Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill

HL Deb 27 March 1991 vol 527 cc1196-212

Report received.

Clause 1 [Statutory reduction of community charges: England and Wales]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert— ("Subject to subsection (IA) below and to the making of an order under this section")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I speak also to Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

For me this is an interesting art form. I have never had the experience of producing amendments at this speed in order that they should be considered. It is only fair to the House if I state briefly the principle that we have adopted in entering on this new legislative art form.

First, let it be clear that there are no amendments on the new Marshalled List that had already been put down or discussed at Committee. We should have considered it to be an abuse of the procedures of the House if we simply repeated arguments on the same day. Secondly, let me make it clear that the majority of these amendments, although they have been considered in advance, were subject to amendment up until the last minute and are intended to reflect fallback positions. In other words, they are not matters that we should like to have achieved ideally, but are issues which may have been raised in Committee and are now being put forward in a less controversial form in the hope that we may secure the agreement of Government. After all, if we secured that agreement it would be a simple matter for the amendments to go back to another place immediately, to be dealt with and come back here. I am prepared to stay till any hour in order to see that the Bill achieves the statute book but in its best possible form.

Thirdly, a number of amendments in the Marshalled List have arisen as a direct result of discussions in Committee. They were tabled at the last minute and I apologise for the fact that the tabling of the final amendment delayed the House for a further five minutes. However, on the whole we have not done badly. We have reflected the Committee's discussions and points that were then made by the Government. We have also attempted to continue to do our best to perform the duties of this House as a revising Chamber.

Amendment No. 1 and the other amendments to which I am speaking are concerned with the issue of rebates. Instead of proposing that we should have 100 per cent. and not 20 per cent. rebates, we now propose new rebates which should be higher than the present rebates together with some reduction for those paying the full poll tax. It is a compromise between what we sought to achieve in Committee and what the Government seek to achieve by putting all the benefits of the VAT increase on the £140 personal community charge. We still believe that the whole £4.3 billion which is available should be devoted to improved rebates and to new rebates. However, we recognise that the Government are implacably opposed to that, and indeed that the Committee took an opposite view.

So what we are doing in these amendments is, in effect, providing an enabling procedure. We are giving the Secretary of State a power by order to determine what amount of reduction should be applicable to full tax payers; to determine what new poll tax figures should be paid by those entitled to 80 per cent. rebates and whether additional assistance would be desirable, having regard to financial or other circumstances for others on low incomes.

We deliberately phrased these amendments in terms of subsequent determination by order, because over the past 48 hours we have seen that the law is still being made up; the Government are still making up their mind about what should be done. Mr Portillo's statement on Monday is certainly by no means the last statement that we shall have on this matter. It may mean - and I regret it in a very modest sense -that a number of people may have to work rather hard over Easter, but that is not too high a price to pay for getting it right.

The balance, I suggest, that is proposed in these amendments, between giving higher rebates for those most in need and preserving the principle which the Government wish to preserve of a reduction for those who pay the full poll tax, is a valuable improvement. It deserves a little extra effort—the extra mile, as President Bush would have said - and I hope that the Government will feel that both the spirit in which these amendments are moved, and the detail of them, is acceptable and will prove, as I believe it is, a benefit to the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, these amendments are quite contrary to the policy and purpose of this Bill. They are simply a variation on all the themes that we have discussed all day, and I ask the House to reject them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty. I understand that these amendments cannot have been made available to the department until very recently. On the other hand, we have these difficulties as well and we do not have anything like the same resources. I sympathise that the Minister has not had a chance to study the amendments; but it is, after all, the Government who are imposing this procedure on the House. It is not the Opposition who are imposing this procedure on the House.

In those circumstances, I am bound to say that it is the responsibility of the Government to respond properly to amendments, and not simply to dismiss them in the terms that the Minister has done. I shall let this case go because I realise that this is a complex group of amendments, and I shall beg leave to withdraw them. But unless I get proper answers to subsequent amendments, I shall divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 9, at end insert— ("(1A) The Secretary of State shall, before he authorises the payment of the final instalment of grant under section 4(1) below, issue guidance to charging authorities as to preparatory steps which may be appropriate with respect to —

1. (a) any proposals he may consider appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992; and
2. (b) proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.

(1B) No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of consultation with such persons representative of charging authorities in England and Wales as appear to him to be concerned.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. We are concerned here not with the abolition of the poll tax within 12 months. That is what people want, but it is not what the Government are able to deliver and we had better recognise that fact. But we are concerned that the Secretary of State should be issuing guidance as to the preparatory steps which would be appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992, and proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.

We are proposing in subsection (1B) of Amendment No. 5 that: No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of consultation with such persons representative of charging authorities in England and Wales as appear to him to be concerned.

It is very difficult but very necessary to make these points in amendments. It is difficult because the Bill is confined to the year 1991–92 and it is confined to specific acts which have to be taken by Government in advance of the setting of the poll tax for 1991–92. Those acts are, first, the reduction in the personal community charge and, secondly, the compensatory grants which are provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill. Any amendment which we put down has to be contingent upon those two acts. The second amendment, Amendment No. 13, refers to Scotland. We have said that before the final instalment of grant is payable, and it is contingent upon that—it is included in the Long Title of the Bill—the Secretary of State really must consider and make public what is to he the future of local government finance.

We have given the Government in effect 12 months in which to make up their minds about what the future of local government finance shall be. I do not think that is unreasonable and I do not think it is something which the Secretary of State himself would wish to reject out of hand. We understand that the payment of the compensatory grant is to be made in 10 equal instalments and that nine of those instalments will be made in 1991–92 and that the tenth instalment will be actually made in 1992–93 and will refer back to the 1991–92 Budget. So there is a full 12 months provided for in these amendments for the Secretary of State to make his views known to local authorities and to the public. It is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State should do just that, because if during the next 12 months we fail to have some resolution of the problems of this Government - or of course preferably a change of government - then we shall be faced in March of next year with exactly the same problem as we face now.

We have been relatively complacent about the procedures which have been forced on us now, in considering this Bill, out of our concern for the proper conduct of local authority business, but we shall not be so complacent next year if the Government come back with the same kind of Bill. It is simply not acceptable to carry on the central control of local government finance in this hand-to-mouth way. It is being done once and we may have to accept that it is being done once, but it cannot be done again in the same form. If the present Government are still here -which God forbid - I do not think that even they would think it proper to ask their own supporters to go through this same charade in 1992 as they have been forced to go through in 1991.

So we are saying here very modestly that before the Secretary of State authorises the final payment he shall make public proposals he may consider appropriate on the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on the 1st April 1992, and the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is no longer in his place, but he started to hint the basis on which that could be done. He was starting to hint that what we have here is a definitive settlement of the relationship between central and local government in the provision of local government finance. He was not entirely clear about whether he meant the balance between central and local or whether he meant the actual level of the poll tax itself, but it was an indication that some Members of the Government at any rate recognise that you cannot go on for ever making up your mind at the last possible minute and expecting Parliament to tag along with you. That is what is happening to us at the moment. It is entirely unacceptable that we should face the prospect of a similar procedure in a year's time.

This is the opportunity for the Government to indicate that they will not adopt such a procedure again and for them to treat seriously the local authorities and the people who pay local authority taxes. In the unlikely and undesirable event that the Government are still in place in a year's time - it is still constitutionally possible; they cannot win an election but they can avoid one - then this matter will have become extremely urgent long before March 1992. I beg to move.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships for long. I hope that in answer to the important and significant points made the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we shall receive rather more courtesy that we received in answer to the first amendment.

The fact that the Minister did not have time to prepare herself to deal with the first amendment is due entirely to the Government's choice of the procedure to be followed today. We objected to the procedure. We rather than they are the victims of it. When a reasonable case is put at this stage of the Bill, the responsible Minister should have the courtesy to give us a proper reply.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I support and reinforce what my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. The Government chose this method of putting the Bill through. They cannot then say that they have not had time to consider it. There should be a full, thoughtful answer to the practical points that are being made on Report.

We have heard today, as my noble friend said, at least a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this may be the definitive form of the relationship between central government and local government finance, as the Government see it. Is that the case? I also remind the House that Mr. Portillo has been quoted as saying at the Conservative Party conference that the community charge had laid down the structure of local government finance in relation to central government for the foreseeable future. If the Government can change their mind within six months, surely the House is entitled to hear what will be the definitive basis and structure of local government finance within the next 12 months. We should hear that now.

It is obvious that consultations must take place quickly between the Government and the local authorities if anything is to be in place by or in advance of next March when the new arrangements come into force. It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the House what is in the Government's mind as to the foundation structure of local government finance in relation to central government before they ask us to pass the Bill. We need to know, the local authorities need to know and the electorate needs to know what the Government's present thinking is. We have seen changes of mind over the past six months.

The Bill is obviously a panic Bill. It cannot serve for the long-term structure of the financing of local government in this country. Out of the chaos that has arisen over the past six months, what are the Government going to do, in good time and with full and long consultations with people who, on the Government's record, know better than the Government, towards the building of the foundations of this very important matter as regards our democratic system?

I believe, along with my noble friends, that we are entitled to have a statement from the noble Baroness based upon her answer to this amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am about to disappoint noble Lords opposite. My response to this and the previous group of amendments has nothing to do with the lateness of the hour or the short timescale available to read the amendments.

The amendments are entirely contrary to the policy and purposes of the Bill. This Bill is not about a new system. It is a short, single purpose Bill to reduce charges in 1991–92 and to enable compensatory grant to be paid to the authorities concerned. The noble Lord has entirely missed the point of the Bill and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I suppose that I expected that response. I fear that the Minister and the Government are saying that they have no confidence whatever that they have any ability within the next 12 or 13 months to produce a system of financial control and provision for local government to which they can adhere and support for the future. It may be that they will no longer be in government and the question does not arise.

However, if by any mischance this Government are still in position next year, then without doubt we are being told that we shall be faced with another one year Bill for 1992–93. If we had any doubts about the acceptability of this Bill now, those doubts are reinforced and strengthened by the threat of the same procedure next time. It is entirely unacceptable to Parliament and it should be unacceptable to the people of this country that the Government should continue to attempt to legislate in this way. I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.

12.43 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 62.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Bonham-Carter, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Carter, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Monkswell, L.
Falkland, V.	Russell, E.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Astor, V.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Belstead, L.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Birdwood, L.	Long, V.
Blatch, B.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Blyth, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mancroft, L.
Byron, L.	Mersey, V.
Caithness, E.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Caldecote, V.	Mountevans, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Carnock, L.	Norrie, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Clinton, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Craigmyle, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller ]	Pender, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Platt of Writtle, B.
Downshire, M.	Plumb, L.
Dudley, E.	Reay, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Seccombe, B.
Elton, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Faithfull, B..	Southborough, L.
Fortescue, E	Strathcarron, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gisborough, L.	Teviot, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Trumpington, B.
Harmsworth, L.	Ullswater, V.
Hesketh, L.	Waddington, L.
Hooper, B.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Wigram, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

12.50 a.m.

[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]

Clause 3 [Statutory reduction of community charges: Scotland]:

[Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Compensatory grants]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 4, line 18, at end insert ("subject, in the case of any dispute falling within subsection (1A) below to any determination by an independent person appointed for that purpose.

(1A) A dispute in respect of which a determination may be made by an independent person shall be—

1. (a) a dispute between an authority and the Secretary of State concerning any claim in respect of expense incurred in accordance with this Act; or
2. (b) a dispute between an authority and the Secretary of State concerning the application to that authority of any formula in respect of deemed expense incurred in accordance with this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises directly out of a debate in Committee—

Baroness Hooper

Order!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I do not think that insubordination counts at ten to one in the morning. If I called a Division, does the House think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would turn up to vote?

This amendment arises directly out of a debate in Committee, I suppose less than an hour ago, in which the Lord Privy Seal was—I said it then and I say it again—not only trying to be helpful but was actually being very helpful. In this amendment we are concerned with the issue in Clause 4 of the payment of compensatory grant to local authorities to compensate for the additional expenditure which is inevitably involved in the passage of the Bill.

I need not rehearse the way in which it will happen. It is well known that many poll tax bills have already gone out and will have to be replaced. Some of them have been produced but not sent out and will have to be pulped. Some of them are in dispute in post offices and the Post Office is saying that it is its duty under the Post Office Act 1969 to send out mail that has been properly posted. The local authorities are saying, quite reasonably, that it would be an absurd aberration if something that they know should not be sent out and that will cost them extra money if it is sent out is nevertheless sent out simply because the Post Office wishes to cover its back. We all know that enormous amounts of extra expenditure will be involved as a result of the Bill. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum puts the figure at £60 million. Following Mr. Portillo's statement on Monday night, I suspect that to be a severe underestimate.

In responding to my earlier amendment in Committee, the Lord Privy Seal was extremely helpful. He said that there were two ways in which compensation could be arrived at. It could be arrived at on an individual basis or on the basis of a formula. He said that consultation was going on with local authority associations at the present time about which it should be or whether both should be used and what the balance should be between the two of them. Virtually the only point on which we came to disagree concerned whether in the end, failing agreement, an independent person should be appointed to resolve the disagreement.

In his response the Lord Privy Seal placed a good deal of emphasis on the need to go on seeking agreement. I agree with him on that. It would be very much a last resort if we went for arbitration by an independent person. Nevertheless it is possible that there will be disagreement. Different financial interests are involved. It is desirable that the Bill should not leave the possibility of there being no way to deal with an unresolved dispute. That would not be good industrial relations practice and it would not be good legislative practice.

I pointed out to the Government that there was an analogy, to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis had drawn my attention, in Clauses 92 and 95 of the New Roads and Street Works Bill which is still before another place, having passed through this House. We intend by way of this amendment—although not in the same words—to suggest that there is a simple way with good precedent of resolving any potential disputes which may still arise. I commend the solution to the House. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, we support the amendment. I do not intend to repeat anything that I said in Committee. However, we have encountered a real difficulty. There is a possibility of disagreement as to what constitutes reasonable costs. It is possible that either the Secretary of State or the local authority could be seen as acting as judge and party in their own courts.

Money is a good deal tighter than it used to be in every form of public service. It may have been possible 15 years ago to say that this was the sort of cost that the local authority could well afford to bear. But these days it is not that easy. It will mean running into a deficit—and we have heard all about that—dismissing teachers or not equipping schools with books for the national curriculum. It will cause real hardship if there is a severe and unexpected loss of money. There is a difficulty in this respect. I am glad that the noble Lord has tabled the amendment. I am happy to support it.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I also support the amendment. However, one of my worries is the lack of trust which exists between central and local government. It is unfortunate that this distrust and conflict has arisen. The fact that we do not have that trust grieves all of us at the national level in Parliament and those working at the local level. Such trust existed in the past. I do not necessarily blame this Government for the situation; indeed, it has been going on for many years.

I welcome the introduction of the amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it in the spirit that was intended: it is intended to be a mechanism to try to breakdown that aura of distrust which exists between local and central government. That distrust is debilitating for the whole nation. I do not believe that, if the mechanism was included in the clause, it would be called into play very often. The fact that the mechanism existed would—it is to be hoped—enable the rebuilding of a climate of trust between local and central government.

We should like to see an acceptance that actions taken by local government can be reasonable. They must also be seen to be reasonable by an independent authority. I suggest that a suitable independent authority would be the district auditor. The Government may recognise him as an independent authority to deal with the finance and the operations of a local authority. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment on the basis that it will contribute in a small way towards building the trust which is essential for the future relationship between local and central government.

1 a.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey referred to the New Roads and Street Works Bill. During its passage through this House I led for the Opposition. Perhaps I may reflect on the Government's accommodating posture in regard to arbitration in relation to costs which may arise as a result of certain circumstances relating to that Bill.

I raised the matter in question in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was somewhat sceptical about the point at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will remember the debate well. He wrote to me very helpfully before we reached Report stage to indicate that the Government thought that there was merit in the point I was making because it was necessary. I am not quoting from the Minister's letter.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to make a point? The Bill is in another place and could well be amended, therefore what he is saying now is irrelevant to what we are discussing tonight.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, it has already been amended. I am quoting from the Bill, as amended on Report, as it left this House. I merely illustrate that the Government were accommodating on a point which is precisely the same in principle, as I see it, as the point we are now discussing. The Government thought that it was meritorious to agree to arbitration, as is stated in Clause 92(3) of the New Roads and Street Works Bill, Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or taking other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration". What is the difference in principle between the point we are now discussing and the point which was discussed during the course of that Bill, in respect of which the Government proved to be extremely accommodating? With great respect, the intervention that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, is irrelevant. His remarks are usually extremely relevant and he is being uncharacteristically irrelevant at this time. Perhaps the late hour explains it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree. She can hardly say that the amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill. It is not a matter of fundamental importance to the Government, surely? It is an area where I join my noble friend Lord McIntosh, and hope that the Government will say, "Yes, this is a reasonable proposition; we are prepared to entertain it".

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that what is at the back of the discussion that has taken place spasmodically over the past few hours is whether the scheme set out in Clause 4 of the Bill is apt to deal with the situation where central government are to compensate local authorities for expenses incurred by them as a result of government policy. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the New Roads and Street Works Bill, but I suspect it has much to do with disputes between private owners and local authorities about street works. Whether I am right or wrong on it, I took advice when the House rose a short time ago. The form of Clause 4 is very usual indeed; it is the common form. It assumes that the Government will give undertakings to Parliament as to the way in which they will perform their duties.

I feel that I have given clear enough undertakings tonight, merely repeating undertakings which have already been given by my right honourable friend. In those circumstances, it has been said absolutely plainly to Parliament that the Government will reimburse local authorities for expenses properly and reasonably incurred by them. It would be quite wrong to assume that there will be difficulties about the matter when I have no reason to believe that in similar circumstances difficulties have arisen.

Members of this House would be the first to pull up the Government if they failed to give proper effect to their undertakings. What could be more proper than that the Government should give undertakings and then be responsible to the House for fulfilling them? The department will discuss all these matters with the local authorities, with the aim of reaching a consensus with them as to the way in which the undertakings should be put into effect. We see no reason why the House should impose a requirement of independent arbitration in those circumstances.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal has given the House the courtesy of a proper reply to our amendment. I am grateful for that. I do not agree with him, but I am grateful to him for responding properly to an amendment which arises out of the Committee stage and which was seriously moved. I think the noble Lord is wrong about the analogy with the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That provision does not concern disputes between private individuals but between local authorities and central government as a highway authority. Therefore the analogy with this Bill is very precise. I am told by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that the arguments used at first by the Government when they were resisting the form of words which is now in that Bill were very similar to the argments which the noble Lord is now using.

I appreciate that the noble Lord will not allow this Bill to be amended and sent back to the Commons for further consideration. We have made progress in this debate. The undertakings which have been given by the Government are valuable and will be appreciated by local authorities. I do not regret having tabled these amendments as they have enabled us to make progress, even without a change on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 4, line 21 at end insert— ("(2A) The Secretary of State shall in first making any payment under this section lay before Paliament a statement of the proportion of total local authority expenditure which has been met by grant support out of money provided by Parliament over the ten financial years ending in the 1991 financial year.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which requires the Secretary of State when he is making the first payment of grant to authorities—that will presumably occur early in 1991–92—to lay before Parliament a report on grant as a percentage of overall spending over the past 10 years. This matter has been referred to on a number of occasions. It was the matter on which the Secretary of State led on Second Reading in another place yesterday, and it has been the subject of debate in this House. I shall not go over the statistics of the matter but in view particularly of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in referring to the semi-permanent nature of the balance which has now been struck between central and local government contributions to local authority expenditure, it would be desirable for the Government to set out their position clearly on this important matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I make no apology for the brevity of my reply to this amendment. These proportions are a matter of public record. The amendment has no bearing whatever on the purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce charges in the coming year. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I shall not be tempted by that reply to divide the House. I am disappointed. I do not think the reply is consistent with the attitude which governments in these days ought to take on their responsibility for freedom of information. I do not believe the Government's position has been clearly stated although certainly statistics have been bandied about. I do not think that providing statistics is an adequate alternative to making a statement on the Government's position, which the Government should do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 4, line 34, at end insert ("including the cost in the case of each authority of collecting the community charge from persons entitled to rebates.").

The noble Lord said; My Lords, this is another amendment which arises directly out of discussion in Committee. A few noble Lords may recall that we considered the issue of administrative expenses which an authority might reasonably be expected to incur in consequence of the provisions of this Bill. I fear that as I did not obtain a proper response, I pointed out more than once that Mr Portillo's announcement on Monday night on rebates and the community charge reduction scheme made dramatic changes to the way in which local authorities would have to recast their bills in response to this Bill and in particular to the money declaration.

With this amendment we propose to bring the Bill up to date so that it reflects Mr. Portillo's statement rather than the position as it was when the Government drafted the Bill last Thursday. Therefore we propose to include the words: including the cost in the case of each authority of collecting the community charge from persons entitled to rebates".

I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my colleagues on the Front Bench and I have explained in considerable detail a number of times during the passage of the Bill that grant will cover all reasonable costs. No extension of costs beyond those set out in the Bill is contemplated. Therefore I ask the Ho use to reject the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, again I shall not be tempted, but that is a most inadequate reply. It does not recognise the way in which the Government are still making up their mind as they go along, not only about the community charge but also about the rebate structure and about the community charge reduction scheme. It is, as will become evident over the months to come, a most unsatisfactory situation. The Government are clearly proud to have responsibility for this part of the shambles of local authority legislation. They will come to regret it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

1.12 a.m.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

It would be wrong for me to say no more than that. It is no use my saying again that I am sorry that this procedure had to be used, although I believe that it was necessary in this case. It is important that I should say that I really do believe that the past few hours have been used profitably. I should like to thank noble Lords opposite and Her Majesty's Opposition for the way in which they have scrutinised the Bill and fulfilled their duties so admirably. No one who has been watching the proceedings during the past few hours could think other than that the noble Lords who have intervened in this debate have done so in order to put the Government to the test and see how the Bill could be improved. I am therefore grateful to the House for the way in which it has responded in difficult circumstances.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Lord Waddington.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has made it very difficult to respond in the way I should have liked to. I am grateful to him for what he said. It was a tribute not to any individual but to the spirit which prevails in this House of seeking to perform its responsibilities, even sometimes under virtually impossible conditions. Noble Lords have done that and, with the exception of a few responses in the past half hour, the Government have treated the amendments with the respect that they deserved.

That is tempered by the fact that we are conscious, as we have been conscious from the very beginning, that the Government simply could not afford to allow a grammatical mistake or a misprint to be corrected. The Bill had to go back to the other place in exactly the same form as it came, otherwise heaven knows what mayhem would be taking place in the other place in the next few hours. Therefore, we appreciated that the best that we could hope for was an indication of government views and the way in which the Government propose to implement the Bill. In many cases we have achieved that.

We have not achieved any indication of the place that the Bill plays in the policy making—if one can dignify it by those words—with respect to local government finance. It is quite clear that local government finance is in a shambles because the Government's thinking about local government finance is in a shambles. The Bill is only an indication of that shambles. Further indications will no doubt come before your Lordships' House and we shall then, as now, seek every opportunity to challenge the Government to put forward more appropriate and sensible conclusions and indeed to replace the Government by a government which truly understand local government finance.

1.15 a.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his kind words about the debate and the House, to which I am happy to respond. I should like to thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the care and courtesy with which they have handled this debate. I agree that it has been an extremely useful debate. It has helped to clarify a number of important points in the Bill. I also agree that we have discussed this measure in a manner which does us credit.

I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for what he said about how rarely this procedure ought to be used. What has struck me throughout the day has been the wisdom of our usual procedures. I have never before been as aware as I have been today of the usefulness of being able to say, "I shall read that reply very carefully in Hansard and perhaps return to the matter at Report stage".

But although we have all operated under handicaps, I believe that we have done so successfully. I am very grateful for the replies that I have received about the meaning of Clause 4. I am extremely grateful for the assurance about the standard community charge. In that and many other ways this has been a very worthwhile debate. As for the future shape of local government finance, that is all to play for.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, before the Bill passes from this House I think it essential that we respond to what has been a shameful day in parliamentary history. In moving the Third Reading the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has just said that he believes that this procedure was necessary. Perhaps it was, but why was it necessary? It was necessary because the Government have produced such a shambles that they have to provide a stop-gap. Every time that we asked whether the Government regarded this Bill as a laying of foundations for the relationship between local government finance and central government finance, we were fobbed off with the answer that this measure is only for a year.

What kind of government are they to bring in a Bill of this kind for a year? What excuse can there be other than that the Government have got into such a muddle that they have had to bring in this stop-gap Bill until presumably they can have some more serious discussions with local authorities as to how local authority financing and the local authority structure will be related to that of the central government? That indicates that again the Government have got themselves into a position in which they are upside down. Instead of discussing a measure of local government finance today, we should have had a thoughtful and thorough debate on the structure, the purposes and the responsibilities of local government. Then, having decided on that - not in one day but by our usual method of consideration over several weeks - we should discuss how that should be financed. Instead of that we have had a spatchcock—

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He accused the Government of being upside down. I wonder whether he should reflect that this is the Third Reading of the Bill and not Second Reading. Perhaps he might be upside down.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am speaking out of the experience of having listened to the Second Reading debate and discussions while the Bill went through its Committee and Report stages. As I see it, I am putting together in the Third Reading debate the results of what has been discussed over the past few hours. This is not a Second Reading speech. I made my Second Reading speech some hours ago.

I return to the essential issues raised by the Bill. The Bill is irrelevant to the main purposes of local government. We have seen a steady increase in centralisation. The Government have refused to accept amendments moved by this side of the House during the Committee and Report stages. Have those Members of the Government who have been trying to impress us today bothered to refer back to the Layfield Report of 1976? That report laid down the relevant structures and relationship between the responsibilities of local government and central government. The Bill ignores the basic structure which is essential for the democracy of this country. It puts the cart before the horse. The Bill damages the basic fundamental issue which has still to be met.

As I understand it, the legislation simply postpones tackling that issue for 12 months. In the meantime we have been given the instructions that this is the way in which finance will be carried out over the next year with no suggestion as to how the Bill is related to the main issue which faces us today: the relationship between central and local government. We have seen the responsibilities of local government whittled away by this Government. We have seen a reduction in the proportion of money financed by local government and an increase in the amount financed by central government. This Bill almost doubles that amount. It is an indication that the Government are in a panic, that they are trying to get out of the chaos that they have created. We are being asked to misuse the parliamentary constitutional procedures of this country in order to get the Government out of the muddle into which they have got themselves.

The country will not forgive the Government. The country will see the Government's attitude to those councils that they accuse of being spendthrift when it is the Government themselves who have been cavalierly wasteful of public money. They have shown themselves during the debates today to be only picking up the pieces, yet still spending public money to get out of the mess they have created. They are wasting that public money through the millions of torn up community charge bills throughout the country.

As I said at Committee stage, if a local authority had been guilty of such wastefulness it would have been ratecapped. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, its members would have been prosecuted and put on trial. They would have been surcharged for the mishandling of public money.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass. — (Lord Waddington.)

On Question, Bill passed.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock.