Lords Sitting of 7 April 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Lord Trafford
Sir Joseph Anthony Porteous Trafford, Knight, having been created Baron Trafford, of Falmer in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shawcross and the Lord Gibson.
Baroness Blackstone
Tessa Ann Vosper Blackstone, having been created Baroness Blackstone, of Stoke Newington in Greater London, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Serota and the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Life Sentence Prisoners: Provisional Release
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revise the procedure for reviewing the question of provisional release of prisoners serving life sentences, in the light of the High Court ruling in the case of Mr. Brian Handscomb.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is still studying the judgment, which relates only to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences and not to all life sentence prisoners, and will announce the Government's response in due course.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but is he aware that it was precisely to avoid oversights in the review of life sentence cases which were occurring—if he will take my word for it—not infrequently in his department before 1973, that a joint committee was set up in that year composed of Parole Board members and officials of his department and chaired by the vice-chairman of the Parole Board, who was a High Court judge? Does not this case demonstrate the desirability of reinstating that committee, which did excellent work for 10 years until it was abolished by Mr. Leon Brittan in 1983?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes, I am aware that the joint committee used to undertake this work but I think the court's criticisms were confined to the applications of certain aspects of the policy for dealing with the cases of life sentence prisoners announced in 1983. The court upheld the lawfulness of that policy,
896
which it described as unassailable. I do not think this judgment has any effect upon that policy itself.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister appreciate that the court of three judges castigated the Home Secretary on the manner in which this policy had been carried out and pointed out that it had led to prisoners being kept in custody for a minimum of nine years, far beyond the time the sentencer had envisaged? Is the Minister also aware that the Home Secretary was castigated for accepting the arrogant view that he could ignore the judges' recommendation on tariff if he so wished and substitute his own view on tariff?
Does not the Minister feel that he owes an apology to all those who suffered from this injustice and also an apology to those Members of this House who pointed out at the time that this policy was probably unlawful and certainly autocratic and that it had upset the whole basis of the parole system as it had been administered since the days of my noble friend Lord Hunt?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not accept that the parole system has been made less effective or has been in any way denigrated since the days of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As I said, I cannot comment further on what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's response will be at this stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister listen to the voice of sweet reasonableness? In regard to the judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench, would he not agree that as the judgment was delivered on 2nd March and as the matters dealt with—especially, if I may say so, by the learned Lord Justice Watkins—are matters of some urgency, the Home Secretary should have formed some opinion before now on just two of the main points? The first one is that the Divisional Court decided that to wait for three or four years before fixing the term that should be served by a prisoner for retribution and deterrence was wrong and that this should be done soon after the sentence, if not at the time of sentence, and that the Home Secretary should take regard of the wishes of the judiciary and should not impose his own views when deciding this period. Does not the noble Lord think that those two matters are somewhat simple to decide upon in regard to policy, having regard to the clear judgment of the court?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the terms of the declaratory relief offered to the applicants was settled only yesterday and this has inevitably delayed consideration of the implications of the judgment. The formal position is that the Government now have 28 days in which to consider the question of whether an appeal should be made.

Airbus: British Aerospace Request
3.2.p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.

897
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to announce their decision regarding the request from British Aerospace for £750 million of taxpayer finance towards the cost of their participation in the A330 and A340.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to announce a decision regarding the request from British Aerospace for launch aid towards the cost of participating in the Airbus A330 and A340, but discussions with the company continue.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and, in particular, for the note of caution which it strikes. Would my noble friend care to comment on the revelation from the chairman of Airbus Industrie yesterday, that in 13 years of trading this great corporation has failed to turn a penny piece of profit for any of its participants? Could he also explain, in the light of views expressed on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, what benefit there can be to the shareholders in British Aerospace in the contraction of orders for any of these models unless there is a profitable return in real terms from the acceptance of those orders? Could he say whether any of the orders so far received for the airbus been taken on a basis of profitability?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on what the chairman of Airbus Industrie said. As regards the activities of British Aerospace and bringing a benefit to the shareholders, that is surely a matter for the shareholders to determine—not for me.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is this not the third occasion on which there has been a Question in your Lordships' House when the Government have replied that they are still considering the matter? On the last occasion did the Minister not agree that sales of the A320 had been unparalleled and that it had been a great success for this country? Is not time now running out, and should not an urgent decision be made by the Government in order that we can be a participant in this European venture instead of just being a contractor?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to be offensive to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but the answer to his first question is, yes. The answer to his second question is, yes, and the answer to this third question is, no. As regards the question of time running out, we are in touch with airbus partner governments on the progress of the A330 and A340 projects. As I have said previously, there are complex matters and take some time to resolve, bearing in mind that they are under consideration by our governmental partners as well.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not correct that delay has already cost the consortium
898
several orders? Is it not also true that if discussions are prolonged much further it will lose still more orders? Is that what the Government wish to bring about?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not aware that there is delay. Certainly, there is consideration of this important and complex matter. I do not believe that this has cost orders, because an announcement has been made of 104 commitments from nine airlines for the A330 and A340. I believe that to be a very encouraging position which we shall certainly take into account in our deliberations.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that this is indeed a complex matter, not least because Airbus Industrie is not in itself a profit-making organisation as we know it—it is not a company, as we know it—would the noble Lord not agree that, leaving aside any question of the actual amount or the terms of any loan, it would be quite intolerable if these two projects went ahead without Britain being a partner?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know better than I that we are not talking in terms of a loan; we are talking in terms of launch aid. Of course we wish to give British Aerospace what support we can in launch aid, as we have done in the past, so that our British aerospace industry can play its full part in the world industry.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister agreed on the last occasion that although we use the term "launch aid", it is, in effect, a loan and the moneys will be repayable? Is it not also a fact that there has been one delay in Airbus Industrie being able to announce that it is definitely going to launch these two programmes, partly because the United Kingdom's decision is awaited? Therefore is it not an urgent matter for Airbus Industrie as well as for British Aerospace and its workers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the position of British Aerospace's participation, and thereby the Government's position vis-àvis British Aerospace, is one—but only one—of the factors. It is anticipated that Airbus Industrie will take all the necessary formal decisions to launch the programme later this month, by which time we should be in a position to give our considered response to British Aerospace.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, might not the tolerability of the proposed taxpayer investment in this project be best judged if my noble friend and right honourable and honourable friends who are Ministers in the department concerned, should they decide to give a favourable response to this request from British Aerospace, were themselves committed to putting, let us say, 5 per cent. of their individual personal net worth behind British Aerospace as a gesture of their confidence in the effectiveness of this investment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, what an interesting and unique way of raising money! However, it would not perhaps be quite sufficient to satisfy British Aerospace's need in this regard.

Manufacturing: Trade Deficit and Employment
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the deficit in Britain's overseas trade balance in manufactured goods in 1986 and how many employees in manufacturing industry lost their jobs as a consequence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the deficit in Britain's overseas trade balance in manufactured goods was £5.4 billion in 1986. No useful conclusions can be drawn from this deficit about the level of employment in manufacturing industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that time could have been spared on this Question this afternoon if in his 26-minute speech on 11th March he had answered precisely the same question which I put to him during the debate? Is he also aware that the figure that he has just given is the worst in history for British manufacturing industry? Is he further aware of the fact that, whereas in 1979 out of every pound spent by British shoppers on manufactured goods 26p went on imported goods, last year the figure was 35p out of every pound?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that three-quarters of total imports are taken up by manufacturing industry in terms of semifinished products, raw material and machinery in order for those industries to improve their competitiveness and to secure, as they have secured, their volume share of world markets, 28 per cent. of manufactured goods having been exported last year out of a total of £55 billion. That record of improvement since the low of the recession of 1981 is a credit to manufacturing industry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures issued by the Department of Employment in February show that 22,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry in the month of January alone? Taking November, December and January as a quarter, the average was 8,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector each month, which is an increase of 33 per cent. over the preceding quarter. Whichever way we look at the situation, does it not show that the bedrock of our future and of the economic survival of manufacturing industry is still being eroded at an alarming rate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, suppose that in answer to the noble Lord I suggested, with a degree of certainty, that 65 per cent. of the population of working age are in work and that that is a higher number of people out of the population than we find generally in Western Europe. I may also say to him that to pick on one particular sector is not very helpful. We require a competitive economy. That is central to our prosperity. Both manufacturing and
900
services are important and have a role to play in our economic position.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that our overall trading deficit with Japan is some £3 billion and that a considerable amount of that is in the manufacturing sector, may I ask my noble friend (although I appreciate that it is somewhat wide of the Question) for an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will in no way lessen their resolve in dealing with the way in which the Japanese are treating the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question. Perhaps I can best answer by saying that Her Majesty's Government are committed to free, open and fair trade conditions throughout the world. We do not subscribe in any way to protectionist measures, wherever they may be practised.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a further reduction in interest rates, with its consequential beneficial effect on the sterling exchange rate, particularly in relation to the German mark, would greatly assist our major companies on whose exporting performance our overseas trade balance in manufactured goods largely depends?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, along with exchange rates, inflation, competitiveness and quality come interest rates. All of those matters have a bearing on the ability of our manufacturing industries to compete across the world. As I said in the debate of 11th March to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred, there is no doubt that British manufacturing stands on the threshold of a great opportunity. I have little doubt that it will take advantage of that opportunity this year and next year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, leaving aside cause and effect, will the noble Lord give the House the Government's estimate for 1987 for both manufacturing trade deficit and the expected loss of employment in manufacturing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's response to the noble Lord opposite, can he advise the House whether current conditions of credit trading and the credit boom point to a case on domestic credit grounds for any reduction in interest rates?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords; I am sorry; I do not like refusing to answer my noble friend's question. However, I think it is just a bit wide of the original Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us, in response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Williams, what the comparison is between the deficit figures which he gave to me in his first Answer and those of the previous year? Is he aware

901
that for three years now Ministers have been telling us that we are on the threshold of a great boom in manufacturing industry and that every year the deficit has become greater? Will he also for the House compare production, which he said so much about in his first answer to my supplementary question, not with the low of 1981 produced by a Conservative Government but with the year 1979 when the Conservative Government first took over?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord always asks a number of fascinating questions which demand number responses. I do not have all the numbers at my fingertips. I can say that we have enjoyed a balance of payments surplus for a number of years. As conditions have changed, particularly as regards the recession and oil prices, the position has changed somewhat. If one looks at the overall position that we must face for the future, we expect no more than perhaps a £24 billion deficit in current account payments for 1987, which is after all just one half of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. Instead of looking backwards I prefer to look forwards to the great opportunities which lie before us and which I am convinced British industry will take.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord offer great opportunities also to those in the major areas of unemployment in this country mainly within manufacturing? They also look for a ray of hope.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the ray of hope which is before them lies in increased productivity, increased competitiveness, increased profitability and the reinvestment of those profits in British industry. All of those results will have stemmed from the policies of this Government. Those manufacturing industries, as they capture a bigger share of world markets, will provide the long-term jobs.

Fishing Vessels: United Kingdom Registration
3.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation to prevent foreign fishing vessels from registering as British and thus qualifying to participate in catching the quotas of fish allocated to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government are considering the introduction of legislation that would require stricter nationality or residence conditions to be met by companies or individuals seeking to register fishing vessels in the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that a
902
number of Spanish fishing boats have now met the present requirements of British registration and that more may do so, thereby nullifying the main purpose of the quota system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. That is why we hope to be able to introduce legislation as soon as possible. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend further aware that many Spanish fishermen disapprove of what is happening? I have with me a letter from a fishermen's federation based in Vigo, Spain. It expresses the hope that the loopholes will soon be eliminated because they are placing in doubt the carefully negotiated agreements on the transitional period following Spain's entry into the EC.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. I suspect that I have seen the letter. The Spanish Government are also well aware of our concern.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as a generality, is my noble friend happy that on this issue we are receiving from the Common Market countries the cooperation we are entitled to believe we should have?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are in touch with the EC Commission on our proposals but we have to be very careful that such legislation would be compatible with our obligations under the treaty.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that we recognise the importance of the answer he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy? In regard to the legislation, he said that it will be brought forward as soon as possible. Can he give an indication of how soon that will be, because, in the meantime, terrible damage could be done to our fishing fleets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope it will be possible to bring forward a Bill at the earliest opportunity. But legislation of this nature would introduce novel constraints that demand most careful consideration if they are to be effective in practice.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill will be taken.

Petroleum Bill
3.21 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House

903
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Petroleum 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.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Liability for personal community charge:]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 7. line 41, leave out ("aged 18").
The noble Lord said: This heralds another series of amendments pointing out some of the difficulties that will be met particularly by students if the Bill is not considerably amended or if the Minister does not find a way of coping with the problem.
Under Clause 10, many problems begin to show. What will happen, for instance, to those people aged over 18 who decide after 1st April to enter education in September or October? Will they be registered at their home address or at their term-time address? If they start off registered at their home address and pay the charge, then move to pursue a course of education—they may not know until quite late that they have been accepted—and so become liable for a full year's charge at their new address, how will their previous payment be refunded?
There is another group of people. It is not uncommon nowadays for married students to maintain two homes. In fact, the award schemes make specific allowance for this. How will the joint and several liability apply in such cases? Will the home address become subject to standard community charge, and who will be the person responsible for the home address under Clause 19?
Another group of students will be those in placement. Many students spend a large part of their course away from their registered university or college. They undertake field work placements for various periods away from their studies. I refer to students on social work courses, those in community education, those on teaching courses and those on business and industry-linked courses of which there are an
904
increasing number. Such periods can range from part of a term to a whole term; so another problem arises there.
One of the most difficult problems—the last I shall mention—is the position of those students in further education who are assisted by local authority bursaries. In 1984–85, some 10,700 students aged 18 or over were in receipt of bursaries—the figure is considerably more now—and remained eligible to claim benefit. In this case our concern is about the way all benefit claimants tend to lose under these proposals.
I do not believe it is possible to deal with these various categories of students merely by amendments such as that I am proposing. I have brought forward the amendment and Amendment No. 132 which follows in order to give the Government a chance to respond to the real problems which students are pressing on us and I hope on the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain the reason for the exemption from personal community charge liability of persons in respect of whom child benefit is payable because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this also comes into the concept of the amendment which the noble Lord has put down. These will be people who are either still at school or attending certain courses of non-advanced further education. In any case, they will be fairly dependent on their parents. If they were liable for the personal community charge, their parents would in fact have to pay for it. That cannot be right since the personal community charge, as I have said on more than one occasion, is in principle the personal responsibility of each individual resident.
The words "aged 18" in paragraph (a) are included purely for the sake of clarity because child benefit is not normally payable in respect of people aged 18. Paragraph (a) exempts from liability to pay the personal community charge the comparatively small group of people aged 18 in respect of whom child benefit is payable. The intention is simply to clarify any doubt about the position of this group of people. That is why I suggest there are good reasons for retaining the wording in the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord may have been proposing to speak to Amendment No. 132 in connection with this. That amendment would be unnecessary because child benefit is never payable in respect of anyone above the age of 18. I can perhaps round up my response by saying that the noble Lord has raised a whole number of different matters to do with students. He even raised the question of bursaries. As I understood the original amendment, he was largely concentrating on the point about child benefit to which I have referred. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord will allow me, is to look at the whole concept that he has raised in connection with the earlier amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and come back to it in due course.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is the solution we should like. I tried to say how impossible it is to deal with this complicated matter through Opposition amendments. It really is a job for the

905
Government. Our debate last week, and today's, have pointed out some of the genuine problems and I am grateful to the Minister for his promise to look at them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 133:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) persons who are severely disabled;
( ) persons who are severely mentally handicapped;").
The noble Lord said: I have no desire to speak to any great extent on this amendment. I think I missed by five minutes the Minister's further explanation of the debate we had on this part regarding the severely disabled, physically and mentally handicapped, and all the others who are dependent on someone else to look after them. As long as I can confirm that this aspect will be taken with the pledge given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, late on Thursday last then I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord must move the amendment if he requires an answer.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I received the answer in a nod from the Minister, so I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: We come now to Amendment No. 135. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 136.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My purpose in moving this amendment is to express my concern that if subsection (7) (b) stays in the Bill it has the effect (does it not?) of treating people who happen to be living in common lodging-houses or houses of multiple occupation differently from the rest of the community. In my view, by doing this the Government's proposals run contrary to the whole raison d'etre of their Green Paper.
Why does the administrative cost, as the Government allege, outweigh the link between voting and paying in the case of people occupying such forms of communal establishments? Apparently everyone else will subsist under the accountability argument which is frequently advanced by the Minister. I want to know why this group of people will not. The Minister must keep in mind that direct and individual responsibility for paying will be removed from such people and the community charge will be submerged in a global rent charge so that the direct link, much argued by the Government, is broken.
The Government have attempted to justify their position by declaring that people in that type of accommodation are highly mobile and that it would be difficult to register them for the personal
906
community charge. However, many groups who represent their interests—including, in particular, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—have stated that the stereotype of high mobility is at best questionable. Therefore, I believe that the Minister must attempt to justify to the Committee that there is a case for treating those who are said to be highly mobile differently from everyone else.
In addition, there are a number of other reasons why, in my view, the Committee should accept this amendment to delete subsection (7) (b). First, the advantages of the collective community charge, made much of by the Government in recent debates, do not outweigh the need to treat this sector of the community in the same way as we intend to treat other members of the community. Secondly, the collective community charge destroys the clear link between the citizen and his authority, which again the Government have been saying frequently is central to the concept of the community charge.
Finally, at present persons in hostels are treated as being resident in such establishments for electoral purposes. I contend that this principle should be equally applicable to the community charge. If the Minister does not agree, I want him to argue the case and tell me why he does not. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I certainly support this amendment. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has dealt with the matter so fully that all I need to say is that I share entirely his anxieties about this whole matter. No doubt we will have an opportunity of discussing it more fully when we deal with Clause 11.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I understand that we are discussing Amendment No. 168 with Amendment No. 135. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 168, which rests on the arguments so ably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on the responsibility put on people staying in these establishments because it puts no accountability on them whatever.
I am putting the case for lodging-house keepers. Why should they be put to the enormous trouble of collecting the money and handing it over? The Government are using them as tax collectors and I am sure that they have enough to do without that. Therefore, first, the principle of accountability of the person paying does not apply; and, secondly, the lodging-house keeper is yet again to be used, as in the case of PAYE, as a non-paid tax collector by the Government. There is far too much of that and it is against the principle and the practice of the Bill. In any case, the formula for calculating—dividing by 365—no doubt can be done fairly reasonably.
I should like the Minister to explain why he is penalising the owners of lodging-houses and why he is going entirely against the principle which runs through the whole Bill of paying the charge, making the citizen responsible for his local government and for taking a deep interest in it. He will have no interest whatever in this charge. He will grumble about it and move on, and so will the lodging-house keepers. This does not appear to me to be a very sensible subsection.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend the Minister, for clarification only, to confirm that the intendment of Clause 8 (7) (b) is not designed to apply to students who would be dealt with separately either under the rebate provisions of Clause 24 or, perhaps, as a separate category by extension of Clause 8 (7)? I know that my noble friend the Minister is consideriing his position on this but for clarification I seek assurance, because we may come to this later, that Clause 8 (7) (b) is not intended, as it stands, to apply to students.
Lord Glenarthur: I confess that when I studied these amendments—I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that Amendment No. 168 is grouped with Amendment No. 135—I found them rather puzzling. I first refer to Amendment No. 168. It appears to remove any liability for the collective community charge from owners of the premises to which the charge relates but provides instead that the owners should supply information about their tenants and sub-tenants to the registration officer. Tenants and sub-tenants would then be liable for the collective community charge and payments would be made presumably in relation to the length of each tenancy.
That seems to me to be an attempt to replace the collective community charge proposals, which I agree we shall come to in due course, with a system which would approximate to registration for the personal community charge in all cases. It seemed to me that this interpretation was confirmed by Amendment No. 135, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, which would remove the exemption from personal community charge liability for those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. The only difference would be that the owner of the premises would be required to act as a kind of sub-registration officer in providing information about the residence of all his tenants.
There are a number of difficultities about this. In the first place, it is possible that some of those who are solely or mainly resident in premises in relation to which the collective community charge is payable may not have any kind of formal tenancy agreement. Such people would therefore in effect be exempted from making any payment towards the cost of the local authority services which they receive through the community charge system.
More fundamentally, however, I should remind the Committee that the collective community charge is intended to be applied to premises where residents are so transient that individual registration for the personal community charge would not be practicable. We can return to this again in more detail when we come to Clause 11. But the suggestion would require all tenants in residence to pay some portion of the collective community charge in relation to their tenancy.
The amendment is silent on how these payments would be collected. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that the levying authority would have to check through the registration officer on all the comings and goings of tenants and sub-tenants, calculate their liability, send them bills and collect the money. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would agree
908
that this is something of a bureaucratic nightmare, never mind any other bureaucratic nightmares that he might feel exist. It would negate the whole principle of the collective community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested that residents in hostels are registered there for electoral purposes, so they should be resident there for the collective community charge. As I understand it, electoral registration depends on residence at a single date. I think this is rather different from the concept which is embodied in this part of the Bill of the continuous liability for the community charge.
As for the principle of accountability, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred, the principle applies to those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. Through the collective community charge contribution they will make a payment for local authority services at the same level as the personal community charge and will therefore participate in the increase in local accountability which the Bill obviously brings. The noble Lord disagrees, as far as I can tell, that the principle of accountability is the sort of feature on which we ought to concentrate. We believe, on the contrary, that it is, and that is why I have stressed those points.
I think the amendments which are suggested here would in any case raise more problems than either of the noble Lords, Lord Mackie or Lord Kirkhill, would want and they would be wholly impractical. I hope, therefore, with the explanation of how we see that matter operating, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for having explained this part of the Bill. But I must confess that even after the explanation I find there are many outstanding questions. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, intends to do, but I should have thought that points have been raised which require further consideration by the Government.
The Government's own explanation raises all sorts of difficulties and demonstrates the illogicality and difficulty of construing this whole Bill with any fairness. There are one or two specific points. First, I did not hear the Minister give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who suggested that this subsection appears to be quite contrary to the whole principle behind the Bill; that is, the principle of personal responsibility. Neither did I hear him give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as to the position of students. As I understood it, the Minister said that this should deal with transients, but I am not even clear that that is made plain in the Bill. If it is, I am not sure how this is to be done. There is the question, for instance, of people in old folks' homes and hostels and so forth. As far as I remember, most of these are on the register, but as my noble friend Lord Mackie has pointed out, apparently it would be left to the matron or someone to deal with their contribution under this Act.
The Minister may say that the suggestions made from this side of the Committee would be difficult to carry out. But I must confess that I consider the Bill

909
itself will be extremely difficult to carry out. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said, it will put a very considerable and quite unjustified burden on lodging-house keepers. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider again the points made, because on their own showing it does not seem to me they have any answer to the point that this strikes at the root of their own argument for the Bill. They have not answered such points as were made about students and so forth which could be very important and, as far as I can see it, could be affected by this clause, even though that may not be intended.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may first apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for not answering his point, which escaped me for the moment. Students will not be liable to the collective community charge; they can only be liable for the personal community charge. I hope that clears the noble Lord's mind and that he now understands the relevance of subsection (7)(b).
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that this in any way runs contrary to our principles enuciated throughout the Bill or that this subsection is contrary to personal responsibility. I find that a rather difficult charge to accept. I think the noble Lord is seeking to raise rather more than this amendment and to return once more to the whole concept embodied in the Bill—accountability, which his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has stressed, in moving the amendment, would again in some way he dented by this amendment.
Principles apart, we are faced with practicalities in this issue. The amendments which have been put forward would be thoroughly impractical; they would be clumsy and a nightmare to try to deal with. As I have said, the levying authority would have to go through a particularly protracted and complex business for checking the records and all the comings and goings of everybody concerned, tenants and subtenants. Then he would have to calculate the liability based upon what he thought those comings and goings were. Then the bills would. have to be sent out and the money collected. I can see nothing to suggest that that is a sensible way to proceed. I think it is far removed from the suggestion which the noble Lord seeks to make that in some way we are going against our own principles in not being prepared to accept this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replies, having so far listened with very great care to what has been said on this subject I find my noble friend the Minister's stand entirely convincing. He has quite enough to take back, and on the grounds of practicality it does not really seem that this is yet another matter which ought to be considered.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may intervene and make the point in answer that of course I agree that my amendment would be a nightmare for the assessor and the registration officer. But the Bill is transferring the nightmare to the poor lodging-house keeper. I am against the concept, of course, but I was
910
trying to point out to the Minister what he was doing. Later on we come to some further amendments in which we suggest that perhaps the poor lodging-house keeper might be recompensed. It is perfectly true that it was a nightmare, but then the whole Bill is a nightmare. The nightmare should not be suffered by the lodging-house keeper but by the people who are promoting the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: So far as the poor lodging-house keeper is concerned, there is such a thing as a pocket calculator.
Lord Kirkhill: In his courteous reply to the points which I put to him, the Minister said first of all that he was puzzled as to the reason why I had submitted the amendment, and rather later he said that the amendment itself was somewhat clumsy. To the second of those two propositions I may well agree, but the clumsy amendment could be refined in the fullness of time. As to his being puzzled over why I had submitted the amendment, by now he must have realised that I am opposed to the principle of the collective community charge. We shall discuss that point in great detail on Clause 11, as the Minister knows. Therefore it is necessary for me at this stage to put down this amendment because it forms part of the overall concept of the collective community charge, to which concept I most strenuously object.
Having said that, by leave, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 7, line 43, after ("persons") insert ("other than those mentioned in subsection (4) above").
The noble Earl said: This amendment corrects a technical flaw in the provisions for the registration of students. Clause 8(4) provides that students in full-time education should be deemed to be solely or mainly at their term-time address for the purposes of their personal community charge liability.
However, Clause 8(7)(b) exempts from personal community charge liability persons who are solely or mainly resident in premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable. Therefore, if a student is resident in such premises during term-time he will not be liable for the personal community charge and the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will not apply to him. Like others resident in collective community charge premises, he will be liable instead to pay a collective community charge contribution under Clause 11(10) at the same level as a personal community charge.
However, if he moves back home during vacations, he will again become liable to the personal community charge because he will no longer be solely or mainly resident in collective community charge premises. But then, because he is a student, the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will apply and he will be considered as solely or mainly resident at his term-time address. Since his term-time address is subject to the collective charge, as I have explained, he will have exemption from the personal community charge liability. Therefore it could be argued that a student in those circumstances would not be required to pay either the

911
personal community charge or the collective community charge contribution during vacations.
That clearly would not be right and in order to break out of this circular position the amendment provides that students who are deemed to be resident at their term-time address under the provisions of Clause 8(4) should not be exempt from the personal community charge if they are resident in collective community charge premises. That will mean that all students will always be registered for the personal community charge at their term-time address, notwithstanding that that address may be premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable.
At the same time, by taking students out of the exemption provided by Clause 8(7)(b), they are removed from the provisions of Clause 11(9)(a) on the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier and of Clause 11(10)(c) on liability for collective community charge contributions. They will therefore no longer be liable for a collective community charge contribution, nor will they be included in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. Their financial position will therefore be preserved and their landlord will not have to pay any element of collective community charge relating to their residence in his premises.
The only difference that the amendment will make in practice is that there will be no doubt that they will be liable to pay the personal community charge during vacations as well as during term-time. Therefore the amendment clarifies a detail of the provisions which otherwise would be open to doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought I understood this until I heard the explanation. If there was ever utter gibberish, it was the explanation of what appeared at one time to be simple. However, there is a reason for it; we can blame the hurry and haste of the draftsmanship.
What are we doing? We are defining the exceptions in relation to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge, and we have not yet had any definition or clarification of that. If we have an untidy debate, it stems from the draftsmanship and the way in which this measure has been laid out.
I think it is wrong to define an exception to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge when we have not had a debate on what is the collective community charge. That must have been a difficulty for the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Kirkhill, and I can say that it is a difficulty for every single one of us, because now not a soul understands it.
Baroness Seear: Now that we know that we are not to have an election on May 7th does the Minister agree that it would be rather a good idea to take the Bill back and have it carefully thought out and rewritten in plain English—or even in plain Scottish—so that some people have a chance to understand it?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The explanation given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur a moment ago was wholly intelligible, wholly satisfactory and in fact
912
anticipated this amendment to which my noble friend has just spoken. It is unfortunate, but the speech of my noble friend, which I confess to me was wholly unintelligible, when it appears in Hansard will no doubt qualify for the golden bull for gobbledegook for 1987. But my noble friend Lord Glenarthur's simple explanation was intelligible.
Lord Renton: For those of us who perhaps do not have the subtlety of mind of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—and I think that there are some of us in that unhappy state—it might have been better if the various definitions that we have to apply as we go through the Bill had all been stated in the second or third clause. Then, those definitions being mastered, I think that the rest of the Bill would have become more simple.
I do not think that my noble friend should take the whole Bill back. I merely suggest that, if it is just a question of getting the drafting right while the substance is clear, it might be worth while considering placing the definitions of the various types of charge earlier than where we find them in the Bill. We find them dotted here and there and that is not helpful either to us as legislators or to the users of the statute in the years to come.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: One does not have to have a subtle mind to agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. It is all too obvious.
Lord Grimond: From this side of the Committee we also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that the Government will take some notice of his remarks. The drafting of Bills has reached a standard which is practically unbelievable and quite unintelligible to anyone other than a whole time lawyer with a full legal library. At the same time, I should like to put up a gentle defence of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I was brought up in the time of no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with whom I was once in Chambers, to say that everyone in this country has the right to the defence of fog. It seems to me that he has been exercising that ancient British right of spreading fog on a standard which would win admiration throughout the Temple and no doubt Lincoln's Inn.
Behind all the fog, we might be able to get back to the essential point, which is a simple one. As I understand it, the result of this measure will be that students will be responsible in some way for paying some element of the charge during vacations, whether or not they are within the area of the authority. I want to get that right. Students will be levied by some means with a community charge even in the vacations and even though they are not resident in their halls of residence in the vacation. That is the purpose of the amendment behind all the fog; or am I wrong.
4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may raise one practical point. Will students be given a certificate that they are full-time students? If not, how will the person responsible for collecting the community charge know that someone who is staying a night is a student and therefore does not pay the charge, or is not a student and therefore should pay the charge?
Lord Hughes: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has to be congratulated on having passed that hot potato on to his noble friend. When the noble Earl read the paper in front of him, did it read better to him than it did to the rest of us?
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this matter. There is no doubt some truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, says when he refers to fog over the issue. I am reassured by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that, if one penetrates the fog, the matter is wholly intelligible. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked whether it be the case that when students are at home they definitely continue to be registered at their term-time address and are liable to the personal community charge rather than any other charge. I can reassure him that that is the case. In view of that explanation, I ask the Committee to consider accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: If paragraph (c) is included we will get into just as big a mess as ever. Here we have the definition by reference to non-domestic rates. We have already had this debate. This will put us in a complete fog again. Paragraph (c) states:
"persons whose sole or main residence is subject to non-domestic rates".
If it is subject to non-domestic rates, it is not on the register. That is what we discovered when we defined non-domestic rates. This would not be on the register because it would be on the valuation roll. Anybody whose sole or main residence is in the area of the levying authority has to pay the personal community charge. Here we are leaving such a person out if the residence is subject to non-domestic rates. I do not understand it.
I rely completely on the Minister of State once again to use his powers of obfuscation with regard to the draftsmanship. This is a provision that we should have been able to appreciate just at a glance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the Minister give us an example of this sort of person, which would help to clear my mind?
Lord Glenarthur: If it is a fog which is before the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, perhaps I can persuade him that it is only a mist and a fairly thin one, because there is a need for the category exemption covered by paragraph (c). There may be a few circumstances in which in the new system the sole or main residence of people remains subject to rating. This would apply—I hope that this may answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—to patients in hospital whose stay is so prolonged as to make the hospital their sole or main residence. Such people have little contact with the world outside. It is our policy that they should be exempt from the personal community charge. In the case of patients in. National Health Service hospitals, this would be achieved by exempting them as a
914
category of the people solely or mainly resident in Crown land who may be exempted by the power of prescription contained in Clause 28(2) of the Bill.
This mechanism will not, however, be available in relation to patients in private hospitals. In that case we intend that the provision of Clause 8(7)(c) should cover such people. We intend that staff in private hospitals should be subject to the personal community charge like other members of the community, but this will be achieved by prescribing their accommodation as domestic subjects under Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill. We consider that it is fair and sensible that long-term patients in private hospitals should be treated in the same way as those in the National Health Service. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is only right. That is the purpose of paragraph (c).
Lord Ross of Marnock: If that is the purpose, why could it not have been said? It would be much easier to understand than what is said in the paragraph. In view of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 138:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) persons who are in receipt of income support in the terms of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986;
( ) persons who are in receipt of state pensions and who have no other regular source of income;
( ) persons who are employed in a Youth Training Scheme or a Manpower Services Commission Scheme and have no other source of income;
( ) persons who are in receipt of severe disablement allowance; ( ) such other categories of people as the Secretary of State may prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to move Amendment No. 138 because, as those Members of the Committee who were present will recall, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, moved Amendment No. 130. I said that, to facilitate the emphasis upon the amendment of the noble Lord, when we came to Amendment No. 138 I would do no more than draw it to the Minister's attention. As I gave that undertaking at an earlier stage in Committee, I fulfil it this afternoon.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Any exceptions which are granted under subsection (7) above which involve a reduction in the level of income which local authorities could have received from the personal community charge will be fully reimbursed by the Secretary of State making an appropriate compensatory payment direct to the levying authority.").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 8(7) we have been dealing with relieving people of the overall charge that the Government started out with; that is, that everyone had to pay the personal community charge. The more we exempt people from it, the lower the income to the levying authority. The income to the levying authority is thus reduced every time that we make an exemption. That applies to some that we

915
have not made but may contrive eventually to make. It applies to all those we have been discussing.
The lower the income from these charges, the higher will have to be the income coming from those who pay it. We are therefore talking about average figures of £200, £300, £400. The more we make exemptions, the more what has to be paid by other must be increased. There is no doubt that once this is in force the non-domestic rates will be looked after by limiting their increase to the cost of living. The same applies to government grant, which is controlled entirely by the Government. I suggest through the amendment that the income lost from exceptions laid down by statute or prescription should be made up by the Government directly, and not through the RSG, to the levying authority. That is only fair.
We can generously make exceptions, but someone else has to pay. The people who will have to pay will be those who are left to pay the personal community charge. There is an outcry about that at the moment. I suggest that this is an eminently sensible thing for the Government to do. After all, if the Government and the House agree to exceptions, the Government should agree to make up the cost of those exceptions and not leave other personal contributors to the new charge to bear the burden. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This amendment is intrinsically bound up and related to the question which my noble friend the Minister has been good enough to take back. It involves the principle of whether the Government will accept any further extension to the three categories of exemption provided under Clause 8(7), and, if so, what shall fall within the exemptions of Clause 8(7) in relation to this amendment and what should fall within the rebate principles under Clause 24, and whether such rebates should be granted up to 100 per cent. All those considerations are interrelated with regard to this amendment and the reimbursement.
Lord Hughes: I must apologise if what I am now asking was dealt with last week. Unfortunately last week I was suffering from a cough, and it would have been an even greater source of suffering to the Committee if I had been here. I followed my doctor's advice and stayed at home.
This may not necessarily be the best time to ask my question. But under the present system, which has been so much criticised, the one overwhelming advantage is the extent to which local authorities succeed in raising from ratepayers the amount of money which they expect to obtain. The percentage which is not covered is small. Different estimates have been made by different authorities, and some Members of the Committee, as to the extent to which the community charge would not be received by local authorities.
Estimates have varied from as low as 5 per cent. to as high a 20 per cent. At present when a local authority levies rates it can confidently expect that it will receive the enormous majority of what it expects to receive. In the beginning authorities working the new system may have difficulties. What do the Government expect local authorities to do? Do they expect them to make
916
an assumption of 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the charges to be received by them? Is it to be left entirely to local authorities to determine which percentage of non-collection they will expect, because the higher that percentage, the higher the community charge will be?
Do the Government intend to give any guidance to local authorities as to the percentage of non-collection which should be assumed in the early stages of this proceeding? If they intend to give such guidance, what percentage of non-collection do the Government have in mind? If an authority, for example, assumes that 5 per cent. will not be collected by it, and it turns out to be 15 per cent., obviously at the end of the year its budget will be in substantial deficit. What guidance, if any, will the Government give, or is to be left entirely to guesswork by the local authorities concerned?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, the speech to which we have just listened has no direct bearing on the amendment. I think that the noble Lord accepts that. The amendment deals not with the failure of a local authority to collect money lawfully due to it but with the deliberate freeing of certain categories from making a contribution, and poses the question of who pays.
I shall take up one way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, expressed this point. He said that the Government should pay. He is well aware that the Government, as such, have no money. What he means, and what I think it is intellectually honest to say is that the taxpayer should pay. He is entitled to argue that the taxpayer should pay. I do not accept that view. Where exceptions in the new local taxation system are produced, the loss which that involves—he is right, it involves some—should be paid by fellow citizens in the area unless the local authority, taking account of that, reduces its expenditure.
It is a dangerous line to take and a dangerous precedent to suggest that if exceptions to a local tax are granted the national taxpayer should pay. Having said that about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I wish him many happy returns of the day and a prolonged and happy period of work on the Opposition Front Bench.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did me an injustice when he said that what I said had nothing to do with the amendment. I wanted to tie the points together. I was raising a second case in which a local authority would be deprived of revenue. I hope that the noble Lord will at least do me the justice of assuming that I listened to what my noble friend said and that I knew what the purpose of his amendment was. My noble friend was drawing attention to the situation where a local authority would be deprived of possible revenue because of exemptions. He suggested a way in which that could be remedied. Whether the noble Lord agrees that it is a good way is beside the point. Obviously we have different views on that.
I was seeking to obtain information about the way in which a local authority could be helped to obtain the maximum revenue that it expected to obtain. If there is a remedy for that, it will be another way in which the

917
local authority will receive the full amount of money necessary to keep the community charge at a correct level. There is that aspect to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, obviously picked up, I admitted that this point could perhaps be more appropriately raised on another part of the Bill. That is possible, but as has been pointed out, there are so many points where we have to go from one part to another part of the Bill, that it seemed to me that if I could obtain a satisfactory answer to my question at this stage, I should know whether it would be necessary to table an amendment at a later stage.
If I receive an unsatisfactory answer, I shall know how to deal with the matter. If I am told by the Minister or by anyone else that the appropriate place to raise this point is on some other clause, I can then do so. From that point of view, I do not think I have been wasting the Committee's time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the noble Lord's parliamentary agility in raising a point in which he is interested on this amendment. I was merely pointing out to him that if there is a problem here, and there may well be, it is not one which would be remedied even if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment has a number of technical deficiencies. For example, it would relate only to exceptions granted under Clause 8(7) and not to categories such as prisoners or long-term hospital patients who, in accordance with our stated intentions, will be exempted by other mechanisms. It is not entirely clear that the payment of the proposed compensation to the levying authority—that is to say, the regional or islands council—would feed through to the district council in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. But the objective is clear enough. I shall address myself to that.
At present, local authorities receive compensation for reliefs under the rating system in two ways. Reliefs for the disabled are the subject of a specific grant made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Other reliefs—for example, the 50 per cent. relief for charities and the 100 per cent. relief for churches—are taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant.
Under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grants it will be possible similarly to take account of reliefs from the community charge. The mechanism will have to be the subject of consultation in due course with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Where I take issue with the amendment primarily is in the proposition that there should be some form of specific compensatory payment. The approach followed under successive governments has been that general support for local authorities should be provided through the rate support grant mechanism. It seems sensible to continue this in relation to exemptions from the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with respect, may have muddled this point in his own mind. Perhaps he did not hear the discussion to which we returned time and again last week about the question of shortfall and of the details that would have to follow from the
918
consultation in this case with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. On shortfall, I shall be very brief. It is not intended that guidance will he given. The Government are confident that many of the claims about shortfall have been extravagant. If the noble Lord will look at what I said last week in relation to amendments where this matter cropped up, he will see, I hope, why that, in my belief, is the case.
As to details of how account would be taken of exemptions in the distribution of revenue support grant, basically, exemptions present a reduction in the number of tax-paying units. The eventual mechanism will have to ensure that account is taken of this in the calculations so as to produce fair and reasonable results. However, I do not think that I can anticipate the detailed development which will need to be taken forward in consultation with CoSLA. It would therefore be wrong for me to say more at this stage. All I shall say is that I believe that the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, advocates flies in the face of what we have at present and the means of transferring rate support grant mechanism through to revenue support grant mechanism. I should have thought there was logic in that.
Lord Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I shall certainly take the opportunity of reading what was said last week. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ross can tell me whether I should look at the report of Monday, Tuesday or Thursday to save me ploughing through the lot; because it does not sound like the most interesting reading.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Before the noble Lord rises, I wonder whether I can add one point to the felicitous remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was probably spared the shock that I received when I read in a national newspaper yesterday morning in black type in the middle of the page, "Remembering Willie Ross". I then read:
"The eighth lecture entitled 'William Ross, the Man and the Myth' was delivered on Friday by his outstanding pupil".
It was with great relief that I read those last words. I would merely say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord debating Scottish business.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is all very surprising. The lecture took place last Friday in the Chapel Royal, Stirling. It referred to Pipe Major William Ross.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows quite well that when I said "government" I meant the taxpayer who is the source of all revenue. There is one point to which the noble Lord may be objecting. It is that the taxpayer providing the money would include the English and the Welsh whereas the burdens of this Bill do not at present fall on them. This applies purely, unwillingly, to Scotland. Is it right that fellow citizens of the community there should have this burden? I do not think so. They have not had the opportunity of deciding that they want it. The matter is decided by the general body of the electors as represented in another place and here—if one can say that they are represented here. It is right that it should fall nationally rather than individually.

919
There may be some areas where the burden will be heavier than others in relation to the exceptions. I can think of quite a number. If one takes all the university cities, the exceptions in relation to students will mean eventually that the students will pay 20 per cent. not the full personal charge. There are a fair number in Aberdeen, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh and Stirling. I therefore think that my argument is justified in that respect.
My noble friend need not bother to look back in Hansard. We shall come back to this again. We have the question of the collection of the money and the ability of local authorities to collect it in full. When we had the garbled explanation about exceptions, I thought that this enabled us to leave out the persons in long-term hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, cannot have it both ways. He cannot keep the provision in one clause and omit it in another to suit his argument.
The noble Lord says, "Leave it to the rate support grant". I have a little experience of the rate support grant. One starts with the Government making an assessment and agreeing—telling—the local authority its relevant total expenditure. The Government then decide what percentage they will give. One of the difficulties over rates in Scotland is that the Government have reduced their share of relevant expenditure from 69 per cent. to 56.7 per cent. If the Government paid back to the local authorities what they have taken from them, we could have a rate-free year-and-a-half in Scotland. That is one of the reasons for the crisis in local government. It is not the loony Left but a loony Right government who were reducing their share of expenditure year after year until they landed in the panic of Perth that brought this Bill upon us.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this. I have been given an idea by my noble friend Lord Hughes. Perhaps, before the next stage of the Bill, we should consider all the matters together which are due to the local authority. By exemptions and other means a heavier burden than ever is being placed upon those who are to pay the personal community charge. In the meantime in the light of that and the support that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140B:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Special arrangements shall apply to persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments, and any other persons who may be prescribed will be liable in 1989–90 for a payment of only 50 per cent of the personal community charge levied in their area or £100 whichever is the lesser figure; and the Secretary of State will compensate local authorities directly in full for the reduction in income from the personal community charge arising from the operation of such a system.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to special difficulties in relation to special people and suggests that:
"Special arrangements shall apply to persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments".
920
Now, a problem arises because a personal charge will be placed on such people which is very much higher than they have to bear at the present time.
The first people to be involved are nurses. More and more nurses have to live in, particularly in the cities. One has only to think of London—where would nurses find accommodation which they can afford? Therefore, they become residents in a nurses' home where rates are not payable. The Government think that this situation is terribly unfair and the nurses should pay their share to the tune of £6 a week. If nurses were not living in nurses' homes they would be unable to pay what was demanded of them in other accommodation. This situation arises not only in London but also in university cities—for example, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee—where many nurses live because they work in the big hospitals there.
Bearing in mind that about 45 per cent. of our nurses live in, we can appreciate the burden which will be thrust upon them right away. This amendment is the least we can do in respect of that situation. Unfortunately, the arrangements last only for a year. At the next stage of the Bill I may change my mind as to whether that period is long enough, because it is a serious matter. I gather the Minister met one or two nurses in Glasgow yesterday. It was not his most pleasant experience, I understand.
Lord Glenarthur: They were charming.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Oh, of course, they were charming and I daresay the noble Lord was even more charming, but the nurses still have a resentment at the latest burden being placed upon them.
I saw a programme very late last night on television which concerned nurses going to California. They will be there for only a year but they were comparing the lot in California with the lot in hospitals here. This is a serious matter and we should not be placing further burdens upon nurses. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not wish this burden placed upon the English and the Welsh at the moment, because many of these nurses will float down here, where the community charge will not be payable. In England they will have a much easier time financially than they have in Scotland. The business of Scotland going it alone on this matter and being plunged into the situation on its own is no laughing matter. It has serious implications which also affect nurses. At the present time nurses' allowance is taken into account when they pay their weekly board—which for some is very considerable indeed. I can assure the Committee that the charge for weekly board has been going up as well.
In so far as concerns the police, they receive approximately £26 a week in respect of rent and rates. Of course that will end because, if a policeman has a wife, there will be two community charges payable; namely £500. This was the nonsense that we heard the other day from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he spoke about a manual worker. He did not say whether or not the manual worker was living at home, in which case he pays no rates at all. He did not say whether the manual worker was married, in which case the amount would be double the charge he

921
suggested. The police might be living in a police cottage which is part office, part residence. However, this is usually for married policemen. They will be faced with additional burdens as well. At one time there was a suggestion made by the Government in order to avoid the turbulence and hardship of paying 100 per cent. right away when the new system started that only 60 per cent. would be payable then, and the rest would form a certain percentage of rates. However, that suggestion has now gone.
What about the situation of people in the Armed Forces, of which there are approximately 1,400 in Scotland? What about the situation of people in Ministry of Defence houses? At the present time people in the Armed Forces do not pay rates if they are in married quarters. A sum of money is paid direct to the local authority in lieu of rates. The same situation is true of Ministry of Defence people at the various establishments around Scotland. What will happen in those cases? Instead of paying reasonable rates in some places they will he paying £200 or £300 per year for every person in their family. I know there are difficulties concerning this matter, but we have not yet had an explanation. Is this to be another loss to the local authorities?
What about the situation of the Americans? They do not have votes here, but they occupy houses and have the benefit of our services. What will happen in this situation? I know that this is taking the matter rather wide of my amendment. However, these questions as to what the Government are going to do will have to be answered at some time, if only to enable me to table another amendment at Report stage covering the loss to the local authority, which should be made up by whoever places the Bill on the statute book.
Nurses, police, Ministry of Defence and other personnel are involved in this situation. What will happen to such people? Are they to be left to bear this burden, or are the Government going to do something to help them, at least in the first year? I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: We have already considered in some detail the position of some elements of what this amendment is connected with. This was done in connection with earlier amendments put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Polwarth, because of the connection with tied properties.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, this amendment takes a different and slightly wider tack, proposing simply that the personal community charge liabilities of those who live rate-free in tied houses should be reduced either by 50 per cent., or to a level of £100, whichever is the lesser figure. I listened with care to the noble Lord's explanation but I confess that I am still not fully clear of what lies behind the reasoning in the noble Lord's mind. For example, it is not clear to whom it applies: does it simply cover the rateable occupier of this sort of tied property, leaving his wife and adult children to find the full personal community charge on their own, or is it intended to extend to the whole household? If so, what is the justification for granting partial exemption for people in this position who will have to meet a personal
922
community charge liability for the first time, while those in exactly the same position and perhaps the same financial circumstances who do not have the benefit of living in a tied house will have no such exemption? To that extent I confess I find there is a certain illogicality in the amendment.
I hoped I had already made clear that the personal community charge is not directly connected to the occupation of a particular property and that there is no possible justification for special treatment for certain groups of employees or their families simply because they received some form of concession in relation to domestic rates in the past. As I have equally made clear at several points, rebates will be available for those on low incomes who would otherwise have difficulty in meeting their full personal community charge liability.
I suggest that it is much fairer that assistance should be made available in this way to all those who need it than that piecemeal exemptions should be granted, particularly if they are based on the over-complex system of exemptions, reliefs and tax concessions which has built up over the years within and around the system of domestic rates. To that extent, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, remains intent on reproducing many of the complexities of the rating system in the new arrangements while taking no account of the evident advantages of simplicity and fairness in the system which we propose.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, while he raises the valid point about nurses (and I am certainly aware, as he himself hinted, that points were raised yesterday to me in relation to the wider concept of nurses' remuneration, but it is not right for me to go down that road now), nurses generally pay an element of rates as part of the rent which they pay at present. Therefore, the community charge is not going to be a totally new burden upon them in the way he suggests.
As for the question of the Armed Forces—and the American forces are encompassed within this, because the bases which they occupy are used by the services in this country—the Bill imposes liability on all adults including the various groups which the noble Lord mentioned. We would expect them to be registered and they should be liable to pay in the way that the Bill sets out, which he seems to think is not made clear. I hope that when I say that the Bill imposes that liability on all adults he will understand that the Armed Forces will be liable in their quarters or wherever they live and that the group of people to which he referred will be encompassed by the Bill before us.
Sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment goes on to the question of compensation. I do not think I need detain the Committee with a discussion on that point because in part is is wrapped up in the same argument as the last amendment. To some extent I think it falls, in argument certainly, because of the views I put forward on sub-paragraph (a), and so I do not think there is much point in going into it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Training for nursing starts at the age of 17½ and lasts for about three years. Nurses have to live in. Can I tell them now that it is the Minister's advice to me to tell them to apply for a rebate?
Lord Glenarthur: I answered that point last week when the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised the matter. It may be that clarification is needed about the position of nurses and students. That is a matter which is encompassed within the question of students generally which I undertook to consider last week. I hope that that point is one which the noble Lord will accept.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister does not seem to have seen the point of the amendment. Perhaps I might be allowed to try to clarify it. There are certain people who are paid and supplied with a house in which they have to live; for example, ministers of religion, lighthouse keepers, police officers, prison officers and others. Those people are suddenly going to be told, "You and your wife have to pay a personal community charge". Does the Minister expect that all the negotiations for pay and other matters which are planned for Scotland from 1st April 1989 will be settled so that those people's pay will be readjusted to take account of the fact that, although previously they had been living in accommodation for which they did not pay rates, in the future they will have to pay this personal community charge?
There is also the problem of the soldier who may object to being posted to Scotland because he suddenly has to pay £250 a year more than his mates who are serving in England or Northern Ireland. There are difficulties there. It is no good just saying, "We have looked at the principle", and brushing all these matters aside. Apart from the nurses there may be others who decide that it is cheaper to do the same job living in England.
I should have thought it was quite clear to say, "persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments"—that is, somebody like a prison officer who is paid to live in a prison house—"and any persons who may be prescribed". The Secretary of State can prescribe a wife or children of 18 in full-time education if he so wishes.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I found the Minister's answer on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, singularly unconvincing, as with the one before. It is not enough for the Minister to say that he is puzzled by what the noble Lord is getting at. I have found some of his replies either ingenuous or disingenuous; I am not quite sure which. In embarking on the absurd scheme of this Bill the Committee is entitled to know what kind of assessment of this problem the Government made before they embarked upon it. Surely it is the job of government to assess these kinds of problems and decide whether they form a barrier to going in a certain direction.
One can think of all kinds of people such as school janitors in Scotland. Perhaps I am out of date, but in my time there were always resident janitors to look after schools in Glasgow. Perhaps times have changed, but one can think of all kinds of people. Is the Minister able to give us the Government's assessment of this problem so that the Committee can reach a decision in this context before the Bill is through and add it to the other matters that we shall learn about the Bill so that
924
we can reach a conclusion as to whether it should be supported?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I had thought that the amendments which I moved last Thursday regarding tied houses and people who live in tied accommodation, where their contracts of employment entitled them to rent and rate free accommodation, would have covered these situations. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told me then that the first amendment was unnecessary. As regards the second amendment, particularly concerning clergy, which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned, I withdrew that. The situation regarding the clergy is quite complicated. There are cases in which help is necessary and there are cases where it is not only totally unnecessary but where it would be quite wrong to give it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment because I wish to come back to the question of the clergy in a different way at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has perhaps forgotten that we are trying here to make a change to reflect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about accountability, and the fact that all kinds of people—whether they are nurses, members of the armed forces, prison officers or whatever—make some use of local authority services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the services and to a figure in lieu of rates, or whatever, being passed over in bulk to local authorities to represent that kind of value. I believe I said last week that an element of that is taken into account in the rents that members of the armed forces pay for their accommodation. The same applies to nurses. When rent is paid, it includes an element—be it notional or not—to cover part of the amount that would otherwise be paid if rates were paid in full by those servicemen.
It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to suggest that the position of employers and the question of pay negotiations should be wrapped up in this, and that people's financial circumstances should take account of the matter. That seems to me to be going very wide not only of this amendment but also of the Bill. People's financial circumstances can change for 101 reasons. It could be that someone who, until now, or at some point in the future, has been able to cope with the personal community charge may, because of changed circumstances which they could not foresee, find it not so easy to cope. Surely, the important point is that, if they end up in that position, there is a rebate scheme in Clause 24 which will take account of the circumstances.
I do not think that it would be practicable to try to make allowances in this Bill, and in this clause in particular, for the suggestions made by the parties opposite. I believe that we have set out a fair means of achieving what is proposed. Many of those whom it is suggested will be put in a difficult position are already contributing in support of rates through some mechanism or other, because at present their rents encompass some of that charge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment on the special pleading if the Minister could tell me whether, as people are already paying through their rents, those rents will now be reduced? The noble Lord is a member of the Government. He is responsible for prison warders in Scotland—or the Government are responsible. The Minister says that people are already paying and that they are given the allowance in respect of rates. But they receive this new burden in respect of being mainly or solely resident in a place. They cannot be resident anywhere else. Most of the warders at Carstairs must live there because it is not exactly a place to which one could travel to work easily.
There is a problem here. But the unsympathetic way in which the Government have approached it is such that I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment. The Minister could have gone some way towards meeting us in respect of these matters. However, at the moment his treatment of these matters and the people concerned is most unhelpful. We shall need to force this to a Division.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before that happens, I should like to add a word. I certainly could not support the amendment because, among other things, it contains the provision that any loss to the local authority must be compensated by the taxpayer. We dealt with that matter on a previous amendment. On the other hand, I should not like to leave my noble friend with the feeling that I am at all happy with the position as it stands. I wonder whether he can give a little further consideration to the position of people in the national services. They may be posted from England to Scotland, or from Scotland to England. They will find in different local authority areas in Scotland that different levels of charge will run.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that it will be quite a shock for a soldier, for example, who is posted to one part of Scotland, then to another part, and eventually to England, to find that his posting, over which he has no control, will effect quite a substantial charge upon him by way of community charge. I do not think that my noble friend ought to overlook that entirely. I do not think that he does.
Whatever decision the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, takes about a Division, that is a matter for him. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate a willingness to look at the point perhaps more narrowly than is suggested in the amendment, particularly in respect of those in national services, although there are others who are posted from one place to another with no possibility—apart from prejudicing their careers—of objecting. It seems to me that to plunge into this will cause a certain amount of hardship and to people whom I believe all Members of the Committee feel are important in our society. I am bound to say that I have not had quite sufficient reassurance—not as much as I should like to hear—about what the Government are considering in respect of them.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I find the words that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has addressed to the Minister convincing evidence—as convincing as anything we have heard from this side of the
926
House—for the view that in this context, as in many others in this Bill, the Government have got it wrong.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: As I understand it, my noble friend has said that these people will benefit under the rebate system. He has explained this again and again, and not only today. It does not seem such an insufferable problem. What the Minister said seems to be perfectly reasonable.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I believe that the noble Viscount is mistaken. I hope that a private in the army is not paid so little that he would benefit from the rebate system and I hope that anyone higher than a private would certainly be outside the scheme. However, someone posted from England to Scotland must pay £6 per week more in Scotland than in England, and that is the basic problem for the forces.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know how army allowances work. However, with the exception of agriculture, my understanding is that in respect of pay, a person receives a salary plus perhaps accommodation which is rent free, or accommodation which is rent and rate free, or accommodation which is rate free. No employer will ignore that fact in the salary part of pay. The accommodation element is taxable, except in the case of agriculture which we have already discussed.
It seems to me therefore that we are making very heavy weather of this matter. If people will not receive a rate-free house because there are no rates but will pay a community charge, employers will of course take account of that fact: they cannot fail to do so. It will be a normal part of negotiations for wages. I presume that in the case of the army there will be a system within the allowances which will allow for the differences. I do not understand why we are making such heavy weather of this matter.
Lord Hughes: Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has said, is it the intention of the Government to indicate to employers that this is the way in which they wish the matter to be dealt with? The Minister has already said that discussions about alternatives to the rent or rate-free accommodation are going wide of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is saying that the obvious answer is that if a notional value of X pounds is placed on what is being given in the rate-free accommodation and he ceases to get it and has to pay, then X pounds should be added to the actual sum that is paid. Is that the Government's intention? It would appear that it was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but she has not yet reached the Front Bench.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not saying that we should legislate for that. I am simply saying that when you fix somebody's pay as against the pay of somebody else, you take account of the fact that they have free accommodation. But if they suddenly do not have rate-free accommodation because there are not any rates, surely you would take account of that. It is reasonable. That is nothing to do with the Bill: it is just absolutely obvious. I should have thought that it was a false argument.
Lord Hughes: I did not suggest that we would legislate. What I asked was whether this was the sort of guidance that the Government would give to employers—that this is what they would expect them to do.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, goes any further he might find it useful to study the remarks that I made in relation to Lady Saltoun's point when we were in Committee last week. I went into this in considerable depth, and I think I was able to satisfy the noble Lady. Therefore, I do not think that we can go back and debate at length again an issue that we debated at considerable length last time. We have a long way to go with this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will take my word that it is there in the Official Report. If he studies it he will find that it is possible to take account of that sort of thing.
My noble friend Lord Boyd- Carpenter referred particularly to the matter of the armed forces. I can understand his concern that a soldier, for example, could be posted from somewhere in England to somewhere in Scotland—and this is the burden of Lord Morton's point as well—and as a result could face an increased charge in one form or another, and that it would come out of his salary to meet this particular personal community charge.
This is essentially a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of forces' allowances. The noble Lord looks disturbed, but he has not even let me finish what I was going to say. What I was going to suggest to my noble friend was that since this raises an important matter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence ought to consider in conjunction with those of us who are dealing with this Bill, I ought to take note of that point. I cannot give any commitment at this stage because I would need to study every detail of the armed forces' pay and conditions, which I simply could not do now. I hope that with the assurance that I shall do that and consult my right honourable friend, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be satisfied, and that indeed the party opposite who moved this amendment will feel that I have at least gone some way towards the spirit of their concerns.
I do not think that I can necessarily go any further than that because it brings us against the whole principle of the Bill. But there may be important points—although I would need to confirm with my right honourable friend that that is the case—particularly in relation to the armed forces.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I suggest to the Minister that he could get the colonel to make a collective charge on his troops who are required to live in Scotland?
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is a very helpful suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Particularly as I did not give my noble friend notice on this point, I realise that he cannot commit his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. For my part I am satisfied with the assurance he has given that he will
928
consult his right honourable friend. It may be that he could suggest to his right honourable friend that just as members of the services serving in various countries overseas receive special overseas allowances in respect of expenses, by that analogy—if it does not offend Scottish Peers—there might be an allowance. Having heard my noble friend say that he will consult his right honourable friend, I am happy on the point.
Lord Glenarthur: That particular point is one of the points that was crossing my mind, and that is why I sensed that there may be some complexity in it, if not difficulty. I shall certainly undertake to do what I originally undertook to do.
Lord Grimond: Could the Minister make some response to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy? She said that allowances of all sorts—and pay, as I understood it—in Scotland would take into account the effect of these charges. Would the Minister agree with that?
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is accurately reflecting what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said.
Lord Grimond: I do not wish to have an argument across her body, so to speak, but assuming that the noble Baroness said something like that, have the Government any comment? Do they expect wages and allowances in Scotland to take into account these charges? While they look into the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are they going to look at not only the services but other people whose salaries may be affected by this in Scotland?
Lord Glenarthur: I would have to study my noble friend Lady Carnegy's remarks in order to be able to respond fairly to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Maybe I failed to pick up a nuance in my noble friend's remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, picked up. What I said in relation to the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was, if my memory serves me right, that there would be nothing to prevent an employer taking account of that or any other matter when it came to making arrangements for an individual's pay, salary, or whatever.
So far as the other categories are concerned—and some have been indicated by noble Lords on the Labour Benches—I do not think that I can really go as far as all that. What I can do is look particularly at the question of the armed forces, because, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says, it seems to raise a rather curious position if local overseas allowances, or something like that, had to apply within the context of the British Isles. That is something about which I shall have to consult my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence before I can go any further.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is it adequate to restrict this examination to the armed services? Surely the Civil Service comes into this, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, indicated. Then there is the question of Members of another House. Would it be appropriate for Scottish Members of another House to have some

929
allowance related to their rates as against English Members, or—as in the case of at least one or two Members I can think of—those Members for English constituencies who later become Members for Scottish constituencies? If such a change took place would the parliamentary allowances be adjusted to take that into account as well?
Lord Glenarthur: I think we are getting rather wide of the point. If anything, the noble Lord is making a case which goes very much against the case of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in raising the matter of the armed forces, or indeed the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. If the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, were to go any further down that road he would only make any possibility of seeing any way through this argument even less likely, because he points to so many complexities that perhaps the way we have it in the Bill is the best after all.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The whole thing is fascinating. I look forward to the day when the Scottish regiments coming back to Scotland will get an overseas allowance. This is the idea. As I said before, it is as easy as "JBC", and quite frankly that was not the greatest part of our argument in relation to the problems that arise from the armed forces, or MoD civil servants. There is that one as well.
I was concerned mainly about nurses and those other people like that who are going to have this burden placed upon them. In view of that, I am afraid that I must in this respect test the opinion of the Committee.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 140B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ennals, L.

Airedale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkender, B.

Aylestone, L.

Falkland, V.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Basnett, L.

Foot, L.

Beswick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blyton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grimond, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Heycock, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L

Hooson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Chitnis. L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L

Irving of Dartford, L.

930

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kagan, L.

Rugby, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mountevans, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Walston, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L.

Annan, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Auckland, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ingrow, L.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Broxbourne, L.

Knollys, V.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lothian, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Manton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cross, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Moyne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Erne, E.

Newall, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Polwarth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Gorell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gormanston, V.

Reay, L.

Gray, L.

Reigate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Haig, E.

Renwick, L.

931

Richardson, L.

Strange, B.

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sandford, L.

Trafford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Somers, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stockton, E.

Young, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of amount of personal community charge:]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 8, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("being not earlier than 3 months after the Secretary of State has announced the RSG settlement").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the timing of the prescription of the amount of the personal community charge. It is of course necessary that before the local authority can decide on its community charge level it has to know the amount of rate support grant or revenue support grant that it is to receive. The point about this is to have in the Bill the fact that the date must not be earlier than three months after the Secretary of State has announced the settlement, to give local authorities a reasonable time to determine the various pieces of arithmetic and so on that they have to work out. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It may assist the Committee if I explain how we see the timetable for the announcement of revenue support grant and the determination by local authorities of their personal community charge working. At present local authorities are required to determine their rate by 5th March in each year, with the rates becoming payable, usually in 10 monthly instalments, as from May. The arrangements proposed by Schedule 2 for the payment of the personal community charge are rather different. We envisage that the standard arrangements will be for 12 monthly instalments to be paid, starting in April. If my memory serves me right, that is a point which would have satisfied my noble friend Lord Burton, because he raised it earlier on.
We will of course be able to debate the justification for this provision as a whole when we reach Schedule 2. Since instalments will be payable as from April rather than as from May, we expect that local authorities will have to determine their personal community charge rather earlier in the year than they have determined their rate up till now. In its turn this means that the Secretary of State's announcements on the levels of revenue support grant to be made available to authorities will be made rather earlier in the financial year than is at present the case. We do not, however, consider that it is necessary to allow for
932
a specific minimum period, and this might indeed represent an unhelpful loss of the flexibility which is at present enjoyed.
Perhaps I may explain, just to be helpful, how the RSG timetables operate at the moment. The Government's general aim is, and indeed will remain, to give authorities as much notice as possible of government decisions which affect their planning for the coming year. Thus in July last year, when my right honourable friend announced his plans for local authority expenditure and grant for 1987–88 by using July, he was in fact doing precisely that. At the very beginning of October, authorities were notified of their current expenditure guidelines, although of course there will no longer be guidelines under the new system. During October, there were discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the principles to be applied in grant distribution.
The Secretary of State issued detailed proposals for grant distribution at the beginning of December and these were discussed with the convention on 12th December. The RSG order was then laid just before Christmas. Thus authorities had ample notice of the expenditure which the Government considered they could incur and the grant they would receive. This gave them time to consider fully their rate for 1987–88 which had to be fixed to complete the circle by 5th March.
While it would therefore not be right for a formal minimum period to be included in the Bill, as proposed, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the procedures for announcement of decisions on revenue support grant, like those for rate support grant, will allow adequate time for local authorities to make their expenditure decisions. I do not think it would necessarily be helpful to remove the possible advantages of flexibility which would be the result if I accepted this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is a rather disappointing reply and to my mind it does not show a true appreciation of all that is involved here. You cannot judge what will happen here under this clause by what happens in relation to rate support grant. Rate support grant is usually announced towards the end of the year and I think that the English rate support grant announcement is a week or so before the Scottish one. After they know that, they can go forward to the planning.
But this time they have a register that has to be completed and there are appeals against that register. It will be very difficult for local authorities to make the date of 1st April with confidence that the whole procedure will be efficient. To give them time, I consider that the announcement will need to be at least three months earlier than the announcement of the rate support grant settlement.
I have taken part in about eight rate support grant settlements and they tend to be as predictable as the farmers' price review. They used to call the settlement the February price review and, from my experience, the announcement was usually about three or four months before that. The Government would be wise, from the point of view of administration, to give local authorities much earlier warning in this respect,

933
because it will be very difficult for them to be able to strike this personal community charge unless they are given plenty of warning about the rate support grant.
There are the Government's discussions in relation to total aggregate expenditure; there is another clause that is relevant which we have still to discuss; and then the authorities have to decide relevant expenditure, which is the expenditure that the Government will support. There used to be a very considerable number of specific grants. There are fewer of these now, but they could well be revived in relation to some of the things that the Government have said about non-domestic rates being limited to whatever is construed by the Government as the factor of the retail price index increase that authorities will be allowed. I should have thought that at least three months should be given by the Government.
It will not be easy for the Government. It will not be easy for the local authorities either, because they will have to argue with the Government about the relevant expenditure that the Government will meet and the lower that is the higher the personal community charge will be. I did not think up this grotesque scheme; it was the Government. They must face up to the difficulties over who will pay, what will pay and how they will divide up collective, community and standard charges. We have not even touched on the problem of the register.
It would be wise for the Government to give as much time as possible to the local authorities to do a reasonable job, because the last thing we want to see is chaos and the collapse of local government, which is one of the dangers of not getting this right. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("(account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the last few lines of subsection (2) of Clause 9, which reads,
"falls to be met out of their community charges, together with such additional sum as is, in their opinion, required".
We shall be glad to hear what the Government have in mind in respect of those words. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall respond to the noble Lord's suggestion of explaining how we envisage the procedures by which a local authority will determine the amount of its personal community charge. The amount to be covered by the community charges as a whole is, in accordance with Clause 7(2), the amount which is not already covered by other sources of local authority income. The amount to be met by the community charges must cover the budgeted expenditure of the local authority, including of course all expenditure at the margin in excess of assessed need. In order to make this calculation, we envisage that the local authority will divide the total amount which has to be raised by community charges by a number which will represent the number of units of community charge available to the local authority.
934
This number will be made up of three elements. First, it will cover the number of people liable to pay the personal community charge in the local authority's area. Secondly, it will include also the number of premises in respect of which the standard community charge is payable, multiplied by the standard community charge multiplier set by the authority in respect of Clause 10(7). Thirdly, it will include the sum of all the collective community charge multipliers for the premises in respect of which the collective community charge is payable under Clause 11.
Once this total figure is calculated, local authorities will have to take a view on what assumptions should be built into the system about any shortfall in actual collection. This is exactly the same kind of judgment as they have to make already in respect of rates. The final number thus arrived at will be divided into the total amount to be raised by the community charges to give the actual personal community charge figure for that authority.
This procedure is described in subsection (2) of Clause 9. The words,
"Account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges".
Simply refer to the fact that the amount to be produced from these charges has to be included in the calculation of the personal community charge. The personal community charge is, however, the primary object of the calculation, and that is why the subsection is phrased in the way it is. I believe that with this amendment the noble Lord would remove an essential factor in the equation. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord realises what it would do and understands more clearly the purpose of the subsection.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I understand the substance of it perfectly well. The question is: which comes first? I gather that the personal community charge is last in the factor and the other charges, being the standard and collective charges, have not been discussed yet. That is one of the difficulties in relation to the Bill and the way in which it is drafted.
How on earth will local authorities obtain an accurate amount in relation to these charges? It is all very well for the Minister to say, as he did, that they must take account of those who are liable to pay. What the local authority is concerned about is not those who are liable to pay but those who will pay. That is a difficult matter. In fact, we will not even know until we are finished with the Bill whether there is going to be a collective charge. Many people will argue that the collective charge will be one of the most difficult things to estimate. The whole thing will be difficult to estimate.
I saw a report of a study which I believe was made by the Home Secretary and was published this week. It concerned those who do not register for their vote. Those who do not register for voting have nothing at stake except voting. When those who register become liable to pay anything up to £230, many of those who are liable will never appear on the register. Therefore, the money will not be forthcoming. That may be as many as 10 per cent. How on earth are the

935
Government expecting the local authorities to do that as one of the first items in those factors? It is very difficult.
I leave the thought with the Minister as to how he will make sense out of this morass of statistical nonsense which has been put down and called a Bill. It will be difficult indeed. However, if that is the only explanation we are to get, I do not see why we should waste any more time on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 8, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is a similar point. The Bill says,
"account shall be taken by any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for".
What does that mean? If it means anything, I suppose that it means fees, and we shall find out whether people are going to pay for the benefits they will receive. I can understand some of them—for instance, young people who are going to be paying £230 a year—who will be making demands, as they will be entitled to. Local authorities have already been putting up the prices of admission to football pitches for young people who will not even pay for this. They will be putting up charges on golf courses and the rest of it. Perhaps the Government will be able to give them guidance about that sort of thing.
We all remember how guidelines started. They were what they seemed to mean. They finished up by being statutory and by saying, "You have to do as we tell you—or else". The Bill says:
"account shall be taken of any means by which those expenses may be met or provided for-.
Am I right in thinking that that is the purpose of that particular line and a half? I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing very mysterious about this subsection in Clause 9. It simply provides that, in determining the proportion of its estimated expenses mentioned in Clause 9(2) which are to be met from the income it will receive from community charges levied in its area, a local authority is to take account of any other means available to it for meeting those expenses. These other means will consist, in the main, of central government grants and non-domestic rates. But in addition local authorities also hold balances and receive income from the fees and charges they charge for certain services they provide. This is what is meant by the words,
"any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for".
A very similar provision already exists in relation to rates in Section 107 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The only difference between the new system and the old—and I accept, or course, that it is a substantial difference—is that under the new system the community charges will become the balancing element in a local authority's budgeting, rather than rates. I hope that this explanation has served to clarify
936
the position and that the noble Lord can perhaps agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes. Time is going on and we have spent far too much time on the last group of amendments. Having satisfied myself as to what the Government intend by that and expressed the hope that the Government will not take powers or use some obscure clause, which we may come to later on in the Bill, to compel local authorities to put charges on museums, art galleries and the like in order to boost income, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Liability for and calculation of standard community charge:]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("community") and insert ("property").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 151 to 159 and 161 to 163. We are now dealing with what is to be known as the standard community charge. That charge is a most extraordinary one in this Bill. The Bill sets out to say that everyone should be personally liable and that property taxes will be abolished in respect of domestic property. What is called the standard community charge is a property tax on property which may be a second home or which may be a variety of other things, such as district council housing which is unoccupied or Forestry Commission special housing.
As I read the clause, all of those authorities which have houses which for some reason are unoccupied—for example, to be done up—for more than three months will be responsible, as owners, for the standard community charge. That is an extraordinary proposition. However, that seems to be what the Bill says. No doubt we shall be told that that is not what the Bill means to say. However, that is my reading of the Bill at the moment.
This is quite clearly a property charge. It is nothing else. To take it shortly, for each domestic subject which is a second home, the fixing authority, by subsection (7), can fix the standard community charge multiplier at somewhere between one and up to two. Therefore, it does not matter whether 800 people or one person will be put into the house; there is the same charge. It is a property tax. It is certainly not a standard charge and it is not a community charge. I think that it would be much better to call it a standard property charge. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I find the argument of the noble Lord a little strange. We all agree that we are trying to move away from property tax so far as concerns rates. If this is the case I cannot see what is wrong with the wording as it stands. With second homes, cottages and so on a standard charge of one or two units of community charge seems a much more realistic way of dealing with them. If we are to go down the road of a property tax on second homes we might as well wrap up the whole thing and go back to rates.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Hear, hear!
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I see absolutely no logic in the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about this way of going about things. Obviously many people on the opposite side of the Committee wish to maintain rates. If that is the case, why do we have to pay more for putting in radiators, double glazing and so on? That is one of the disadvantages of a property tax and even some members of the Alliance seem to agree. I for one cannot go along with the idea of putting back property into the standard community charge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, he will not be aware, because he is a recent venturer to this establishment, that two or three years ago I moved exactly such an amendment in relation to central heating. The position is even worse than he suggested, because one accrues the burden of rates on one kind of central heating but not on another. I moved that they all be freed of rates but your Lordships turned that down.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am delighted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, particularly on his birthday.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is more logical to call it a property charge. I do not mind one way or the other, I suppose. However, it would be highly illogical and certainly would not meet the great question of accountability unless the Government were to reintroduce a second vote for a second house, in which case I suppose there would be some logic in it. Otherwise it is simply a straightforward property tax—much reduced, I must say, in many cases—and not a community charge at all.
Lord Glenarthur: Like my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I cannot accept that the standard community charge is a property tax. On the contrary, it is precisely what its name implies. The word "standard" means that it will be levied at a flat rate in each area, with no variation to reflect the circumstances of particular types of property. It will differ crucially from the present tax—domestic rates—which is a property tax with an astonishingly complex system surrounding it and one which takes account, or fails to take account, depending on one's point of view, of so many different factors about the circumstances of particular properties.
What we propose is a community charge, the other element in terminology, because it represents a contribution towards the cost of the services which the payer enjoys as part of the community. I accept that some of those services are provided actually or potentially in relation to property. I suppose that the fire service might be one example and perhaps part of the police service. But it is stretching the argument a little far to claim that the other local services which the standard charge payer enjoys are property based.
The key point is that these services—and I could have mentioned a whole list of them—can all be enjoyed by the owners of second homes and so they should make a contribution, just as residents in the area make a contribution through their own personal community charge.
938
I am not sure that we shall ever have a meeting of minds on the terminology. I have tried to explain why we believe the word "property" should not be used. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: We could go on all night saying on one side that it is a property tax and on the other that it is not a property tax. To me it is perfectly clear that it is a tax on property. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that he could not understand why there was any objection to calling it a standard community charge.
It may occur to many Members of the Committee on this side—and I should have hoped also on the other side and on the Cross-Benches—that in the dispute about whether this is a property tax or a standard community charge there is a focusing on what is fundamentally objectionable about the Bill. The Government brought in a poll tax. If ever there was a poll tax, this is it. We have said it again and again. The Committee may laugh or become impatient about it, but this is what must be brought home to the people outside in the real world who will have to pay this poll tax, which is a very obnoxious and regressive form of tax.
Having called the poll tax a community charge the Government are trying to represent this in taxation terms as something quite respectable and frightfully up to date. It is a matter of cosmetics. The Government are trying to mislead people about the effect of this but they will not succeed. When they come on to deal with the difficult problem of the standard community charge—and it becomes even funnier when you come to the collective community charge, which really is an outrage—again they could not call it a property tax. They had to dress up a thinly disguised property tax and call it a standard community charge.
The Government may not be aware of this but the people of Scotland are laughing their heads off. It is said that the children in the streets of Glasgow are playing a game called "Ask me a riddle". The riddle is, when is a poll tax not a poll tax? The answer is, when it is a community charge. It is a shocking business altogether and that is the importance of these amendments.
Someone asked earlier, after looking at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, whether this was just a matter of semantics; and someone else said, yes, it was. It is not; it goes right to the crux of this ghastly Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If the noble Lord will forgive me, at an earlier stage in our deliberations he talked about the poll being per skull. I thought that the standard community charge was on people and not on property.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Oh, no. I wonder whether the noble Lord will read the Bill. Clause 10(1) says:
"The standard community charge shall be payable in respect of p remises.".
That is why in this amendment we call it a property tax.
Lord Stallard: I want to support the amendment and the wording it suggests. It is my understanding—and I have listened to most of the debate—that the Government's reason for calling it a community charge was to bring about more accountability. They took away the poll tax tag and the property tax tag and they called it a community charge. People would be accountable to the community and therefore there would be some logic in calling it a community charge. That is what they said. In the case of the owners of second homes who might not even live in that community—I understand that there are 17,300 second homes in Scotland alone, of which the owners of 11,300 are not usually resident in Scotland—those people will have no accountability to the community and so the Government cannot use that argument for them. But they will have to pay for the property which is in that area. Therefore it is a property tax. There is no way they can wrap it up to make it anything except a property tax for that second home.
Lord Monkswell: In discussing this aspect, one of my concerns is the integrity of Parliament in regard to the community outside. If we persist in having in Bills proposals that are not in accord with reality the perception of the population outside this place will be to hold us in ridicule. They will either do that or say that Parliament is trying to hoodwink them. Neither of those two alternatives is very satisfactory for Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider their whole attitude in regard to the nomenclature.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should have thought that a tax—to use a neutral word—which is payable under subection (4)(a) in respect of the ownership of premises is a property tax however it is measured, whether by value or by a multiplier. It is still a property tax. Nothing that the Minister said suggests to me that I am wrong about that. Therefore, this is a matter on which we should divide the Committee.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 144) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, E.

Chitnis, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Basnett. L.

Ennals, L.

Beswick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Blyton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

940

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Heycock, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Russell, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Scrota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shannon, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Somers, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walston, L.

Morton of Shuna, L:

White, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Willis, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Haig, E.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Blyth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindsay, E.

Burton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Middleton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Minto, E.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perth, E.

Elibank, L.

Polwarth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin. L.

Rugby, L.

941

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Trafford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vickers, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stockton, E.

Windlesham, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

Swinton, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 8, leave out line 30.
The noble Lord said: On this occasion I have to speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. This extraordinary clause, which means that the largest castle pays the same rate or charge as the smallest cottage, becomes even more impossible to understand when one gets to the end of subsection (2). The clause applies to premises which,
"(b) are not subject to non-domestic rates; and
(c) are not the sole or main residence of any person".
So far so good. It obviously points to the fact that if you can arrange that your wife has the sole or main residence in the second home and you have the sole or main residence in the city home, that is the cheap way of doing it.
However, we then have the completely non-understandable line 30. In Clause 2 there is power to exclude from domestic subjects such classes as may be prescribed; there is also power to include such classes. I am not at all certain what is meant by the,
"class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed".
What are we talking about in line 30? The first factor we know is that they are not subject to non-domestic rates; so we are taking something totally out of any local taxation. Is that really what is meant? They are dwelling houses; they are not subject to non-domestic rates; they are to be prescribed so that they do not pay the standard community charge; and they are not the sole or main residence of anybody who pays a personal charge. What are we talking about?
In lines 31 and 32, dealt with in Amendment No. 146, the Bill says that the class or classes may be prescribed by reference to such factors as may be prescribed. This makes the muddle even more muddled; it is an Alice-in-Wonderland or Alicethrough-the-Looking-Glass type of Bill. It is quite incredibly difficult to work out what is happening. What is supposed to be meant?
It becomes even more difficult when one appreciates, as I think I do, that if you have a home which you use for a period in the year as your holiday home and which you also rent out, it may be classified as a second home for, say, the month of August, but becomes a commercial subject for the rest of the year. That is quite a normal situation in holiday areas like the west coast of Scotland. People own cottages or houses which they rent out and use as holiday homes.
942
It is far from clear what is meant by "the class or classes as may be prescribed", quite apart from the factors which are prescribed. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has considered the possibility of houses being uninhabitable. I do not know if I am right about this, but I should have thought that this was what the prescription might be used for. I recall, when I was the Member of Parliament for the western district of Edinburgh, seeing many houses in the area of West Pilton which had been vandalised. Their windows were boarded up and I imagine that they were totally uninhabitable. The owner of these houses is now the Edinburgh District Council, and I should have thought that this would be a case for prescription.
One other possibility is probably a little far-fetched. Let us suppose that an individual had as a second home a flooded house in Bearsden, Glasgow, about which there is a certain amount of dispute at the moment as to whether rates should be paid under the present system. If houses were totally uninhabitable—and that is the ground on which the present owners are saying that they should not pay rates—is this not the sort of exception which might be covered by the prescription?
Lord Monkswell: Is the noble Lord proposing that we should now have a window tax involved with this Bill? That is the implication. He is saying that a house will become uninhabitable when the windows are knocked out and they are boarded up; therefore, it will not be liable for tax. That was exactly the result of the window tax. Surely, it is ridiculous.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall not try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I do not think it is up to me to explain what this Bill means. I am in as much of a fog as the noble Lord. I do not think that the prescription covers what he talked about because of what was said by Ministers in another place at the Committee stage. They said, if I followed their remarks rightly, that if somebody bought a house which was in a state of dilapidation and had two houses for a period while doing up the second one, that person would have to pay the standard community charge after the period of three months which is applicable in Clause 8. That is my understanding.
Certainly, I had not anticipated that it would involve uninhabitable houses. I have already pointed out that houses which existed in Pilton some years ago under a Tory local authority had to be boarded up because the authority could not spend the money to repair them. Those would be liable for the standard community charge.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I feel we are due an explanation and some examples from the Minister. Perhaps he could tell me, because I am a little puzzled, what will happen to people who own time shares in houses. Considerably more might be collected if the residents had to pay a standard community charge for each fortnight which they owned. They are considered to be proprietors. I would be very interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about them.
Lord Glenarthur: I think perhaps I should start by saying, not for the first time, that the premises in relation to which the standard community charge is payable are dwelling houses which are not the sole or main residence of any person. That is the point from which we start. The clause provides, and these amendments would seek to delete, the possibility of prescription by the Secretary of State of a class or classes of premises in relation to which the standard community charge should not be payable. Under subsection (3) such prescription may be by reference to such factors as may be prescribed.
The intention of these exemption provisions, as my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston thought would be the case, is to allow the exemption from the standard community charge liability of uninhabitable property. Rates are seldom, if ever, charged on such properties at present and it does not seem right to require payment for local authority services in circumstances where this can have very little real meaning in relation, for instance, to a property which is derelict or which may be undergoing restoration. In order to achieve that, it is necessary that the prescription should not only be in relation to a class or classes of premises but that it should also be by reference to prescribed factors.
There is no ready-made definition of unhabitable property at present. Therefore we propose that the regulations should be framed by reference to factors which themselves will relate to the fact that the property is uninhabitable—for instance, its unsuitability for human habitation by reason of its physical condition. It is stretching the point beyond the bounds of credulity to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested, that it is akin to the imposition of a window tax or that anything of that kind is remotely connected with it.
The provisions that the amendments seek to delete are necessary. Before I draw to a conclusion perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in relation to the matter of timeshare property which he raised, that timeshare accommodation will remain within non-domestic rating as it is now; so the situation that he envisaged will not arise.
The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that a person who is buying a house in a state of dilapidation should have to pay this charge, and the noble Lord referred to statements that have been made in another place. To the best of my knowledge those statements did not deal with the specific point concerning someone who is buying a dilapidated house. If the house were uninhabitable it would be exempt, as I have just explained; otherwise the charge would be payable after a three-month period of grace. So perhaps the two remarks were somehow not taken in context.
I shall study those points but I do not think that there has been any disparity between what has been said in another place and what has been said in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will accept that explanation. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Burton: I hope that my noble friend will look at this matter again before Report stage. The period of three months is far too short. For instance, during our
944
discussions on a previous clause, the position of army houses was raised. If a battalion moves away, a great many houses become empty in the district. Likewise, if one looks at the situation in Aberdeen when the oil industry collapsed, a lot of houses were thrown on the market then. Through no fault of the owners such houses can remain empty for much longer than three months.
Moreover, if any major repairs at all have to be undertaken, planning permission has to be obtained and I know that applications can often remain to be considered by a planning committee for three months before the repairs can even be started. I think that this matter needs looking into, and perhaps the period could be extended to six months. I hope that my noble friend will look at this point again before we reach Report stage.
Lord Gray: There is one small point that I should like to raise. I wonder what will happen to properties that are at present unfit for habitation and are awaiting repair or renovation. It is a process that often takes quite a long time to complete when it involves obtaining planning permission and putting in electricity supplies and so on. My reading of the Bill suggests that those properties are left in limbo.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is the case. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Burton misunderstood me. I was referring not to uninhabited properties but to uninhabitable ones. I may not have made myself plain but certainly that was the burden of my remarks.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister said that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was entirely wrong. It seems to me that he was entirely right. We should remember the kind of situation that has happened recently in Aberdeen, about which we have all read. People there tried to sell their houses in order to move away but they had difficulty in selling them. They have a three-month period when they move away during the time that the house is empty but after that time they will have to pay the second charge, the standard community charge, unless the house is uninhabitable. What bigger incentive to render an empty house uninhabitable can there possibly be? That situation will arise in any number of cases.
It is not unknown for a house to be uninhabited for a period because of the employment situation or for some other reason. I am horrified to hear this suggestion, if indeed it is the suggestion. It will give rise to an incentive to destroy houses and render them uninhabitable. That is the effect of this suggestion.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, that was never the suggestion that I made nor is it contained in the Bill. The noble Lord is misquoting part of my remarks. What I said was that this measure related to uninhabitable property. When it comes to prescribing or framing regulations, the question of physical condition and indeed the suitability of that property for human habitation, taken in its wider sense and revolving around the question of its physical condition, are the matters which would be taken into account. What has been set out in the Bill and what I have tried to describe meets the concern of the noble

945
Lord and I think that it would be wrong of him to suggest that we were embarking upon some exercise in support of a latter-day window tax. I do not have with me the details of the history or the relevance of the window tax but I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, feels that that is stretching the point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point. I thought that the remarks of his noble friends related to taking more than three months to repair a house. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was referring to trying to sell a house when the owners had to move away in order to look for another job; and because the house was not sold the owner became liable to the charge after three months. That is the point that the Committee is trying to get over to the Minister.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: We appear to be introducing a rather large subject in a rather short Bill. I fear that the whole concept of uninhabitable property is a minefield for the Government. I should like to have some clarification about the kind of criteria that the Government would use to judge whether or not a property is uninhabitable. That is my first point.
In times gone by questions of whether a house had a roof on it and how many windows it had were the criteria for judgment of property. It is not completely erroneous to believe that those characteristics may not come into the Government's judgment. Secondly, having set out the criteria and judged a property to be uninhabitable, would the Government take the next step and prevent the habitation of such a property by human beings? That would open a whole can of worms, if I may put it like that. We need some clarification of the Government's thinking in this area.
Lord Glenarthur: What the noble Lord is asking me to do is to define in the Bill that which will be prescribed in the regulations. That is the whole point of having the regulations. I have given some examples of the kind of things that would be taken into account when it comes to considering unsuitability. Those criteria may concern physical conditions for human habitation; they may cover a number of other factors. It seems to me quite extraordinary to suggest, as has been suggested, that houses might be made uninhabitable so that in some way it would advantage people. Surely that would be wholly to the detriment of the person who is trying to sell the house. The noble Lord opposite referred to the case of property changing hands in Aberdeen, for example. I think that that is a rather bizarre suggestion. It would not be to the advantage of the person selling the house any more than it would be to the advantage of anybody who ultimately might buy it. I do not think that there is much mileage to be gained there.
The point is that it can be prescribed. The factors that will be taken into account include whether or not the property is suitable for human habitation, its physical condition and all that kind of thing. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I assure the Minister that at least historically there were plenty of cases where roofs were taken off houses in order to remove them from rating. If the Minister is not aware of that, he is not aware of a fairly significant part of Scottish history.
Lord Glenarthur: I am aware of it.
Lord Burton: I think that the noble Lord is being a little unkind to my noble friend on the Front Bench. That was done in the 1950s, which was before my noble friend's time.
Lord Morton of Shuna: He said that he was aware of it.
The trouble with the Bill, as has been stated on many occasions, is that we do not know what will be prescribed. We have one thing said at one time and maybe other things will come in. It would be fair enough to say in line 30:
"but not to uninhabitable houses, the criteria of which shall be prescribed".
At least then we would know what we are getting at. We do not know anything about:
"such class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed".
We have not yet had an answer for the situation that I have put—I should be obliged if we could have one—concerning someone who has a second house and rents it as a commercial proposition for certain months of the year, occupying it, say, for a fortnight of the year. Is that a non-domestic subject? Does it become a non-domestic subject for a certain period of the year, with the standard community charge for the rest?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised this in a somewhat different form earlier. I endeavourd to write to him to explain it and set his mind at rest.
Where the assessor is of the opinion that the letting of a house constitutes a business, he will value the house accordingly. Where he is satisfied that the use is domestic, it will be treated on the same basis as other dwellinghouses that constitute the bulk of the domestic subject which would be deleted from valuation under Clause 2. I cannot see that there is a reason to believe that a holiday house which was otherwise a business could be made domestic if the family concerned lived in it for only a couple of weeks each year.
I repeat that where a house is genuinely domestic it would come out of rating. If it is used as a second home, having no registered resident, it would be subject to the standard charge, so the owners will have to make a contribution. I think that that addresses the point that the noble Lord is making.
I have to say again that what is set out in the Bill is simply explained by what I have just described; that uninhabitable property will be prescribed. That seems to me to be the important point, whether or not one goes back into the realms of history in regard to removing roofs for rating or, indeed, as far back as the window tax of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the Minister deal with the poor devil who has to move from Aberdeen and cannot sell his house in a three-month period? Would prescription apply in that case if he could not sell it for nine months, which must be quite common?
Lord Glenarthur: It is unlikely that in a three-month period a house would become uninhabitable if it had been wholly habitable before. Maybe I have misunderstood the noble Lord's point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If he cannot sell the house, although he is paying for two houses, is down in the South of England and has a job there, after three months apparently it becomes a second home and there is a community charge upon it. That appears to some of the Minister's noble friends and to me unfair.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that the answer to the noble Lord's question is no. If after three months the house had not been sold and was uninhabitable, then—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps the best thing is for me to study the noble Lord's remarks. If I can get an answer to him, I shall endeavour to do so. Perhaps I am being slow. Maybe I have misunderstood him and there is some gap.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister does not understand the Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord says that I do not understand the Bill. He is making remarks himself about not understanding the Bill, but we all know that he is beginning to understand it in the light of some of the explanations that the Government have given.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely it is fairly obvious from the Bill that if a house is unoccupied and unfurnished—just the kind of house referred to in Aberdeen—and the people are forced to move away and take another house somewhere else, by definition it is treated as a second home. Some local authorities are concerned about this. The Minister appears to have clarified the position of empty local authority houses, but what about all the others that are empty? What about agricultural houses where tenant farmers are subject to certain restrictions in relation to reletting? This is the kind of house that has its roof removed and where even the level of rates is a bar to something being done.
The result is that the personal community charge is put on as the standard charge, and it will be even worse. I know that Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council is concerned about this. I do not think that its fears will be eased by what the noble Lord has said. I gather that this will be covered in regulations—"We don't know the class of house, but don't worry, it will be in the regulations". Then where will the factors be found?—"Oh, they will be in the regulations too".
This has got to the point of utter nonsense. We do not understand the clause at all. I find it very difficult to be patient with this kind of Bill. With the best will
948
in the world, we cannot say, "That applies to that". We are given bits and pieces of information by the Minister and even then he says, "This might apply, this could apply". It depends on what the Secretary of State says will be the class prescribed. It depends further on the Secretary of State saying, "Subject to certain factors". But we do not know the factors.
The Minister need not be surprised that we are amazed by this. I am not surprised that he is sometimes rather mystified. Think of the people who have to pay attention to this and have to read it, among whom are some Conservative local government authorities in Scotland. Many farmers in the Highlands have been using such houses and they will be concerned. Remember, it is the owner of the premises that are unoccupied and unfurnished who after three months will be responsible. Do not be surprised if there are increases in rents if the owners eventually get them leased out or rented—or are they just going to take off the roofs or break the windows, as my noble friend said?
Lord Kirkhill: I remind the Minister that he and I sometimes are together on the plane to Aberdeen—at any rate, whether we are or not, we both go to Aberdeen—and he will understand if I direct his attention to this thought. In Portlethen—and Bridge of Don is another example—for the reasons already explained, many of the comparatively new houses have been standing empty for periods of three, four, five or six months so that they are quickly vandalised and the gardens are quickly overgrown. They are not being sold, because when the newcomer arrives he buys a new Barratt that is being built in yet another dormitory suburb. That is the problem, and a real concern to those people who might be considered to own a second home, they having had to shift elsewhere to get employment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend Lord Burton asked whether the period could be extended from three to six months, which I think has been lost sight of in the argument. Perhaps the Minister would like to address his mind to this, if not today, at some future occasion.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, concentrated his remarks on uninhabitable properties and said that the prescription will make it clear that such properties will not be liable to the charge. However, most of our discussion has not been about uninhabitable houses; it has been about uninhabited and unfurnished houses. That is what happens when someone moves from one home to another and then finds that he cannot sell the house that he has vacated. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that,
"Where premises are unoccupied and unfurnished, the charge is not to be payable for a period of up to three months".
The present practice is that at their discretion local authorities do not levy rates on unoccupied and unfurnished houses. Most authorities work on the basis that if they are aware that a property has been advertised for sale from time to time but has not found a purchaser, they continue to refrain from levying rates.

949
The mistake which the Government are making is laying down a maximum period of three months. If they want to include three months, the least that they can do is to add, "or such longer period as the local authority may decide". Some authorities may be content to limit the period to three months. Others will follow their present practice, and rates will not be payable until the house is sold. I cannot understand why the three-month restriction has been included. I think it is at variance with the practice of almost every local authority at the moment.
Lord Glenarthur: It appears that the argument is boiling down to the question of time. My noble friend made a good point. The easiest way may be for me to take this matter away and to look at it to see whether we can make any more sense of the arguments about the time factor which have been put forward. My noble friend suggested that we should extend the time factor to cater for houses such as those in some parts of Aberdeenshire mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in places that have declined.
I hope that the Committee will agree that that is a sensible way to proceed. I cannot give a commitment as to how my consideration will go, but some valid points have clearly been made about timing and the inability of some people to effect a sale within that three-month period. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested. I hope that the Committee will agree that is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 115A which is aimed at that point and to which we shall come in about two pages. It aims to give the local authorities discretion over the three-month period. That may be a matter at which the Minister will also look. I hope that he will also look at the problem of someone who owns a house in one of the holiday areas such as the Mull of Kintyre on the west coast, who at times lets it, at times allows members of his family to use it, and at times uses it himself. It is difficult to decide whether that is to be liable to commercial or standard community charge. In the circumstances, I shall—
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I answer his point about Amendment No. 115A? The arguments on these amendments are bound up with one another. At this stage, the easiest thing may be to say that I take the spirit of the noble Lord's suggestion about Amendment No. 115A and the point that we have just discussed. I am prepared to take the matters away. I cannot give any firm undertakings, as I think the noble Lord will understand, but I understand the spirit with which he refers to the amendment and the points which have been made about the other amendments. I shall look at that as well.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In those circumstances, I shall continue my sentence and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147.
[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 8, line 38, after ("more") insert ("and the owner has provided the registration officer with a copy of the lease and with the name and address of the tenant").
The noble Lord said: I think it is intended that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 149, 169 and 170. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 150, which seems to fit the same circumstances. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 relate to,
"The person liable to pay the standard community charge"
and Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 relate to Clause 11 and the collective community charge. The principle is the same. The person liable to pay the charge shall be the owner unless the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, or, if the premises have been sub-let, the sub-tenant. That is fine. That tells us who is liable, but no one is under any obligation to tell the keeper of the register.
These amendments make the owner liable unless he has told the registration officer the name and address of the tenant and given him a copy of the lease. The tenant is liable in the appropriate tenancy unless he has supplied the registration officer with the name of the sub-tenant and a copy of the lease. Without that, there would be total confusion. The liability has to be decided by the registration officer. As I see it, he has no power to be satisfied. He must see the lease to see that it fits within the Act, as it will then be, and that it is for 12 months or more. Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170 help clarification so that everyone knows where they stand.
Amendment No. 150 again deals with the lease or sub-lease. Only someone who lives in an ivory tower can have been dealing with this point. One is liable for the community charge month by month, if not day by day. How can one backdate the transfer or liability from the owner to the tenant or from the tenant to the sub-tenant by an extension of the lease to take it over 12 months? That seems to me to be exotic. By Amendment No. 150 I seek to take out lines 43 and 44, which say:
"Renewals of a lease (or sub-lease) shall, for the purposes of this subsection, count towards its period".
If I rent a second home from an owner for six months, the owner is liable. If at the end of the six months he extends the lease for a further six months and a day, the lease becomes a 12-month lease, and I as tenant then become liable for the whole period. The Government cannot mean that. It is stupid. There may be an Alice in Wonderland or Alice Through the Looking Glass view about this, but it is extraordinary suddenly to say that by extending the lease the tenant becomes liable for some period for which someone else has been liable. Even St. Andrew's House could not have perpetrated that deliberately.
Lord Glenarthur: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna's Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170, and in addition No. 150, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 150. I hope I shall be able in part at least to point to certain improvements in paragraphs (b) and (c) which form the main point in his Amendments Nos. 148 and 149.
I listened to what the noble Lord said in support of Amendment No. 150. The Government's intention was quite straightforward. It was that the owner be liable for the standard community charge unless there is a tenant or sub-tenant with a lease or sub-lease of the premises which is for a continuing period of 12 months or more. In that case, the tenant or sub-tenant would be liable. The noble Lord is nodding and I think he agrees with me on that point.
I have to accept that lines 43 and 44 might have the effect of obscuring that relatively simple intention. If I were to accept that point, there would also be a need to look at subsection (4)(b) and (c) to make clear the point about the lease or sub-leases being for a continuous period of 12 months or more. That seemed to me to be the entire burden of the noble Lord's arguments. If that is the case then Clause 11(4) might also require to be similarly amended.
In short, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 150 but I shall need to come back with the other amendments to subsection (4)(b) and (c), and additionally Clause 11(4). I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Certainly. My point was not so much the continuity of the period but the fact that there is nothing in Clauses 4, 10 and 11 which gives any obligation for anybody to tell the registration officer. Obviously the registration officer is the person who has to know. I shall be very pleased to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 8, leave out lines 43 and 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As these amendments have already been dealt with perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I suggested that I do not move Amendments Nos. 151 to 159, including Amendment No. 155A, en bloc.
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 159 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 160 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 161.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 9, line 33, leave out from second ("to") to ("(and") in line 36 and insert—
("the product of—

(a) the number of days in that year for which the premises are let or sub-let to or, as the case may be,
952
permitted to be occupied by that other person (excluding any which fall within a period in respect of which the standard community charge is, under subsections (8) to (10) above, not payable); and

(b) the amount of the standard community charge payable in respect of the premises in respect of that year divided by the number of days in that year.").

The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: The noble Earl has to be congratulated that this time he was handed an easier one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This has been an extraordinarily good debate. The Minister has been extremely reasonable. He has been convinced of the correctness of many of the points made. A man of his intelligence could not have failed to be so convinced. However, I must oppose the clause as a whole for a very simple reason. All round this Chamber people have said at Second Reading and at other times that they would be better off themselves with the community charge. Today one of my noble friends told me that with a house in London and a house in the country, when this Bill applies to England he will be a great deal better off—by several thousand pounds.
The regressive nature of the community tax, property tax—call it what you will—demands opposition. Quite simply, that is why I oppose this clause. It takes money from the poor and gives money to the rich. It must be bad.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I could simply say "ditto". It appears to me totally reprehensible that people with very large houses with very large estates, for which they require considerable local authority services, should be asked to pay exactly the same as people who have a small but-and-ben. It seems totally reprehensible and the most regressive part of a very regressive piece of legislation.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: What about those people who have very large houses but have no local authority services? There are many such houses in Scotland, especially in the Highlands. Those people also have to pay a great number of non-domestic rates.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Some of the places without services are places occupied by crofters who are working. They do not have to pay the standard community charge. Whether they are old-age pensioners, or whatever, they have to pay the personal charge. They receive no services in such places without roads on the western side of Harris or Lewis.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: They have a lot of other services, of course. I have one or two crofters and I am all for it. But they receive a tremendous grant for almost everything they buy themselves. I do not therefore think that they do too badly.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Everything that they buy in the outer islands or in the inner islands, or in most places in the Highlands, is considerably more expensive than in the cities. Your Lordships' House decided in the Judicial Committee that for that reason they were not entitled to any higher rate of DHSS benefit. In places such as Tyrie, or Coll, or Colonsay, they will be asked to pay exactly the same regional personal community charge as if they lived in an unflooded house in Bearsden. On this side of the Chamber we think that is totally unfair.
Lord Glenarthur: It seems to me that the arguments in dealing with Clause 10 fall into four different parts: a justification in principle for the standing community charge; the level of the charge; the liability for the charge; and the period of grace.
The Green Paper recognised that some domestic subjects such as second homes—which would be excluded from the valuation role and on which no rates would be payable—would not constitute the sole or main residence of any person. In order to replace the loss of rate revenue which would otherwise occur in such cases, the Green Paper therefore proposed a standard community charge to be levied in respect of the premises in question.
We have debated at some considerable length the details of these provisions including the question of whether the standard community charge is to be considered as a property tax. However, I remain convinced on the principle that I have already set out that it is not. In any case, it cannot seriously be questioned that the replacement of rates on second homes—in respect of which those liable to pay rates would now otherwise enjoy a windfall benefit—is entirely justified.
The Green Paper's proposal that the standard community charge should be set at a level of two units of personal community charge was based on the proposition that taken over the country as a whole, this would replace the rate revenue on the properties concerned which would otherwise be lost. However, in the course of consultation on the Green Paper, the point was made that the standard community charge at this level might lead to large increases in local tax bills in respect of some properties which at present bear low rates. That is why the clause provides that local authorities should have discretion to set the level of standard community charge at between one and two units of the personal community charge, and hence allow the level to reflect local authorities' views of how great a burden of local taxation should be borne by the owners or occupiers of these second homes and similar properties.
The provisions in subsection (4) that the long-term tenant or sub-tenant of premises to which the standard community charge applies should be liable for the charge, rather than the owner, are intended to ensure that the charge is readily recoverable from tenants who use property as a second home, as against those tenants with short holiday leases in circumstances where the owner may be resident abroad or otherwise difficult to pursue for payment of the charge. I am convinced that these arrangements are entirely practicable and that they will lead to efficient and economical collection of charge.
954
On the question of period of grace, I have already said that I would be prepared to look at the matter in so far as concerns the points raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Hughes. I do not repeat that argument now, but in general I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that despite the fact I have agreed that I will look at and consider certain points of detail, the principle of Clause 10 is reasonable. It is a straightforward means of charging owners or tenants of second homes and similar property for the use they make of local authority services. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will see that in the round there is a benefit to be gained from it. I agree that there are certain points which have to be looked at in the light of the discussions we have had, but I certainly commend the clause as it stands to the Committee.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am surprised that, in view of the pointed remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, no one rose from the other side of the House to defend this clause. Of course, the essence of the clause, as it is put, is that this Government have an unfortunate tendency every now and then to throw money at the wrong people. I am not in favour of governments throwing money about at all, but if they must do it they should not throw the money at the wrong people.
Lord Burton: Surely the reason for the clause is that so many councillors, particularly in the urban areas, have been throwing away money and that is why we have had to change the system.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Digby, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Elibank, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenway, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ingrow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimball, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

De La Warr, E.

Lawrence, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindsay, E.

955

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Reigate, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McFadzean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Sharples, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Middleton, L.

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Tryon, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vickers, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Polwarth, L.

Windlesham, L.

Portland, D.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Reay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L.

Blease, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rhodes, L.

Galpem, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gregson, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Walston, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Longford, E.

Winstanley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ypres, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Liability for and calculation of collective community charge]:
7.2 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 10, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("other than those used as refuge homes").
The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if we took Amendment No. 191 B with this.
This amendment is an attempt to exclude refuge homes from the collective community charge. It is likely that refuges will be liable for the collective community charge under Clause 11, but, as all such hostel staff will find, the responsibility of determining, notifying, collecting, recording and receipting the daily base community charge will be a time-consuming administrative nightmare. For the already overworked, understaffed voluntary groups that is an unpalatable and unacceptable burden.
If the Ministers opposite have visited any of those refuges in the course of their duties they will realise the incredible work that the people who operate them undertake and the great difficulties they have. Frequently addresses have to be changed in order that men will not be able to chase their wives. The addresses are often kept secret. There are a number of refuges in Glasgow, but now I do not know where any of them are. They are sometimes in local authority premises or in houses that the local authority has allocated, sometimes in large houses. I know that Glasgow University has given a house which was not going to be used for some time.
Women who are in fear of their lives and who fear for the health of their children run away from home and go to these refuges because they have been abused and physically assaulted by their husbands. The Scottish women's aid groups would like to have an administrative figure deducted from the community tax to allow them to pay for the considerable administrative duties that they will need to undertake if they become liable for the community charge.
It is difficult to determine the population of a refuge as it tends to fluctuate quite dramatically. Some women will stay for 24 hours only or perhaps a couple of days; others will stay for two or three weeks and others for two or three months. They may have children with them, so housing them is a problem, particularly if they are going to stay for any length of time. When an authority has severely limited housing stock or a bad policy for the homeless, women have sometimes been known to stay in a refuge for 12 to 18 months awaiting a house of their own where they can get away from the man who has been the cause of all the trouble in the first place.
The calculation of a meaningful multiplier for a 12-month period could be very difficult when some people stay for two or three days, some for two or three weeks and some for two or three months or even for a full 12 months. If the multiplier had to be amended weekly, this would provide much greater accuracy but at the expense of administrative inconvenience. In any case, I believe it has already prescribed by Clause 13(1). Guidance in the calculation of the multiplier for refuges is required. It is essential that erroneous calculation of the multiplier does not result in women's aid groups having to find special funds just to meet the difference between the amount of the community charge due and the amount collected. Therefore, I feel that this is a very special case.
This is a peculiar type of voluntary organisation. Almost everyone involved gives their help voluntarily, at great inconvenience to themselves, spending a lot of time in the houses. I hope that the Minister will find some way of accommodating this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Although we have already considered the position of women living in women's refuges, or refuge homes as these amendments refer to them, during our discussion of Clause 2, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for introducing the matter again at this stage.
As a result of our previous discussions, the Committee will recall that I agreed to take away and reconsider the proposition that such homes should in all cases be retained in rating, with those of their residents who were solely or mainly resident there being thereby exempted from any personal community charge liability. What I now have to say is without prejudice to that reconsideration. However, it may be of assistance to the Committee if I set out our views on the precise amendments before us.
Amendment No. 163A would ensure that refuge homes were never made liable to the collective community charge. That is consistent with the proposition which has already been put forward that they should remain in rating. However, I am not clear that it would be wise at this stage to exclude the possibility of collective community charge treatment for those homes. It seems to me that in some cases at least they would fall within the main category of premises suitable for the collective community charge set out in Clause 11(2) (i), that they:
"are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods".
If therefore such homes and their residents are to attract any form of community charge liability—and I repeat that what I am saying is without prejudice to our further consideration of the proposition that they should remain in rating—a collective community charge treatment would seem at least to be a viable option.
I understand that the concerns expressed by Scottish women's aid groups and others relate in part to the anonymity of those living in refuge homes. That anonymity could not be preserved if individual residents were registered and liable for the personal community charge, since their names would appear opposite the address in the publicly available part of the register. That would not be the case if they were treated as collective. I accept that in that case it might be possible for those seeking to trace women living in such homes to do so by identifying them from the appearance of the collective community charge multiplier on the public register.
However, I have mentioned that Amendment No. 226, tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, provides a mechanism whereby that multiplier in prescribed cases should not appear on the public register. The use of that power of prescription would seem to meet the concern which has been voiced on that score.
Amendment No. 191B would require premises operated as refuge homes to be excluded entirely from the register. The implication of this would appear to be that no form of community charge liability would be recorded in relation to their residence. That is again in line with the proposition which we are considering: that they should remain in rating. However, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that even that solution may not meet in
958
full the concern which has been voiced about the anonymity of residents in homes of that kind. If they remained in rating they would be the only ordinary dwelling-houses which would continue to appear on the valuation roll. I submit that that might well make them just as conspicuous as collective community charge treatment, with the multiplier appearing on the register.
I therefore fully take the force of the concerns which have been expressed about refuge homes and their residents. We have already undertaken to consider their position again. However, it would be wrong for me to leave Members of the Committee with the impression that we see any single means of dealing with these homes under the new system as providing the solution to all the problems about which concern has been expressed. This is a difficult area and we shall consider it further. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Do I understand, first, that the Minister has agreed to take the position of people who go to the refuge homes (I recall that from a previous debate last week); secondly, that the Minister will also incorporate in his consideration the position of the homes as such as rateable properties; and that the whole matter of the status of refuge homes, as well as the status of the temporary occupants of refuge homes, will be considered and that the Minister will come back to us?
Lord Burton: I felt that what my noble friend said was encouraging. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I come across these refuges quite often because the people concerned come to our district council looking for money. They have considerable difficulty financing themselves and I think that we should be careful not to burden them with any additional finance.
On the other hand, they are an emergency refuge and we must be careful that people are not taken in on a long-term basis, as I know has happened on a number of occasions. Someone staying there for a long time is taking up the accommodation required for the emergency case. Therefore we must be careful not to exclude someone from the community charge, thinking that they are quite safe and can sit there for a long time Apart from that matter, I hope that my noble friend can look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: On the last occasion that the question of refuges was raised, I understood the Minister to say that the position of refuges operated by women's aid associations in particular would receive the most sympathetic consideration, and that we could expect something at a later stage in the Bill which quite clearly met the gravamen of their concerns. That was my clear understanding of what the Minister said on that occasion.
The Earl of Dundee: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, on those points. We shall be

959
considering together all those matters with regard to refuges.
I should like to answer an earlier point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in regard to the calculation of the multiplier. The multiplier will reflect the numbers of people who are typically solely or mainly resident in women's refuges. We shall be meeting representatives of Scottish Women's Aid to discuss this with the other wider implications.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made in coming towards the object of these amendments. There probably will be difficulty in finding a typical occupancy rate. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I do not think that there is any great desire on the part of the women to stay in some of the refuges for very long. The real problem is that sometimes there are no local authority houses for them. If housing cannot be provided for them, it is difficult to get them to move on.
I should like to comment on the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I continually return to this point. At some point there will need to be a register of property. The Minister said that the fact that premises had been omitted from a list would destroy its anonymity. That tends to suggest to me that it is contemplated that there will be a list, in order that an address can be omitted from it. That point goes all the way through the Bill, and perhaps it is a hobby-horse of mine. However, I am sure that at some point we shall need to have a register. I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 10, line 9, leave out ("sole or main").
The noble Lord said: I think that difficulties are created by the definition in respect of premises where the collective community charge shall be payable. Once again I emphasise that it states "premises" and not "persons", so in many ways that runs counter to the whole principle of personal responsibility that underlies the Bill. There are difficulties in respect of these kinds of premises.
The paragraph reads:
"are designated by the registration officer as premises which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods".
I hardly call that a sole or main residence. We have not yet had a definition of "sole or main residence". Very often it is the kind of residence where, when people are in trouble in the courts and are asked for their address, they give it as "no fixed abode". That is very often what happens. They are only there for two or three nights. It is not their sole address; they may have half a dozen within two or three months, and certainly within a year or so. They float from one place to another. I am suggesting that we remove the words "sole or main".
I should like to include Amendment No. 164A. We may ease the situation, or even solve it, in respect of the problem that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, says he will look at in the cases of houses of refuge and of these women, if we leave out "sole or main" and leave out all after "persons", so that it would read:
"which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the residence of persons for whom individual registration is impracticable".
In addition I would add "or undesirable", and leave that to the decision of the electoral officer. That may be something that is quite wrong altogether, but I put it forward as a suggestion.
I am probing to see whether we could make some kind of change here that would be to advantage. In many cases it is impracticable for many of these people to fill in these kind of forms for a couple of days and then to be charged, and paid. The difficulties for those who are running these premises are almost impossible to catch up with. If at the same time they are in receipt of some kind of benefit and they want help, these charges are going to be available under later clauses and it is going to be almost impossible to track them down. It is going to be difficult.
If they go without paying this particular charge, it will be anybody's business. If it is only two or three nights, how much will it be? If they can get away with it they just will not pay for it, although it may be a matter for the efficiency of the owner of the premises. It is one of the difficulties that arise because of this, but I object to the words "sole" or "main" when really what they mean is "of no fixed abode". I beg to move.
Lord Gray: Not for the first time in our scrutiny of this Bill we are faced with a passage which requires a remarkable degree of mental agility on the part of the reader before it becomes comprehensible. I want to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 164 rather than to the two which I understand are linked with it. I am in some sympathy with Amendment No. 164 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. My interest is in the drafting of subsection (2) and the inclusion of the words "sole or main" in it.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur may be able to demonstrate that the words "sole or main" are essential. If he does so prove, I suggest that he invites the draftsman to move the word "used" in line 9 so that the passage we are complaining about would read:
"are wholly or mainly used as the sole or main residence".
Doing so might dilute the purity of the language a little, but it would make it immediately clear that "wholly or mainly" refers to premises and "sole or main" refers to persons.
Since I am making a wholly, mainly or solely drafting point I hope that it will not receive a wholly unfavourable response. I have not quite finished with the point, because it has tentacles which reach out into other parts of Clause 11 and even beyond that. The words "sole or main" actually enter Clause 11 by another gate.
Perhaps my noble friend would glance at Clause 26 on page 20. There he will find at the foot of the page an interpretation of "part residential subjects". The description "part or residential subjects" features in Clause 11 and is one of the categories of premises to which sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of that

961
clause, which contains the words "sole or main", qualifies.
If my noble friend reads the interpretation of "part residential subjects" he will discover that it imports into Clause 11 the very words "sole or main" to which Amendment No. 164 draws our attention. In the interpretation, however, the words "sole or main" are qualified by the words "which are occupied partly". This appears to conflict with what is set out in Clause 11 where the qualification is "wholly or mainly".
If my noble friend, and any other noble Lord who has managed to follow me this far, will turn again to page 20—and I am still on the same point—he, and they, will find that the interpretation of "part residential subjects" includes the words "other than domestic subjects". Turning back again, I am afraid, to Clause 11 we find at line 5 the description:
"not subject to non-domestic rates".
Apart from jibbing at the use of "subject" in line 5 and "subjects" in line 6 in two entirely different senses, I am wondering why on earth the draftsman did not simply use the words "domestic subjects" at line 5 instead of,
"not subject to non-domestic rates".
If line 5 simply said "domestic subjects or" and then line 7 started with the word "but" instead of the word "and", I submit that it would make the clause a good deal clearer.
I am sorry I have to read this but I would lose myself if I did not. My consideration of why the draftsman employed the phrase,
"not subject to non-domestic rates",
here and in Clause 10—and, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in Clause 8—has led me to the conclusion that the sole reason was that, although there is an interpretation of the alternative, which is "domestic subjects" in Clause 6 and which refers only to Part I of the Bill, there is no interpretation of the phrase "domestic subjects" in Clause 26 which provides the interpretation for the remainder of the Bill.
That brings us back full circle to the discussion we had last week as to whether there ought to be two separate interpretation clauses in the one Bill. If my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has not managed to follow me on my tour of Clause 11(2) and Clause 26 I shall not be surprised. I found myself at risk of getting somewhat lost. However, I hope at least that he will ask the draftsman to study the Official Report and seriously to consider what I have said. I apologise for taking so long but there was no other way in which I could make points that I think are relevant to our scrutiny of this Bill.
Lord Kirkhill: If the Minister would not think this an arrogant remark on my part let me say to him that when I used to sit where he now does I always found, as did some of the draftsmen—perhaps not all of them—and most of the mandarins in the Scottish Office that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was usually correct.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Since this is the first occasion on which we have dealt in detail with the question of the collective community charge I ought perhaps to start by describing in general terms how we envisage the operation of the collective community charge. The Green Paper proposed that in order to deal with the small numbers of people whose mode of life was so mobile as to make individual registration of the personal community charge impracticable, a collective community charge should be levied in respect of the premises in which such people live.
The essential criterion for the application of the collective community charge is therefore the transience of the residents of any particular premises. The premises will be designated by the registration officer and the charge will be payable by the owner or long-term tenant of the premises. That person will be registered in the community charges register as liable to pay the collective community charge and therefore will have a right of appeal against designation as part of his right of appeal against entry in the register under Clause 16(1)(a). The appeal will lie to the sheriff. This will provide redress for the person who considers that the registration officer has not made sufficient efforts to register individually the people living in his premises before designating them as suitable for collective community charge treatment.
Essentially, therefore, the charge is an alternative to the personal community charge for people who are very mobile and for that reason it must relate to sole or main residence of the people who live in the premises to which it applies. The first amendment of the noble Lord opposite would, as he says, delete the words "sole or main", thus making it possible for registration officers to designate further collective community charge premises which are not used as anyone's sole or main residence. While the main examples of premises in this category—hotels, guesthouses and that sort of thing—will normally remain in non-domestic rating, the amendment would nevertheless remove one of the main criteria on which registration officers would be required to designate premises for the collective community charge and could therefore lead to confusion.
As to the length of residence, the phrase "sole or main residence" will mean in general that the person has no other house, even if this position lasts only for a short time. It is of course conceivable that some premises which are liable for the collective community charge will have some residents who are not in fact solely or mainly resident on the premises but who are staying there temporarily while remaining registered for the personal community charge at their home addresses.
A liability for the collective community charge will depend on the collective community charge multiplier provided for by subsections (7) to (9) and the multiplier will reflect the number of people who are typically solely or mainly resident on the premises. Only those who are so resident will be required to pay to the landlord the collective community charge contribution provided for by subsections (10) to (16).

963
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for raising these quite complex drafting points. He suggested that the reference to premises which are not subject to non-domestic rates in Clause 11(2) (a) might be replaced, if I have understood him correctly, by a reference to "domestic subjects". It is the case that "domestic subjects" are taken off the valuation roll under Part I of the Bill and will not be subject to non-domestic rates. However, although I will give further consideration to that point, I do not think it would be appropriate to refer to "domestic subjects" in Clause 11(2) (a). In 10 or 15 years' time it will be far easier to determine whether premises are not as a matter of fact subject to non-domestic rates than it will be to determine whether they would have fallen within the definition of "domestic subjects" under Clause 2(3).
My noble friend also asked whether it would be clearer if Clause 11(2) (b) (i) referred to premises which are "wholly or mainly" used rather than used "mainly or wholly", if I have correctly understood the burden of his argument, as the sole or main residence of persons. I do not see any real or material distinction between the two formulations. There are those who may prefer the present wording of the Bill because the adverbs follow the verbs rather than appearing between the auxiliary and the main verb. I have to say to the noble Lord that this approach is also followed in other Acts. I can refer my noble friend, for example, to Section 32(5) of the Capital Allowance Act 1968, which refers to "vehicles provided" and goes on to say, "wholly or mainly" for a particular purpose.
My noble friend has raised some important points and I will certainly study them. With the complex explanation which he gave, I do not think he would necessarily expect me to answer his points too quickly off the cuff: but I will certainly do what I can to see that those points are taken care of, together with the question of the two separate clauses under the two separate parts of the Bill in relation to the definitions contained there, interpretation being the theme. I hope, with those explanations, that my noble friend is at least content that I shall look at this matter again. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appreciates a little more fully the effect of his amendment on this part of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, I do; and I waste no more time. I ask leave to withdraw that amendment. As to the next one, it is far too important to withdraw and therefore I shall not move it. I would ask leave to withdraw No. 164, and I shall not move No. 164A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: Your Lordships' Committee may feel that this is a convenient moment to break our proceedings and return to the subject at twenty-five minutes to nine. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill
7.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 [Extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner]:
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii)
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause is the most fundamental part of this Bill, the part which gives effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, 1983–84, on non-departmental public bodies and to the response of the Government to those recommendations, whereby it was agreed on all sides that the functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which up to this time extend to the maladministration of government bodies, should be extended to include a number of what are these days called quangos; in other words, non-departmental public bodies.
There is no difference of view about that. The difference which manifested itself in the other place, and which indeed has manifested itself throughout the history of the consideration of this matter, was what the limits should be as to the bodies which would fall within the extension. One can see very clearly, reading from parts of the report of the Select Committee, that there were considerable differences of view.
Paragraph 6 of the Select Committee's report states that the distinguished former civil servant Sir Leo Pliatzky, who gave evidence,
"spoke of 'bodies which have a role in the process of Government in the United Kingdom but which are not Government Departments or part of a Government Department'."
The Select Committee commented that the,
"bodies in this class are numerous and heterogeneous. The amount of public money they spend varies from little or nothing to millions of pounds per year."
In paragraph 12, adopting the approach of Sir Leo Pliatzky, the Select Committee noted that he had suggested,
"in respect at least of the largest, most expensive bodies, that they should all be brought within PCA jurisdiction unless it could be shown that there were good reasons for not doing so. The CSD suggested function as a criterion".
The Parliamentary Commissioner himself, then Sir Cecil Clothier,
"suggested a selective approach and gave us in oral evidence a short list of the bodies over which he felt it would be suitable that he should have jurisdiction. Most of them were grant-giving bodies, though a few were involved in licensing".
In the course of his evidence, he drew attention to the fact that sometimes a complaint was brought to

965
him which at first sight appeared to lie against a government department, but when the initial investigation was entered into it showed that, in fact, it lay against a non-departmental body. He said that in some of those cases there was prima facie evidence of maladministration which he would like to investigate, but he could not, and cannot for the moment, do so because his powers do not extend that far. So we had various criteria put forward. In the other House the matter was discussed in the context of Schedule 2 to the Bill, which sets out those bodies that the Bill suggests should now be subject to investigation—government departments and others.
This amendment tackles the problem in a somewhat different way which is very much more akin to the suggestion of Sir Leo Pliatzky. It accepts a number of limitations, such as the limitation that the body concerned should be established by virtue of the prerogative, by an Act of Parliament, by an order or in some other statutory way. It accepts the limitations which are set out in subsection (5) of Clause 1, which are perfectly proper. However, what it does—and this is the vital matter—is as follows.
The Bill as it stands provides the limitation that the body concerned should be one at least half of whose revenues derive directly from money provided by Parliament or some other statutory charge, and that it should be one which is wholly or partly constituted by appointment made by the Crown or a government department.
It is not easy to see why those limitations should be imposed and, in particular, the limitation with regard to the revenues. The limitation that at least half of the revenues is to be derived from Parliament is bound to create anomalies between one body and another, and indeed in the same body from one year to another, and I am not altogether sure how that difficulty will be resolved.
The basis of that restriction is not too clear. It may lie—and I raised this point on Second Reading—in the concept that, if a body is supported by public funds, then it is open to a Member of Parliament to complain to a Minister to bring the matter before the other House or this House, and so parliamentary control can be expressed. But the Select Committee itself drew attention to the fact that we have reached a stage where the very authority of the Parliamentary Commissioner is normally sufficient. They say in paragraph 16:
"The experience of the Health Service Commissioner suggests that compliance can be achieved without any direct sanction, the authority of the Commissioner and the displeasure of Parliament, expressed in the first instance through this Committee, having always proved sufficient to secure the suggested remedy."
This could be done just as well in circumstances where the body concerned does not have at least half of its revenues deriving from public funds.
There are, of course, other procedures that would be open, but the reality of the matter, in our view, is that the prestige of the Parliamentary Commissioner after 20 years is such that bodies which are charged by him with maladministration and causing injustice are extremely unlikely to refuse to give a remedy, whether they he government departments or non-departmental public bodies. To deprive the citizen of a remedy against bodies of that kind, because the remedy cannot
966
be a 100 per cent. remedy, seems to be an illogical step and not to go in the direction in which this Bill quite properly seeks to go, which is to ensure as far as possible that the citizen has a remedy against all forms of maladministration causing injustice to the citizen.
The amendment has been expressed as it has so that, although the criteria, if the amendment were accepted, would be criteria which could govern the second schedule, in the sense that one could immediately add to the second schedule new bodies that fell within the revised criteria, it would not be necessary to do that because the Government could say, "We accept the new, more limited criteria as from now and we will consider what bodies are appropriate". In the words of Sir Leo Pliatzky, they could all be brought within the jurisdiction unless it could be shown that there were good reasons for not doing so.
So it would be for the Government to look at the bodies which qualified, as it were, after the amendment had been carried and decide for the future—one by one, if you like—which bodies should be brought within the operation of the Commissioner. I hope that the Government will take the view that that is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: This was indeed a matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to at Second Reading and, if I may say so, I think that the difficulty that the Government see with the amendment which the noble and learned Lord has put forward is this. When the 1967 Act was passed, the Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed to carry out responsibilities on behalf of Members of another place to protect the individual against maladministration by the state. As the White Paper then said, he was seen as developing and reinforcing existing constitutional rights of the individuals.
In the present Bill, it is fair to say that we are still effectively dealing with the regulation of relations between the individual and the apparatus of the state, where a body has been authorised, either directly by statute or by administrative decision, to carry out responsibilities which directly affect individuals. In such cases, accountability through Ministers to Parliament is normally retained through ultimate ministerial responsibility for the funding and appointment of members to the bodies, and these are the factors reflected in the criteria in the Bill which the amendment would delete.
In case the Committee feels that I am being too immovable on this matter and that I have not listened to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I may go on to make the point that I think that this amendment would have a very difficult result. As I see it, it would bring within potential jurisdiction any corporation or body with any public element, however remote, in its establishment, regardless of whether it affects individuals or the nature of any such relationship.
For example, I have in mind that the amendment would cover all bodies set up by statute, including, incidentally, the commissioner himself; all local and health authorities; and, as I read it, every body

967
established by Royal Charter, however remote from dealings with the ordinary public. For example, it would affect the Royal Ballet, the English Speaking Union, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, trade associations, livery companies and professional bodies. I am therefore saying that although I have listened to the argument of the noble and learned Lord I think that the amendment goes too far.
The noble and learned Lord ended with a persuasive point when he said that in effect we should keep the schedule as it is but use the amendment for the future. May I put that in a different way to the noble and learned Lord? I should obviously like to keep the schedule as it is. However, in resisting the amendment, for the reasons which I have given, perhaps I may say that if the noble and learned Lord or any other noble Lords can think of individual candidates for listing which our present criteria seemed to omit, then if any noble Lords taking part in the Committee stage put them to the Government before the next stage of the Bill, we shall be glad to look further at individual cases. However, so far as the general principle is concerned, although I realise that the noble and learned Lord feels that we are being restrictive, I feel that this amendment goes too far.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble and learned Lord responds, may I ask the Minister to elaborate further? Am I to understand that if noble Lords can think of bodies which ought to be included on the merits of their own case, a means will be found of amending the schedule? Surely we should not make amendments to the schedule without first deleting the sub-paragraphs referred to in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I am saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has in mind a body which should be regarded as part of the apparatus of government but whose impact on the individual is such that it is a proper candidate to be in the Bill, we should be very glad to look at it. Where I hoped I made myself clear was in saying that when one has a body which is clearly not part of the apparatus of government, then I feel that such a body is not a suitable candidate. I have to be downright on that point on behalf of the Government.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful to the Minister for a clear exposition of the position of the Government on that matter. So far as the latter part of his remarks is concerned, he was clearly seized of a point that the amendments do not force the Government to include any body. We should have to have an Order in Council that Parliament supported.
All the amendment seeks to do is to remove restrictions on the Government and Parliament for the future. In other words, those bodies, which the noble Lord may have objected to quite properly, such as the English Speaking Union, would not be forced to be included. The Government would simply not include them, although they could technically do so if the amendment were carried. They would not be forced to do so because it would be a matter for the Minister to bring forward an order and to say that certain bodies
968
should be included. It would then be a matter for Parliament to decide whether or not to include them. I find it difficult to see why either Parliament or the Government would in any way be handicapped by accepting the amendment.
So far as concerns the other part of the noble Lord's remarks, I can see that the mere deletion of subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) might have consequences or be capable of having consequences which I have not fully worked out. I am only to happy to accept the considerations which the Government have given to possible consequences of the amendment being accepted. I should have thought, however, that the Government logically should follow that part of the noble Lord's speech by saying that they will look at it themselves and see whether they can work out a formula which is not as restrictive as the formula in the Bill, which would cut out automatically certain bodies, so that even if the Minister and Parliament wished to include them they could not be included without a new primary piece of legislation.
They might look at the matter and see whether they can produce a compromise formula which does not go quite so far as that suggested in the amendment but which at least meets the spirit of the evidence before the Select Committee, which I have detailed in moving the amendment. I shall be very happy if the Minister is prepared to consider that. In any event, I shall not seek to divide the Committee at this time of night on this matter. I have ventilated it and I hope that it will be considered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of 1967 Act.
.—The 1967 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 5(I)(a) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords";

(b) in section 5(1)(b) for the words "that House" there shall be substituted "one of those Houses";

(c) in section 6(3) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords"; and

(d) in section 10(5)(b) after the word "Commons" there shall be inserted "or House of Lords".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment takes the form of a new clause which seeks to amend the 1967 Act in a variety of ways which may look complicated and which it would be tedious to go through at this hour. However, the aim of the amendment is very simple and direct, and I shall explain that aim.
As noble Lords may recollect, the Act of 1967 provides that complaints of maladministration from which it is believed that an injustice may have arisen must be put to the parliamentary commissioner via a Member of the House of Commons. The Act does not specify which Member of the House of Commons must be approached and it does not for a moment have to be a citizen's own Member of the House of Commons. Nor does it have to be the Member of the House of Commons who sits for the area of the country which is affected by the particular decision about which the citizen is aggrieved.
It is a fact that on many occasions a citizen's own Member has perhaps refused or declined to transmit a

969
complaint to the parliamentary commissioner and he has sought the help of another Member in putting the case. The parliamentary commissioner has then been able to look at the case. There are many such cases. The Act therefore does not provide that the citizen's own Member of Parliament or one directly concerned in the matter should be approached.
The problem is that there is no provision for such complaints to be put to the parliamentary commissioner on behalf of a citizen by a Member of this Chamber. Frankly, that seems unreasonable. Many noble Lords are in very close contact with many ordinary citizens and with voluntary bodies and other organisations up and down the country. They often deal with matters of injustice and often the attention of noble Lords is drawn to a particular case. Individuals may often feel that they have a case which the parliamentary commissioner should look at, because it may be that there has been maladministration and that the parliamentary commissioner may be able to recommend a remedy. If any of us in this Chamber receive such complaints, we must then suggest to the individual that he or we approach his Member of Parliament in the House of Commons—although we in this Chamber are also Members of Parliament and I should have thought that that should be recognised. I should have thought that we could extend the Bill in this way.
This matter has cropped up many times at Question Time and support has been given by members of all parties to the idea of extending the provision to Peers. I fully accept that were we all to be tied to what we happened to say at Question Time on a particular day the whole party structure in your Lordships' House might well suffer cataclysmic effects. We say different things from time to time. I merely make the point that the idea of giving Members of the House of Lords the power that Members of the House of Commons have to pass cases where they deem it is proper to the parliamentary commissioner has had support in your Lordships' House from members of all parties.
It may be argued that once one does that many more cases will go to the commissioner. I do not think that that is true. Noble Lords are just as capable of deciding what is an appropriate case to be looked at by the parliamentary commissioner as a Member of the House of Commons. As Members of the Committee are aware, the commissioner himself has many other protections whereby he can decline to look at a case. For example, the complainant must have exhausted his remedies through the law; the case must fall within the various categories prescribed in the Bill; the event complained of must have happened within a certain time limit; it must have happened within the United Kingdom; and there are various other conditions. Noble Lords are just as able as Members of another place to advise complaining citizens about that point. I should have thought that they could assist in the matter.
This is a simple amendment. It seeks merely to allow Members of your Lordships' House to pass cases, where they believe it is justified to pass such cases, to the parliamentary commissioner. I should have thought that the Government might accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I hope that the Committee will take note of what the noble Lord has said. There is the obvious objection that your Lordships' House is not an elected Chamber and that therefore complaints going to the commissioner could come from a body of people who are not in any way elected. It may well be that this would have to be done through your Lordships' House through the local Member of Parliament concerned.
I say this because I had an example when I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on the National Health Service some years ago. I received a number of letters regarding the pay of physiotherapists. One was from the father of a young physiotherapist from the New Forest. I referred the matter to my noble cousin, as he now is, who was then the honourable Member for Bournemouth, West. I received a rocket from the father for doing so because it was a confidential matter, so he said. I made the point that I had to refer it through the elected Member because of the procedure.
The point is that your Lordships' House is now a much more professional House. We work full time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, receives much correspondence particularly on matters connected with the health service, and as an ordinary Back-Bencher I do so similarly. There is some substance in the noble Lord's amendment that the commissioners should be able to receive deputations or complaints through your Lordships' House, bearing in mind that it is a very different House from what it was 20 years ago. We are receiving far more correspondence now not only on health matters but on others. With the increased responsibilities of this noble House we should be able to make our voice heard and I think that the country as a whole would benefit. Whether the amendment is adequately drafted is another matter, but I think that the substance deserves serious consideration.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made a persuasive case and my noble friend Lord Auckland has supported him. I think it is right just to bear in mind that the Select Committee took the view, which was accepted by the Government, that procedures for referral of complaints against non-departmental public bodies should be the same as for complaints against government departments. The Select Committee made no recommendation that procedures for referral should be widened to include Members of this House.
Why is this so? Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made the point that sometimes it would be very desirable for a Member of this House to be the recipient of a complaint. Indeed, I yield to no one in my recognition of the fact that there are most certainly occasions (and I have no doubt that these days they have become more frequent) when Members of this House receive approaches of various kinds from members of the public. As I explained at Second Reading an ad hoc arrangement exists under which the parliamentary commissioner, with the agreement of a complainant, can forward a directly submitted complaint to an

971
appropriate Member of another place so that the matter can be pursued further.
Very few complaints are referred to the commissioner by Members of this House. When they are, the commissioner notifies the noble Lord in question and the complainant of the procedures for referral laid down under the 1967 Act and suggests that the complaint should be made through an appropriate Member of Parliament. There is a procedure whereby Members of your Lordships' House can be involved if they have received the complaint.
Why am I being difficult on behalf of the Government about this? It is because I think that there is a matter of principle here. The procedure for referring through a Member of the House of Commons in part recognises the unique relationship which exists between a Member of another place and a constituent. This relationship ensures that referral of a complaint to the commissioner by a Member of another place is a right which is available to everyone in the country. Although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that there are occasions when individuals may approach their Member of Parliament and find that in the end they need to put their complaint through another Member of the other House, nonetheless that matter of principle was in the mind of the Select Committee which did not make the recommendation being made by the noble Lord. That is in the mind of the Government and it is basically for that reason of principle that I feel I must resist the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his careful, thoughtful and considered reply. However, I am bound to say to him that I do not regard it as altogether satisfactory. He has explained that there is a procedure whereby this hurdle can be overcome. There is a procedure only because the hurdle exists. The noble Lord explained the procedure. An aggrieved person writes to a Member of your Lordships' House and that Member decides that it is a case where clearly there has been maladministration and that the most simple remedy for this person is to take the matter to the parliamentary commissioner. If he then sends the case himself to the parliamentary commissioner, there is a procedure, because the parliamentary commissioner has to write back and say that he is very sorry but he is not allowed to take complaints direct from a Member of the House of Lords, only from a Member of the House of Commons. Then, having informed the Member of that, he perhaps writes to a Member of the House of Commons to suggest that he puts the case. Of course there is a procedure. The procedure has been devised by time because of the existence of this constraint. My argument is that the constraint need not necessarily exist.
We have a parallel in a sense. Normally there is a presumption that a complaint to the local commissioner for administration should be put through a councillor. However, there is a provision in the Act whereby the local commissioner has the discretionary power to look at a complaint which is referred directly to him if he considers, in the circumstances, that it is understandable that the
972
complaint has been referred directly to him. Indeed, the complaint could be about the councillor to whom the person might have been expected to put the complaint.
Therefore, if we can have an exception in relation to the local commissioner, why do we need to have this particular constraint here? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has an amendment to remove those constraints and allow complaints to go direct to the commissioner from individual complainants. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss that now but I can see that one of the arguments against it would be that it might open the floodgates. That does not mean I accept that argument, but it is an argument that might be advanced against it. However, my amendment does not open any floodgates. It merely recognises what is increasingly recognised in Britain today—that we have two Houses of Parliament. It is often forgotten. I am not suggesting that our Chamber is constituted in the way that everyone wishes. But most of us believe that a second Chamber is necessary and that without one we would be in grave difficulties. A second Chamber is a safety check for society and for the constitution in general. It perhaps prevents the pendulum swinging too wildly. Most of us accept that a second Chamber of government is a necessity and a valuable safeguard.
We have taken great pains recently to persuade the public to understand that there are two Houses of Parliament. We have taken certain steps in this House to help people to understand how this House of Parliament actually works. With the television experiment—it is no longer an experiment; it is reality—there is increasing understanding throughout the whole community of the way in which this House works. There is also increasing understanding of the fact that there are noble Lords in all parties in this Chamber whose own personal experience and knowledge are valuable. Many individual citizens seek the help of those noble Lords. If they seek their help on certain matters, why should they not be permitted to seek their help on this matter? If the noble Lord decides that the appropriate remedy for a complainant is through the parliamentary commissioner, why should he not have the power to do that?
I listened carefully to the noble Lord's reply. I understood it, but it appeared that the Minister justified the existence of this constraint merely by explaining that there was a procedure to dodge it. It would be much better to remove the constraint altogether. I do not intend to press this amendment at the moment but I believe that there are noble Lords in this Committee who would support me if I were to return to the matter at another stage of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 3:
Insert the following new clause:
("Widening of sources of complaint.
After the passing of this Act the Commissioner may exercise his power to investigate under section 5 of the 1967 Act (Matters subject to investigation) where a written complaint has been made to him by a member of the public; and if the complaint has not been made to a member of the House of Commons and has not been referred to the Commissioner by a member of that House the

973
Commissioner shall inform such member of that House as he thinks appropriate that he intends to investigate the complaint; and sections 6(3) and 10(1) of the 1967 Act shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Listening to the debate on the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I became more than ever convinced that my amendment is sensible. It embraces much of what the noble Lord said because under my amendment it would be open to a Member of this House to bring to the attention of the parliamentary commissioner complaints made to that Member.
However, my amendment goes further. It would formally ratify the procedure to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred by allowing a citizen to make his complaint direct to the parliamentary commissioner. The parliamentary commissioner would then be empowered—I emphasise "empowered'—to accept the complaint if he thought fit; in other words, if the floodgates were not opened up and he thought there was merit in the complaint. But he would be required by the statute to do that which in practice he does already, or nearly so. He would have to inform a Member of Parliament. It would not necessarily be the Member for the constituency of the complainant—though that would be the normal procedure—but a Member of the other place "as he thinks appropriate". There, I have borrowed the words that appear in Section 10(1) of the existing 1967 Act which requires the parliamentary commissioner to make a report to the Member who referred the complaint or, if he is no longer a Member of that House, to such Member of that House as the commissioner thinks appropriate and inform him. In that, I have followed the words of the existing statute. The difference between the procedure in this amendment and the present procedure in practice is the difference between seeking permission and informing.
The Government may well take the view, as I do, that there is no real distinction between the two. I simply cannot see a Member of Parliament who is asked by the commissioner whether he will agree to the commissioner accepting a complaint direct saying, "No, I do not give my consent." Of course he will give his consent. In the rare circumstances where for some reason—perhaps a personal reason connected with the identity of a complainant—the Member of Parliament for his constituency says, "No, I do not give my consent" there are, as we know, over 600 other Members of Parliament whom the commissioner is able to approach and say, "Will you please forward this complaint to me", or, in the case of the amendment, such Members or any one of them can be informed by the commissioner. Therefore, in practice we are not attempting anything very much in this amendment.
In replying to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the Minister suggested that it was a matter of principle that these complaints should go through a Member of Parliament. I do not know whether that is the view of the Select Committee, or whose view it is, but I do not believe that it is the reason why the provision was made in 1967 requiring
974
the complaint to be made in the first instance through a Member of Parliament or any Member of Parliament. I mentioned on Second Reading that I took part in the debates on the Bill as it went through the other place and the argument which was always put forward for that restriction was that in this country, at the beginning of the new system of the ombudsman—and the parliamentary commissioner was the first of the various commissioners that were established—nobody knew whether or not the floodgates would open and the intercession of a Member of Parliament was to avoid, as far as possible, that happening.
It is interesting that when we came to the health service commissioner—who is today the same person as the parliamentary commissioner but dealing with health service matters and not with maladministration by government departments—Parliament did not think it necessary to impose such a restraint, and that restraint does not apply. A citizen can go direct to the health service commissioner, who, as I said, is the same man as the parliamentary commissioner, but he still cannot go direct to the very same man in his capacity as parliamentary commissioner. I confess that I do not follow what basic principle is involved in that distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already referred to the position of the local commissioners. Therefore, even though the Select Committee did not come forward with this proposal—understandably, and no doubt having in mind the certain jealousy of the House it represents—I hope that the Government will take the view that it is a very small change from the practical change which was, in effect, forced upon the parliamentary commissioner by the fact that so many people wrote direct to him and he felt that it was absurd to reply saying, "I cannot deal with this until you go through a Member of Parliament". Therefore, he put the matters to Members of Parliament himself. It is a very small change and it seems to me it would be unnecessarily rigid for the Government to refuse to accept it. I very much hope that this time they will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: It is absolutely true, as the noble and learned Lord says, that in practice this amendment would do little more than formalise the current ad hoc arrangements for handling complaints from the general public submitted to the commissioner. The current arrangements seem to work satisfactorily, but perhaps that is rather a lame answer to a very well, characteristically expertly presented case.
Perhaps I may draw one or two other points to my aid in resisting the amendment since, for a reason which I shall come to finally, I feel it needs to be resisted. The first of the supplementary reasons which I would call to my aid is that the Select Committee took the view when it reviewed access to the commissioner in 1978 that direct access would be of no great benefit to the public. I know that is some time ago. The noble Lord said "Look at the health service" but, when one comes to look at the health service, the citizen cannot go direct the the health service commissioner. With respect, the complaint must go first to the local health authority for consideration. As the noble and learned Lord well knows, the situation

975
in the health service is a little different from the complaints coming to the parliamentary commissioner, in the sense that the complaints coming through the hospital service go to the commissioner eventually. The family practitioner service is in a rather different position.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I accept that. But surely the Minister would agree with me that the best practice, at any rate in relation to a complaint against a government department or one of the new bodies which will be added to the list is for the complaint to go first of all in exactly the same way to that body for a reply. It is only if the reply is unsatisfactory in the normal way that a complaint is then made to the parliamentary commissioner. In the same way as if the reply from the body complained about is unsatisfactory, the complaint goes to the health service commissioner direct.
Lord Belstead: With respect, I am not entirely sure I agree. That is why I added the last few words that the position in the health service as far as the health service commissioner is concerned is rather different from the position as far as the parliamentary commissioner is concerned. The parliamentary commissioner covers a very, very much wider area.
The noble and learned Lord has also called in aid the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the local commissioner. I hope noble Lords will not think I am being evasive when I say that I am well aware of the Widdicombe recommendation, but we must wait for the Government response on Widdicombe, which it is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to give.
Not only should decisions on Widdicombe not necessarily be considered to be a precedent for the parliamentary commissioner, but one needs to bear in mind that, in geographical terms, the position of the individual citizen vis á vis local government is rather different from that of the individual vis á vis a government department. Geographically the individual citizen stands much closer to local government: he can go and talk to them, even if he is preparing a complaint, whereas the individual citizen may be hundreds of miles away from a government department.
In addition, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is a defect here, in that the amendment does not contain a provision for the parliamentary commissoner to consult the complainant before referring the complaint to another place. That could be put right if the Government were accepting the amendment.
I come to the final point, and I fear we do not agree on this. I think this is a matter of principle, I hesitate to say this, as the noble and learned Lord was present in another place and took a leading part when the legislation was going through another place and I was not present. I only know this at second hand, but my understanding is that Parliament took the view that it was right that the individual citizen should be able to avail himself or herself of a right which everyone in the country has—that if the individual citizen feels he has
976
a complaint of maladministration against a government department he can, as the 1967 Act provides, go to his Member of Parliament, because everybody has a Member of Parliament. I feel the Government would not wish in this Bill to breach that principle.
It is because of that final reason that I am so resistant to what is otherwise a very reasonable amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I recollect the debates in another place on this matter in which I also took part. We were worried at that time about the floodgate fear—the fear that a flood of applications would come in from the individual citizen and that MPs might resent it and feel that they would be bypassed. However in practice what has been the experience of countries like New Zealand which have allowed direct access, as I believe to be the case, from the citizen to the ombudsman? We drew a great deal on the experience of New Zealand when we evolved this concept of the ombudsman, so I am not asserting that it has worked very well, but, if the Minister had any information on that, it might be of value and of great interest. Has there been such an indication that there would be a flood, if the citizen were to write directly to the ombudsman or approach him directly, I wonder? I doubt it very much.
I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin has rendered a service in opening this issue and it would be interesting to hear of the experience in other countries. I am bound to say, very cautiously, that as between one MP and another there is a good deal of difference. There is a certain reluctance of some constituents, so I am told, to make an approach through the Member of Parliament when an intelligent constituent with a grievance can perfectly well put it forward himself by direct approach. However, I may be treading on very dangerous ground in advancing that argument.
I think this deserves to be looked at again, particularly in the light of experience in other countries of similar standards of democracy, education and good public practice.
Lord Winstanley: I have no wish to prolong the discussion but from this Bench I should like to confirm every word which the noble and learned Lord has said regarding the debates and discussions in 1967, in which I too took part. I am absolutely certain that the considerations which led another place at that time to take this decision are no longer valid. It was taken because of the fears of what might happen rather than what has actually happened and because of feelings about the rights of MPs. The fear was that as a Member one was suddenly going to be bypassed. I believe the objections to this procedure advanced at that time are certainly not valid now and would not be advanced now were the Bill to be brought in in a new situation.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his intervention and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who put three points to me. The first was: are the Government really saying that the floodgates would be opened? As I understood the noble and learned Lord, that was a fear in the mind of the Government as they were legislating

977
in 1967 and it was one of the reasons—although there was also the reason of principle, as I understand it—why this matter was confined to complaints through Members of another place. I have received no advice that it is believed that the floodgates would be opened. On the other hand, as I understand it, we have no evidence that the current arrangements operate other than satisfactorily, nor do we have evidence—except the eloquent evidence of this evening—that there is great pressure for change from the general public so far as that is concerned.
The second question that the noble and learned Lord put to me concerned what happens in other countries and in particular New Zealand. I have to admit that I do not have that information with me this evening. It occurs to me that the population of New Zealand is a little different from the population of this country. Therefore I think that it is fair for me to argue that the effects of a direct complaints system in New Zealand would be rather different in New Zealand than they would be here. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I shall try to obtain more information and write to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on this point before the next stage of the Bill.
That leads me to the third point that was made by the noble and learned Lord. He said that frankly there was a thought in the minds of those legislating, and maybe of Members in another place generally when the original Bill was passing through Parliament, that this was the preserve of Members in another place. I confess that the Government feel that. I must be honest and admit that I should be very hesitant indeed about wanting to urge within the Government that in this Chamber we should make such a change to the parent legislation. Perhaps the Committee will think that I should not say that and that it is not right for me to do so; nevertheless I am hesitant on that point.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to write about the situation in New Zealand, and I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I listened with very great care to the Minister's remarks. I hope he will forgive me when I say that of all the points that he made the last was the only one that I found had any great force in it and the question of whether we might be thought to be trespassing on the preserves of a Chamber which at the moment has a monopoly rather exercised my mind before I put down this amendment. Certainly that is so after the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, withdrew his amendment.
If I withdraw my amendment at this stage, as I intend to do, without prejudice to the future, I cannot help feeling that it may perhaps give an opportunity to the Government to consult the Select Committee on whether it has any strong views of the kind suggested by the Minister. Indeed, the parliamentary commissioner himself may have a view—I have a fairly strong recollection that his predecessor did—about the question of the intercession of a Member of Parliament. It becomes a little unreal at times.
978
When I was in the other place from time to time I received letters from people who were not my constituents saying, "I should be very grateful if you would take this matter up with the parliamentary commissioner". I would write back and say, "You are not my constituent. Why don't you take it to your own Member of Parliament?" Back would come the reply: "I have been to him before but I don't trust him", or "He has a different political persuasion than I have and I do not want to go through him", and so on. That is why, when the Bill was passed into law, it did not state "the complainant's Member of Parliament"; it simply said "a Member of Parliament". There are over 600 of them and any one of them can be invited to take up the matter.
Having said that, I agree with the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones about other jurisdictions. I may be quite wrong, but I believe that we are the only country that has the ombudsman system with the fence or sieve of the Member of Parliament; but that matter can be looked at and reviewed by those who advise the Minister. If it is so, and I appreciate that this concerns different countries and different people, at least it is some evidence that the principle on which the Minister rests is not considered to be a principle elsewhere and also that the flood has not made it necessary for such a filter to be introduced.
I think that this point is perhaps the most important matter that we shall be discussing and I am sure that it will be given very careful attention before the next stage of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Delegation of Parliamentary Commissioner's functions to officers.
At the end of section 3(2) of the 1967 Act (which provides that any function of the Commissioner under the Act may be performed by any officer of the Commissioner authorised for that purpose by the Commissioner) there shall be added the words "or may be performed by any officer so authorized—

(a) of the Health Service Commissioner for England;

(b) of the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; or

(c) of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales".").

The noble Lord said: When the original legislation establishing the health service commissioners was passed, there was a provision that a health service commissioner could authorise not only his own officers but those of any other health service commissioner or the parliamentary commissioner to act on his behalf, thus allowing the most effective use of the total staff. For example, if a joint investigation were required into a complaint which turned out to relate to both jurisdictions, it might be sensible for the same staff to work on both aspects of the complaint.
We believe that the Bill provides a useful opportunity to introduce the parallel provision by allowing the commissioner, when he considers it appropriate, to delegate authority to staff on the health service side to carry out PCA functions. I beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am very sorry but I am not sure whether the Minister is moving Amendment No. 4 separately from the others?
Lord Belstead: I was there moving Amendment No. 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation and disclosure of information.
.—(1) In section 11 of the 1967 Act (provision for secrecy of information), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Where the Commissioner also holds office as a Health Service Commissioner and a person initiates a complaint to him in his capacity as such a Commissioner which relates partly to a matter with respect to which that person has previously initiated a complaint under this Act, or subsequently initiates such a complaint, information obtained by the Commissioner or his officers in the course of or for the purposes of investigating the complaint under this Act may be disclosed for the purposes of his carrying out his functions in relation to the other complaint.".
(2) The following section shall be inserted after that section—

"Consultations between Parliamentary Commissioner and Health Service Commissioners.

11A.—(1) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Act, the Commissioner forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioner for England, Wales or Scotland, he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as that Commissioner, consult about the complaint with him; and

(b) if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977 (Health Service Commissioner for England and for Wales) or, as the case may be, Part VI of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (Health Service Commissioner for Scotland).

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above the Commissioner consults with the Health Service Commissioner in relation to a complaint under this Act, he may consult him about any matter relating to the complaint, including—

(a) the conduct 'of any investigation into the complaint; and

(b) the form, content and publication of any report of the results of such an investigation.

(3) Nothing in section 11(2) of this Act shall apply in relation to the disclosure of information by the Commissioner or any of his officers in the course of consultations held in accordance with this section.".

(3) In section 118 of the 1977 Act (consultations between Health Service Commissioners and Local Commissioners)—
(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Part of this Act, the Commissioner conducting the investigation forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be subject of an investigation under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as the Parliamentary Commissioner, consult about the complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner, and

(b) if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Part of this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

980
(1B) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under this Part of this Act, the Commissioner conducting the investigation forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter within the jurisdiction of another Health Service Commissioner (whether under this Part of this Act or under Part VI of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978), he shall—

(a) unless he also holds office as that other Health Service Commissioner, consult about the complaint with him; and

(b)if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint under this Part of this Act of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint to the other Health Service Commissioner."; and

(c) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to "any", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Where a Commissioner consults with another Commissioner in accordance with this section the consultations may extend to".

(4) In Schedule 13 to that Act (provisions as to investigations by Health Service Commissioner for England and for Wales), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 16—
" 16A.—(1) Where the Commissioner also holds office as a relevant commissioner and a person initiates a complaint to him in his capacity as such a commissioner which relates partly to a matter with respect to which that person has previously initiated a compliant to him in his capacity as the Commissioner, or subsequently initiates such a complaint, information obtained by the Commissioner or his officers in the course of or for the purposes of the investigation under Part V of this Act may be disclosed for the purposes of his carrying out his functions in relation to the other complaint.
(2) In this paragraph "relevant commissioner"—

(a) in relation to the Health Service Commissioner for England, means the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; and

(b) in relation to the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, means the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner for England and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland.".

(5) The following section shall be inserted after section 95 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978—

"Consulting other Commissioners.

95A.—(1) Where, at any stage in the course of conducting in investigation under this Part, the Commissioner forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation under—(a) the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; or

(b) Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977,

he shall, if he considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 or, as the case may be, Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977.

(2) In the circumstances described in subsection (1), the Commissioner shall consult the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Health Service Commissioner for England or for Wales, as appropriate, about the complaint (unless he also holds office as that other Commissioner) and such consultation may extend to any matter relating to the complaint, including—

(a) the conduct of any investigation into the complaint; and

(b) the form, content and publication of any report of the results of such an investigation; and the application by section 95 of section 11(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 shall not extend to the disclosure of information by the Commissioner or any of his officers in the course of such consultations.

(3) Where the Commissioner also holds office as any of the other Commissioners mentioned in subsection (2) and a person initiates a complaint to

The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to fulfil an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, which I repeated in this Chamber, that some provision should be made for consultation and exchanges between the parliamentary commissioner and the health service commissioners if the offices were not all held by a single person, as they are at present. Perhaps I may stress that the Government do not have in mind that there should be a change to the present plan of having the same man responsible but are simply bringing this measure forward as what they believe to be a prudent procedure. The only trouble is that the prudent procedure has turned into an immensely long amendment.
Very briefly the amendment has the following effect. Subsections (2), (3) and (5) so far as Section 95A, subsections (1) and (2) are concerned, provide for consultation and the exchange of information between commissioners where offices are held separately, and they deal in turn with the parliamentary commissioner, the Health Service Commissioners for England and Wales and the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland. Each subsection provides that if the relevant commissioner receives a complaint that seems to him to involve the responsibilities of another commissioner, he should consult the other commissioner about the complaint and if necessary inform the complainant of the possibility of making a second linked complaint. The commissioners would then be able to co-operate over the further conduct of the investigation, and that is provided for as well.
There is a little more to it than that. There are the remaining subsections, subsections (1) and (4) and Section 95A(3) in subsection (5), which relate to the present use of information when the different offices of commissioner are held, as they are, by a single person. I hope that I do not need to spell out the effect of these subsections. They simply have very much the same effect as regards the exchange of information when that situation occurs. This is all contained in what is an exceedingly long amendment, for which I must apologise, and which I now beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, Amendment No 6:
In subsection (1), in the inserted subsection (2A), line 8, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of that person").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. They all raise the same point. I begin by echoing what the Minister said and express my regret that what seemed to be in the other place and earlier here a very simple matter should apparently take three pages of the statute book to give effect to it. It is unfortunate. I never like to hold
982
myself out as being better at parliamentary drafting than the parliamentary draftsmen, but one wonders whether it could not have been reduced to simpler language.
The amendments are intended not to raise some great point of principle, because in a sense that has already been given away in earlier legislation as between the health service commissioner and the local commissioner, but to query whether it is right that information deriving from a complaint taken by the commissioner, in one capacity the health service commissioner, should, as it were, be passed to the second gentleman or a different gentleman, if it should happen to be so, investigating a different complaint in a different capacity. On the face of it, that seems to be going against the rules of privacy to which all governments in recent times have given effect.
The sort of case that one has in mind is a complaint made to the health service commissioner as a result of which he discovers that at some previous time the complainant had been a psychiatric patient. This may affect the mind of the same gentleman acting as parliamentary commissioner dealing with some other complaint of the complainant as to the reality of a complaint that he makes. Is that right? That is the point that I put to the Government rather than dogmatically asserting one view or another.
It does not look as though the particular point has been considered before. At any rate, it did not come up in the debates in the other place or in the reports at which we are looking for the purposes of the Bill. I wonder whether it has been considered; if so, whether any view has been taken about it or whether, as would be perfectly natural—I would not complain—it has simply been overlooked. If it has been considered, no doubt the Minister will give a view about it. If it has not been considered, no doubt he will look at it between now and the next stage.
Lord Belstead: The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, refer to the case where the commissioner is, as he is at present, holding all the positions in the person of one man. The government amendments make clear that the commissioner not only can hold information jointly in carrying out his offices but may also use it. I say that only because I rather slurred over the effect of the last part of our amendments.
The noble and learned Lord is saying to the Government: but have the Government thought of the fact that some confidentiality is needed so far as the complainant is concerned? If I may say so, there are three matters here. First, the complainant will have lodged both complaints with the commissioner, will presumably be anxious to see them pursued and can be presumed to be willing to be wanting to co-operate fully to ensure this. That of course does not prove the matter. What the noble and learned Lord has said remains to some extent open.
In answer to the main thrust of the noble and learned Lord's remarks, I stress that we are not discussing open publication here. The noble and learned Lord will recall that the disclosure of the information is only to those directly involved and to the extent necessary to carry forward the investigation.

983
Indeed, the commissioner's reports are well vetted before publication to avoid publication of sensitive material or identification of the complainant. Thirdly, however, with respect, I know that administrative convenience is never a good argument, but this would unnecessarily complicate the process of investigation. It would require the commissioner to seek the consent of the complainant at a number of stages in the investigation as new information becomes available.
That is another, though subsidiary, reason why with respect I think that the amendment—though I well understand why the noble and learned Lord has brought it forward—is unnecessary.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am concerned about the element of difficulty in added time that would be involved in what my noble and learned friend proposes; namely, the requirement of consent in this odd situation where, almost inevitably, the rule for the protection of privacy is being overruled by virtue of the same man performing different functions. I wonder whether the suggestion of requiring consent would complicate matters unnecessarily, ultimately possibly to the detriment of the person complaining. Perhaps that might be thought about.
Lord Belstead: I shall look at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said on the matter before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful for that. I have done what I intended. In consideration of what the Minister has said—that this will be looked at in general before the next stage, although I understand of course that he gives no undertaking—I feel that my duty has been done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, as amendments to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Reports by Health Service Commissioners: further provision]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the Committee for my inability to be present at Second Reading. I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. Had I been present, I should have made a speech indicating my desire to increase the powers of the health service commissioner to investigate complaints regarding clinical judgment.
It seems to me that Clause 3 is the only clause that deals with a slight extension of the powers of the health service commissioner. As I was not present at Second Reading, I did not feel I could table an amendment in Committee, but I propose to do so on Report. I felt that it was correct that I should so inform the Minister. I do not of course expect an answer today; neither do I object that Clause 3 stand part.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me warning of her intention to table an amendment regarding clinical judgment. I am aware that this matter was debated at some length in another place, and I was interested that it was not to be debated here. My interest has been met with clarification because it clearly will be debated, and the noble Baroness has kindly so warned me. I will endeavour on behalf of the Government to be ready to reply on that occasion.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 170 not moved.]
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 170ZA:
Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The collective community charge due to a local authority in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year shall be the precise sum collected in respect of the collective community charge received by the owner of premises in respect of which the collective charge is payable, less any management fee prescribed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170ZA with which it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.
Lord Glenarthur: Will the noble and learned Lord repeat the grouping that he gave so that I do not get into a muddle? There may have been a slight change.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I hope that I am not in error. According to my grouping, it is Amendments Nos. 170ZA, 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. There has been a certain amount of paper flying around and I wanted to ensure that I was dealing with the right bit.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am conscious of the paper myself. The idea behind this group of amendments derives from the view of those of us on these Benches that the collective community multiplier is unworkable and unfair as currently defined. The effect of the amendment would be to move away from the idea of the multiplier. The logic behind the amendment is that if landlords are obliged to keep a detailed record of the amounts received by them in collective community charge contributions from residents, they should merely pay that precise amount to the levying authority.
The multiplier reflects a broad brush approach which may well lead to one of two situations, or perhaps both. Some landlords may lose money

985
because their occupancy rate is lower than the multiplier assumes, and some landlords may profit from contributions by residents if their multiplier is too low. As how frequently the multiplier is to be reviewed by the registration officer is not specified, it is unlikely that unscrupulous landlords would draw the registration officer's attention to the fact that their multiplier is too low. We present these amendments against that background.
The Committee will see that Amendment No. 174 provides:
"The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to a management fee amounting to four per cent. (or such other proportion as may be prescribed) of the collective community charge contributions collected in respect of these premises.".
I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that the noble and learned Lord referred to Amendment No. 174, which I do not think is included in this group. I think that he meant to refer to Amendment No. 174A. Amendment No. 174 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and myself. I did not understand it to be in this group. If the noble and learned Lord was speaking to Amendment No. 174 and not No. 174A, I shall continue my argument in favour of Amendment No. 174, but I hope not at this stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: According to the grouping which I have, it includes Amendment No. 174A.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble and learned Lord mentioned Amendment No. 174, which is why I got to my feet. If it is not in the group, I shall sit down again quickly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In that case I shall rise. I shall speak to the group mentioned by my noble and learned friend. I shall not repeat it. I would not object to this tax if it were called a tax. It is a sales tax. I am sorry to pain the Minister, but it is extraordinarily annoying to call it a community charge. It is probably true that transient people passing through an area taking advantage of services should pay tax, but this is a straight sales tax levied on boarding-house keepers and others who have transient people staying with them and from whom they make a living. It has nothing to do with accountability, which is the Bill's great central theme.
The charge has some virtue as a sales tax which is collected from people who would not otherwise pay anything towards the services they use, but accountability there is none and fairness there is little. It will place a tremendous burden on the chap who keeps an establishment. We have already spoken about that. We tabled an amendment saying that he should receive a payment of 4 per cent. That may even encourage him to collect more, because there will be great trouble collecting this tax. It is complex. It is unfair as a community charge but not as a sales tax.
We have tabled this group of amendments to draw attention to the way the tax is misnamed, to the way it places an unfair burden on the people who must
986
collect it and because it has nothing to do with accountability or making people face up to the need to control the expenditure of their local authority. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I do not suggest that they are all perfect but they express a point of view which needs to be expressed and understood.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I think I indicated earlier the basic purpose of the collective community charge. It may help if I go further and explain the purpose of the multiplier. In dealing with this fairly broad group of amendments, it may be helpful if I give a general explanation of how it works. I shall try to keep it as short as I can.
The multiplier aims to reflect the typical occupancy rate of the premises when multiplied by the level of the personal community charge payable in the area to provide income to the local authority broadly equivalent to what it would have received if it had been possible to register all the residents individually and charge them the personal community charge.
Subsection (7), which would be deleted by Amendment No. 170A, provides that if the collective community charge multiplier changes in the course of the financial year, it shall be assumed that the new multiplier shall remain in effect until the end of that financial year. The purpose of this provision is simply to allow for the calculation and billing of the collective community charge. In many cases the multiplier will change in the course of a financial year as the person liable for the charge agrees with the registration officer that it should go up or down to reflect the changes in the number of people generally resident in the premises.
In order that bills may be issued and schedules of instalments established, however, it is necessary to make an assumption both at the beginning of the year and when the collective community charge multiplier is changed that the multiplier (or, as the case may be, the new multiplier) will remain in force for the remainder of the year. I could give an instance but I hope that I may be able to develop the theme a little further and come back if the noble Lord would like an example.
Subsection (8) of the clause simply provides that the collective community charge multiplier is a number to be determined by the registration officer. This is qualified by subsection (9) which sets out the criteria on which the registration officer will determine the multiplier in any given case. The main element in his determination will be the number of people who are solely or mainly resident in the premises and who would, but for the exemption provided for by Clause 8(7)(b), be liable to pay personal community charge. This means, for instance, that people under the age of 18 are not taken into account in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. The effect of the calculation will be to produce broadly the same revenue from those living in the premises as would be produced if those liable for the personal community charge were registered for it.
Subsection (9) also provides that in determining the collective community charge multiplier the

987
registration officer should have regard to such other factors as may be prescribed. The factors to be prescribed will in due course be the subject of consultation with registration officers and other interested bodies. We envisage, however, that such factors as likely fluctuations in the number of people solely or mainly in the residence and the difficulty of collection of the collective community charge contributions may be prescribed as considerations to be taken into account in the calculation of the multiplier.
In place of this clear and precise procedure for the assessment of liability, these amendments propose a system whereby the amount of collective community charge due would depend entirely on the word of the person due to pay it, subject only to checking from a record which would not be difficult to falsify. That would leave scope for large-scale evasion of the collective community charge by unscrupulous landlords. I do not think that that can be fair to the local authority, to the residents who would be required to pay the collective community charge contributions, or indeed to community charge payers as a whole. The provisions that we propose make for certainty as to the collective community charge liability due in respect of any premises as opposed to the inevitable uncertainty which would arise if these amendments were accepted.
If a management fee were to be provided for, as Amendment No. 174A proposes, it would be more appropriate for it to be expressed as a deduction from the collective community charge liability of the landlord. We consider that it is reasonable that landlords should be allowed some consideration for the work that they will have to undertake in collecting collective community charge contributions. To that extent I am sympathetic to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord in principle. But we consider that a better mechanism for achieving this would be to build into the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier an element taking account of that consideration. We shall therefore consider this matter carefully in the course of discussions about the factors which should be prescribed under Clause 11(9)(b). I consider, however, that the basic mechanism of the collective community charge multiplier is flexible and sound. I hope, with that detailed explanation of what the multiplier is, the noble Lord will feel that some explanation has been helpful and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Lord clear my mind? Does he mean that there will be a fixed charge on the establishment based on the capacity of the establishment, or that he would calculate on the numbers there? I have not been sure on this point.
Lord Glenarthur: I ought to have the answer to a technical question such as this at my fingertips. That may be a point on which I shall have to elucidate the noble Lord. Perhaps I ought to study this question. I may well mislead the noble Lord if I were to answer him directly. I fear that I may be giving him inaccurate information.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are including in this group Amendment No. 170Z13—which is in the
988
names of myself and my colleagues—and also Amendments Nos. 170AA and 174B. We have to face up to the difficulties for the owner of the establishment which contains these people who are to be subject to the strange procedure of being there for two or three nights and having to pay an amount which we do not yet know. The calculation is to be made in this case by the registration officer without much guidance from the Government by prescription. The registration officer is the man who makes the decision about what the multiplier is to be. That is a difficult decision, especially when one considers the changes that take place.
In Amendment No. 170ZB I suggest that the liability calculation will be restricted to the amount collected. This point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. However, we go a little further and say that any amount that was expected but was not received will be made good by the Secretary of State making an appropriate grant payment to the relevant local authority.
Regarding Amendment No. 170AA, if we wish to keep the situation up to date and as accurate as possible, the register has to be kept up to date. At page 10, line 40, we suggest a new sub-paragraph which reads:
"The collective community multiplier specified in relation to any premises in the register shall be subject to a monthly reassessment by the registration officer".
This is necessary because the registration officer could be widely wrong either to the advantage or disadvantage of the owner of the premsies. That situation requires looking at and something needs to be done.
Amendment No. 174B states:
"The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to receive a central government grant equivalent to the administrative expenses incurred in collecting the community charge contribution from persons resident".
There is no doubt that this is a very easy way to collect taxes, to say "you will do it". It is one thing for someone to do it personally—and there will be some questions about that matter—but to ask someone to become an unpaid tax collector is too much.
Before we finish with the Bill, which will be some time yet, I should like the Minister to give his views more clearly in respect of the percentage of the calculations and work that has to be done by the person responsible for the payment of the collective community charge to the levying authority. Then we will have an idea whether or not he is being reasonably fair to the people concerned.
We cannot spend too much time discussing these matters at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill. When I consider the time which was lost earlier before we were able to start, and the time that was taken up by the interruption by other legislation, no doubt the Scots will get the blame for keeping the Chamber up. It has nothing to do with us at all. There were two introductions and then another Bill which went way beyond the time expected. I am emphasising that as usual we are silent, efficient, and as brief as we possibly can be.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have not even sat down, but if the noble Lord wishes to intervene then I shall be delighted to sit down for a minute.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I know he is keen to hear some answers to the points which he raised concerning Amendments Nos. 170ZB and 170AA. Perhaps I may say, without repeating the explanation which I have given concerning the question of the basic purpose of the collective community charge multiplier, that Amendment No. 170ZB is similar to Amendment 170ZA with the difference that the Secretary of State has to make good any shortfall between the sum collected by the owner of premises subject to the collective community charge, and what is described as the invoiced liability.
I have already explained, although maybe not entirely to the noble Lord's satisfaction, why the procedure for assessing liability as set out in the Bill is to be preferred, and the disadvantages inherent in relying on the word of the landlord in regard to the number of residents, and why I must resist this amendment as well as the earlier one.
Amendment No. 170AA runs counter to the specific provisions in Clause 15(1)(b), which states:
"no amendment of the collective community charge multiplier in respect of any premises shall be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed after the date when the current entry in the register is made or takes effect".
It is recognised that there may well be a need to adjust the multiplier from time to time to take account of changes in occupancy rates or in accommodation available. There is also need to guard against persons liable for the collective community charge making unreasonably frequent requests for changes to the multiplier and thereby wasting the registration officer's time. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that as far as concerns monthly reassessment of the multiplier, I believe that is unnecessary because the setting of the multiplier is subject to appeal under Clause 16. In many cases the multiplier will not significantly change and it would be unduly onerous to require the frequent reassessment for which the noble Lord asks.
As for guidance from the Government to try to help pave the way for such a situation, I think the factors to be used in calculating the multiplier, and the fact that they are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, will help because we intend that there will be full consultation with the interested parties concerned before the regulations are made. Perhaps I may end by clarifying a point which I was unable to clear with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on the point he raised concerning the last amendment and say that actual use for residential periods is the criterion which he was concerned about.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought that the Minister was just interrupting me. May I say to him that if the Secretary of State had to pay £2.40 for every "prescription" that is in this Bill, to which he refers sometimes two or three times within a single paragraph, I think we should be pretty well off and he
990
would be able to reduce the community charge very considerably.
I listened to what the Minister said. I did not learn very much and certainly did not agree with many of the things he said about preferring this and preferring that. He did not quite say why he preferred it, although I know he did; otherwise it would not be in the Bill at all. But I shall not press my amendments at this stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am not sure that the Minister has convinced me that certainty, in the context of these amendments, will be achieved by the provisions of the Bill as they stand, but I am most grateful to him for the very careful and detailed reply which he has presented to the Committee. I will not say that I shall read it with pleasure because I get less and less pleasure out of reading anything to do with this Bill, but I shall certainly read it with interest and come back on these matters only if I think there is no escape from doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170ZB, 170A, 170AA, 170E and 170C not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 171:
Page II, line 15, leave out (", apart from this subsection,")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
My Amendment No. 171 seeks to improve the drafting of subsection (10) paragraph (b) by removing the words "apart from this subsection". These words imply that subsection (10) creates a form of liability for the collective community charge. That is not the case, and, since the words are not essential, it is preferable that they should be removed. However, it is necessary to retain the provision of subsection (10)(b) that a person who is liable for the collective community charge itself should not also be liable for a collective community charge contribution.
Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would delete that provision and replace it by something rather different aimed at ensuring that someone who was liable to pay the personal community charge should not find himself in the position of being liable to pay also a contribution towards the collective community charge. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that the present paragraph (c) of subsection (10) has precisely that effect. In case there were any doubt on this point, any overpayment made in these circumstances where misunderstanding had arisen would be repayable under subsection (16) of the clause. It is therefore impossible for one person to be liable to pay both a personal community charge and a contribution towards the collective community charge in respect of the same period.
These provisions provide a satisfactory protection for those who may find themselves in difficulty in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept my amendment and that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 172.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is giving a hostage to fortune when a Minister says it is impossible to do something under this Bill. Anything can happen under this Bill, and I dare say somebody will find himself down to pay twice. The Minister's confidence in the system which has been worked out and which has caused us some headaches today is rather misplaced. I thought he was going to accept my amendment when I saw that he was leaving out the words "apart from this subsection", as was I, but I then went on to say something much more constructive which I knew would not do at all. However, I shall not argue with him at this time today.
I think my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has something to say. Depending on what that is, I shall make up my mind as to whether I continue with my amendment or defer to the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I was going to ask this. How does the person in charge of the collective community establishment know whether somebody is liable to pay a personal community charge? Is it just because some character turns up and says, "I have been thrown out of the house by my spouse. I need a bed for the night. I am registered to pay a personal community charge and therefore I do not need to pay my collective community charge contribution for the night"? Alternatively, is somebody to give him a certificate showing that he is registered for the personal community charge somewhere in Scotland; or is the housekeeper of the establishment to keep a register of the whole of Scotland showing who is liable to pay a personal community charge and where? How is one to know whether somebody who turns up at night for a bed at somewhere such as the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is liable to pay a personal community charge or has paid it?
Lord Glenarthur: Presumably the answer lies in the fact that the appropriate register will contain details of the person's previous address. If someone turns up for a very short period in the way that the noble Lord suggests, that will be taken account of because it will be possible to trace it through the address given and see what that place was. That is a way of verifying it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord's answer implies that everybody in charge of a homeless persons' establishment has a complete register of people who pay the personal charge throughout Scotland. It also implies that at 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night he has the ability to check whether somebody, who may not be totally sober at the time he turns up for a bed, is giving the right address and whether he has paid the personal community charge before he knows whether he is liable to charge him that night for his 365th personal community charge. It seems to me to be a ludicrous system, and I do not understand how it is supposed to work.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can go much further than to say that the individual paying the personal community charge will presumably have a receipt. The noble Lord must not interrupt me, as he looks as though he is about to do, before I have explained what it is he has asked me to explain. He will
992
have a receipt, and if he is wrongly charged he has a right to reclaim that amount under subsection (16). It seems to me that both those conditions (subsection (16) and the fact that he will have that receipt) are designed to protect the individual concerned in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting should be done by another means.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With all respect, will the Minister look at subsection (16)? It reads:
"A person to whom there has been paid".
That is not the person who has wrongly paid a collective community charge. That is the recipient of it; the landlord. He has a duty to repay that sum. I was going to ask, when we come to consider this clause, how the poor landlord will be able to trace half of the wanderers who move about the countryside and may or may not carry with them their receipts for their personal community charge.
This is a new concept. I do not carry with me my receipt for rates. I must learn the habit, but so must the whole of Scotland apparently in case we suddenly become homeless because of a fire in the house, or whatever, and go into one of these establishments and have to satisfy the keeper that we have paid our personal community charge. How are we to do that? Do we have a tag around our neck which is stamped by the local authority? This illustrates the complete stupidity of the whole scheme as regards people who go in and out of such establishments.
Subsection (16) is absolutely weird. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister has any conception of what these establishments are like. How do you trace some of the people who choose to wander about the countryside and say, "I am terribly sorry, but on the 23rd March I took a collective community charge off you and I have to give it you back"? How do you find him? There is some element of idiocy at large in working this out. It is completely unworkable.
Lord Glenarthur: I hear what the noble Lord says. The landlord can consult the public register. That is the first point. Nor need this particular matter—the noble Lord is always very ready to hear half an argument, or half an answer, without hearing the whole thing. Perhaps if he bore with me for a moment or two—I will come back to the general point in a moment—he would understand that it is not necessary for this sort of issue, which I understand he is concerned about, to be sorted out immediately someone arrives at the collective community charge premises. Indeed that seems to me to be largely the purpose of subsection (16) which the noble Lord writes off as not being relevant.
I accept that a system which is new, and which many people need to understand, will not be achieved necessarily overnight. I shall certainly note the noble Lord's points and the concerns he raises. No doubt he will study what I have said in the same way that I shall study what he has said. If we both do that, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In this case I have a certain sympathy with the Minister. If the floater or drifter goes along and does not have his little bit of paper, he

993
will be charged the community charge, and either the community will gain or the landlord will gain. I should have thought that very soon any chap who was drifting around these places, if he has paid the community charge, will carry his little bit of paper. In this case, in this miserable one little instance, the Minister may be right and they would actually carry the receipt around with them.
Lord Glenarthur: I think it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Morton, to decide whether it is a miserable little issue or not. It is not a matter for me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think we can solve this quite easily. We are going into the Recess on Thursday. It is quite a lengthy Recess. There are plenty of Salvation Army hostels in Glasgow. The Government will be able to talk to the people there, to the owner of the place, and go to some of the other places. The Great Eastern was mentioned. The Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is still open. Quite a number of Americans have turned up at the Great Eastern Hotel not realising that it was a model lodging house.
We take it that the Minister will report back to us at the next stage of the Bill just how simple all this is going to be and how people carry around these receipts. These drifters will probably carry their American Express receipts, because they will pay for this. How much is it per night? It will amount to 50p, or something or other. You do not take risks carrying too much money around certain places, and they will probably pay by American Express. This will show how easy it is in that respect. I am sure that one of the Ministers of the Scottish Office will undertake the duty to go there.
The Minister had his turn and went to see the nurses yesterday. So somebody can go to the model lodging house and these establishments next week and duly report back to us how easy it is going to be to do all this kind of thing about registering people, seeing the receipts, and how they are able to do this without a register. I do not know who is going to have this complete register. We shall come to registers later. That is going to be another interesting part of the proceedings. I find it difficult to understand, knowing something about these places. Many of these places had voters so you discovered what they were like and how people moved around. Therefore one realises how unrealistic an awful lot of this is in respect of the collective charge.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 26 and insert (", for each day of his residence in the premises, pay to the person liable under this section for that collective community charge an amount equal to the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) below divided by the number in paragraph (b) below—
(a) the amount in this paragraph is—

(i) the sum of the personal community charges determined in respect of that year by each local authority; or

994

(ii) (in the case of an islands council) the amount of the personal community charge determined in respect of that year by the local authority in the area of which the premises are situated;

b) the number of days in that year, (and such a payment is referred to in this section as a "collective community charge contribution".)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 160 on Clause 10, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert ("if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment.").
The noble Lord said: I understand noble Lords opposite are very keen that I should move this amendment, and I shall do so. It is another attempt to help the Government over their difficulties on this matter. Dealing with the wanderers, it seems impossible that these poor landlords should have to hunt about Scotland or elsewhere to find them and repay them their 50p, or whatever they have paid overnight. The amendment that I am moving would add at the end the words:
"if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment".
I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not always intend to indicate that what the noble Lord is suggesting in his amendments is not beyond the realms of possibility and that perhaps every single corner he turns to in the Bill is not one which we could look at. I can say that I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment. I also have to say to him that I am a little concerned that the drafting may not make it exactly clear that it is the person to whom repayment of the sum is due who must claim repayment within three months of the date of payment. If the noble Lord is happy to take it away on the understanding that Y accept the point he makes, I would hope to be able to come forward with something on these lines later.
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the understanding that my English is going to be improved by the Government, that is something I shall look forward to seeing. I thought it was fairly clear that what I meant was that the person to whom the repayment was due had to claim it back within three months. If that is not clear, I shall be delighted to see how the Government in six lines can make it clearer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies on that further point, I wonder whether I may point out that a limitation period of three months for the establishment of a civil action is a very short period indeed. When my noble friend is looking further at this matter will he bear in mind that much longer periods of limitation for the claiming of money are acknowledged by the law generally?
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly bear my noble friend's point in mind. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I sincerely hope that six lines will not be necessary to encompass what he believes is required.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If I have not sat down by begging leave to withdraw this amendment, if I may I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are dealing with, so to speak, one night's community charge, which is one three-hundred-and-sixty-fifth of, say, £250. The landlord, if that is the right word, will have paid that at some point to the local authority—probably monthly. There is a good deal of bookkeeping involved. If at the end of three years, which is the normal limit of civil liability, there is a liability to repay, I should have thought it could become far too complicated. However, I again beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: I am not suggesting that the normal limitation period of three years would be appropriate in these circumstances. What I am saying is that a period of three months appears to be disproportionately short in the particular circumstances which arise here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174A and 174B not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12[Community Charges Registration Officer]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it Amendments Nos. 177, 181 and 184A. The purpose of the amendment is to give flexibility to a local authority in order that it may itself decide whom to appoint as community charges registration officer. Certain authorities may wish the registration and collection functions to be controlled by the same official—for example, the director of finance—so that there is potential for a speedier and more effective flow of information to improve the follow-up of arrears. As I said, it is a fairly simple amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope the noble Lord will understand that it is important that the registration officer should have, and should be seen to have, a considerable degree of independence from the local authority. He will be responsible for establishing and keeping up to date the register which will be the basis of the new system, and it must be clear that he should be able to do so in terms of the general duty set out in subsection (4)—which I think we shall discuss on the next group of amendments—without any suggestion that the local authority should be able to interfere with his exercise of that duty.
Against that background, a number of very strong arguments point towards the designation of the
996
assessor as registration officer for community charges purposes. The assessor is already statutorily responsible for drawing up the valuation roll. His appointment as community charges registration officer therefore recognises the importance of the relationship between the valuation roll and the new register. In establishing the basis for the new system, the twin tasks of identifying domestic subjects and part residential subjects in the valuation roll and registering those resident in them or otherwise liable to pay one of the community charges must go hand in hand if the system is to operate satisfactorily. It is therefore only common sense that the assessor, who will in any case have responsibility for the first of these functions, should also have responsibility for the second.
The appointment of the assessor as community charges registration officer ensures automatically that the degree of independence from the local authority already enjoyed by the assessor will be carried over, as is necessary, to the appointment of the community charges registration officer. A further argument for the appointment of the assessor is that, although he is not statutorily required to be so, he is at present in all cases the electoral registration officer for the area and will have registration expertise, albeit, as we shall see later, of a rather different kind from that which will be required for operating the rolling community charges register. All these arguments point to the conclusion that it is right in principle and sensible in practice to give the functions of community charges registration officer to the assessor.
I turn now to Amendment No. 184A, which would delete the provision whereby a regional or islands council is required to secure the provision of sufficient staff, accommodation and other resources to enable the registration officer to perform his functions under the Bill. It is quite clear that that provision is an essential matter to go hand in hand with the establishment of the independent post of community charges registration officer, as I have described it. To accept this amendment would not be in the interests of the connection between those two roles. I hope that with that speedy explanation of what is entailed the noble Lord will feel somewhat reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have only one point to make. We had a very interesting discussion on Clause 11. The registration officer is mentioned three times in that clause. He is given certain powers. He has to determine in respect of premises whether or not they are collective premises. Having given him those powers we then proceed to appoint him. He is not mentioned before. Suddenly in Clause 12 it says,
"There shall be a Community Charges Registration Officer".
It is nice to know that in Clause 12, when we have been talking about him in Clause 11 without any definition. It is a haywire and, as we might say in Scotland, a Highland way of doing things. I am thinking of the broken-down computer under which they are labouring in the Highlands according to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Having talked about the officer and given him duties in Clause 11, it is nonsensical then to say, "We had better appoint him".
Lord Glenarthur: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. However, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 26 under "Interpretation" he will see that where it refers to registration officer in Clause 11 it:
"means a Community Charges Registration Officer within the meaning of section 12".
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is even better.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that that is too complicated. I accept that it might not be as simple as having a separate interpretation clause for Clause 11. However, that takes us back to the whole interpretation argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Gray, today and last week.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Then we had better include an instruction saying, "To understand this Bill in respect of the registration officer, begin at the end and not at the beginning". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges") and insert ("Local Taxation").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee also to discuss Amendments Nos. 178 to 180, 183 and 185. The effect of the amendment would be to establish a national registration office in Scotland financed by central government. I see difficulties with this amendment and I am not all that enthusiastic. However, the Law Society of Scotland in asking that the amendment be put forward raised a number of points which I believe are worth looking at in considering how we can get round the problem.
It has been suggested that if there is no central appeal procedure, sheriff courts can then decide appeals against registration decisions. The possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions could easily arise. There might be a situation in which an individual was found by two separate sheriff courts to be resident in two different regions and thus liable to pay dual community charges. For example, a family in Glasgow or Edinburgh could have a house in Dumfriesshire or in the Border region and could decide, on the basis of what the community charge was likely to be, where it was most advantageous to claim a main residence. If such a matter went to a sheriff court in Dumfries, a decision might be made that the main residence was there; on the other hand, an appeal to a sheriff court in the Lothians or Strathclyde might result in a decision that the main residence was there.
I do not like the idea of a central register. However, how does one solve a problem such as this? The problem of dual registration would not arise if there
998
was a central register. While I believe that there are political objections to the amendment, I wonder what other practical system the Minister can suggest. Under the system of the single register, the registrar would make the decision as to where an individual's sole or main residence was. Many things about it worry me but it highlights a problem that could arise if the different houses were in two distinct regions. There must be many people in mid-Scotland who have houses in the Highlands. It could be difficult to decide which was their pied-à-terre and which was their main residence. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The community charge is of course a form of local taxation, like domestic rates, although it will be much more visibly linked with the level of local services provided. It is natural therefore to assume that all arrangements for its collection ought to be locally based and the arguments for not doing so would have to be very compelling indeed before centralised arrangements could be considered a viable alternative. I have not heard such arguments put forward in an acceptable way.
In whatever way a single registration officer for the whole of Scotland carried out his duties, there would be little doubt that he would be seen as operating a national registration system. I do not think that I need dwell on this point. I shall only say that there is absolutely no need for such a system in order to run the community charge system efficiently, and the Bill does not provide for one. To do so, and to do what the noble Lord suggests, would really go well beyond the necessary scope of our proposals.
As to the concern that there may be an element of double registration, I can only say to the noble Lord that the appeal system in Clause 16(3) provides for just that kind of problem—for appeals in these circumstances to be heard by a single sheriff. I should have thought that that is the way to deal with the problem. As a matter of principle, I would expect local authorities themselves to wish to see the work to establish that base being done locally as well.
The arguments are quite straightforward. I hope the noble Lord will accept that what he is proposing would neither be practicable nor sensible.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This was a probing amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 181 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 12, line 19, after ("perform") insert ("adequately").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment and will, I am sure, commend itself to the Government, who are determined to make this organisation efficient, and so on.
We have now appointed the electoral registration officer, who is also the assessor—the valuer—to the position of registration officer for the community charges. Now we are asking the regional and islands councils to appoint an additional number of deputy registration officers as they consider necessary to enable the registration officer to perform his functions. I suggest that the provision should read,
"to enable the registration officer to perform adequately his functions".
This is a reasonable amendment because he can perform his functions well or otherwise. It may depend on how many deputies are appointed. I am waiting for someone from the other side of the Committee to get up and ask how much will be paid because of all this extra work and how many extra staff will be involved. We seek an assurance that it will not be called excessive expenditure. There will be additional expenditure and no doubt it will be construed as excessive.
So far as I can see, there is nothing that limits the regional or islands councils, who are the levying authorities, from going a dinger on this one! They do not even need the permission of the Secretary of State. They are given the power to do it. They are not even asked to conform to something laid down by the Treasury. My concern is that their remit shall not be just to perform their function but to perform their function adequately; and that will relate to the number of staff they appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with interest to the noble Lord's explanation of Amendment No. 182. The noble Lord may feel that, as Amendment No. 184 is connected with this amendment under the grouping list that was agreed, it may be relevant to speak to it. If he feels otherwise, I can shorten my remarks.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not only relevant, but I am referring to the strange drafting. It is otiose. Having appointed a man and told him what is his function, we have the words:
"The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register for his registration area"—
I think we all knew that—
"so that it is as comprehensive as possible."
What do those words mean? We can do without them. Therefore, if the noble Lord the Minister wishes to do so he can take the two amendments together. I shall not lose any sleep so long as he accepts them.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can necessarily go that far. What I hope to do is simply to shorten our consideration by taking the two amendments in the way I thought had been agreed; but perhaps that was somehow missed out.
1000
When I first read Amendment No. 182 it occurred to me that there are two possible interpretations of the word "adequately" in this context. There is the obvious interpretation that the intention is that the regional or islands council should provide a sufficient number of deputes to allow the registration officer to carry out properly his duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible. However, since the noble Lord's Amendment No. 184 would take away the duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible—and this is why I brought up this point—I was forced to conclude that "adequately" was intended to bear the meaning of achieving a tolerable standard of performance but some way short of excellence.
As I said, Amendment No. 184 would alter the general duty in Clause 12(3) on the registration officer to prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register so that the register is at all times as comprehensive as possible. That duty is necessary in the interests of the local authority and its residents to ensure that as many persons as possible who are solely or mainly resident in the local authority's area are registered. It also ensures that as many as possible of the addresses of properties in respect of which liability for the standard or collective community charges arise are also entered on the register.
The need for, and the benefit of, this provision is clear. The greater the numbers registered, the wider will be the spread of those who will be liable for the charges; and the less will be the amounts of the individual charges determined by the local authority and payable by the local authority residents, or in respect of the services provided to property within the local authority area.
The specific requirement which this amendment seeks to remove is that registers be kept at all times in as comprehensive as possible a state. This requirement recognises the reality of the situation that there will always be cases which escape registration so the nature of the duty on the registration officer is not unreasonably onerous. These words are necessary also as clear guidance to the registration officer, in addition to that contained in Clause 17(1) as to the ultimate objective of his duties in relation to the register.
I must confess that there is perhaps just a little irony in these amendments, because the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and his noble friends and indeed those on the Alliance Benches have forecast that the proposals for registration will prove very difficult to operate in practice. It appears to me that these amendments may be designed to fulfil that prophecy by encouraging the registration officer not to try very hard to keep the register up-to-date.
Anyway, with the explanation which I have given, I hope the noble Lord will see that it is essential for the words under discussion to remain in subsection (4) and that it is undesirable for the word "adequately" to be inserted in subsection (3). I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I do not want to cause difficulties to my noble friend but with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, we have one Highland

1001
problem. I understand that there is a large house in Inverness, in and out of which flit a fairly large number of "winos". I gather it would be extremely difficult to keep the register up-to-date and that they would virtually require a registration officer of their own.
Lord Glenarthur: In response to my noble friend, I should say that it is all very well to produce particular instances of places in Inverness or anywhere else. If the noble Lord feels that there is a problem in a particular locality, that is something which he could take up with the registration officer. If he wanted to raise it with me, I should be happy to look at it but I cannot answer that point at the moment.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I should like to make a totally unhelpful remark at this time of night. So often in the statutes we have words which are subject to wide dispute. What is reasonable and what is not reasonable is so often disputed that I would say with total assurance that what we on this side of the Committee, my noble friend or any of his successors, consider to be adequate, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will almost certainly consider to be totally inadequate.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend Lord Ross tell us what he proposes to do with his amendment, in the light of what the Minister has said—although it may not be wise for some noble Lords—I think reference ought to be made to the English newspaper, the Guardian and a report that it carried on Friday, 3rd April. Reference was made briefly this afternoon to the Home Office survey on the register of electors. Bearing in mind that the register of electors is supposed to be a thorough-going register of people voting, we find that newspaper stating prominently:
"Inadequate funding blamed, as one in six youths face loss of general election rights".
My noble friend Lord Ross asked who would fund the work in connection with registration and the study which was commissioned by the Home Office. I have no doubt that the same features will be found in Scotland as in the Home Office report. For, according to a new study commissioned by the Home Office, 2½million people are likely to be denied the vote at the next general election because they have been left off the electoral register. The article goes on to say that a further 2.6 million who have died or moved house will be wrongly included. That is 5 million.
In the light of this, as regards a register to deal with payment of community charges, there is surely something in what my noble friend has said about funding and also about having a full staff to enable the work to be done adequately.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not really think it would be right to debate the question of funding which the noble
1002
Lord raises in relation to an article in the Guardian which I confess I have not seen. The article refers to a different register, albeit one which I freely confess I have used as a vehicle for explaining the work of the registration officer and responding to points which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made in relation to this amendment.
On Amendment No. 182 and the question of "adequately," I find this a very difficult concept, for the reasons I have given. I hope the noble Lord will study what I have said when he sees Hansard.
On the question of Amendment No. 184, I must confess that I find the noble Lord's argument much more telling. If he feels that this is something particularly which ought to be looked at again, I am perfectly prepared to do that. I cannot undertake to look at Amendment No. 182 but I should be prepared to consider Amendment No. 184.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did not intend these amendments to be taken together, because they concern different points. In the first case the amendment refers to appointment of additional assistants to enable the registrar to do his job. He will not appoint the staff; it is the council who does that. I think that it is not just to enable him to perform his job but to perform it adequately. If the Minister does not like the word "adequate" I can think of many others.
When we come to the other point, after having all this rubbish about subsections (1), (2) and (3), we come to subsection (4) and what I thought ought to have been the first duty of the registrar; namely:
"The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register".
If we trust this man and he is appointed to do a job, must we add:
"so that it is as comprehensive as possible"?
I do not think that those words add anything to the sense. The man is appointed to do the job; he is told to do the job and then he is asked to go and do it as well as he can. Those words that I have quoted do not mean anything and they ought to be deleted. I hope that they will be deleted. That was my only intention in respect of that amendment.
As for standards, it may well be that I shall never be satisfied with the standards that I receive from a Scottish Office in which the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, features, or even the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. My standards are a little higher than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 to 185 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Community Charges Register]:
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("natural").
The noble Lord said: I know that the question has been asked before and indeed I myself have asked it. Do we need this word "natural"? I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Before embarking upon a reply which I fear will be almost but not quite as short as the speech of the noble Lord who has moved the amendment, I think that he may be expecting the Committee to deal with the amendment together with Amendments Nos. 188, 189 and 190.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did not.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord says that he did not. However, that was an agreed grouping, unless it has been changed. Perhaps I may take Amendment No. 187 as it stands and refer to those other amendments as well. They will change or delete the provision whereby the register is to include the date of birth of each natural person registered in it. It may help if I explain the reason for this provision, which was inserted by means of a government amendment in the course of the Report stage of the Bill in another place.
First of all, it is necessary to restrict the provision to natural persons for the simple, technical reason that if it were not made clear it might be thought that the intention was to include corporate persons such as companies in the provision. The names of companies and indeed local authorities will appear on the register since in some cases they will be the owners who are liable for the standard or collective community charges. However, in relation to corporate persons the concept of date of birth is obviously meaningless and it would not be right to leave any doubt as to what the provision meant by omitting the word "natural", which makes it clear that the persons in question are individual human beings.
I could embark upon a further explanation about the provision generally and I could go into further detail on the other amendments, but I hope that with that explanation of why we had to add it in another place, the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Ross of Marnock: At this moment I should not seek to encourage the Minister to make another long, extensive speech. The Minister should quit when he is winning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("his date of birth").
The noble Lord said: The question of date of birth has caused considerable concern in terms of what questions will be asked for the register. Certain people are worried about the date of birth going on to a register which may be open to the implications raised in respect of an earlier amendment; that is, that this would be readily available to anyone who went, say, into a Salvation Army home or the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow. This could be quite dangerous if it were made available to anyone who liked to look up the ages of people.
I am increasingly troubled about the availability of lists of people and of computers to churn them out. One joins an organisation and then discovers that one's address, with the addresses of all the other
1004
members of the organisation, has been sold to certain agencies. One then starts getting through the letter-box all sorts of unwanted invitations to do this, that and the other. We have therefore to be chary about new lists of people and new registers. The inclusion of ages causes considerable concern in that an individual can look up a register and discover, for example, an old person living at home aged 80.
Why the person's age is required for entry I do not know. All one needs is the fact that a person is 18 or over. I do not know whether sufficient attention has been paid to this. Many people are afraid to reveal their age. We in this place and those in another place have only to lift a newspaper and we are told our age when we are trying to forget it. There can also be a measure of falsification of age by certain people. If people give the wrong date of birth, they will be subject to penalties in this case. Have all these matters been thought out?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point. For a good many ladies who are middle-aged or even less to have their ages revealed would be distressing. There are ladies who are in a position to conceal their age and who take great trouble to do so. I do not see that it is necessary for ages to be revealed in this instance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am sure that this is right. Oscar Wilde, as Members of the Committee will know, said that a woman who would reveal her age would reveal anything.
Lord Morton of Shuna: From his previous ministerial responsibility, the Minister may recollect the habit of police statements in England giving the date of birth of people if they are under 21 but if they are 21 or over they just say "over 21". I should have thought that or something similar is the answer.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can reassure the Committee. By way of preface I should say that it was after considering the views of the Rating and Valuation Association's rating forum that we undertook to include this point. I think that the burden of the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, let alone Oscar Wilde, relate to dates of birth being available to the public. I should make it clear that we do not propose that dates of birth should be included in the part of the register that is made available for public inspection. That could lead to the type of embarrassment about which we have heard.
As provided in Clause 20, dates of birth will be made available only to registration officers and local authorities which need the information for registration purposes or for levying or collecting the community charge. The availability of dates of birth will greatly assist the smooth operation of the registration system. They will not be available to the public in the way that the Committee may have feared. I hope that with that the noble Lord will feel reassured.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that that is enough. Dates of birth will be made available to local authorities. I presume that everyone in the local

1005
authority—council members, officers and the rest—can go and see them. Suppose someone is 65. What good will that do with regard to this Bill? I can understand the need to know that someone is over 18. But the age does not matter at any other point unless something is coming along about which we know nothing; perhaps that everyone over the age of 70 will not pay the charge. I shall not do any special pleading on my behalf and say that everyone over 75 or 76 should not pay the charge. It is not good enough to say that the date of birth will not be made public and then say that it will be shown to the levying authority. Why?
Lord Glenarthur: I shall answer the noble Lord since he asks me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I trust that the noble Lord will answer when I sit down, in keeping with the rules of this place. I shall be glad to sit down.
Lord Glenarthur: I am trying to assist the noble Lord. I endeavoured to answer the point about privacy which he, supported by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, rightly and understandably makes about those who do not want their age to be disclosed. As I said to the noble Lord, there is a point in this. It was raised by the rating forum. There is also another point. It was pointed out that to assist in the identification of individuals it would be desirable for the register to record in all cases the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the simplest example it would allow people at an address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. For example, there may be, and there probably will be, three John Smiths—father, son and grandson—liable for the personal community charge at a single address. For billing and collection purposes it would have to be clear which was which.
More generally, however, the inclusion of dates of birth on the register will be useful when an individual's identity has to be checked when he moves from one local authority area to another, or it would be difficult for the registration officer in the new area to be sure that the John Smith who was recorded as having arrived in his area on a particular date was the same John Smith who had left another area on the same date. In checking with his opposite number from the local authority from which the individual had come, he would have to have some further form of identification or he could not be sure that the person who was claiming to have arrived in the new area on a certain date had not been resident there and liable for the community charge for some considerable time beforehand. If, however, dates of birth are available it will be much easier for such checking to be carried out.
Notwithstanding the point about privacy, which I entirely take, as I hope I have made clear, all we are trying to do is to help local authority practitioners, which judging by the burden of the noble Lord's remarks earlier this afternoon is something that he is only too keen to do.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the electoral register we can have any number of John Smiths. We should be
1006
quite pleased to have as many as possible considering the right honourable Member in another place. However, in the electoral register we do not have dates of birth except for people who attain the age of 18 during the year of the register. Why is it necessary in this case if it is quite easy to identify who is voting?
Lord Burton: Anyone who has canvassed in the Highlands will know that it would be easier if the dates of birth were there. I have been to houses where there are three or four John Macdonalds next door to each other. I believe that the same can apply to Anne Macdonalds. I cannot see why the noble Lord opposite is making such a fuss about this quite simple matter. It would be much easier; the registration office has said that it would be easier.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thought that it was only horses that one identified by their teeth. It is ludicrous to think that people should be identified by their age. One can have three John Macdonalds in the same village all of the same age. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point here.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not know whether I am right but I suspect that I may be. Perhaps one may compare this with a driving licence, for example, although it may not be an exactly similar point. The code number which appears is simply a number in relation to a date of birth, which may apply to an individual whom the noble Lord opposite feels ought not to have the date of birth exposed, but is a kind of cryptographic means of transmitting the same date for the purposes of checking the register. I should have thought that there was nothing harmful in that. It does not compromise the concerns which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has expressed on this point. I should have thought that it was entirely helpful. That seems to me to be very much the burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Burton, who seems to have some experience of meeting this problem.
Lord Wilson of Langside: If this debate is not going to come to an end soon, perhaps there should be a provision that if one has a conscientious objection to disclosing one's age one does not disclose it. Then we could have a tribunal—to add to the bureaucracy—to certify whether the objections were conscientious or not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have all had this difficulty in respect of two names which are similar, or the same, in a particular household. But I remember an election in Wales where there were about four candidates all with the same name. Believe it or not the electors were evidently very much more far seeing than the officers who are to be appointed to this job—at a very big salary—because they managed to understand the situation without any debate.
I still think that there is concern about the age being shown. This provision is aimed at ease of administration. The question arose in respect of driving licences. The dates are on driving licences but in code. I think I am right in suggesting that.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And they are not available to anyone else. Another helpful point was raised in respect of the electoral registration officer. He has been appointed because he has some experience of this kind. On the electoral register there is a number. If people are going to report that someone has moved south of the Border or elsewhere that number will be sufficient. In this case it may be that there will be no numbers. But I believe that it will be discovered later that there ought to be a number for ease of issuing these notices that are going out to people. The simplest way of all is to put a number in respect of all the various people who are on the register as paying these community charges.
I hope that the Minister will have another look at the matter. Now that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has looked at his driving licence and managed to discard all the strange marks on it telling him that he cannot drive because of some driving misdemeanour and put it away carefully in his pocket, maybe we shall return to this question. I am sure there is sufficient ingenuity among the people who are discussing this at the present time to enable us to see our way around it. We do not need to include a person's age. However, if the Minister is adamant we shall leave the matter for consideration at another time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 191, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 191A.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No regulation shall be made under subsection (1)(f) of this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I can be brief. I believe that there should be careful control over the information to be included in the community charge register. I cannot see that any information other than that already mentioned in Clause 13(1) will be at all necessary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important that a person's privacy is not invaded any more than is absolutely essential—a point which has been touched upon earlier. For that simple but very important reason and one which does not need elaboration, I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The matters to appear in the entries in the register are confined to those considered necessary so that the register will provide a sufficient basis for the effective collection of the community charge. Amendment No. 191A, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, concerns power to prescribe these details. We shall shortly be consulting assessors and other interested parties about the exact requirements. But there is nothing particularly complex or difficult about them. Therefore, there is no good reason why these regulations, alone of the regulations to be made under the Bill, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In the
1008
light of that explanation, I wonder whether the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: It is now 25 minutes past ten. The Committee has had a long session today and I am not going to begin a serious argument now. However, I give the Government due warning that I intend to return to this very important matter at a later stage of the Bill.
I could discuss at great length Clause 13 and the various paragraphs in subsection (1)—(a) to (0—which pertain to that clause. I cannot imagine what on earth more anyone would want to know about a person's individual position. I feel strongly about this matter and give due warning that I am totally dissatisfied with the reply. I intend to return to it at a more appropriate time and at a different stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191B to 193 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("(which need not be documentary form) as may be prescribed") and insert ("as to facilitate reasonable access by any person liable to pay the community charge")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we should like to know what is meant by the words:
"which need not be documentary form".
This information will be on tablets of stone; it will be fed into a computer. What form will it take? It is very important that the register is accessible, readable and understandable, and I await the explanation of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: It appears to me that this amendment rests on a misunderstanding. The form of the register has no direct connection with the question of access to it by persons liable to pay a community charge. The inspection of a register is dealt with in some detail in Clause 20. Nor is the access affected by whether the register is kept in documentary form or on computer. The provisions of Clause 20, which we shall be able to discuss in due course, apply in either case. Therefore I do not think that what the noble Lord is trying to do here would improve the terms of subsection (3). I hope that he will accept that and be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I gather from the result of my probe that it will either be in documentary form or on the computer. I trust that people will know how to extract the information from the computer. I presume it will be in documentary form when the printout is produced. With that comment, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 194A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 13, line 24, leave out from ("register") to end of line 25 and insert ("no later than 31st August 1988, at which date the register will come into force").
The noble Lord said: This is quite important because when we get to the point of fixing dates and

1009
times we have to bear in mind that the register is to come into force on 1st April. One must remember that this concerns the Scottish Office. Earlier today we heard about the difficulties, so we really should put down a time for the work and preparation of this register to be completed.
Although my amendment uses the words "will come into force" I am not sure that that is exactly the right phrase because the register does not really come into force until 1st April. That is therefore a point which will need to be taken up at another time, but I am suggesting that it should say "no later than 31st August 1988" because 1st April 1989 is the starting date. To assist local authorities who have to introduce this and work on the sums of money which are available, we should have it in force by about 31st August.
Anybody who knows anything about rate support grant and the work that has to be done between the Government and the Scottish Office knows it will be necessary to advise by several months the timetable in respect of the rate support grant negotiations. A local authority must know what is coming in before it can even begin in the early part of the year to lay down what is to be the personal community charge and what is to be the collective community charge. There is also the work to be done on non-domestic rating, which continues. It is going to be very difficult. It is not good enough just to say "prepare the register by such date as may be prescribed as the date of coming into force of the register". That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I have sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the need to be working towards a particular date, but this amendment would set a firm date of 31st August 1988 rather than a date to be prescribed as the date for the coming into force of the register. I am reluctant to embody in the Bill a firm date by which the register should come into force. The Bill provides that this date should be prescribed. It may indeed be prescribed as 31st August 1988, but as we see things at present that might be a little early. I should prefer to leave open the actual date until we have had further consultations with the Scottish Assessors' Association and other interested bodies so that we can be sure that the date chosen will be the correct and practicable one.
I appreciate of course that it is desirable that the date should be known as soon as possible. We have already met the Scottish Assessors' Association of preliminary discussions on the timetable for the preparation of the registers, and I had hoped that agreement could be reached and the necessary regulations on this point laid very soon after the enactment of the Bill. In view of the general explanation, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can understand that the Government like to have a free hand. However, it will be troublesome from the point of view of the assessors—we now call them registration officers—unless they are given some information
1010
about when they can expect to commence this work. It depends entirely on when the Government give us a date. It is all very well for them to say that it will be soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that they could give some prior information as regards that matter. It is not clear whether they will be able to commence it even then.
Whether we like it or not, we know—I always knew—that there could not be a general election in May because the Government have to pass this Bill. If they are so determined, they could not hold a general election in May and give the notice required. I do not know whether or not they will be able to hold a general election in June because this Bill must go back to another place. As I understand the matter, proceedings on House of Lords' amendments in another place are not covered by the guillotine Motion which was passed earlier, unless, of course, they pass another Motion—and nothing would surprise me in respect of this matter.
What happens next? Whether it is June or October, a general election means work for the man in charge, the community charge registration officer, who in Scotland is also the electoral registration officer. Therefore he will have his hands full drawing up that register and sending out correspondence in respect of it. It will not be easy. He will have to be pushed if the local authority is to get the statistics it will require to make decisions in respect of standard charge and collective charge. It will also have to consider non-domestic rates. Somebody will have to be a slave-driver if the Government are to stick to their original date of 1st April 1989. I think that they will come to regret that. We have tried hard, and will probably try harder when we come to the next stage of the Bill, to give them some flexibility and leeway in respect of this.
In view of the explanation given by the Minister, however, I shall not proceed with the amendment tonight. When they are looking at this matter, though, will they look at the accuracy of the words "come into force"? I doubt if the Bill can come into force before 1st April 1989. The registers can be drawn up, but whether the legislation can be construed as "in force" simply because it is completed is worth looking at from the point of view of accuracy in relation to statute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 13, line 29, after ("notice") insert ("in plain language")
The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendment No. 195A, and linked with it is Amendment No. 201. I am concerned that the Government are proposing that everyone should be liable to pay something towards the community charge and that, as a consequence of that, many people will be brought into liability having no past experience of such circumstance in this particular area of their lives. I therefore consider it important that any statutory notices which are sent to a person entered in the community charges register, or affected by an amendment of the register, should be in plain language so that they are made aware of their rights and obligations in relation to the Act.
Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland pointed out in its observations to the Scottish Office consultation paper, at paragraph 12, that if the sheriff courts are to decide appeals about registration decisions the possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions will arise. For example, there does not seem to be anything to stop an appellant appealing to all the registration areas in which he is registered. The Law Society took the view that there should be an independent tribunal set up to deal with appeals and to determine disputes. I do not feel able to take a view on that, but I certainly think that this is further evidence of how badly the Bill is drafted. That point has been made much of in recent hours.
Quite clearly the possibility of multiple appeals has not even been considered, nor has the effect of the decision of a sheriff on other registration areas. But be that as it may, I suggest that any notice which is drafted in plain rather than otiose language can only be of help to all concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should not like to delay the Committee at this late hour, but I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says. We are dealing with a large number of people—I think the figure is 3.85 million—and there are a lot of people who will not understand some of the forms that come across their table. I instance the new Home Office directive on the form you have to fill in for postal votes. It is not exactly an improvement on the old one, in my view. It just shows what can happen when some departments get hold of an idea and they go on and on and produce the most incredible forms in the end.
If this whole system is going to succeed I do not know whether "in plain language" is the right wording for it, but I very much applaud Lord Kirkhill's sense in that people who are going to be reading forms of this sort for the first time ought to understand in plain language what they are about.
Lord Gray: This amendment raises a valid point for the reasons that have already been given. I notice that Clause 14(2) provides for two prescriptions. I hope that in addition to the other points we have mentioned the Government will be careful to try to ensure that throughout Scotland the forms are the same.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly take on board my noble friend's last point. Certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, wants to achieve is laudable. I am the first to agree with that. But where I hope he and indeed my noble friend Lord Sanderson will feel reassured is that we want to achieve precisely what the noble Lord is looking for but in prescribing the form of the notice.
As Clause 14(2) makes clear, there is certain basic information to be included in the notice. The first matter is the effect of the entry in the register, which is, broadly speaking, that the individual will be liable to pay the community charge from 1st April 1989 and may expect to receive a bill in due course. The second element calls for an explanation of the rights of appeal under Clause 16, and the third relates to the requirement under Clause 18(2) to notify changes.
1012
We envisage that the power to prescribe the form of notice will be used to require a sufficiently clear statement on all these matters, together with other important details such as where appeals should be made and in what form, and how notification of changes should be made. There will have to be consultations about the prescribed form to ensure that the layout and contents are compatible with local authorities' computer and printing systems. But I assure the Committee that it will certainly be our objective to ensure that the end product is clear and comprehensible, "in plain language", as the noble Lord would have it, in the terms of the amendment.
I completely understand what my noble friend Lord Sanderson meant when he referred to the notice about postal votes. I had to read it more than once myself; but I hope that what we shall achieve here meets through the form of the prescription the aims put forward. I hope that is of some reassurance.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think we should be reasonably assured of what we are going to get; but I should like to know what the plainer language is going to be. One thing we must not do is to have this suddenly thrust upon people so that they ask, "What's this?". We should be starting fairly early after the Bill is passed to let people know what is coming to them. Even though it is in the middle of an election period, I think you have to take time to let people know the present that is coming to them of the benefits of paying these charges—particularly the 18 year-olds. Since they are not paying any rates, the sooner they are told that the Government think that they should all pay equally about £250 a year the better. They can be told "Don't worry: it is subject to certain rebates if you haven't got the money and you will not get it all but you'll get some".
The one thing I would lay down is that we keep the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, away from this. He will finish up giving them the impression that they are all going to get £250. The way he massages the unemployment figures, if he takes charge of the advertising and the publicising of this charge it will be very, very wrong. I do not know how my noble friend feels about that.
Lord Kirkhill: I accept that the Minister has given me something of an assurance. I should have been more pleased had he felt able to accept my amendment, because it is clearly drafted and has significant impact in its language. He will have noticed what some of his noble friends have said. I for my part will study carefully his remarks. I do not say that I shall not return to this point, but I shall at least consider seriously what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195B not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Amendment of register:]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("years") and insert ("months").
The noble Lord said: We are giving the power to the registration officer to amend the register at any time, and then we say,
"amendments may be made with retrospective, immediate or prospective effect".
Nothing could be more comprehensive than that. It goes on:
"except that—
(a) the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect is three years".
This is becoming just as good as the Inland Revenue. This is a bit much, especially when we are starting away with it for the first year: indeed the retrospective effect could obviously be only one year.
The decision to amend the register in this way might mean that somebody is liable to pay three years' personal community charge if he has been omitted from the register for some reason or other. Three months is a more reasonable period. After all, if a mistake has been made, it may well be that the staff has not been adequate. In common sense, we should eliminate the retrospective effect of three years and make the period three months. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: It may help if I explain the purpose of subsection (1) of Clause 15. In the normal case, we would expect that the length of the retrospective or prospective period will be no more than a few days. Circumstances will, however, arise from time to time in which someone has been resident in a local authority's area for some time without having been registered. In terms of Clause 18(1), such a person will be required in that case to notify the registration officer of his arrival within one month. There is no specific sanction for late notification, but in that case the community charge will become payable with interest, and if the period before the registration officer is notified is of more than three months a surcharge becomes payable.
We will have the opportunity to debate these provisions in detail when we consider Amendments Nos. 220–224, relating to Clause 18. At this stage, I need only say that it is right that the registration officer should be able to make entries with retrospective effect for an appreciable period, since there will undoubtedly be cases in which people attempt to ensure that their names are not included on the register.
The point was, however, made during the Committee stage in another place that an entirely open-ended retrospective period might be considered to be unnecessary and possibly unjust, if, for instance, someone's name had been left off the register for an extended period because of a mistake by the registration officer. Clause 15(1)(a) was therefore inserted into the Bill at Report stage in another place. This restricts the maximum retrospective period to three years. I must say, however, that the period of three months suggested by this amendment would be quite inadequate. It would encourage those moving into an area to seek to avoid registration in the knowledge that when their names were registered (as a result of the registration officer receiving information through a subsequent canvass or by other means) their
1014
liability for arrears of personal community charge would in practice be limited to three months. On the other hand, the Bill's provision of three years is a reasonable maximum. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think that is at all a reasonable compromise. There is a very considerable difference between three years and three months. It must be borne in mind that the Act will come into force on 1st April 1989, and it will be three years after that before there can be what is, admittedly, the maximum figure, which is far too high. I hope that the Government will look at this again to see whether or not they can reduce the maximum. Common sense should make them do it, especially in relation to the likelihood of someone paying the maximum fine for a three years' lapse of community charge. Maybe we shall return to this at another time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 197. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.
[Amendments Nos. 197 to 199A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: This is an interesting point.
The Bill states:
"The registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered before making any amendment".
I suggest that we leave out the word "not" and in a further amendment I suggest changing the word "but" to "and". I think that reasonable. It is not world-shattering. But it is an interesting matter from the point of view of personal freedom in that something is being done which may affect someone retrospectively over three years. Therefore, I think we should get rid of the word "not". I believe that the person registered or to be registered should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: As I see it, the burden of the amendment would make it incumbent upon the registration officer to consult the person registered or to be registered before he made any amendment to the register. Amendment No. 200 would achieve this by the simple expedient of deleting the word "not" from the provision in subsection (5) of Clause 15 that the registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered, and would make a consequential grammatical change. I shall study the point made by the noble Lord to see whether there is merit in the change in grammar suggested. However, we should be tangling ourselves in knots.
In many cases an amendment would be made as a result of information received by the registration officer from the person to whom the entry relates in accordance with the duty placed on that person to notify the registration officer of his liability under

1015
Clause 18(1) or to notify changes in his registration details under Clause 18(2). In those circumstances the person would be fully aware of the fact that an amendment is to be made before it is made. I therefore do not think that the amendment is necessary in the first place. Nevertheless, I shall study it and if I can see merit in it, I shall return to it myself. However, I do not believe that it is necessary, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be moderately satisfied.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hope that the Minister will study the point. The very fact that the wording is included in the Bill will encourage the registration officer not to consult the person involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, it may mean a back-payment of an enormous amount of money, and I think that the word "not" should come out and it should be an obligation to consult the person before an amendment is made which may seriously affect him. I trust that the Minister will consider the matter seriously.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the Minister does not want to get tied in knots, here is a knot he can get rid of, in view of the fact that he will spend the whole of the Easter Recess looking at these matters again. Let us not forget that when people such as the Government Chief Whip and others are having a nice easy time, we shall have to prepare for the next stage of this Bill which must take place the day after we come back. He is a hard, hard man; he is the hammer of the Scots and we shall not forget it! I hope that the Minister will study the amendment. Five minutes may lead him to the conclusion that the word "not" should be removed and the word "but" should be changed to "and". However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 201A not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Aberystwyth Harbour Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

National Provident Institution Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.