Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill

HL Deb 05 March 1991 vol 526 cc1306-38

2.53 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Blatch)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Personal community charges: substituted amounts]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, at end insert: ("(1A) This section shall have effect subject to the making of an order under sections 6(1) or 6(2) below, and before making any such order the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of the results of any review of local government finance being undertaken at the date of Royal Assent to the extent that any such results are or may be in the future relevant to the operation of the duty to set substituted amounts under section 35 of the 1988 Act.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with my usual deliberate speed, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. This Bill had a brief but not particularly friendly reception when it received its Second Reading early in February. The reasons which we adduced for disliking the Bill and for feeling that it required drastic amendment if it were to go forward in any form—though we made clear our preference for it not to go forward at all—were that principally it is an unnecessary Bill and a waste of parliamentary time at a time when Parliament as a whole, and the Government in particular, are deeply exercised by the future of local authority taxation.

We were deeply concerned with the fact, now almost universally recognised, that the poll tax introduced by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 is a failure and has to be either dramatically altered or abandoned altogether. Last week noble Lords had the benefit of an extensive and interesting debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham—in Conservative time, much to our surprise and admiration. In that debate the fact that the poll tax has few, if any, friends was made very clear indeed. On that occasion a number of noble Lords took the opportunity to speak particularly about the structure of local government, which was another of the subjects of the debate. Virtually no noble Lords said that the poll tax in its present form should continue or that it should continue without drastic alteration.

The point I wish to make about the Bill and these three amendments is that not only does the Bill become totally unnecessary if the poll tax is abolished but also if there is any significant alteration to it involving the introduction of another tax to supplement the poll tax. The very rigid mathematical formulae which are included in this Bill only apply if the sole source of local government finance other than from central government comes from the community charge. If there is any other source the mathematical formulae which are included in this Bill go out of the window straightaway. Therefore, not only the opponents of the poll tax (there were many on the Conservative Benches) but those who feel doubts about its operation and who felt that it should be supplemented by other forms of local revenue raising will all be in a similar position to myself. They must be forced to the conclusion that this Bill is unnecessary, a waste of parliamentary time and an intrusion on the rights, privileges and duties of local authorities.

What was said in your Lordships' House only last Wednesday has become even clearer following the Conservative Party local government conference which was held last weekend. At that conference it became clear that there is no consensus on what should be done about local authority taxation within the Conservative Party. The present Secretary of State made it clear in his election campaign for the leadership towards the end of last year that he wished to see a property tax. It is now evident that a significant number of Members of the Cabinet who are not powerless feel that the poll tax should continue virtually unchanged. That view was expressed very vividly by a delegate from Finchley to the Conservative Party local government conference who sought, with considerable success as I understand it, to stiffen the nerve of a number of Ministers and leading spokesmen of the Conservative Party and persuade them that the poll tax should continue.

The continuation of the poll tax in its present form would be the death of the political career of the present Secretary of State. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine how we are going to achieve the appropriate result at the end of the present review. This entirely helpful series of amendments is suggesting to the Conservative Party, and to the Conservative Government, that they might well find it desirable not to rush ahead with legislation of this kind. They should take the time they need to sort out their own ideas about what local authority taxation should be. At the end of that process they should come back and say what should be done about this Bill.

This Bill is not merely about the poll tax. It is concerned with the fact that the poll tax is self-evidently a failure in its own terms. It was supposed to introduce accountability. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that widespread poll tax capping, which is the denial of accountability, is to be allowed by government.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

In view of the line being taken by the noble Lord, has he or any of his colleagues thought of accepting the invitation to put constructive views to the Minister responsible for looking into this matter?

3 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I rather feared that the noble Lord was going to say that. We have made our position extremely clear. There are plenty of publications which say what we think should be done about local authority taxation. One thing we are not going to do is to write the Conservative manifesto for the next general election. That is the only thing we are being invited to do by this phoney invitation to take part in what is proving to be a phoney review. What we are seeking to do with these amendments is to help the Government. We are seeking to ensure that the Government do not rush ahead with this legislation until they have made up their mind what it is they are saying to Parliament and to the country about local authority taxation.

It is not as if the law is unclear as a result of the Lambeth judgment which gives rise to the Bill. It is perfectly clear. The only trouble is that the Government do not like the Lambeth decision. What the decision says is that the Government have no right to insist that local authorities should take new decisions in the summer when poll tax capping has been introduced on old information available in March. Anyone who has been involved in business will agree that it is common sense to say that when one has to make a decision in a new situation one takes account of new information and of the most recent judgments that one might have had to make about the desirability or otherwise of passing on to ratepayers what the Government have called the "savings" from rate capping.

I must come back to the issue because at Second Reading the Minister made repeated reference to the duty of local authorities to pass on to local poll tax payers the savings from the capping imposed by government. That is simply not the case. Of the 21 authorities which were capped in 1990–91, seven cut their poll tax rate by the exact amount required by government and would have complied therefore with the provisions of the Bill. Six cut their poll tax by less than the amount required. But eight cut their poll tax by more than the amount required. They included both Labour and Conservative authorities. The Bill would prevent those authorities passing over more savings to poll tax payers just as it would the fewer authorities which passed on less.

The amounts of money are minuscule in comparison with the additional costs involved in the poll tax itself. If one looks at the whole amount which arose in 1990–91 from the poll tax capping exercise the whole fuss is over a figure of £4.28 million. I know that there are Members of the Committee opposite who quite frequently leap to their feet whenever one mentions figures to say that any amount of money is important. However, I put it to anyone who might be tempted to do so that the cost of producing the register for the poll tax alone—not the full collection cost, but the cost of producing the register is £130 million. In comparison with that, the £4.28 million, which is the figure on which the Bill is based, is virtually insignificant.

I am suggesting to the Committee that the Bill is a petty instance of political spite. It would be for the benefit and honour of Parliament if we passed the amendments, forcing the Government to make up their mind about future policy before proceeding with it. I beg to move.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

I am afraid I was not present at the Second Reading of the Bill but I have read the four speeches which were made. I am bound to say that had I been present I might have been rendered speechless by this little horror of a Bill. I must say that the Secretary of State for the Environment has my sympathy. This was really foisted on him. It is totally unnecessary and quite inappropriate at a time when he is reviewing the whole position.

My noble friend the Minister said that at first sight the Bill might appear to be complicated; and indeed it is, even at second and third sight. The Rent Acts were called a welter of chaotic verbiage. They were literary masterpieces compared with this Bill, which, if it were put in Punch, would be regarded as yet another joke at Whitehall's expense. My noble friend described the Bill as a technical one. We ought to know and the people who read Hansard ought to know just what we are discussing in Clause 1. I shall refer only to Clause 1(5). I quote: (5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5)— (5A) In a case where the substitute calculations mentioned in subsection (4) above are made under section 107(1) below, subsection (5) above shall not apply but subsection (5B) below shall apply. (5B) In such a case, any amount set in substitution under subsection (4) above must be set in accordance (and only in accordance) with—

1. (a) the standard formula (set out in subsection (5C) below) in a case where the charging authority referred to in subsection (4) above is not a special authority, or
2. (b) the special formula (set out in subsection (5D) below) in a case where the charging authority referred to in subsection (4) above is a special authority.

(5C) The standard formula is—

A-(B-C)/D where A, B, C and D have the meanings given by section 35A below. (5D) The special formula is—

A-( (B -C) × E)/D where A, B, C, D and E have the meanings given by section 35A below. (5E) For the purposes of subsections (3)(c) and (5)(c) above a qualifying precept is a precept issued by a precepting authority which is not a relevant authority within the meaning given by subsection (2) above.

It is a lawyer's paradise but nobody else's. What is the purpose of all this? It is to correct what is called "the Lambeth loophole". When Lambeth made its substitute rate it estimated that its non-collection rate would be 15 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. it had optimistically estimated previously. The Government consider that Lambeth should have stuck to 10 per cent., although the Evening Standard yesterday said that the authority has been unable to collect 44 per cent. The action of Lambeth was held to be perfectly legal, but the Government do not like it. So we have this little Bill which the Minister says is as robust and watertight as possible.

I am reminded of what happened to the so-called "Bromley error". When I spoke at the Third Reading of the Bill which introduced the community charge I referred to the "Bromley error". It took the Government three goes to put the "Bromley error" right for what that was worth. I suggested then that following the Committee stage of the Bill we were liable to run into the same kind of trouble again. I concluded my Third Reading speech by saying that, if any of your Lordships believes that it is the last time that you will be troubled … you may be sadly mistaken".—[Official Report, 13/7/88; col. 916.]

But little did I know that we would end up with a Bill like this.

The truth of the matter is that the process of rate capping runs totally contrary to the whole principle on which the community charge was based; namely, accountability. What the Government are inviting Parliament to do in this Bill is to amend the law so that they can make a political point. The Government want to say to community charge payers in the local authority which has been charge capped that they have reduced the charge by a certain amount this year and that the Government should be given credit for that. If the Government think that that is going to rescue the present standard spending assessment and rate capping system from the odium in which it is held by many, they are absolutely mistaken. What is most depressing is the inclusion of yet another ad hoc addition to this Byzantine statutory edifice that now governs the community charge and the addition of further legislation to the statute book which I defy anyone present here even to begin to understand or to grasp the totally absurd financial principles which it embodies.

In another place the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, Mr. Portillo, talked of the attitude of Lambeth being mere cussedness. Mr. Robert Key, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said that the Government intended to give, no flexibility or discretion to authorities to cheat hard-pressed local people".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/90; col. 110.] The issue has nothing to do with cussedness or cheating.

The Secretary of State has ample powers to deal with the situation under the present law. The problem raised by the Bill is, I agree, a simple one in essence. When a community charge is set, a local authority has to estimate the amount of charge which will produce the amount of money needed. As we all know, although everyone may be liable to pay the charge, in the real world, unfortunately, not everyone pays. Therefore, the authority has to estimate the amount which it will fail to collect.

In effect, the Bill requires that when a local authority makes a substitute community charge it should and must assume the same collection rate as it assumed when it made the original charge. It is because Lambeth Council did not do that and because the Court of Appeal found that that action was not unlawful that we have the Bill. But why should an authority assume the same collection rate as it did when it set the original charge when it makes a substitute community charge?

I do not wish in any way to anticipate the discussion on the next amendment upon which I do not want to speak. Lambeth Council was probably right to assume that a 10 per cent. rate as regards failure to collect was wrong and that 15 per cent. was more likely to be the correct figure. It is true that the present law restricts the information which an authority can take into account in setting a substitute charge. That is pretty fierce and probably wrong in any event; but it is no argument in favour of increasing legal fiction.

Local authority finance should be conducted on a realistic and not on a fictional basis. The Bill tries to impose a fictional basis. Another principle which we have always adopted in local government is that local authority finance should be conducted on an annual basis and that any departure therefrom should be carefully scrutinised. The Bill before us involves such a departure. Of course, as estimates have to be made, there may be an anticipated or an unanticipated surplus or deficit in any year, even with the best available estimates. It is one thing to try to balance the books on the best information available and fail to do so; but it is quite another to introduce such a Bill to try by law to require an authority not to make an estimate on the best information available but to make a fictional assumption which will almost undoubtedly prove to be wrong. That is what happened in the Lambeth case.

In my view there is no justification for the Bill. It merely seeks to eliminate one of the few remaining areas of judgment now held by local authorities when setting the community charge following capping; and it would enable the Government to say exactly how much they had benefited the charge payer. But that is not the object of making local authority budgets. The Bill is a further piece of ad hoc legislation which is pernicious in principle and which will not be effective in increasing the popularity of the poll tax.

Local authority legislation is becoming increasingly incomprehensible to many people and, if I may say so, it should not become increasingly indefensible. I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested on Second Reading, the best thing for the Government to do would be to withdraw the Bill and accept the noble Lord's invitation to take part in the review which is necessary. However, failing that eventuality, we should accept the amendment and await the outcome of the review. That is all I wish ever to say about this Bill.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My noble friend said that he read all four speeches made on Second Reading. One assumes therefore that he also read my small contribution. He will no doubt appreciate that I half agree with his central premise that community charge capping (originally rate capping) is not a long-term process which is in any sense desirable. However, my thesis on that occasion, and it remains so, was that it is necessary as a temporary expedient until the accountability of any system of local government finance, either on a permanent or a temporary basis, is arrived at and until the local charge payers can vote and become accountable. In my view, from that moment—although the Government have not yet expressed agreement with me and perhaps they will not do so —it can disappear.

But let us consider poor, hard done-by Lambeth. We learned from reports in today's newspapers, and indeed in the Evening Standard of yesterday, that half of the residents have still to pay this year's £521 poll tax. Only last month councillors voted to send in bailiffs and it appears that a total of £15 million has not been collected. We also know that last October the council was still owed £32 million in rates. Moreover, the housing department is owed about £22 million in rents. That cannot possibly be an example of a well-run authority. Further, so long as such money is not collected, the circumstances will change and there will be a constant spiral downwards.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

Will my noble friend agree that this is a measure which is intended to apply generally? We are not discussing Lambeth. Indeed, one may think that Lambeth is a good or a bad authority; but its charge payers can make the judgment. Under the Bill, the so-called "Lambeth loophole" applies to anyone. It says in effect that in setting a substitute charge the authority is entitled, with the best information available, to decide that probably 15 per cent. is a better percentage than 10 per cent. as regards non-collection.

Lord Skelmersdale

I agree. However, my noble friend raised the subject of Lambeth. On previous occasions we have tried not to make this into a Bill aimed at criticising and deploring the actions of Lambeth. But, as my noble friend raised the matter, I felt honour bound to put the facts as I understand them to the Committee.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

I should point out that it was the Minister who said on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill was to close the "Lambeth loophole". Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss such a loophole.

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, I agree. But, nonetheless, the issue of a loophole only arose because of a case which involved Lambeth Council. I accept that it also applies to any other council which finds itself in such a situation.

Perhaps I may now turn to deal with the amendment. I am sure that no one either wants or expects a lacuna to arise in raising local government finance. As I understand it, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, the amendment leaves the Bill on the shelf until such time as the review of local government finance, and the wider review in which it is encompassed, is completed. However, when it is completed, we shall presumably have a Bill which in due course will become an Act of Parliament. The acceptance of what is proposed would mean that the Bill would never become operative. I simply cannot accept that proposal. In a sense, it is something in the nature of a wrecking amendment. It must be said that this Chamber has never liked such amendments.

Baroness Blatch

The Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that I regret my noble friend's intervention. I regret it for many reasons. The first is that a major review is in progress and a number of the general points he raised will be addressed as part of that process. The second reason is that I believe I could take almost any piece of legislation in this place and make it sound unintelligible. Most legislation is unintelligible to me. Indeed, I have to say that I have never found a piece of legislation which I understood on the basis of a simple reading. In my view, it is too easy to quote from the Bill and make it sound unintelligible in order to make a case.

We are talking about an authority which denied its charge payers the sum of £29 per head of population. When the Government required it to set a substitute rate, that method was used to ensure that the full benefit was not returned to the charge payers. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham said that the Bill involves a departure from the annual basis of local government finance. My noble friend is right. I share his view of the importance of the principle of annuality; but the Bill is entirely consistent with that view.

My noble friend also said that if we dropped the Bill we might then invite noble Lords opposite to participate in the debate. I continue to say that it is regrettable that they have not agreed to take part in the local government review. The noble Lord's local government colleagues, who are much closer to the issue than him, have agreed to participate, and we welcome their participation in the review.

The noble Lord introduced a number of red herrings to sustain his arguments for the amendment. He talked about registers and the review, and he asked why we did not wait. Whatever the outcome of the review, we are talking of at least one and perhaps two more years during which the system will still be in place. It is essential that the due benefits go to the charge payers of Lambeth, or any other capped authority that is required to set a substitute budget and charge. The sole purpose of the amendments is to delay operation of the Bill. The noble Lord justifies such delay on the grounds that the Bill deals with substitute charges and the community charge itself is currently under review.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of course conducting a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the charge; a review which includes issues of structure alongside issues of finance. He wishes to consult widely on the review; I should be delighted if the noble Lord were to participate. But there can be no question of our withdrawing this Bill and leaving charge payers unprotected. As my right honourable friend has said in another place, depending upon the progress of discussions, he hopes to give a first indication of our thinking in April. As he said, by the nature of the review anything he can then say is unlikely to deal with all the issues but it may make sense to focus the national debate—to rule some things out and some things in.

Even if it were decided that the community charge should be replaced with another source of local revenue, there is no prospect that a new scheme could be designed, passed through Parliament and implemented in under two years. There is no sense in tying the operation of the Bill to the outcome of the review. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to delay the protection which the Bill affords to charge payers. The Bill is needed to help charge payers next year by, plugging a loophole exploited by Lambeth this year to deny its charge payers the full benefits of capping. Perhaps I can say to my noble friend that we call the loophole the "Lambeth loophole", but we should take an equally dim view of any authority that resorted to it to deny its charge payers the full benefits available. It is undesirable to delay operation of the Bill during which time the current unsatisfactory situation would continue, with charge payers subject to the caprice of local authorities.

The provisions of the Bill are needed to prevent any repetition next year of what Lambeth did this year. The Bill is about giving local people the certainty that if their local authority were capped they are not at risk of being put in the same position as the unfortunate people of Lambeth. It is not desirable to perpetuate uncertainty, and leave charge payers at risk, by delaying operation of the Bill. I call upon the Committee to reject these amendments.

Baroness Seear

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that trying to do anything to make Lambeth behave rationally is a completely lost cause. I live in the "People's Republic of Lambeth". It took a letter and four telephone calls before it would admit that I existed. Until it admitted that I existed, it was not prepared to send out a claim to collect my money which I was panting to pay. That was because I was not on its computer. The state of Lambeth is such that no rational attempt to make Lambeth behave rationally is in the least likely to succeed. It is an impossible task.

Baroness Blatch

I find it almost impossible to disagree with anything that the noble Baroness has said. What is sad is that the behaviour of that authority does a great disservice to local government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

What is sad about the whole business is that we should have such a Bill presented to us, and that we should be seriously discussing it in Committee today. Little needs to be said after what was explained to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. He put the Bill into its context. He showed that it has been brought forward to deal with one local authority although it will now apply to all. It seems to me that we are taking a sledgehammer to crack what must be a small nut.

As my noble friend pointed out, the nut amounts to £4.2 million. Here we have, in all seriousness, a Bill placed before Parliament. It has had its Second Reading and we are now in Committee. We are having amendments and so forth all for £4.2 million. That brings Parliament into disrepute. Cannot the Government deal with one local authority that kicks over the traces over one item without asking for the full panoply of a statute to deal with the problem when it amounts to £4.2 million only?

No wonder people feel contempt for the Bill and the community charge or the poll tax (call it what we will). Ordinary people who are expected to understand the tax easily now find the whole business so complicated that they cannot come to grips with it. Although the Minister and her noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls criticised the Labour Party for not taking part in the present discussions, the Labour Party and other parties have told the Government, from the start of the poll tax legislation, that it was bad legislation and that would land the Government in considerable difficulties. We told them that time and time again, not just on the English Bill but before that on the Scottish Bill.

I and my noble friends took part in that serious debate and tried to prevent the Government from getting themselves, and the rest of the community, into the mess which they are in and which is now being compounded by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, accused the Opposition of not putting forward any alternatives to the poll tax. He could not have been here last Wednesday, and it is a great pity that he was not, because he would have heard Members from all sides of the Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who made an excellent speech, putting forward alternatives to the poll tax which has proved so disastrous for the Government and the country.

Even now, the Government could salvage some of their reputation if they would say—they are still not doing so —"We recognise that the community charge (the poll tax) has caused people a great deal of bother and expense and wasted money".

At this stage people should tell the Government, "For God's sake, get us out of our misery, tell us that you will abolish the community charge". If the Government would only do that they could take away the Bill and we could all go home early tonight, very satisfied. If they will not do that, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will press the amendment. If he does not, I certainly shall.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I am sorry to extend the debate on the amendment, which is not worth it. The mover, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and, to some extent, my noble friend are not playing fair. I shall tell noble Lords why. We all know from our past experience that the Government would not be doing their duty if they did not try to block a loophole that had become apparent. There is a clear loophole which ought to be dealt with and it is the Government's duty to deal with it at the earliest possible moment.

We should not disregard what my noble friend said—a lot of money is involved. It is all very well to believe that it is just a matter of spending a few hours to debate a point of no consequence. If there were to be a general review (in which the noble Lord and his friends would not join), if those making the review could get to work quickly and find an alternative, all would be well. Then this temporary Bill—because that is what it will be—need not be brought into operation.

However, we also know that the situation which disclosed the loophole is likely to continue for one or perhaps two years before the alternative replaces the present system. The Government would not be doing their duty if they allowed a flagrant loophole such as has been disclosed at Lambeth to continue without doing something about it. No one knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Indeed, if the Government had not faced the problem, I know well that with his great achievements and experience in trying to persuade the House, the noble Lord would have been on his feet asking, "Why are the Government not doing their duty and dealing with this?" The noble Lord made it perfectly clear that this was just another reason to continue dragging into the limelight the political advantage that noble Lords think they have in the poll tax. That is what is behind this. The Opposition believe that they are on to a good thing.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

That accusation does not become the noble Lord. He and I served together in the House of Commons and he knows that I am a perfectly reasonable, honest, straightforward, non-party political chap. He knows it because he was present during the debates when I and my colleagues on all sides of the House—and even those on his side of the House—did our level best to prevent the Government from digging a pit into which they would fall, to their detriment and that of the country. Frankly, nobody could have been fairer than that. For the noble Lord to make unjustified accusations against me is deplorable and quite unfriendly.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

If I may, I shall add to that. The noble Lord knows that there will be an election within the next 18 months, whatever happens, and perhaps sooner. He knows that the main plank upon which his party will try to win the election is what they call the poll tax, the community charge. He also knows that at every opportunity they can find members of his party who will try to blacken the idea of the community charge. This is just another example.

I was interested that the noble Lord paid a great compliment to my noble friend. However, he paid him no compliments when he was pushing through the signing of the Treaty of Rome, with which the noble Lord is not at all happy. My noble friend uses today the same forensic skill as he used then. The noble Lord was not being fair. He read quickly through one or two paragraphs of the Bill. If one reads the Bill, it is quite clear in print. Many arithmetical formulae may be quoted orally which cannot be easily understood. However, written down they can be. I congratulate my noble friend and the Government. When we read the Bill, the examples and formulae in it are perfectly clear and make the provisions that much easier to operate when the Bill becomes an Act.

My noble friend knew that, but he is a pretty experienced operator. He does not like the Bill. His views are honourable and I respect him for them. He is using this as an opportunity to add a little lustre to the general argument against the community charge. However, this Bill is essential if we wish to deal with a loophole. The Government would not be doing their duty if they did not face it and noble Lords must recognise the political feeling behind the amendment and the speeches supporting it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am not winding up the debate but I am lost in admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—a man who finds the Bill clear. Perhaps I may refer him to Clause 2, which is entitled "Interpretation": 35A. - (1) For the purposes of section 35(3B) above - (a) A is the amount for which the amount is required to be set in substitution under section 35(1) above". What does that mean?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Perhaps I may reply. The noble Lord read that quickly but if instead he had produced a blackboard and set out the figures, as in the Bill, and the formulae explaining the provision, it would be perfectly clear. That is what a parliamentary Bill is supposed to do.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord does not know what it means, but I do. I shall tell him. Where the Bill says: A is the amount for which the amount is required to be set in substitution under section 35(1) above", it means the old poll tax before capping. I have worked it out. Where it says: B is the amount of the precept for which the precept issued under section 107(2) below is substituted", it means the old budget before capping. Where it says: C is the amount of the precept issued under section 107(2) below", it means the capped budget. Where it says: D is the relevant population for the financial year mentioned in section 35(1) above, of the area of the charging authority there referred to", I think that even the noble Lord could get it right—it refers to the population.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Perhaps I may make a humble suggestion to the Committee. We have said everything that can be said for these amendments and everything that can be said against them. If the Committee accepts my humble suggestion, it will find us all doing the Lambeth Walk.

Baroness Phillips

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, most legislation by the Government affects local government. It is generally carried out because people in local government understand it. In my borough—not Lambeth—the officials obviously did not understand the original Bill; many of us thought it was defective. In the good old days rates simply involved filling in one form and the rate was issued. However, the community charge so far as I was concerned necessitated five different forms. They were all dealt with by a mailing company; they were all equally inefficient and wrongly addressed. Like the noble Baroness, I wrote stating that I was willing to pay and would pay, but I still received a reply threatening me that I would be fined because I would not pay.

This was a totally inefficient operation, quite unlike the way in which local government has always operated. It can only be ascribed to the fact that the legislation was defective. As we all know, it was rushed through both Houses with indecent haste because the Government wished to get it on the statute book. We are now seeing its effects. Legislation cannot be hurried through which is unintelligible without there being another equally unintelligible Bill to try to put it right.

I taught maths. I do not know whether this is maths. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that even with a blackboard I could not explain what the Bill means except that somehow we must get more money from people. If the original legislation had been understandable and operable there would have been no reason for this stupid little Bill to go through Parliament.

Baroness Blatch

We are in danger of becoming self-indulgent in respect of matters which are for the review. Different people have different views about the way in which the community charge is working. Even if we were to respond immediately to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and abolish the tax tomorrow, it would still be in place next year and possibly the year after due to the lead-in time for an alternative system.

It was said that the amount involved is only £4.2 million. Yes, I suppose that it was only £4.2 million last year but that money belonged to real people who were denied it. From all that we read about Lambeth council we understand that this year it is likely to produce a budget which will be well above that deemed necessary to charge the people of Lambeth. If the change to the Bill were not made—if the loophole remained unamended—the council could simply use a substitute setting by increasing the percentage of non-collection to that amount and justifying the excessive budget. Thereby it would again deny the people of Lambeth their due deserts.

I agree largely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. However, I hope that she was not ascribing the inefficiencies of Lambeth to other local authorities. A large number of local authorities are doing a good job of billing their people and having efficiently compiled registers. Many are on top of the job of collecting their moneys and therefore, because of its inefficiency, Lambeth sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Bill is not about getting more money out of people; it is about getting less money out of people. It ensures that the reductions are properly handed back to the charge payers not only of Lambeth but of any other local authority which resorts to this method of obtaining more money than is necessary to meet the cost of local services.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that everything that needs to be said or that can be said has been said. Therefore, I shall do no more than to summarise the argument. In doing so I am bound to say that the degree of misrepresentation in this Bill which has come from the Government is astounding. What was said by the Minister during the last minute is also astounding. She said that the Bill is not about taking more money from people. Can she deny that of the 21 authorities which were affected by capping last year six took less money but eight took more money? Furthermore, can she deny that if the Bill had been introduced last year, the effect would have been that Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, North Tyneside, St. Helens, Basildon, Bristol and Wigan councils would have had to charge their poll tax payers more money? Does that not totally give the lie to the argument that the Bill is designed to give people the money that is their due?

This has been the most misrepresented Bill per line of its length of any Bill that I have seen since I have been in this House. Not only has the purpose of the Bill been misrepresented but the effect of our amendment has been wildly misrepresented. This amendment is the only way in which the Conservative Party and the Government can gain a shred of credibility for their review. If the Government persist with the review as it stands—

The Earl of Onslow

Then why are you moving it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

It may come as a surprise to the noble Earl but I am concerned with the reputation of Parliament and the conduct of public business. I am also concerned that we should not spend our time, that of another place, of parliamentary draughtsmen and of officials in the Department of the Environment, in producing a document which gives the lie to the claimed seriousness of the Government in carrying out their review.

I repeat, and I summarise, that if any significant change whatever is produced by the Government's review of the function, structure and finance of local government the Bill will become obsolete in regard to its financial aspect. The Minister is right in saying that the Bill will not become obsolete immediately. It is true to say that the Government will take years to get out of the hole that they have dug for themselves, and I do not deny that. However, it will become morally obsolete because it will be impossible for any Minister with a clear conscience to stand up and say that the Government will carry through the kind of poll capping which, if the poll tax has been abandoned or modified, will have been shown up as the denial of accountability that it is. I believe that the Committee should take a decision on the amendment.

3.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jeger, B.
Airedale, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Ampthill, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Ardwick, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Auckland, L.	Kennet, L.
Birk, B.	Kilbracken, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Kirkhill, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Listowel, E.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Longford, E.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	McNair, L.
Carter, L.	Mais, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Mayhew, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Mishcon, L.
David, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Nicol, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Phillips, B.
Ellenborough, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Essex, E.	Richard, L.
Fitt, L.	Rippon of Hexham, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.]	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Galpern, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Seear, B.
Glenamara, L.	Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Shaughnessy, L.
	Stallard, L.
Grey, E.	Stedman, B.
Hampton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hanworth, V.	Tordoff, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Underhill, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Whaddon, L.
Hayter, L.	White, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hooson, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Hughes, L.	Winstanley, L.
Hunt, L.	Winterbottom, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Borthwick, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Allerton, L.	Brabazon of Tara, L.
Arran, E.	Butterworth, L.
Astor, V.	Campbell of Alloway, L
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Beloff, L.	Carnock, L.
Bessborough, E.	Cavendish of Furness, L.
Blatch, B.	Chelmer, L.
Blyth, L.	Clanwilliam, E.
Boardman, L.	Cockfield, L.

Colnbrook, L.	Marsh, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Cornwallis, L.	Merrivale, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Mersey, V.
Cox, B.	Middleton, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Monson, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Mottistone, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Mountevans, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mountgarret, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Donegail, M.	Munster, E.
Downshire, M.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Eccles, V.	Nelson, E.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Elles, B.	Newall, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Norfolk, D.
Erne, E.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Faithfull, B.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Onslow, E.
Ferrers, E.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Flather, B.	Orkney, E.
Fortescue, E.	Oxfuird, V.
Gainford, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Pennock, L.
Geddes, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Gisborough, L.	Pym, L.
Goold, L.	Quinton, L.
Granville of Eye, L.	Reay, L.
Gray, L.	Renton, L.
Gridley, L.	Renwick, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Hailshaim of Saint Marylebone, L.	Savile, L.
	Shannon, E.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Strange, B.
Henley, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Holderness, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hood, V.	Sudeley, L.
Hooper, B.	Swansea, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Terrington, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Teviot, L.
Joseph, L	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Tranmire, L.
Knollys, V.	Trumpington, B.
Lane of Horsell, L.	Tryon, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Ullswater, V.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Waddington, L.
Long, V.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Westbury, L.
Lyell, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Windlesham, L.
Mancroft, L.	Young, B.
Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.53 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert: ("(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)— (2A) In any case where a substitute precept mentioned in subsection (1) above is issued under section 107(2) below the relevant authority may in setting any amount or amounts in substitution have regard to such factors or information as it reasonably considers to be relevant, provided that such factors or information have come to its attention, have altered or have become relevant, since the date on which the original amount was set or amounts were set in accordance with section 32 above." ").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4.

I heard it said that the previous amendment was a wrecking amendment. I hope that even the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will agree that these two amendments are entirely helpful. They are intended to enable local authorities to do what I am sure he would wish them to do—to behave in accordance with best business practice.

What happens in the setting of the poll tax and in the substitute setting of the poll tax, which is called capping? As noble Lords who read the newspapers at this time of year know, between January and March local authorities go through an agonising process of setting their budgets. At about this time of year they come up with their proposed budgets for the coming financial year.

In the old days when rate capping was in force it was introduced in the course of the year but it was not applied in the course of the year. Rate capping applied to the previous year. When the 1988 Act was going through Parliament we warned with all the experience and seriousness at our command that in-year poll tax capping would prove a disaster, particularly if it was as widespread as the Government evidently intended. It is a disaster for obvious business reasons. If one has set one's budget and sent out one's poll tax demands what happens as soon as it is known that the budget is to be capped? Those who have been asked for, say, £450 and are told that the charge will be capped but that it is not yet known what the new amount will be obviously will not pay their bills. Common sense dictates that they will not. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with all her enthusiasm for paying the poll tax, would agree that she would not wish to pay it if she did not know how much it was going to be because the Government had denied the local authority the right to say how much it would be. That process takes place between the setting of the original poll tax in March and the completion of the capping process in June or July.

What happens between March and June or July? The world does not stand still. There are important relevant factors which will become better known in June or July but which are not known in March. In March it is not known what the losses will be on collection of the charge. In March the local authority does not know what the loss will be on collection of the national non-domestic rate. That is not because the local authority has any control over the national non-domestic rate, but the number of bankruptcies occurring at present is bound to lead to a shortfall in the national non-domestic rate. That figure is not known when the poll tax is first set in March. Therefore, the local authority does not know how much it will have to provide to make up for any shortfall in the national budget for the national non-domestic rate.

In March it is not known what poll tax payers will decide about the timing of their payments. It is not known how many will pay by direct debit, how many will pay immediately or in instalments and how many will try to avoid paying until the last possible minute. It is not known what the income will be from the standard charge on second residences. Above all, the most up-to-date information on interest rates and inflation is not available.

Therefore, by the time the new capped budget is set under the existing legislation—which is not the purpose of the Bill—there is a great deal of information available to the local authority which would not have been available earlier because the position has changed in the meantime.

The Bill says—and it is hardly possible to credit it—that the local authority shall have no flexibility whatsoever in setting its community charge. It shall not take any account of the information available to it and known to be available to it; it must set its community charge in accordance with a mathematical formula which takes account only of what was known and taken into account when the original budget was set in March. Any private business which attempted to produce a business plan and to set its prices or establish its raw material prices on the basis of information which was three or four months old would rightly be driven out of business.

It has been determined by learned judges that even local authorities have fiduciary duties to their poll tax payers. I suggest to the Committee that it is in breach of the fiduciary duty of a local authority to set its poll tax on the basis of information which is not only out of date but known to be out of date. Yet that is what this Government propose to do with this amendment. If I cannot entice the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, to agree with me on this point and to intervene once more despite his stated objection to doing so, I shall be very disappointed. I beg to move.

Lord Rippon of Hexham

I am happy to agree. I should declare an interest as a member of the Bar. The Bar profits enormously from the fact that the Government are unable to define correctly the duties of local authorities.

4 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

These amendments are calculated to undermine the essential purpose of the Bill by leaving out the requirement for a charging authority to reset its charges on the basis of the appropriate formula and instead to let an authority rework completely its estimates of such matters as non-collection rates when its charges have to be reset, taking into account new information.

The point of the requirement to use a formula is of course to achieve the objective of guaranteeing that budget reductions achieved by capping feed through in full to charge payers. The formula approach is deliberately designed to make sure that authorities which have to reset their charges because of capping do not have the flexibility or discretion to deny their charge payers the full benefits of capping. When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reads the Official Report he will see that when speaking to this amendment he always refers to setting the community charge. Here we are talking exclusively about resetting the community charge. That is the difference. We are determined to ensure that there can be no repetition in future of Lambeth's action this year to deprive its charge payers of some £29 each by changing, when it had to set a new charge after its excessive budget was capped, the allowance for non-collection it had made when first setting its charge for the year.

The effect of these amendments would be, in practice, to abandon any form of ground rules for setting substitute charges after capping. This year's experience with Lambeth shows what can happen if the interests of charge payers are left to the discretion of local authorities. Far from plugging a loophole to protect charge payers, as the Bill aims to do, these amendments blow a yawning hole in the statutory provisions for setting charges. Even under the existing statute authorities, when resetting their charges to reflect budget reductions, cannot take into account new information. As I explained there were good reasons for that when these provisions were enacted and those reasons remain.

The traditional principle of local government finance is that authorities should not be able to increase their charges part-way through the year except in highly exceptional circumstances. That has been the position since we abolished supplementary rates and precepts back in 1982. What this Bill seeks to do, consistent with that basic principle, is to give charge payers certainty about what they can expect to pay and to protect them from the possibility of unforeseen increases during the course of the year.

These amendments, however, run directly counter to those principles. There would be nothing to stop an authority setting new charges which are higher than the old ones. In short, there would be no guarantee that charge payers would receive the full benefits of capping. It has been argued that capped authorities are in some way in a unique position so that they should not be subject to the normal rules. We do not accept that capped authorities have a special need, when resetting their charges after capping, to take account of changes of circumstances or fresh information since they initially set their charges for the year. As I said in our Second Reading debate, all must make their best estimates of income and expenditure when setting their charges at the start of the year and live with the consequences. If the number of charge payers turns out to be less than anticipated this will lead to a collection fund deficit which an authority must take into account in setting its charges for the following year. The Bill does not alter these arrangements.

There is no reason why capped authorities should have some special dispensation to review their estimate of non-collection. Until a new charge is set, charge payers are legally obliged to pay the old charge and authorities should enforce it. It is clear that under the existing statute a capped authority cannot increase its estimate of the non-collection rate to allow for the fact that it has been capped. The noble Lord will be aware that Haringey did just that when first resetting its charge after capping last summer. That charge was found by the divisional court to be unlawful and was quashed.

In short, these amendments, rather than seeking to ensure that capped authorities remain in the same position as all other authorities, seek to give them a special advantage, to the detriment of their charge payers. The amendments abandon the formula approach and with it the safeguards for charge payers which we are seeking to provide. I call upon the Committee to reject them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister's reasonable tone ought not to give the Committee the wrong impression. What happens in this Bill and in the amendments I have put forward has seriously been misrepresented by the Government's arguments. I have to repeat—I challenge the Minister to deny it if I am wrong —that last year more councils reduced their poll taxes by more than the suggested figures than those who reduced their poll tax by less than the suggested figures. I repeat that the councils of Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, North Tyneside, St. Helens, Basildon, Bristol and Wigan reduced their poll tax last year by more than the suggested figure. The effect of this Bill will be that they could not do so again. In other words, more rather than less money will be taken from the poll tax payers. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted for the Minister to correct me.

Baroness Blatch

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer that. He referred to the Bill preventing an authority from passing to charge payers more than required. I am not sure what he means when he refers to the required amount. The simple point is that we want to ensure that the reductions in budget feed through in full to charge payers; nothing more and nothing less. We believe that the Bill does that. I add that it is always open to any charging authority voluntarily to reduce its charge if it so wishes. That remains the case.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister is being opaque. I rather fear that her advice is deliberately opaque. When she said "nothing more and nothing less", that is the truth of the matter. The Bill proposes an arithmetical formula which says that the reduction in the budget set by capping shall be carried through to each resident—the entire amount, nothing more and nothing less, shall be carried through. She does not deny the fact—as I understand it—that last year more local authorities passed on more savings than were required, and would be required to pass on less savings now, than there were authorities which passed on less savings, and would now be required to pass on more savings.

Again, if I am wrong, I shall gladly give way. But unless I am wrong this Bill is being totally misrepresented from the Government Front Bench. I do not blame the Minister personally but the Government's position is utterly untenable. I shall not be corrected on matters of this kind, unless I am wrong. However, it is quite clear that I am not wrong. The purpose of these amendments is very clear. It has not been adequately described or rebutted in any way by the Minister's arguments. The purpose is to make sure that information which was not available at the time and facts which have transpired since the time when the first poll tax level was set are taken into account in setting the new poll tax.

There is no freedom, as the Minister says, for the local authorities to set a higher poll tax than before. Their budgets have been capped. Why should they do so? There is no possible reason for it. Of course, in general terms they will be reflecting the reduction of their budget in the reduction of the poll tax, but not on a one-to-one arithmetical basis and not on the unbusinesslike basis that is proposed by this Government.

I had not intended to press this matter, but I shall again have to take the opinion of the Committee.

4.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Kirkhill, L.
Airedale, L.	Listowel, E.
Ardwick, L.	Lockwood, B.
Attlee, E.	Longford, E.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mayhew, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mishcon, L.
Carter, L.	Monson, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
David, B.	Phillips, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Richard, L.
Ennals, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Fitt, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.]	Sainsbury, L.
Galpern, L.	Seear, B.
Glenamara, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Grey, E.	Serota, B.
Hanworth, V.	Stallard, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Stedman, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooson, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hughes, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hunt, L.	Underhill, L.
Jeger, B.	Whaddon, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	White, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Kennet, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Kilbracken, L.	Winstanley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Brabazon of Tara, L.
Allerton, L.	Bridgeman, V.
Arran, E.	Brigstocke, B.
Astor, V.	Butterworth, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Campbell of Alloway, L.
Beloff, L.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Bessborough, E.	Carnock, L.
Birdwood, L.	Cavendish of Furness, L.
Blake, L.	Chelmer, L.
Blatch, B.	Clanwilliam, E.
Blyth, L.	Cockfield, L.
Boardman, L.	Colnbrook, L.
Borthwick, L.	Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Cornwallis, L.	Marsh, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Cox, B.	Merrivale, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Mersey, V.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mottistone, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Mountevans, L.
Donegall, M.	Mountgarret, V.
Downshire, M.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Eccles, V.	Munster, E.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Nelson, E.
Elles, B.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Newall, L.
Erne, E.	Norfolk, D.
Faithfull, B.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Ferrers, E.	Onslow, E.
Flather, B.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Gainford, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Geddes, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Gisborough, L.	Pennock, L.
Goold, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Gray, L.	Pym, L.
Greenway, L.	Reay, L.
Gridley, L.	Renton, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Renwick, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Savile, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Seccombe, B.
Henley, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Holderness, L.	Strange, B.
Hood, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Hooper, B.	Strathcona and Mount
Hylton-Foster, B.	Royal, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Joseph, L.	Swinfen, L.
Keyes, L.	Terrington, L.
Knollys, V.	Teviot, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lindsay, E.	Tranmire, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Trumpington, B.
Lyell, L.	Ullswater, V.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Waddington, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Westbury, L.
Mancroft, L.	Wharton, B.
Margadale, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.17 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("case") to end of line 24 and insert ("the authority may in setting any amount or amounts in substitution place any interpretation which it reasonably considers appropriate on such factors or information as were known to it on the date on which the equivalent original amount was set under section 32 above.").

The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendment No. 5. In some ways the amendment is a reflection on—another way of considering—the issue raised by the previous set of amendments. We suggest in the amendment, with some reluctance, that in this respect the 1988 Act was not that bad after all. In other words, the provisions which Section 35 of the 1988 Act sought to implement were, as the law interpreted them, perfectly acceptable, clear and capable of implementation.

On this occasion we do not say that local authorities should have the ability to give effect to new information which becomes available to them. The Committee in its wisdom has decided that that shall not be the case. I hope that nobody who voted against the last amendment runs a business. I should hate to think of being a shareholder in such a business. Nevertheless that is what the Committee decided; and I shall not pursue the point.

However, it is more difficult to argue that it would be wrong for a local authority to exercise its latest judgment on the meaning of the information already available to it. That was the intention of the 1988 Local Government Finance Act, as interpreted by the courts. That is the status quo now. The amendment intends to achieve that position in legislation.

I have avoided being drawn into discussions about Lambeth because, as I make clear, the Bill is far more concerned with local authorities such as Brent, North Tyneside and others which I listed than with Lambeth. The only difference is that Lambeth was taken to the courts and won in this respect. It is not that the Bill is about Lambeth. However, I am bound to recall not only the finding that Lambeth Council had behaved properly in setting its poll tax but also the words of Mr. Justice Otton—Sir Geoffrey Otton—in the High Court that councillors had, approached their task with the utmost care".

They may have approached their task with the utmost care. But what they were doing when they attempted to reset the poll tax level later in the year in accordance with their own judgment was exactly the same thing but in a more up-to-date way. That, I suggest, is the path of prudence.

It may not be true of all the activities of Lambeth; it may not be true of all the activities of many other local authorities. Nobody is suggesting that they are all uniquely, or universally, perfect. But it is the path of prudence to exercise your judgment as best you can. Indeed, it is your duty to the local electorate to exercise your judgment as best you can according to the best information available at the time. That is what this amendment would make possible. That is what the Bill as drafted does not make possible. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

The previous group of amendments, which the Committee considered and rejected, sought to undermine the purpose of the Bill through the device of enabling authorities resetting charges after capping to use information which has come to light since the original charge was set. These amendments are similarly designed to torpedo the Bill by enabling a charging authority which has to set a new charge after capping to put a new interpretation on information which it had when setting the charge originally.

This amendment invalidates the Bill. It is no more than a wrecking amendment. Such an approach would clearly enable an authority to change the estimate of non-collection it made when it first set its charge for the year. This is of course precisely what Lambeth did this financial year when it increased its non-collection estimate from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. when resetting its charge. In so doing the council deprived its charge payers of over half the charge reduction implied by the cut it had already made in its excessive budget.

I am aware that, on the facts of its particular case, Lambeth's action was found by the courts to be lawful. The courts accepted that Lambeth was entitled to draw a different conclusion in resetting its charge in August 1990 from the one it had drawn in March as to the allowance to make for non-collection on the basis of the information it had in March. The courts accepted that Lambeth had taken no new information into account.

These amendments do indeed appear to presuppose that it is realistic to expect a council to be able to ignore any and all information coming into existence after the original charge is set. As Lord Justice Mustill said in his judgment in the Lambeth case: the practicality of the exercise … is … highly questionable". Lord Justice Mustill went on: Surely it would demand too much of anyone, let alone an elected local councillor under intense pressure from his electorate, to perform again the process which he or his predecessor had carried out months before, wholly ignoring the colourful, widely reported, and highly politicised events which everyone knew only too well had taken place in the meantime. Nevertheless this is just what the Mayor of Lambeth has sworn on behalf of his members, without challenge, did indeed happen. A heroic task indeed. In any event the fundamental point is that even were performing such a task practicable, it is thoroughly undesirable. It is just what the Bill is designed to prevent. It was precisely because of the Lambeth case that we introduced the Bill in November to prevent a repetition of Lambeth's behaviour.

I do not propose to detain the Committee by reiterating why we do not accept that capped authorities should enjoy special treatment when it comes to resetting their charges, treatment which would put them in a wholly unjustified, privileged position vis-à-vis other authorities and to the detriment of their charge payers. But I shall repeat that it is an established principle of local government finance that authorities cannot increase their charges partway through the year, except in highly exceptional circumstances. These amendments represent an open invitation to an authority to reset its charge after capping at any level it likes. It could even be higher than the original. These amendments are plainly wrecking and contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill. I call upon the Committee to reject them.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responds to my noble friend perhaps either he or my noble friend can answer a particular worry that there is in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has expressed his total antithesis to the whole subject of community charge capping, or any capping.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Antagonism.

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, antagonism. I am grateful. The question that arises in my mind is: would there be any circumstances under which the Secretary of State could recap—in other words, cap the authority again —if such an amendment as this were passed into law?

Baroness Blatch

If this amendment were to be passed into law, then setting at the wrong rate would actually be illegal.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Indeed. The wrong rate, either too high or too low. Eight authorities saved their ratepayers more; six authorities saved their ratepayers less.

Baroness Blatch

I come back for the third and last time on the point that the noble Lord raises. In the debate on the first group of amendments the noble Lord referred to the Bill preventing authorities passing on more than the amounts required. He subsequently spoke of more than the amounts suggested. If he is talking about comparing the reductions made with the exemplifications which we published it is entirely wrong to suggest that these exemplifications represented the precise charge we expected capped authorities to reset.

The charges they actually set could be lower if they reduced their budget by more than the amount required to comply with the cap, as Hillingdon did last year. They could also be lower than those exemplifications, depending precisely on the population figures used. The key point is that the Bill removes all uncertainty. It means that reductions in budgets, whether the minimum to meet the cap, or more where the authority so decides, are fed through in full to the charge payer.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I do not know where I am going to go. We are now having direct misrepresentation of the Bill from the Minister on the Front Bench. To whom do I appeal? How do we get the truth told in this Chamber? The Bill says that any amount set in substitution must be set in accordance with the formula. The Minister herself said it on the last amendment; no more, and no less. Those authorities which set either more, or less, last year than in accordance with the formula will no longer be allowed to do so. Am I right, or am I wrong?

Baroness Blatch

The Committee must be exhausted. I have come back three times on this point. The noble Lord will have to refer to Hansard for all my answers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am entitled to an answer. I am entitled to be told whether those authorities which set a poll tax either less or more than the formula last year would be constrained by this Bill to set only in accordance with the formula. That is what the Bill means. If the Minister cannot explain the Bill, then the Committee should not be considering the Bill.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The noble Lord is entitled to come back, as he has just said, but I do not think that under any rules he is entitled to say that the Minister is deliberately telling an untruth. That is carrying the language of the debate to a point where it could become jolly near intolerable. I do not think the noble Lord should allow that to stand without trying to rectify it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

If the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will read Hansard he will find that I did not say that the Minister was not telling the truth. What I said was that I have not had an answer to my question. My question is a simple question. If this Bill had been in force last year would it not have prevented those authorities which set a capped poll tax, resetting their poll tax in accordance with the capping either higher or lower than the amount provided for? Would they have been able to do so or not?

Baroness Blatch

Last year there was no formula. We are talking about a formula that will apply as and when this Bill gets on to the statute book. But I will throw a question back to the noble Lord. Is he talking about the reductions made with the exemplifications that we published, or is he talking about some other figure?

4.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister ought to try to answer my questions before she throws questions back to me. My question is very simple. If this Bill were introduced, would it be possible for any authorities to reset their community charge in any way other than in accordance with the formula? If I am right, is it not the case that, if it had been applied last year, those eight authorities which reset their poll tax by more than the arithmetical amount would have been prohibited from doing so just as surely as those which reset their poll tax by less than the amount?

Baroness Blatch

The point is that the formula applies to the reduction in charge and not to the reduction in budget. I am informed, as I said in my third answer to the noble Lord, that authorities have to reduce their budget and it is possible to reduce to the cap or lower.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I think that the Minister will regret that. Of course it is true. The Bill reflects the possibility of the Government forcibly reducing the budget. That is what charge-capping is. But what the Bill does is to set a single arithmetical formula for every part of the country except the city of London for the relationship between the reduction in budget and the reduction in the amount charged to each community charge payer. If that is the case—and I again ask whether it is the case—does it not apply to those who would wish, as they wished last year, to set their community charge lower or higher than the amount which would be reflected in the arithmetical formula?

Baroness Blatch

I regret nothing of my answer. What I have said, and I shall say it once more, is that it means that reductions in budget, whether the minimum to meet the cap or where the authority so decides, are fed through in full to the charge payers. That is at the cap level or lower.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I shall have to leave it at that. But the Minister has not heard the last of this because that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that the amount set in substitution must be set in accordance with the formula. It does not say that you are entitled to put more or less into reserves or to change your budget in any other way. The budget has been set by the capping procedure. It is quite clear that we shall not get a straight forward debate on what should be a simple subject which ought to be dealt with around a table. With utter dissatisfaction with the answers given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Substituted amounts: interpretation]:

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

("Losses to collection fund

.—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 35C of the 1988 Act—

"Losses to collection fund.

35D.—(1) For the purposes of section 35(5) above, where the Secretary of State determines to make an order under sections 104(2) or 106(2) below, as a result of which an authority will be required to set a substitute amount under section 35(4) above, he shall before laying a draft of the order lay before Parliament a statement of—

1. (a) the basis of calculation of D;
2. (b) the collection rate of any authority concerned;
3. (c) an estimate of the losses likely to be incurred to the collection fund of any authority referred to in the order as a result of the setting by it if of a substituted amount; and
4. (d) an estimate of the additional community charge likely to result in the following financial year in that authority from the losses estimated under paragraph (c) above.

(2) In having any estimate or statement under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any relevant information received from the authority." ").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is again concerned with the issue of getting the best possible information on the basis on which the local authority budget should be set, but it is on this occasion a very much more modest amendment. What it says is that, recognising the fact that Parliament will have to approve the poll tax capping orders, Parliament ought to be fully informed about the assumptions which government have entered into in introducing the poll tax capping orders. Therefore it provides the basis of calculation of relevant population for the purpose of the formula—and that is the part which is perhaps the least difficult to understand of the whole Bill—and the collection rate of the particular authority, because there must be some assumption about collection rate made when the capping is introduced, as well as an estimate of losses which the Secretary of State expects to be incurred in the collection fund as a result of setting a substituted amount.

I shall not weary the Committee by repeating what is self-evident to anybody who knows anything about local government: if you set a tax and you are then told that you have to change it, the people who would otherwise pay their tax have no incentive to do so and hold off until they hear what the final figure will be —in the case of Lambeth, Haringey and some others, I believe that that lasted until September last year—and an estimate of the additional poll tax which will be likely in the following financial year to make up the losses.

Parliament has a duty to consider these matters; Parliament has a duty to question Ministers about the assumptions that they make in producing the orders, and Parliament has a duty to question the figures. Surely the best way to ensure that Parliament carries out those duties properly is to make sure that the Minister provides the information in advance when he makes the capping orders. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

This new clause seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a number of requirements relating to the substitute charges which an authority has to set after capping. It is based on the false premise that capped authorities are in some way disadvantaged by the formula approach of the Bill in general and in particular that it will lead such authorities to incur a deficit on the collection fund. It is not the case that the Bill radically changes the position of such authorities by preventing them from increasing the allowance they made for non-collection when they first set their charges for the year. It may help noble Lords if I set out the position in some detail.

There is a statutory requirement for an authority to balance its books when setting its charges at the start of the year. The Bill does not change this. All authorities have to make their best estimate of income and expenditure at the beginning of the year and live with the consequences. An authority's actual income and expenditure is bound to differ somewhat from its estimates, so at the end of the year its collection fund will be in surplus or deficit. If the actual number of charge payers is lower than the authority estimated when setting its charges, actual income will be less than estimated and a deficit will ensue. No authority can increase its charges part way through the year just because it realises that it got its estimates wrong. The statutory arrangements are that any deficit has to be allowed for when setting next year's charges.

All authorities are in the same position. The Bill simply makes sure that that remains the situation. It ensures that capped authorities cannot take advantage of having to reset charges because of capping to have a second bite at the cherry by increasing estimates of non-collection and thereby deprive charge payers of the full benefits of capping by failing to pass on through lower charges the whole of the reduction in their excessive budgets. I do not accept that capped authorities are disadvantaged by the fact that the formula deliberately prevents them from changing their non-collection allowance. The whole point of the formula is to ensure that charge payers in such authorities are not disadvantaged by a repetition of what Lambeth did last year.

There is no reason why a capped authority should have the opportunity not available to other authorities to look again at its non-collection estimate when it has to reset its charge because of capping. As I have already explained to the Committee, charge payers in a capped authority are legally obliged to pay the old charge until a new one has been set and the authority should enforce this; and even under the current statute a capped authority cannot change its non-collection estimate to allow for the fact that it has been capped.

It has been suggested that the formula—specifically, factor D—by requiring the use of relevant population could make an authority set too low a substitute charge and thereby lead to a collection fund deficit if the relevant population figure is less than the figure the authority used in setting its original charge. The definition of relevant population is in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Relevant population is calculated on the basis of information in authorities' own community charge registers. In England, it is the population figure we calculate for the purposes of calculating authorities' revenue support grant and non-domestic rate entitlements and for apportioning precepts. In Wales, relevant population is calculated by authorities themselves as the basis on which precepts are apportioned. It is, I believe, an appropriate measure of an authority's population and any discrepancies arising from the use of relevant population would be minimal.

Nor do I accept that the Bill puts up charges in the following year. Apart from the fact that the Bill does not alter the current statutory arrangements for dealing with any collection fund surplus or deficit, a deficit, if such there be, is only one factor affecting charge levels in the next year. Clearly a charging authority will take into account all factors. It does not necessarily follow that that deficit will of itself lead to an equivalent increase in charges or to an increase at all.

In any event, the requirement on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament before laying draft Section 104 or 106 orders is putting the cart before the horse. The purpose of the orders is to set the final caps for authorities which have challenged or not responded to the caps initially proposed by the Secretary of State. It is only after the orders have been approved and authorities notified of the final cap levels that authorities set substitute levels and charges.

The proposed new clause is misconceived and has no bearing on the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect charge payers by guaranteeing that the budget reductions achieved by capping feed through in full to lower charges. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister protests far too much. This is a very simple and modest amendment. It merely states that Parliament should have the information which it needs in order to reach a proper decision. I cannot think what is the objection to that. The Minister's description of the process is accurate and I do not contest it. However, Parliament has the duty of confirming the capping orders. The Minister does not deny that in preparing his capping orders the Secretary of State must make assumptions about all the items detailed in the new clause. This amendment merely asks that Parliament should know what are the assumptions in order to be able to make a proper decision. I cannot see any of the objections which the Minister raises to that.

At present, the Bill states that the obligation in Section 32 of the 1988 Act to balance the collection fund is no longer the prime obligation of a local authority. Local authorities will be surprised to discover that. They will also be surprised to discover that they are required to reset, after capping, their new poll tax on the basis of information which is not only out of date but is known to be out of date. The short discussion on this amendment has revealed the inadequacy of the thinking behind the Bill as a whole.

Baroness Blatch

I did not say that there is no obligation on the authorities to balance their non-collection fund. I said that that should be done at year end. At year end there is either a surplus, a deficit or it is neutral. That is dealt with by setting the following year's budget.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That means that you know what is the real situation but you are not allowed to take account of it when resetting the charge. It reminds me of the "Hunting of the Snark". Members of the Committee will remember that, The bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes; A thing, as the Bellman remarked, Which frequently happens in tropical climes When a vessel is, so to speak, snarked". In the introduction to that brief but informative narrative Lewis Carroll reminds the reader that the Bellman had introduced a new rule. He had said that not only should no one speak to the man at the helm, which I understand to be a standard rule of seamanship, but also the additional rule that the man at the helm should speak to no one. The effect was that there was no connection between the facts and the way in which the vessel was being steered. That is rather what is happening with the Bill as proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Clause 6 [Application of amendments and repeals]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7: Page 5, line 28, leave out ("This Act applies") and insert ("Subject to the requirements of section (Safeguarding of statutory duties) below, sections 1 to 5 above apply").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 10 to 14. Here, perhaps rather despairingly, I appeal to the party of law and order. From the setting of local authority financial levels and the budgets in the course of this year it has been obvious that there have been screams of pain and anguish from police and fire authorities in particular, but far more from the many services carried out by local authorities which are required by statute to be carried out by them. Those are set out by statute, as is their level, and local authorities financially under-provide for them at their peril—it is not merely that Labour local authorities are screaming with anguish. That is happening all over the country in councils of all political complexions.

These amendments make it a requirement in the Bill—I hasten to say that we make it applicable only to an authority which is being poll tax capped—that the Secretary of State must say that no statutory duty is to be infringed because of the requirement to set a lower poll tax. If it is found that a local authority may be forced to infringe its statutory duties by setting a lower poll tax he must withdraw such a capping procedure.

As I said, this is a matter of increasing anxiety not only to local authorities but also to the police and fire authorities which depend considerably upon local government finance. In the debate on that matter last week a number of noble Lords strongly made the point that it would be most undesirable for us to move, for example, towards a nationally funded, and therefore nationally administered, police force.

The noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his great experience of the police service, made that point very clearly. He did so despite the fact that his own former police authority, as well as a number of others, had expressed their anxiety about the provision being made for the police service in their areas. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Knights, knew what he was talking about when he said that.

Under those circumstances, surely the Secretary of State has a duty to give active consideration to whether capping would force a breach of statutory duties and, if so, to withdraw a capping order. I bitterly regret going back to the case of Lambeth in case that provokes the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to his feet. However, last year in the consideration of Lambeth's education budget the argument was put that local authorities, having made their provision for education for a particular year, have no legal right to reduce that provision in their budgets because there is a statutory requirement to make financial provision for local management of schools. The financial provision required is laid down in some detail by statute.

Again, I do not believe that it could be said that this is a wrecking amendment. It merely seeks to preserve a part of local authority services—services financed by local authorities—which seriously run the risk of being under-funded and which deserve the protection of Parliament. The Committee now has an opportunity to give that protection. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

Again, the noble Lord has brought a red herring into the debate. There is nothing in this Bill to suggest a national police force.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I made no such suggestion as the Minister will discover when she reads Hansard. I said that those who knew about the police force valued the continuation of local authority financing. The risk of the capping procedures is that in capped authorities local authority financing is at risk. I did not suggest that there is a move in the Bill towards a national police force. Such a suggestion would not be handled by the Minister's department.

Baroness Blatch

I shall not apologise because when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that he made reference to a national police force in respect of last week's debate. I believe that that has nothing to do with the Bill before us.

This is not a wrecking amendment but it seeks to delay the operation of the provisions of the Bill for any particular year by requiring the Secretary of State first to make an order. This requirement is based on the notion that the Bill in some way affects the fulfilment by a capped authority of its statutory duties. That is not the case. The provision of services by capped authorities is not affected by the Bill, which is about the translation of budget cuts, following capping, into commensurate reductions in charges. This Bill is not about capping in general. It is not about the size or implications of budget cuts resulting from the capping of excessive budgets. The legislation on this is in Part VII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It is unaffected by anything in this Bill.

However, let me make it clear that, as regards the effects of any budget reductions required by capping, any caps set would represent the Secretary of State's view of what was reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of each individual capped authority. There are procedures for authorities to make representations about any caps proposed and these are fully taken into account by the Secretary of State in, making his decisions on final cap levels. The first year of capping, in which three authorities' proposed caps were increased, shows that these procedures are no mere charade.

Time and again with capping there have been dire predictions which in the event have simply not been borne out. In that connection I draw the Committee's attention to the service rendered by the publication of the National and Local Government Officers Association entitled Public Service. It carried out a survey of what actually happened in some of the authorities whose excessive budgets we capped last year. Let me give some examples from the survey. They scarcely support the predictions of gloom and doom and the talk of horrendous consequences for service provision which we have heard. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million but there were no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget was cut by £7.6 million; there were no redundancies, no cuts in services, no charge increases and almost £5 million was saved on financial adjustments. The rest was due to cuts in committees.

So much for 1990–91. But what of next year? Again we hear scare stories about what authorities will have to do to avoid being capped on the basis of our firm intentions for charge capping criteria. So far the evidence is that authorities generally are proposing to set sensible budgets. Indeed, a number of the most efficient authorities are contemplating setting budgets which are not only well within the intended criteria but also below their standard spending assessments. This shows what can be done. There is no doubt that there is considerable scope for local authorities to examine the administration of their services to reduce waste, improve efficiency and manage their affairs better. The Audit Commission has to date identified scope for over £1.3 billion of value for money improvements, only around half of which have been achieved. As my honourable friend rightly said in another place: Value for money means value for people". This new clause is misconceived and has no bearing on the purpose of the Bill. I urge the Committee to reject it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister is right in saying that the provision of services is not affected by the Bill. She is right in saying that what is wrong with the whole poll tax system is not in question when the Bill comes forward. She is right in saying that we are concerned in the Bill only with what happens when a capping procedure has been adopted, when a reduction in budget has been ordered by the capping procedure in the 1988 Act and when the question arises whether and how to translate that reduction in budget into a reduction in the rate of poll tax to be levied in that year. All that is correct.

We do not deny that we are attacking the only part of the poll tax legislation on which we can lay our hands; to mix my metaphors, it is the only bit that has put its head above the parapet. If we were allowed to carry out a full-scale attack on the poll tax and to re-run the poll tax Bill of 1988, nothing would please us more. However, we must do the best we can with the material at hand.

In her reply to the final group of amendments the Minister made clear that there is nothing we can do to undo the fundamental injustice and damage brought about by the introduction of the poll tax in 1988. We have done the best we can at this point of the injustices; we have done the best we can under the circumstances. I do not feel that our time has been wasted in exposing the inconsistencies, illogicalities and injustices of the poll tax legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved]

Clause 6 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.