House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Mar 1991

Column 788

Dithering had set in. We saw it again at Question Time today. The Prime Minister has become the political equivalent of Mavis Riley of "Coronation Street" fame who, when faced with a difficult question, unfailingly replies, "Oh, I don't really know."

Last Thursday, we were told that the poll tax was dead. Or was it? The monster had been decapitated, only to reappear, like the Hydra, with three heads--the property poll tax with a VAT surcharge into the bargain. Once more the Government pretended to be united. But soft, "the isle is full of noises"

--and a lot of them are coming from the direction of Blaby. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) denounced the new proposals as "son of poll tax", and made it clear, as we do, that those who cannot choose cannot govern. When the right hon. Member for Finchley was forced out, we all knew that there would be a power vacuum. It is now clear that there is a policy vacuum too. The Government have lost their way and, in the words of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby, they are using consultation as a substitute for government.

The Government are not only dithering about the poll tax. In every policy area, they seem positively transfixed--trapped like startled rabbits in the headlights of an oncoming car--with one hand on the redundant ideology of the past 12 years while the other desperately clutches at any strand of Labour policy it can possibly grab.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of dithering, but that is precisely the opposite of what the Government are doing. They are seeking to transfer £4.25 billion from the national Exchequer to local government as fast as possible. We shall be here for a long time today. If, by some mischance, the Labour party were to form the next Government, would it claw back that £4.25 billion? We should like to know now.

Dr. Cunningham : We shall inherit the tax base that the Tory Government bequeath to us when they are defeated.

In a passing imitation of Senator Joe Biden, the Prime Minister superficially parrots the language of Labour's programme for the 1990s, but he dare not endorse the reality of our policies, including the complete abolition of poll tax, because to do so would be to tear his Government and his party apart. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister is a man who does not have the faintest idea where he is going--like this proposed legislation. Bounced from pillar to post by a Chancellor who says that poll tax stays and an Environment Secretary who says that it goes, the Prime Minister can almost be forgiven for appearing increasingly indecisive. He does not know what he believes in any more. Like Mr. Micawber, he simply hopes that something will turn up.

The problem for Britain is that weak, indecisive government is no way to solve the damaging consequences of the poll tax, or the recession, or any of the other problems that Britain faces today. In contrast, people want to see a programme for the 1990s which presents opportunity rather than the opportunism that is so clear in every action of the present Government, and no more clear than in the proposals before the House today.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt) : The hon. Gentleman should throw his notes away and make a proper speech.

Column 789

Dr. Cunningham : The people will throw the right hon. Gentleman's Government away at the first opportunity.

The best way to reduce poll tax bills is to get rid of the poll tax. We should be debating this Bill, which has been cobbled together in an attempt to cover the embarrassment of Conservative Members in the Chamber today, who almost without exception voted for every dot and comma of the poll tax- -every line, every sentence, every clause. Today, they are gathered to con the taxpayer, to use the taxpayer's money in an attempt to bail themselves out. What has happened to the famous saying that Governments do not have money, that it is the people's money?

Even at this late stage, we are offering to co-operate with the Government in the complete abolition of the poll tax. A Bill to abolish it could be guided through the House even more quickly, I suspect, than this one. There are plenty of Tories who, given the chance, would vote for the end of the poll tax--lock, stock and barrel. The Bill is just a one-year buy-off a kind of "live now, pay later" Bill. It does not guarantee that the poll tax will go--indeed, it guarantees that the poll tax will probably be in place at least until 1993-94. Tonight, Conservative Members will vote to keep the poll tax in place, for their constituents and for the people of Britain, for at least another two years. Let no one be in any doubt about that. Under this Bill, billions of pounds of our money are being used to bail out a discredited Government. So far as we can tell, far from removing many of the anomalies, the Bill will create a whole new class of losers--many of them people on the lowest incomes, and facing the toughest financial circumstances.

If the Bill were the subject of a two-day debate, rather than a debate lasting just a few hours, it would still be a disgraceful attempt to con the people of this country. It demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Government are devoid of principle. It certainly should not have been presented to the House in this manner, and there is no way we can accept the timetable motion.

4.48 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : Although I am one of the Members who supported the introduction of the community charge legislation, I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe that both this Bill and the guillotine motion are not only necessary but desirable. The Bill strikes me as necessary because the British people have made it clear that they consider community charges to be too high. The guillotine motion is necessary because the British people have made it clear that they want action now--not next month or next year--to bring those charges down.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : For the guidance of the House and to refresh the memory of some Opposition Members, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he was a member of the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill? Even by the standards of Conservative members of that Committee, he was one of those most active in sneering at and denigrating every attempt by Opposition Members to point out the error of his ways. Perhaps he should start by apologising for that.

Mr. Wilshire : I have already made it clear where I stood. I did serve on that Committee. I did believe in what

Column 790

I was doing. I see nothing to apologise for, because the principles that we were seeking to achieve were right. It is what has happened since that has led me to change my mind. Therefore, I do not apologise for serving on that Committee, and I am happy to make sure that the record is clear.

The Bill is desirable, because it lifts the excessive and unfair burden on local taxpayers, and the guillotine motion is desirable because it is the only way that I and the Government can see to give relief from 1 April 1991. Any other way would result in relief being given from April 1992, and that would be to ignore the message of the British people.

It is important to put the Bill and the guillotine motion in their proper context.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : In the dustbin.

Mr. Wilshire : If the Labour party put the Bill and the guillotine motion in the dustbin, it would deny £140 help per head to people in six days' time. If that is the Labour party's policy, let that be made clear.

Dr. Cunningham : In the interests of greater accuracy, the hon. Gentleman had better accept, because it is true, that the Bill does not guarantee £140 off each person's bill. That is a complete fallacy, and the hon. Gentleman should not repeat it, because it will simply mislead and bitterly disappoint millions of people. As the hon. Gentleman was one of those who railroaded poll tax through the House, voted for the guillotine and said how wonderful the tax would be, does he not think that a little humility would not come amiss ?

Mr. Wilshire : If I were to respond to that in the detail that it requires, Mr. Speaker, you would call me to order, because I would be making a Second Reading speech. However, I shall be delighted to respond if I catch your eye later. For the time being, let me concentrate on making sure that we put the Bill and the guillotine motion into their proper context.

What we are discussing now and what we shall be discussing for the rest of the day is not part of the fundamental review of local government. It has nothing to do with boundaries, services or local democracy ; nor has it anything to do with the replacement of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that we are now guillotining out the community charge. What we are doing is guillotining in help for people while the Government and the House take their time to work out the best way forward.

We are dealing with an interim measure, and we need to be clear about that. This is an interim measure while the Government and the country rightly take their time to work their way through the fundamental review and find the best possible replacement. But while we are taking time to get it right, the public are demanding action now and the Bill, and the guillotine motion will provide that instant action.

It is also important to understand why an interim approach at this stage is correct. As I have just said, the main review will take time, and it must be comprehensive. Even if Opposition Members, or even my hon. Friends, wanted to rush through a permanent replacement, that could not be done in six days.

Column 791

The hon. Member for Copeland said that the best way to reduce the bills was to get rid of the community charge now. That just shows how little the Labour party understands about the reality of local government finance. There is no way in which we can come up with an entirely new system, even one such as the Opposition's, which has no details, in six days.

We also need to understand why the timing of the Bill and the guillotine motion could not have been different. They could not have been sooner, and they certainly could not have been later. If we had tried to discuss the matter sooner, we would have been discussing an increase in grant ahead of a Budget, and Opposition Members would correctly have asked us where we would get the money from, which would have been to pre-empt a Budget.

Anyone who knows anything about finance will know that a Budget cannot be brought forward by two or three weeks at the drop of a hat. I can imagine the noises that we would hear from Opposition Members if we brought in two Budgets--one to deal with the community charge and another a few weeks later. The blood pressure of Opposition Members would have been wondrous to behold. There was no way that it could be done sooner and there certainly is no way that it could be done later. There are six days left before the start of the new financial year.

Mr. Wilson : If those Budgets caused as much hilarity and entertainment on the Opposition Benches as the latest Budget, the Government could bring in as many Budgets as they wanted.

Mr. Wilshire : I am trying to work out whether I should laugh at that. I think that it was meant to be funny, but I cannot quite see how.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : My hon. Friend will remember that this Government have brought in one Budget a year. The previous Labour Government brought in Budget after Budget after Budget so that industry and commerce did not know where they were, and nor did the ordinary people, from one week to the next.

Mr. Wilshire : That is correct. The point that my hon. Friend did not make is that that succession of Budgets was no laughing matter. The other reason why this measure could not have been introduced later is that not only do councils need to understand where they are as quickly as possible, but the community charge payers need to be able to pay their bills as quickly as possible. Unlike some Labour Members, the overwhelming majority of the British people want to pay their bills and do not like to duck out and break the law. We also need to understand in a little more detail why immediate action and the guillotine motion are necessary.

Mr. Tony Banks : Because the Government are panicking.

Mr. Wilshire : It is not because we are panicking. That just goes to show that Opposition Members simply do not understand. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not because we are panicking ; it is because the community charges are too high. They must come down now, and this is the only way to bring them down. It might help if the hon. Gentleman understood in some detail why those charges are too high. He will expect me to say that it is because of the overspending of quite a few councils, and he knows better than I which councils those are and why. But

Column 792

we must also be clear that community charges are too high because of the switch in funding that has taken place in recent years. I see great evidence that the capping rules have begun to bring councils to heel. There is growing evidence that capping works and that the overspending of councils is coming under control.

Mr. Tony Banks : Is it not a fact that the Government have taken about £58 billion from local government since 1979? It is right that the hon. Gentleman should observe that fact and see that clearly as the reason why so much pressure has been put on local government services. It has taken him a long time to realise that, but we are grateful that at long last it has dawned on him.

Mr. Wilshire : I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have always been truthful in describing the situation. I hope that, from time to time, the hon. Gentleman will admit the shortcomings of Labour councils. Whenever I hear him talk, he simply apologises for them. Capping has dealt with the first of those two reasons why the charges are too high. We have begun to rein in the excessive spending of councils, especially Labour councils. The point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is fair. Resources have been switched ; I am not denying that. I am saying that we must do something about it, and that is the purpose of the Bill. The guillotine motion means that we can do something about it in the next six days, rather than at some time in the future. The position reinforces the need for the guillotine.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : It would be a little more seemly if the hon. Gentleman showed an iota of humility. The fact is that a Conservative Government have perpetrated a terrible crime against the British people, and have been caught. The people's anger is rising : meanwhile, the Government are acting as though there were a war on and they were about to rush troops to some place where killing was about to start-- Northern Ireland, perhaps. A Government must be desperate when they must resort to such unseemly tactics to rush through legislation. Such action is normally taken--if the word "normally" is appropriate--when a war is imminent, or already taking place.

Mr. Wilshire : That is fairly colourful language. I do not want to be drawn into the question of Northern Ireland, and I do not think that Northern Ireland Members are particularly interested in the community charge, as it does not apply to them.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of crimes against the people. I am doing my best to prevent the Labour party from perpetrating crimes against the British public by becoming the Government. That is why I do not apologise for what I have said, and why I am not prepared to accept criticisms from the Opposition.

Why do Opposition Members oppose what we are doing? Some have cited "parliamentary purity", but I do not buy that : it strikes me as a smokescreen. As it happens, I favour guillotine motions for all Bills : discussion would be much more orderly, and we would make some progress. Let me tell hon. Members who speak of parliamentary purity that Standing Orders that made it impossible for the House to take instant action when necessary would be

Column 793

stupid. There is always a time and a place when such action is needed, and even this place must have means of taking it. Opposition Members have a second reason for opposing the motion. They want to slow the pace : they want to prevent us from giving people extra help in 1991-92. I can only speculate about why. It would not help the Labour party at all if the Government--

Dr. Cunningham : Let me stop the hon. Gentleman before he puts another falsehood on the record. There is not a shred of truth in anything that he has just said. It is perfectly clear that we do not want to prevent people's poll tax bills from being reduced.

Mr. Wilshire : Then what is all the fuss about? I really must read the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard . I think that every other phrase suggested that he did not agree with what we are about today. Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) rose --

Mr. Rooker rose --

Mr. Wilshire : They are all at it now. Let us start with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Rooker : We are doing the job that we were elected and are paid to do--scrutinising legislation, not acting as a rubber stamp. Most of us will be satisfied if we are given the answer to one simple question. We are willing to spend the rest of the day on that, which is why we do not accept the guillotine motion. We want to know exactly how many people will not have £140 knocked off their poll tax bills. We want to know their distribution in the population, and in which regions the gainers and the losers live. Such information would be available in the normal course of parliamentary scrutiny. Given adequate time, it would be provided during a Committee stage or in a written answer.

Mr. Wilshire : The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make a Second Reading speech. That is another reason why I should like to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker : I should love to be able to answer his question.

Only one point in the hon. Gentleman's intervention struck me as relevant to a guillotine motion debate : his point about using "the rest of the day". My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already dealt with that. It is a simple matter. The time that is being made available is more than adequate for even the most conscientious parliamentarian to deal with the issues that are at stake. The hon. Gentleman really should sort himself out. The reason why some hon. Members do not want people to be helped in 1991-92 is that they want to fight the local election by pointing the finger at the Government for not listening. But we are listening, and we are acting. By May this year, people will understand that they are paying lower community charges. Labour Members are trying to change the stakes in their own favour.

Mr. Battle : Conservative Members are trying to perpetuate the illusion that everyone will receive a rebate of £140. The truth is that the Bill will rub out some people's transitional relief altogether, with the result that they will pay more poll tax rather than less. When

Column 794

Conservative Members face up to that, perhaps we shall be able to have a proper debate on the details of the Bill. Without knowing the details, how can we discuss it?

Mr. Wilshire : Let me express for the third time my wish to be called on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the only way in which I can deal with such an outburst.

The third reason for Opposition Members' objection to the guillotine motion is, I suspect, that some wish to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Who?

Mr. Wilshire : I should love to give way again to hear Labour Members say that they do not object to our reducing community charge bills. Obviously they do object, if they are not prepared to confirm that. If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) meant by his sedentary intervention that he was in favour of a reduction in bills from 1 April, he has no choice but to support the guillotine motion and the Bill. Even his half-baked solution--a return to the old rating system--simply cannot be enacted and put into operation by council treasurers in six days.

Mr. Grocott : The hon. Gentleman must be bitterly regretting his failure to take my advice when I spoke from the Dispatch Box against the guillotine on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill in 1987. As he, along with most of his hon. Friends, failed to take my advice on that crucial occasion, I despair of his ever listening to it in the future.

Mr. Wilshire : That is fair comment, but it gives me a fourth reason for wanting you to call me again, Mr. Deputy Speaker : it would provide us with more entertainment. All we are doing is stacking up reasons.

Labour Members mistakenly see the guillotine motion as a means of embarrassing the Government. It will not do that ; the only people likely to be embarrassed by what Labour Members are saying are Labour Members themselves. All the bluster that they can come up with will not disguise the fact that they have no alternative solution. They do not know what they would do. As I have said, the hon. Member for Copeland could not put the rating system back in place in six days. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Copeland said that a "one-year buy-off" was about to be enacted. Bringing back the rating system would be the one-year buy-off, because the Opposition say that they want to do that for a year. It is they who should be embarrassed. They are the people who are being caught out with no policies, and who are seeking to maximise mayhem among community charge payers and councils by going for a one-year fix before returning to whatever they think they may do in future. There is a great deal more that I and others would like to say, but that will be for Second Reading. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make those points then.

I support the Bill, and have no difficulty in supporting the guillotine motion. The public have made it crystal clear that they want action to reduce the community charge now. We have a listening Government, who, having listened, have found a way to solve the problem within six days. Even if we have reservations--as I have made it clear in the past--about the long-term review or about any of the details, that is no reason not to support the Bill and the

Column 795

guillotine motion. They are interim measures, which give us the chance to get the review into better shape before we act on it. Swift and decisive action is needed, and the Government are being swift and decisive. The message that has emerged from the debate on the guillotine motion is that the Opposition's stupid claims about a dithering Government are untrue. I hope that the Opposition eat their words.

5.10 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent) : The essential part of the debate happened at the beginning. It was the question put by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to the Leader of the House about whether there was a precedent for a guillotine motion to be introduced without any effort having been made to see whether there could be consultation with the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had to answer that there was no precedent at all. I should have thought that, even on that basis, the Government would have had second thoughts--especially when we remember that one of the reasons why the House and the country are in such an appalling mess over the poll tax is that the previous poll tax legislation was also guillotined. Had it not been guillotined, there would have been a much lengthier debate.

I remember the speeches made by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). If the debates had continued, I do not say that we could have altered the Bill completely, but it might have been a different story. The House would at least have been given a proper chance to debate. It is staggering that a Government who have got into such hopeless confusion by rushing the previous legislation through should insist now on rushing this measure through in an even more headlong and improper fashion.

The Leader of the House had no excuse for proposing to the House what he has proposed today, especially in view of his reply to the spokesman for the Liberal party. When there is agreement between different parties, despite the fury that may accompany the background to a measure, it is a normal process for the Government to say that they want to push legislation through for special reasons--for example, the matter of the timetable, or to help local authorities. It is normal for the Government in those circumstances--when they want to push through legislation quickly--to get the co-operation of the House. They are not entitled to push it through by dictation, especially if it causes so much trouble for themselves and for the country. The Leader of the House made it clear that no effort had been made, so we must assume that the Government preferred to do it that way.

On Budget day there seemed to be some rejoicing about the Government's proposals. Some hon. Members thought that they were a good idea for everyone--

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) rose --

Mr. Foot : I shall just make this point, and then I shall give way.

A report of what was said about the guillotine motion states that most hon. Members condemned it although some liked the proposals. It may have been the hon.

Column 796

Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has just given us such a high constitutional view of the matter, who prompted The Independent to report :

"Most Conservatives, however, were delighted at what they hope will prove a short-term solution to the political death trap of the poll tax."

A Conservative Member was reported as saying :

"I don't give a damn about the propriety All I'm interested in is the money."

It seems that Thatcherism is not dead--the whole gospel is there.

Mr. Wilshire : I am not sure whether I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman thought that I could have said that, but I should make it clear that it was not me.

Mr. Foot : Who are the other claimants ? I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).

Mr. Arnold : For the benefit of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 20 July 1976 ? As Leader of the House, he proposed not one, not two, not three, not even four but five guillotine motions. Can he tell us what the atmosphere was like in the House on that occasion ?

Mr. Tony Banks : That is Labour productivity for you.

Mr. Foot : I have attended many more debates than most of the youngsters on the Tory Benches put together. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what happened on that occasion. During a debate with the previous Leader of the House about the five guillotine motions that I introduced--I say this to the present Leader of the House--I said that, if the House would like a full debate on the five issues and the problems involved, or what mandate we had from the electorate-- [Interruption.] All were in our manifesto-- [Interruption.] I am talking to the Leader of the House, not to the hangers-on. I said that, if the Leader of the House would like a debate on the five motions, I should be happy to agree, because it might save time and prevent interruptions by people who had not studied the issues.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : I have listened to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on every guillotine motion since I entered the House in 1987. He is being uncharacteristically ungenerous today. On a previous occasion, he said that the reason why he backed the five guillotine motions, although he has spoken against every such motion that the Government have introduced since they have been in power, was that he agreed with the policies. That is what he said before. Instead of torturing himself by speaking on each guillotine motion--I suppose it is out of a sense of frustration and guilt--is it not time that he stopped being guilty and retired ?

Mr. Foot : I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but he did not make the best use of his opportunity.

The best way to solve the problem--and I should be happy to fall in with it --is to approach the Leader of the House and ask for a debate on all general questions. I should then do my best to allay the hon. Gentleman's fears.

Mr. Rooker : Surely there is a difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introducing guillotine motions to push through

Column 797

manifesto commitments and today's motion which reneges on the manifesto on which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) entered the House in 1987.

Mr. Foot : As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says, there is a slight difference, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) could see it.

I have always advised people to look at the list of names on the back page of the Bill. The list reads as follows :

"Presented by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Robert Key." The list does not include the Leader of the House, or the name of the person in whose interests the Bill has been introduced--the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who has not put his name to the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Heseltine-- [Laughter.] --well, that is what he is ; he sticks to that principle more than he does to Henley, has not turned up today to help with the guillotine on his own Bill. He may have a good excuse, but I remember a previous occasion, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)--I would rather say this to his face than behind his back, but I cannot say it to his face as he is not here--as Secretary of State for Defence, introduced a Bill to privatise Devonport dockyard. It was a scandalous Bill because Devonport dockyard had been properly nationalised and serving the country since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill to privatise the dockyard. He was so discourteous to the House--a frequent habit, as we can see today--that he did not come here to introduce the Bill himself but sent along an underling. I do not remember the underling's name--it was Lamont, or something like that--but it was a person who had no distinction in terms of speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence except that, like Nelson, he had a black eye. We did not get very far on that occasion.

It would be most improper for us to proceed with the Bill without it having a proper name. We cannot get the figures right because, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has shown, the Government do not have the foggiest idea about the figures. Let us see whether we can get the name right. I have a few suggestions, such as the "Heseltine Horror". What about that? [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] No, it is not very good. What about the "Major Mite"? [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] No, that is not much better. Let us see whether we can get something better than that. What about the "Lamont Lemon"? I invite hon. Members later in the debate to see what they can do themselves. I am an old-fashioned kind of chap. For the sake of auld lang syne, I still like to use the phrase that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) used. She called the poll tax her "flagship", so the Bill should be called the "Flagship Tax Bill".

If hon. Members wish to complain about that, they should consider the other Members who should be here to defend the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bath, the spokesman for Conservative central office, should be here defending the Bill. Perhaps he has not yet recovered from the saturnalia at Southport. Of all the grim and grisly events of the past 10 or 15 years, the encounter at Southport must have been almost the worse.

Column 798

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not come to the House today as he should have done. I am so old that I can hardly tell the difference between the Pattens, the Patties, the Patsies and the others. I cannot imagine how you tell the difference between them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At least one of them should have had his name on the Bill. Until one of those right hon. Members puts his name to the Bill, and until we have an explanation from them, I shall consider the Bill to be an even bigger fraud than it appears on the face of it.

Yesterday, we had a most interesting contribution to the discussion from the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I am reminded of one of the most extraordinary aspects of the whole affair--if I malign any hon. Member, I am sure that he will jump to his feet and put me right--when I look at the Government Front Bench and a little further afield and see those who were sacked at various intervals. I challenged the right hon. Member for Blaby on the matter. My comments may be a great deal more popular with the Government today than they were yesterday, as the Government are not entirely pleased with the right hon. Gentleman.

Despite all the commotion about the tax, about its horrors, iniquities and injustices, and about the injury that it will do the Government, not one Conservative Member has plucked up courage to resign over the issue of the poll tax. When I put the argument to him yesterday, the right hon. Member for Blaby said that I could not accuse him of not resigning. However, he did not resign over the poll tax, but over the intrusion of Professor Walters into his own private or public life--whichever it was--which he thought was a more important question than the principle of the poll tax. Not one Conservative Member, on the Front or Back Benches, can say that he put principle before personal interest on the great question of the poll tax. They were all afraid of the previous Prime Minister and bowed to her. It is because of that long, craven performance that the House and the country face this terrible problem.

If the right hon. Member for Blaby bothered to turn up occasionally when he is not making a speech in the House, he might bounce to his feet now and say, "Those of us at the Treasury were working against the tax." I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would try to give some reflected glory to the present Prime Minister on that basis. The Treasury was supposed to be against the tax and was supposed to be working all the time to try to do something about it. As I said previously, some Conservatives claim to have been doing good by stealth. The rest is on record, and that record will destroy the Government.

5.27 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I should think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are probably as puzzled as I am after the previous speech. Who would have thought that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was the progenitor of the mother of all guillotines? He had support from his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, in his usual sotto voce way, said that the great benefit of what the right hon. Gentleman had done all those years ago was productivity, that the Labour party does not believe in one guillotine at a time, but in five or even more at a time. We know where they stand.

Column 799

I do not like the Opposition. I am sure that that feeling is reciprocated. There is nothing personal about it. They are a splendid group of men and women to a person. I just do not like their political style. Let me explain. I remember recently, after one of those many boring, boorish television occasions, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in his usual political style of Laurence Olivier playing Richard III, busily manufacturing statistics, mauling facts and finding, as only he can, the worst in everything. One of my constituents said to me, "Don't worry, Mr. M. he is only a cross-eyed moaner." The trouble is that all of them on the Opposition Benches are cross-eyed moaners. They know that the Bill is necessary, but they are moaning about it. Everyone knows that the rates were wrong, that they were grossly unfair and had to go--or should I say, everybody knew?

The Opposition believed that, by waving a wand and stitching in the word "fair" before "rates", they would miraculously become fair. Lewis Carroll would have been proud of them. The Opposition cannot cope with the fact that no Government before this one have had the guts and tenacity to deal with the problems of local government finance. The Bill is part of that vital and important process. The community charge was, in many respects, a good answer to the problem. Those who voted for extravagance paid extravagantly. Everyone had to pay something. There was a small problem, but with the successful launch of the community charge, that problem would have been overcome easily. We all accept that the community charge is bureaucratic, but with a successful launch, its benefits would have outweighed the disadvantages. The key was a successful launch, but that did not happen, and that is why we are where we are now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was a remarkable person-- [Interruption.] --is a remarkable person. She was the finest peacetime Prime Minister of this century. Without her premiership, this country would have been heading for the political knacker's yard.

Mr. Tony Banks rose--

Next Section

Home Page