to go further. It wants local income tax and capital value rates as well. That would mean, in many cases, three or four times the amount people will pay under the community charge. The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it.

11.12 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen)

The debate has been immoderately short—

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not presume to attempt to influence your choice of speaker. I want only to ask you to consider the following. This evening, the Government tabled six sets of instruments, with more than 94 pages of detail. We have had the maximum allocated time of one and a half hours. It may not be in your province to decide how much business can be tabled within a certain length of time, but it must be obvious to you—given that one of your roles is the protection of Back Benchers' interests—that to have no Opposition Back Bench speaker called during the debate due to the compression of business is not a democratic way to debate these matters. Perhaps when we come to consider the regulations further, either extra time could be allocated or those who have shown an interest by attempting to speak today might be borne in mind.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

The House agreed last Friday that we should proceed in this manner today.

Mr. Murphy

I can understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is of course, important to have a Welsh dimension to this debate, and although the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) represents a Welsh constituency, I am bound to say that he does not by any means speak for the vast majority of people in the Principality on the question of the poll tax. Indeed, he does not even speak for his own constituency, in as much as 60 per cent. of the people in his constituency voted for parties which opposed the poll tax at the last general election.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

I won.

Mr. Murphy

Hidden in the details and complexities of the legislation lie some of the most fundamental problems of the poll tax and of how to administer it. We already know that the Government have introduced a tight timetable for registration. The period from 22 May—yesterday—to 1 December gives local authorities very little time in which to put the registers into operation.

There will be problems with social security records, which are bound to be used. Even library records will probably be used. The lists of parents that have to be provided to local authorities under the Education Reform Act 1988 will also probably be used.

There is no special treatment in the regulations for youngsters on youth training schemes, for student nurses, or for 19-year-olds who are still at school. We all know that the expense to both higher and further education colleges of appointing certification officers is bound to be immense and to add to the financial strain that is already affecting our educational establishments.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who has now left the Chamber, referred to the tribunals to be set up by this system of regulations. I ask the Minister to ensure that they are properly staffed and properly financed, because my experience as a former member of a rating and valuation panel is that such staff have had to suffer a shoestring budget for many years. All the signs are that the tribunals will be used much more extensively than they are at the moment.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that Ministers in Wales and his fellow Ministers in England consult valuation officers because I know that in south Wales there is great unease among those civil servants about the loss of their jobs. On the issue of enforcement, the court order for the attachment of earnings could lead to the dismissal of badly protected casuals and part-time employees. In Wales, we know all about that, because half our female work force is in low-paid part-time employment. Deductions from earnings take no account of the number of dependants or of mortgages or other vital commitments that people may have.

One problem with the method of payment and billing is that low-income poll tax payers will not benefit from instalments if the instalment results in a payment of less than £5. That is bound to hit those areas of the country, especially Wales, with an above average number of low-paid workers. One in four workers in Wales earns below £150 per week. If that is not a measure of low pay, I do not know what is.

Just before Christmas 1988, the Minister visited Cardiff and the local paper, the Western Mail, reported: According to Mr. Gummer, the son of a Welsh speaking vicar, the poor will get a better deal under the community charge as will Wales itself because the new poll tax system will transfer almost £800 million a year from the rich south-east to poorer parts of Britain. That not only shows a fundamental misinterpretation of how the business rate operates in Wales and England separately, but also a fundamental lack of knowledge of how ordinary people live in Wales and in other parts of the country. I hope that when the instruments come into force they will be enforced with a certain amount of compassion.

As for the cost implications of these measures in Wales, we were told only last week that the district councils in the Principality will be some £3 million pounds short. The local authorities wanted a specific grant of 75 per cent. towards the cost of administering the poll tax, not the uncertainties and the vagaries of the block grant. In my local authority of Torfaen, because poll tax spending was counted as part of the GRE, the council would have been better off without the grant.

The position in England is different. A specific grant of 50 per cent. is given to local authorities, and the other 50 per cent. is taken from the block grant. My colleagues from Wales and I do not understand why Wales has been treated differently from England. Whether in Wales or in England, the regulations are bound to have an enormous administrative and financial impact on local authorities and the people whom they serve. In my local authority, the number of staff dealing with those matters will have to be doubled. The number of distress warrants will increase from 1,200 to 5,000, the number of accounts from 25,000 to 77,000, and the number of payments from 95,000 to a staggering 570,000 in any given year. If that is not a recipe for administrative chaos in the months ahead, I do not know what is.

It is certain that the regulations are as offensive to British people as the poll tax. They impose a heavy financial and administrative burden on our councils and the people whom they serve. They threaten our civil liberties and offend the basic sense of fairness and decency among British people. The Government tried to delay registration, but it made no difference—the people rejected the poll tax in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election and in the county council elections in Wales and in England. By every measure of public opinion that we have seen in the past few months, the poll tax is as deeply unpopular as ever it was. I ask the House to reject the regulations.

11.11 pm

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I will address some of the specific points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to the way in which the grant was operated in England and Wales. In Wales, every local authority is in grant, while some authorities in England are not. If there is no specific grant, authorities receive nothing towards their costs. It was felt to be more reasonable to operate the system in that way. In Wales, all authorities receive the sums of money that are put aside for them because of that technical difference. I do not think that there is a great difference between us on that issue.

I thought that we came to the nub of the arguments against—

Mr. Pike

We did not reach the nub of the arguments, because we were not allowed to.

Mr. Gummer

Perhaps I should address the points that I believe constitute the nub of the argument.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out the three reasons why he believed that the measures should not be passed. He said that the measures should not be passed because they would create greater poverty. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. The rebates under the community charge are more generous than the present rate rebates. That means that, because of the rebates, many people will find themselves better off. It will also mean that single parents with families will be particularly helped. The poorest people will be most helped by the community charge.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey clearly has not understood the system. People receiving an 80 per cent. rebate will also receive an extra amount of money in their social security income support, which, in most cases, will cover more than the 20 per cent. It will be covered in all areas where there is no exorbitant spending by the local authority concerned. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that regard.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was wrong also, because the Liberal alternative as admitted by the Liberal party states that those on average incomes would be worse off if we have a local income tax than they would be under the community charge. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his own party politics and policy.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey went on to claim that the regulations will mean more bureaucracy. I find it extremely difficult to take the argument seriously.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer

I want to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

The hon. Member claimed that the measures would involve more bureaucracy. That is rich, coming from a party that wants a local income tax. The Liberal party wants every local town hall to decide the details of income tax—to have a locally operated income tax supplement. The hon. Member cannot complain about bureaucracy if he proposes a system which would be far more complicated and expensive. Under his system, the whole of income tax would have to be rebased. At the moment, in most cases it is based on where people work. It would have to be rebased on where people live in order to be effective. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about bureaucracy, given his proposal.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the regulations would mean less liberty. He said that somehow or other—

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer

I hope to answer the points which were specifically, carefully, and I thought courteously raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

However, the hon. Member lapsed into some rather odd words. He said that he would not want to grass on people. He did not want to be a sneak. He is asked to provide names and addresses so that those people may bear their fair share of the costs of local authority services. If they do not do that, others will have to bear more than their fair share.

I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). We understand that the Liberals are happy to give information when it means that people get their rights, but they are unhappy to give information when it is a question of people's duties. I had always thought that the Liberal party, in its fine old tradition which many people in the past might have liked, believed that duties and rights went together. The late-lamented Gladstone would have had some pretty tough words for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about duties going with rights.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Gummer

I want to respond to questions which have been raised.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a number of points, most of which were spoiled by his rather churlish attitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke showed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith had gone as near to misleading the House as it would be parliamentarily proper for me to refer to. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that my hon. Friend had refused to accompany him on an appointment when my hon. Friend had actually explained that he could not do so because of his duties in the House and he offered another date to accompany him. The comments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith were a scandal. For that reason, I do not see that any of his other points are worth answering.

Mr. Nellist

If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, as the Minister has spent the past five or six minutes claiming, why are we debating 94 pages of regulations and orders in 90 minutes in the dead of night? Why were 21 million leaflets issued before the measures were debated, even though they came into effect before the House had debated them? Why did the Minister two weeks ago send a 620-word article to my local paper the Coventry Evening Telegraph and to the local paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? Indeed, as I discovered today, why did his boss the Secretary of State for the Environment send similar letters to 500 newspapers? If the benefits of the poll tax are so self-evident, why have so much public money and so much Government time been spent on this? Does this not reflect the Minister's panic about the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hate this Tory tax?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is wrong to write a perfectly fair article explaining the community charge in his local newspaper. I understand that that local newspaper offered opportunities for others to write in as well. However, in its editorial, that paper stated that the opposition to the community charge was a load of old rubbish.

The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed because the Coventry Evening Telegraph wrote a good article in its leader column saying how out of date were the views put forward by the Labour party. I am sorry that it did that.

I should have liked an article from the Labour party explaining the two taxes that it would like to put in place of the poll tax.

I come back to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on this, because I do not want him to miss out. He asked whether it was true that rich people generally lived in bigger houses than poor people. The answer to that is that four out of 10 people living in above average rated accommodation have below average incomes. That is a fact of life. There is little connection between the ability to pay and the value of the house in which a person lives.

When the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has explained in the Coventry Evening Telegraph why Coventry city council still will not carry out the ombudsman's directions on the poor people whom it cheated out of money, he could go on to explain to the tenant of a council house who had decided not to buy his house, that he would, under the Socialist tax, be taxed on the freehold value of the council house even though he did not own it and even though his income was not sufficient to buy it. I hope that he will be able to explain that on the doorstep. Very few Labour canvassers have been able to do so, and that is why there is such an argument in the party about it.

Mr. Nellist

rose—

Mr. Gummer

I shall have to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I made some personal remarks about him, so it would be only right to give way.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Minister accept that, 10 days later, the Coventry Evening Telegraph gave me the opportunity to put our opposition to the poll tax in the same number of words as he put the case for it? I am grateful to my local newspaper for that.

Over half the families in Coventry depend on state benefit, and the poll tax will force thousands into penury. Artificial arguments about what will happen in two years' time after an election are hypothetical and cut no ice with people in Coventry who view the tax with horror.

Mr. Gummer

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, he is saying something that is untrue, so I am sure that he is not saying that. Anybody on social security in the way that he has suggested will get an 80 per cent. rebate and will have their social security uprated to cover the other 20 per cent. The only case in which that would not be true would be if Coventry city council was overspending to such a degree that it should be ashamed of itself. If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman may like to explain to the tenants that he represents that the council is overspending and living off the backs of those who can least afford it. But I am sure that he will not want to explain that.

Mr. Soley

rose—

Mr. Gummer

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, for reasons that he perfectly understands.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson

I want to put one specific point—

Mr. Harry Greenway

The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Wilson

I did not just come in. I have been present throughout, trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister's weasel-like performance will not enable him to avoid answering one point about the regulations. He has not yet answered one point that has been made about the regulations—but he will answer one at least, and that relates to the alleged generosity of rebates. Will the Minister confirm that in the vast majority of districts in England and Wales, as in Scotland, any 25-year-old single person with a net income in the region of £60, will qualify not for an 80 per cent. or an 8 per cent. rebate, but for none at all?

Will the Minister also confirm that a person earning up to £65 a week and not qualifying for any rebate could have arrested from his wages only £2 a week, which the courts deem to be an appropriate amount? In other words, if a person in receipt of such earnings does not pay, and the Government are creating an incentive not to pay— [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Gummer

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from the pamphlet "Ability to Pay" published by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Local Government Information Unit, which unfortunately have their facts and sums wrong. The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss this matter in detail.

The help that is given to those who are not able to pay the community charge is more generous than that which is offered to them under the rating system as it stands. It is a means of making sure that one in four of the population will have the opportunity of a rebate, and 5 million people will get the rebate. Therefore, with the uprating, unless they have a local authority which is maliciously overspending or is unable to bring its spending under reasonable control, they will have sufficient to cover the 20 per cent.

Mr. Simon Hughes

rose—

Mr. Gummer

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had a good slice of time.

There are difficulties in taking any fairer system. It is much easier to have an unfair system such as the rates because it is levied on people's property, even though property has no connection with people's ability to pay and the property does not use the services. We tax property because 19th-century local government services were largely property services. We now have a personal charge, because we are dealing with services which are overwhelmingly personal services; 80 per cent. of them are concerned, for example, with education and personal social services.

The reality of the argument about the regulations that we are discussing is that the Opposition parties—both parties or both sets of Opposition parties or whatever collection one might refer to nowadays—do not want to have the rates, they both have an alternative of their own and their alternatives are more expensive to collect, less reasonable and accountable and put larger numbers of people in unacceptable positions to pay; and neither of them has suggested any sensible system of rebating to deal with the considerable attacks on poverty that have taken place. I feel strongly about this issue, because, as I have gone round the country, I have discovered why.

Mr. Soley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating statutory instruments, and you will be aware of the complaints about the lack of time being given by the Government to hon. Members to debate them. Is it not out of order for the Minister to stray so widely that he is discussing the proposals of other political parties, rather than the instruments? [Interruption.] We will certainly debate the alternatives, but we want to debate the regulations now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Gummer

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's attack is based on the principle that he does not like the facts when he hears them. The difficulty for the Opposition is that the more one looks at the alternatives—

Mr. Soley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must insist that this is a debate about the instruments. If the Minister wants to debate the alternatives, we will do that. I ask you to rule that it is not in order to widen the debate into what other political parties are proposing when we are debating these issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Time is very limited, and the Minister is endeavouring to answer the debate.

Mr. Soley

On a point of order, Mr. Depth y Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is getting very close to disputing the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. I remind him that time is short.

Mr. Soley

I am aware that time is short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not disputing your ruling. However, I have not yet heard you rule on whether it is order, in a debate on statutory instruments, when prayers have been tabled, to widen the debate to include the philosophies of other political parties. I ask you to ask the Minister to stay in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister is answering a debate on a wide group of prayers.

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Member of Hammersmith devoted much of his speech to complaining about the complexity and nature of the orders. I suggest that, if it were ever the misfortune of this country to suffer a Labour Government in which the hon. Gentleman formulated orders, they would be so complex that there would be a longing to return to so simple a series of regulation as those before the House now.

The hon. Gentleman attacks the regulations without saying what he would put in their place. That is a very comfortable position for the hon. Gentleman to adopt. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who attempts to interrupt from a sedentary position, wrote a newspaper article that was attacked in the editorial as being out of the dark ages. The hon. Gentleman was attacked by his own local newspaper for being totally unable to answer the case that I put in it.

Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman has not favoured the House with a contribution on the community charge this evening.

The regulations are the proper way to move forward to the new system, which is fairer than the old because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer than the old because those people who need help to pay the community charge will get it. It is fairer also because, at long last, it gives accountability to local people and not to the management committee of the local Labour party.

11.32 pm

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dumfermline, West)

As a Scottish Minister is on the Government Front Bench, I want to draw attention to some of the anomalies that now exist in Scotland. The hon. Member—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [19 May] , to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put:

The House proceeded to a Division

Mr. Pike

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Back Bencher, and having noticed that you and Mr. Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker have occupied the Chair during what has been a difficult debate, I seek your guidance as to whether there is any procedure whereby the Chair can prevent such a sham of a debate and a sham of democracy that right hon. and hon. Members have endured tonight. Many Back Benchers wanted to speak on major issues, but they have been given no opportunity to make points for the Minister to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman makes a debating point that is not a matter for the Chair. The debate was conducted in order. The House decided last Friday that the debate on the group of prayers should last for one and a half hours.

The House having divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.

Division No. 211]	[11.32 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Canavan, Dennis
Allen, Graham	Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Armstrong, Hilary	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Ashton, Joe	Clay, Bob
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Clelland, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Cohen, Harry
Barron, Kevin	Coleman, Donald
Battle, John	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Beckett, Margaret	Corbyn, Jeremy
Beith, A. J.	Cousins, Jim
Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)	Cummings, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Blunkett, David	Dalyell, Tam
Boateng, Paul	Darling, Alistair
Boyes, Roland	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bradley, Keith	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Buckley, George J.	Dixon, Don
Caborn, Richard	Douglas, Dick
Callaghan, Jim	Duffy, A. E. P.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Eadie, Alexander
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Eastham, Ken

Evans, John (St Helens N)	Michael, Alun
Fatchett, Derek	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fisher, Mark	Morgan, Rhodri
Flannery, Martin	Morley, Elliott
Flynn, Paul	Mowlam, Marjorie
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Mullin, Chris
Foster, Derek	Murphy, Paul
Fraser, John	Nellist, Dave
George, Bruce	O'Brien, William
Gordon, Mildred	O'Neill, Martin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Parry, Robert
Hardy, Peter	Patchett, Terry
Haynes, Frank	Pike, Peter L.
Henderson, Doug	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hinchliffe, David	Primarolo, Dawn
Home Robertson, John	Redmond, Martin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Reid, Dr John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Richardson, Jo
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Robertson, George
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Rogers, Allan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Rooker, Jeff
Illsley, Eric	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ingram, Adam	Rowlands, Ted
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Ruddock, Joan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Skinner, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Lamond, James	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Leadbitter, Ted	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Leighton, Ron	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Litherland, Robert	Soley, Clive
Livsey, Richard	Spearing, Nigel
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Steinberg, Gerry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Strang, Gavin
Loyden, Eddie	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McAllion, John	Turner, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas	Vaz, Keith
McCartney, Ian	Wall, Pat
Macdonald, Calum A.	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
McKelvey, William	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McLeish, Henry	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
McNamara, Kevin	Wilson, Brian
McWilliam, John	Worthington, Tony
Madden, Max	Wray, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Martlew, Eric	Mrs. Llin Golding and
Meale, Alan	Mr. Nigel Griffiths.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Alexander, Richard	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Brazier, Julian
Allason, Rupert	Bright, Graham
Amess, David	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Amos, Alan	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Arbuthnot, James	Browne, John (Winchester)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ashby, David	Budgen, Nicholas
Aspinwall, Jack	Burns, Simon
Atkinson, David	Burt, Alistair
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Butcher, John
Baldry, Tony	Butler, Chris
Batiste, Spencer	Butterfill, John
Bellingham, Henry	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bendall, Vivian	Carrington, Matthew
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Carttiss, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy	Cash, William
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Chapman, Sydney
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Chope, Christopher
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Boswell, Tim	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bottomley, Peter	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Colvin, Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bowis, John	Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James	Janman, Tim
Cran, James	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Day, Stephen	Key, Robert
Devlin, Tim	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dicks, Terry	Kirkhope, Timothy
Dorrell, Stephen	Knapman, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Dover, Den	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dykes, Hugh	Knowles, Michael
Eggar, Tim	Lang, Ian
Emery, Sir Peter	Latham, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Lawrence, Ivan
Evennett, David	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Lee, John (Pendle)
Fallon, Michael	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Favell, Tony	Lilley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Lord, Michael
Fookes, Dame Janet	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Forman, Nigel	McCrindle, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Forth, Eric	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Maclean, David
Fox, Sir Marcus	McLoughlin, Patrick
Franks, Cecil	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Freeman, Roger	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
French, Douglas	Major, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter	Malins, Humfrey
Gale, Roger	Mans, Keith
Gardiner, George	Maples, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Marland, Paul
Gill, Christopher	Marlow, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Maude, Hon Francis
Gorst, John	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gow, Ian	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mellor, David
Gregory, Conal	Miller, Sir Hal
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Mills, Iain
Grist, Ian	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ground, Patrick	Mitchell, Sir David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Moate, Roger
Hague, William	Monro, Sir Hector
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Moore, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Hanley, Jeremy	Moss, Malcolm
Hannam, John	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Mudd, David
Harris, David	Neale, Gerrard
Haselhurst, Alan	Needham, Richard
Hawkins, Christopher	Nelson, Anthony
Hayes, Jerry	Neubert, Michael
Hayward, Robert	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nicholls, Patrick
Heddle, John	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Norris, Steve
Hill, James	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hind, Kenneth	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Page, Richard
Holt, Richard	Paice, James
Hordern, Sir Peter	Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Howard, Michael	Patnick, Irvine
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Pawsey, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hunter, Andrew	Price, Sir David
Irvine, Michael	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Irving, Charles	Redwood, John
Jack, Michael	Renton, Tim
Jackson, Robert	Rhodes James, Robert

Riddick, Graham	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Thorne, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Thornton, Malcolm
Roe, Mrs Marion	Thurnham, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rost, Peter	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Rowe, Andrew	Tracey, Richard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Tredinnick, David
Ryder, Richard	Trippier, David
Sackville, Hon Tom	Trotter, Neville
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Twinn, Dr Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Scott, Nicholas	Viggers, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Waldegrave, Hon William
Shelton, Sir William	Walden, George
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Ward, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shersby, Michael	Warren, Kenneth
Sims, Roger	Watts, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wells, Bowen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wheeler, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Whitney, Ray
Speller, Tony	Widdecombe, Ann
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Wiggin, Jerry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wilshire, David
Stanbrook, Ivor	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Winterton, Nicholas
Stern, Michael	Wolfson, Mark
Stevens, Lewis	Wood, Timothy
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Yeo, Tim
Summerson, Hugo
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Mr. Tony Durant and
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Mr. David Lightbown.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the poll tax legislation, passed last year, left 736 items to be determined by orders and regulations. In a debate from 10 pm to 11.30 pm, we have considered six measures that take up 94 pages.

Four Front Bench spokesmen of various parties and two Conservative Members of Parliament were called to speak in the debate. Labour Members of Parliament wished to express the anger felt by constituents about the regulations, but they did not have the opportunity to do so. The regulations were introduced in a way that meant that the Opposition had to place a prayer on the Order Paper to force a debate.

You have just declared the result of the vote on the measures. During the last minute or so, they have become resolutions of the House. However, they came into force yesterday, 22 May. They became law for community charge registration officers 24 hours before the House took a decision on them. Those outside Parliament will be unable to understand the arcane and archaic way in which legislation that is enacted on 22 May is not debated until 23 May.

Is there any way in which you and your colleagues, including Mr. Speaker, can exercise any authority over the business of the House and ensure that the remaining 736 items that are to be dealt with by regulation or order are dealt with not at the dead of night but in prime time, or are given sufficient time so that all hon. Members can express an opinion on them on behalf of their constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

All that the Chair was doing on this occasion was carrying out an order of the House that was made last Friday. The Chair has no control over the length of speeches when prayers are being considered.

Mr. Nellist

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No, I have dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Nellist

Further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Nellist

I shall be brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Nellist

On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Very well.

Mr. Nellist

I thank you for your ruling, which I am not challenging; nor was I challenging the length of the speeches or your selection of speakers. I was challenging the length of the debate, which restricted the number of hon. Members who could be called.