Business (Hansard, 20 March 1991)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, yesterday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement in another place that legislation would be introduced to authorise payments of extra grants to local authorities and to ensure that community charge payers would reap the benefit. Subsequently, my right honourable friend the Lord President announced that it is proposed to take all stages of that Bill in another place on Tuesday of next week.
In view of the urgent nature of the legislation, it is proposed that the Bill should be taken through all its stages in this House on the next day; that is, Wednesday, 27th March. That will allow the Bill to be given Royal Assent before Easter. I appreciate fully that the procedure which I propose is unusual. However, I hope that your Lordships will accept that it is necessary that the decision announced should be implemented as soon as possible.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has made a significant business statement. Perhaps he will he rather more specific. He will be aware that on this side of the House —and I believe this is true of the whole House—we are always ready to respond to appeals for co-operation whenever possible. However, we are bound to be concerned when we are asked to process a Bill of this importance without detailed examination of it 629 beforehand. As I understand it, we are dealing with £4 billion to £5 billion of taxpayers' money. We do not yet know precisely what the Bill is about.
For example, can the noble Lord tell the House, against the background of his right honourable friend's Budget and the points he has made in the statement, whether the Government regard this as a Bill which the Speaker will certify as a money Bill? We recognise that it is an attempt to reverse the immense damage done by the poll tax. Without being party political perhaps I may say that it is a Bill to seek public support in time for the election.
Having said that, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and others will be dealing with the Bill in detail on Wednesday. We shall reserve our position until we have read the Bill and studied all its implications.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, we on these Benches also recognise that it is an important change and needs to be handled quickly; on the other hand, it is a matter of the greatest importance. Once again important matters are being hurried through both Houses with totally inadequate preparation and time for discussion. It is not the way to deal with what is an important development in local government. Is it not possible for us to have more time to enable this matter to be dealt with in a proper parliamentary and democratic manner?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question of inadequate preparation. That will become obvious when the Bill is published tomorrow. I realise that this procedure is unusual. I hope that it will not happen very often. However, it would be unusual indeed if an important proposal of this kind were made in a Chancellor's speech, which involved the mitigation of the burden of the community charge on the charge payer, and Parliament did not respond rapidly in order to put into legislative force that which was announced by the Chancellor.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I understand that it will not technically be a money Bill. However, it concerns financial matters which are principally the concern of the House of Commons. That does not mean that after the Bill has been published there will not be ample opportunity for noble Lords to peruse the same. There will be opportunity for noble Lords who so wish to move amendments in Committee.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am puzzled by the whole procedure. It seems to me that the Bill will be amendable. Although it seems to be a simple Bill at the present time, to many of us it could become a very complicated Bill. For example, as I understand it, the situation may be that nobody in Wandsworth will be paying poll tax, yet I, in Berkshire, will be paying £347. That is an arguable proposition which may need amending. Therefore we need a lot of time to consider these matters in Committee.
A further point arises in regard to Report stage. Having completed the Committee stage, how on earth are we then to have a properly constituted Report 630 stage? I am an amateur in these matters in the House of Lords and I need some guidance. But I and other noble Lords will need to be pretty fleet-footed if in one day we are to table amendments between the Committee and Report stages. We shall then need to go to Third Reading, where, in this House, we are also able to table amendments.
The proposed procedure is an imposition on your Lordships' House and ought not to be accepted. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will reconsider the position and give us sufficient time to discuss the Bill in a proper manner. It may be all right for the Commons to follow that procedure. I hope that this House will not be treated in that way.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is an imposition on this House. However, the mitigation of community charge to the tune of £140 per charge payer will not be looked upon as an imposition by community charge payers throughout the country. These matters can be discussed through the usual channels. I am no expert on procedures in this House but I see no reason why amendments should not be tabled at Report stage and ample opportunity afforded through our procedures to allow that to happen.
I repeat what I said earlier. It would be very unusual if this House were not to see implemented in legislative form that which had been announced by the Chancellor in his speech, which clearly is of benefit to the community charge payer.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clear up one point. If the Bill is only being considered in another place on Tuesday and in this House on Wednesday, when will it be possible to table amendments?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, the Bill will be published tomorrow; noble Lords will have an opportunity to see the shape of the Bill then. There will be no difficulty in noble Lords considering what improvements might be made to the Bill. After the Bill arrives in this place and Second Reading has been obtained, it will be possible to table any amendments which noble Lords wish to discuss.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, the matter is not as simple as the Leader of the House suggests. It is normal to take Bills through all their stages when they are matters of consensus. Noble Lords have no objection to doing that. This is a very different matter. It is not simply a question of shifting money from one pocket to another. It is a question of shifting the whole balance between local and central government. In that sense it borders on being a constitutional matter.
I understand that the Bill will be guillotined in another place; in other words, it will reach your Lordships' House without proper consideration in another place. It is our duty and our role to give due consideration to Bills as they pass through this House. We are proud that we can consider the detail of Bills 631 late into the night if necessary, and that we send Bills back to another place in better condition than that in which they arrived in this House.
By going through this procedure we are being inhibited from carrying out our true role on a matter which changes the whole balance of democracy between local and central government.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I cannot say whether there will be any Motion curtailing debate in the other place. However, it is well precedented for a Bill to be taken through all its stages on one day, both where such a Bill confers a financial benefit and, equally, where it concerns financial matters which are principally the concern of the House of Commons. It would be unusual if, as a result of the reluctance of your Lordships to allow this unusual procedure to be followed, additional burdens were placed on local authorities and ultimately on those who finance the local authorities. Local authorities would not be able to adjust their bills and pass on to the local charge payers the benefits they will receive as a result of the Chancellor's proposals.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I do not wish to intervene on constitutional matters; my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has already covered that aspect. However, I wonder whether the House is fully aware of the range of political matters which must arise as a consequence of the Bill.
Whatever the Bill, as finally drafted, contains, major political and contentious issues arise which must be covered. I do not suggest that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can answer today, but I ask the House to consider these matters. For example, will the Bill provide for the abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. poll tax which is now payable and which has proved to be financially, as well as morally, indefensible? Will the Bill contain a commitment to abolish the poll tax as a whole? Will the £140 additional revenue per head be on a flat rate basis to all poll tax payers with the absurd result that we see in Wandsworth and Westminster or will it be on some more equitable basis? Will the Bill be a Bill at all, or will it simply he a paving Bill providing for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State?
Those are the matters which the House will have to consider next Wednesday. Even though we understand from the Lord President of the Council that there is going to be a guillotine applied in another place, I remind the Leader of the House that there is no provision for a guillotine here. Even if we take all stages of the Bill consecutively, there is nothing to stop us tabling a large number of amendments at all stages to cover those important matters.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has said. It is the obvious right of noble Lords on any side of the House to put down whatever amendments they wish. I repeat what I said before; namely, that it would be very unusual if this House were not to facilitate the passage of legislation which will confer a very considerable benefit on poll tax payers on whose behalf many noble Lords opposite have spoken eloquently over the years.
632 I can answer very simply all the questions which have been posed by the noble Lord. The Bill will not deal with the 20 per cent. payment and it will not deal with the abolition of the poll tax. All poll tax payers will benefit from the reduction in the poll tax in the sense that the amount set by the local authority will in all cases he reduced by £140. There will be no regulation-making powers.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, are we not making mountains out of molehills? What does it matter whether these matters are resolved before or after the Easter Recess?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, it does matter. Some local authorities have already sent out their poll tax bills; many have not yet done so. It would be an absurd situation if, as a result of the reluctance of your Lordships to pass this measure, the local authorities which had already sent out their poll tax bills were unable to correct them, and those which had not sent them out were to distribute entirely inaccurate bills, and in the knowledge that in due course the bills would be very much smaller.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, in defence of the action that the Government are proposing to take, the noble Lord said that Members of your Lordships' House, in considering their amendments, will be able to see the Bill tomorrow. The Bill, as printed tomorrow, may be amended by government-sponsored amendments in another place. The Bill that is produced will not be the one that comes to your Lordships' House, and it will have to be reprinted. We must bear in mind the various stages set out by my noble friend Lord Stoddart; namely, that there will be a Second Reading after which we can put down amendments in Committee; then there will be Report, at which stage we can put down amendments. There will then be Third Reading and we shall he able to make further amendments.
If there is any justification for your Lordships' House, it is as a revising Chamber. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether we shall then be adjourning for three specific periods in order to table amendments so that they can be listed, grouped and serialised in the normal manner? If we are not going to do that, how does the noble Lord expect us to cope with the situation? Is it not completely farcical that we are being denied our normal role?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I do not see why arrangements cannot be made through the usual channels so that amendments can be put down. I have a great deal more respect for the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, than he seems to have himself. As a result of his experiences in another place, I know perfectly well that he will look at the shape of the Bill as presented in another place, and at all its permutations and computations. No doubt he will come up with some very ingenious amendments.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my point. Will there be ample time to place amendments during adjournments if we so 633 desire? I do not know whether I shall table any amendments despite what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. What will be the situation? Will we adjourn? Amendments have to be studied to see whether they are in order when they are on the Marshalled List. To believe that we can simply come here and have a First and Second Reading, and then ride a cycle right through the Bill until it becomes law, is nonsense. If the Leader of the House does not know that, then he does not know his job.

§ Viscount Davidson
Order!

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that I may not know very much about this job, but I have worked out this problem. I see no reason at all why your Lordships should not adjourn for a period of time between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage to enable your Lordships to table any amendments.

§ Viscount Mountgarret
My Lords, I do not want to make my noble friend's task harder in this matter. I appreciate his problem very much indeed. But we have a responsibility to facilitate the passage of legislation, and urgent legislation at times. I am honestly and personally very concerned about this matter. There is a debate later today in your Lordships' House which gives another suggestion as to how the community charge might be levied. Some noble Lords may agree with the suggestion and others may not. The point is that I do not believe it is possible for any government, however good and however brilliant their members, to get an enormous measure like this through both Houses of Parliament and for it to be carefully thought through so that it will work.
This country cannot afford to make another mistake. An enormous mistake has been made in the way in which the community charge was set up. I am sorry to have to say that. I have always believed in the principle of the community charge but unfortunately the method has not seemed to be right. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again. I ask my noble friend whether he will go back to his colleagues in another place and perhaps convey to them that there may be considerable anxiety, certainly on the other side of the House, but I suspect also on this side of the Chamber. We should think whether what is proposed is the right thing to do. We may have to suffer the community charge for another 12 months; but if that is so, so be it. However, let us give time, and let us try to get the matter right.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, my noble friend is under a misapprehension if he believes that the Bill which we are now discussing has anything to do with the future of the community charge. There will be ample opportunities to discuss any proposals which may eventually be forthcoming for the future financing of local government. All we are talking about today is the proposal made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech that the scale of the community charge for the year 1991–92 should be mitigated as a result of a small Bill which will give local authorities 634 sufficient extra funding to enable them to reduce the community charge by £140 per person. It has nothing whatever to do with the debates which will no doubt take place later concerning the ultimate funding of local authorities.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, we have been speaking about tabling amendments in the course of Wednesday's discussions. Am I right in supposing that it will not be possible to table amendments at Third Reading?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I think that is correct. I do not think that your Lordships will find that inhibiting in any way. There will be ample opportunities for putting down amendments at Committee and Report stages.

§ Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
My Lords, would it not be in the interests of the Government to discuss this matter through the usual channels? Otherwise, in the light of some of the issues which have been raised, there will be a procedural shambles. On the substance of the matter, does the noble Lord agree that although this matter has nothing to do with the local elections, the response of the electorate is likely to be, in the famous words of "Lord" Bacon, "I accept every bribe and am influenced by none"?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, I shall not comment on the last point made by the noble Lord. I can assure him that there have been discussions through the usual channels, although I fully recognise that this procedure is not one that we should like to become usual in your Lordships' House. I have discussed the matter with the usual channels, and there is general acceptance that this procedure has to be followed on this occasion.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that a simple way out of the dilemma which the Government have forced themselves into would be to propose a small Bill which defers payments levied by local authorities this year in order to give both Houses of Parliament time to consider the proposals properly?

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I should have thought that if such a Bill were introduced, exactly the same constitutional arguments would be advanced as those that have been advanced concerning this Bill.