As I was saying, this does not mean that the Government are deaf to representations except, that is, to those from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). Of course, we shall listen to local authorities that feel that there are good reasons why they cannot meet targets. If there is a case that raises a general principle, it may be possible to consider exemptions. Indeed, exemptions were considered in the financial year 1981–82. Authorities will know how hold-back will be calculated before they set their rates. This is the main burden of the Bill. The abolition of the supplementary rate will mean that authorities will know exactly where they stand in relation to their main rate.

If an authority chose to ignore targets that others had been able to meet without disastrous effects on their services, it would not be able to claim in the middle of the year that hold-back came as a surprise. Provided that the authorities keep within the law, they will be able to maintain services at an acceptable level, but whether their ratepayers and electors will agree is another matter.

I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Not for the first time, I am totally disappointed with the Minister's reply. To be honest, he has not given any reply. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) said earlier, by no stretch of the imagination can I now shout "Eureka!" What the Minister has said must concern every right hon. and hon. Member in the House. The Minister has said that when the dead hand of the Secretary of State touches local authorities, the will of the House and any legislation is at risk. If that is not a negation of democracy, I do not know what is.

It is good of my hon. Friend to give way to me. The Minister churlishly refused to do so. It would be right to put the record straight. When the Minister says that the adequacy of services is the length of a piece of string, the proper judge of whether services are adequate according to the law would, in the final resort, be the House of Lords, in a case brought to decide what that adequacy was. If the courts decided, for instance, that a local authority was not providing adequate education, there would be a problem if the Government had cut back grant to the local authority and prevented it from doing what the House of Lords told it to do.

My hon. Friend has put the case much better than I could have done. I do not need to comment further on that except to say that sometimes local government wished that it had something as long as a piece of string. It is important that the Government have not seen fit even to examine the wording of the amendment or to consider the implications. It is a sad reflection on a Government who came to power on a manifesto that promised more democracy to local government and, by every successive word and deed, have made sure that that is impossible.

I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in pressing the amendment to a Division, because it is a fundamental issue that should be included in the Bill. The Minister has not given one inkling of the depth of sincerity with which the amendment was tabled or the importance of it.