Lords Sitting of 6 June 1988

Preamble
Reassembling after the Spring Bank Holiday Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

British Aerospace and Airbus
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What requests have been received from British Aerospace plc for additional support from the taxpayer and for exchange rate guarantees in connection with their participation in the Airbus project; and what reply has been given.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I have met the chairman and the chief executive of British Aerospace to discuss difficulties faced by the company in connection with its participation in the Airbus project arising from the present low value of the US dollar. I have received no firm proposals for additional support or exchange rate guarantees.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Can he give an assurance that under no circumstances will exchange rate guarantees or indemnities be offered to British Aerospace in respect of its obligations under the Airbus contract? If they were, that would surely be not merely provocation but even a justification for a trade war with the United States.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my noble friend knows full well that "under no circumstances" is a difficult undertaking for anyone in my position ever to give. Since the launch aid contract was announced only on 14th May of last year, and at that time the rate of exchange was 1.68 dollars to the pound, I hope that British Aerospace will find that the difficulties which it contemplates today will not be too serious. I give an assurance, if such assurance is required, to my noble friend that should I vary in any way the Airbus launch aid I shall come back to tell your Lordships' House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that there was general support throughout the House for the launch aid for the new versions of the Airbus, partly because of a desire to take part in an important European co-operative venture and partly because it would provide employment in this country? Has he seen the report that contracts for the Airbus wings for the two latest models have been allocated to Textron Aerostructures, an American firm, to the total of £380 million and that eventually Aerospace has it in mind to give £1 billion of contract for the Airbus wings? Is that against the general principle on which we supported the Airbus project?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. The launch aid is to help British Aerospace in the design and development of the wing contract. The production of the wings is not in itself launch aided and it must be for the company to place contracts where it sees it to be in its best interests.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend in the light of his reply to my supplementary question whether Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that we were told consistently in the case of Concorde that it was always best to put in further money rather than risk losing the investment that we had already made, and that that always turned out to be untrue? Is that not a salutary warning for us in the case of Airbus?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I hope that my noble friend is aware that we are under new management today.

Population: UN Report
2.40 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the report on the UN Population Fund and what steps they will take to support it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, this report is a valuable analysis of the relationships between population, resources, the environment and development. Her Majesty's Government will continue to deliver a substantial and effective aid programme designed to stimulate economic and social development and alleviate poverty. Our support for population-related activities will remain an important part of that work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not agree that the report gives rise to a degree of alarm when we realise that the ability to sustain human life in large areas on this earth is already gravely threatened? Does he not further agree that what is required is international collaboration and action before the whole situation gets out of hand and millions of human beings simply starve to death?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he refers to the report. We are ready to do more so far as concerns population programmes but our bilateral spending is dependent on recipient governments giving population a high priority in their plans. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord that support for population-related activities has already doubled from £6.5 million in 1981 to about £15 million in 1986.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I acknowledge the favourable answers which my noble friend has given, but may I ask him whether he is aware that the report makes it clear that the population of the world, which is now over 5 billion, will reach 6 billion by the end

1101
of the century and that most of the increase will be in the underdeveloped countries? Is he also aware that if the problem is to be contained Western countries must offer help, mainly to the women in the underdeveloped countries? Is that a factor which the Government are bearing in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. I can tell my noble friend that specific guidelines on women in development policy have been issued to ODA departments and development divisions for implementation. We are looking to improve our performance on that issue during 1988. My noble friend has made a good point.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this important report points up some of the particular responsibilities of the industrialised countries and the measures that they can take? Can he not be a little more specific about the financial assistance or new technology that the Government might think of providing to help bring about the aims set out in the report?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness lies in two directions. First, we have the aid programme in its wider sense and within that we have the other aid which is specifically for population-related activities. There are also aspects which take account of the environment, which I believe is a facet of the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. So far as concerns the United Nations fund for population activities, in 1988 we gave £5.25 million, which represents a 5 per cent. increase over 1987. In fact we are the ninth largest contributor.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the House will no doubt agree that the Government's activity in this extremely important sphere is very encouraging. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will endeavour to get other nations, some of which may be even richer than we are, to show the same interest as we do and urge them to realise that there are so many threats—such as to agriculture, energy sources, forest areas and watersheds—that human life itself is threatened? Full and total collaboration and complete co-operation among the richer nations of the world are now urgently required. This Government have given a lead. Will they now try to get other nations to join them in a more forceful action?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is a continual dialogue between the Western countries about these problems. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall play our part fully.

Unemployment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much unemployment has fallen between May 1987 and March 1988.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in the 10 months between May 1987 and March 1988 seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by nearly 447,000.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, some economic organisations believe that although the figures are not fiddled, they are not necessarily accurate. For example, the Employment Institute claims that the figures relate to numbers receiving benefit and not to the numbers of unemployed.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Government's published claims the reduction from May until March of this year was 504,000 whereas the Employment Institute says that it was not anywhere near that figure? These statements are giving rise to some concern. Will the Minister be gracious enough to explain precisely how the Government make their assessment and why the other economic institutions disagree with it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Employment Institute, formerly known as the Charter for Jobs, has made a considerable living over the past few years in reporting that the Government's surveys of unemployment are always wrong. Recently, it published an economic report in which it drew attention to the fact that the labour force survey showed that to May 1987 unemployment fell by only 30,000. That is a very good example of selective reporting. One figure was taken of those who were looking for work within the last week and it was then quite correctly indicated that the labour force survey showed that numbers had only fallen by 30,000 in the past year. It ignored the fact that the number of those who were looking for work over the past month had fallen by far more. At that time the unemployment count was 2,950,000; according to the labour force survey it was only 2,790,000. There are many ways of measuring unemployment. The methods used by OECD and the comparable ways used in the United States show that unemployment in this country is under 9 per cent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of the forecasts that were being made this time last year by Her Majesty's Opposition? Is it not true that the Opposition were forecasting that unemployment would not fall but would substantially increase in the autumn?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that the Opposition were forecasting that all sorts of horrendous events would happen, including vastly increased unemployment. It is also true that they promised to reduce unemployment by some 50,000 a month. That was a promise which was not believed. We did not promise anything, but we are in fact achieving something.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that during the past year there has been considerable tightening-up of the availability-for-work test? Has that had an effect upon the figures?

1103
Will the Minister be kind enough to say whether the tightening-up of the availability-for-work test has made a difference? Does he not agree that despite the fall in the numbers of unemployed, a figure of over 2 million is still far too many and that action should continue to be taken to reduce that unacceptable number?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course a figure of 2,455,000 is far too many. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House looks forward to that total being progressively reduced as time goes by. Indeed the best indicator is that over half a million jobs came into being in the year to last December. It is true that availability testing makes it more difficult for people to obtain benefit. However, I like to think that now it is at least as difficult to get benefit as it is perhaps to get a library ticket. There are about a dozen questions which have to be answered. If the test has prevented some people taking up benefit—if it has they are those who are not entitled to it. I doubt very much whether there are any cases of people entitled to benefit who do not in fact receive it. We have all read in the newspapers plenty of evidence concerning people not entitled to benefit who have received it. Availability testing is only intended to prevent that.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend inform your Lordships of the last occasion on which the seasonally adjusted unemployment register fell by 450,000 in nine months?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to assure my noble friend that, so far as we can tell, that is the fastest and largest fall on record. It is 566,000 in the last 12 months. I should like to think that it will continue at this rate. If the economy continues to grow I hope that we shall see further reductions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that everyone is pleased to see unemployment being reduced? However, some of the scars remain among millions of families from the time when, under this administration, unemployment rose to nearly 4 million. It does not become the Government to boast of bringing about massive reductions in the unemployment that they created. Will the noble Lord not agree that the Employment Institute believes that the system in the United States—to which he referred—is the correct one? It is simply that unemployment equals the labour force minus employment. Ought that not to be the system? It is the system functioning in the United States which is much more accurate when wishing to obtain an honest and correct assessment of unemployment.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are many academics in our land who make their living from describing how unemployment should, or should not, be described and how all these fairly obstruse economic matters are described. The cause of unemployment is precisely the same as the cause of employment. It is one word: customers. If one produces goods and services that people want, one
1104
has jobs. If one produces goods and services that people do not want, one has unemployment. I am happy to feel today that we are producing goods and services that people want. We have a secure basis for future employment. That is the only basis on which it can ever be determined.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this is so important to millions of people. They see many items being advertised and many attractive features being created, but they are outside the pale because they do not have enough dole money to purchase the items they would like to purchase. In the end that will be a bad thing for millions of families and more importantly, it will be a bad thing for our nation.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that I can add very much. The noble Lord may care to go through the usual channels. If there is a wish to debate this matter, I have no doubt that through the usual channels that can be arranged.

UNESCO: Director General's Visit
2.52 p.m.
Lord Oram Lord Oram asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether during the forthcoming visit to London of Senor Mayor, the Director General of UNESCO, they will invite him to discuss with a Minister the prospects of the United Kingdom rejoining that organisation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Eggar, will meet the Director General of UNESCO during his visit to London on 2nd June.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very welcome reply. Is it not the case that Mr. Mayor is currently putting before his executive council an action programme involving considerable cuts in UNESCO's expenditure? Is that not in line with what Her Majesty's Government have said is a condition for our renewal of membership? Therefore, is not this forthcoming meeting to be welcomed with a view to our becoming members again?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly welcomed the election of a new director general as a step in the right direction. As the noble Lord says, there have also been some positive signs under Senor Mayor's direction of a change in atmosphere at UNESCO. We hope that this will give impetus to the reform process which made little progress during 1986 and 1987.

Business
2.53 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill will be taken.

Road Traffic Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic Offenders Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the prosecution and punishment (including the punishment without conviction) of road traffic offences with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals (including a repeal to give effect to a recommendation of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission), consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government Finance Bill
2.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): 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.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
(''Personal data
. Schedule (Personal Data) below (which contains provisions about personal data, including collection, storage and disclosure) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86. We start this afternoon's business with a series of amendments about the register which has to be compiled for the purpose of the community charge. There are a series of amendments, in particular in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and others. It will be difficult for me to avoid speaking to some extent on those issues when I move this amendment and speak to my own second amendment, Amendment No. 86. However, I am concerned in these amendments with one very particular issue, and with one safeguard which exists for the public and for the protection of the security of information about individuals as a result of the Data Protection Act 1984.
Members of the Committee who took part with me in the debates on the Data Protection Act 1984 will know that we thought at the time that there were very severe limitations to the scope of the Bill, in particular its inability to deal with records not held in computer form in that it completely excludes handwritten records. Nevertheless, it forms a protection. The data protection registrar himself has written a note on the data protection implications of the community charge for local authorities in England and Wales. That is no doubt in the hands of the Minister.
If the current Bill were to accord with the provisions of the Data Protection Act, we ought to gain some greater protection for individuals. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to acknowledge that this Bill ought to be read together with the Data Protection Act.
The issues with which we have to be concerned in this series of amendments are, first, that an individual's consent should be required—as it is in the Data Protection Act—before information is transferred from one set of records to another. In this case we are talking about information being transferred from any other source to the community charge registrar. Secondly—this is a point made in the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the personal information collected by the registrar should be kept to the minimum necessary. I

1107
cannot imagine that this is a matter with which the Government will not agree in principle. We may be dealing here with matters of wording.
The third point is on wording; but it may be extremely important wording. We want to be clear in our minds about the use of the word "tax". The word is not in the Bill but it has been used on a number
of occasions, notably by noble Lords who wish to restrict our view of the competence of this Chamber to deal with the matter. Those who have felt this way have used the word "tax". If that word were to be generally accepted, it might form an undesirable and unnecessary restriction on the application of the Data Protection Act to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree that individuals should not be denied some of their rights under the Data Protection Act by the community charge being defined as a tax.
The fourth issue, which is also dealt with in amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is the question of cross checking with the community charge register. Indeed, I also have an amendment in my name on that point which no doubt will be debated with the others.
A fifth matter is the use of the register for commercial purposes. I must confess that when we were debating the Scottish Bill last year this was an issue which passed over my head. I understood that it might be possible for local authorities to be authorised to make the community charge register available for commercial purposes. I could never have believed in my wildest nightmares that it would be required that they should do so. There are amendments down on this matter too.
Penultimately—here the Scottish experience will be of great interest to us—we wish to know whether there will be some kind of unique code for individuals which will enable them to be identified across a number of registers, which may indeed prove to be necessary. But if that occurred, it would carry with it significant data protection implications.
Finally, the concern is the extent to which the collection and administration of the community charge are exempt from the safeguards under the Data Protection Act. The new schedule which we have put down to follow Schedule 2 sets out, no doubt in a naive and simplified way—and I should be happy to accept criticisms of the wording—what should be the principles on which data protection for those who find their names on the community charge register should be involved.
I apologise for taking more time than I should have wished to on what is rather a simple amendment, but it embraces within it a very large number of issues which deserve the most careful attention of the Committee. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to approach these amendments in an adversarial way and that the Minister will find it possible to make significant concessions which will reassure those who are genuinely, and in my view justifiably, concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this legislation. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Meston: I wish to support the intentions underlying Amendments Nos. 58 and 86, which I
1108
understand we are principally discussing at present. I do so conscious of the fact that they overlap my Amendments Nos. 62 and 64, which are to follow. Indeed, I wish to echo the concern expressed by the noble Lord which underlies all these amendments. I am encouraged, having read the debates in another place, that the indications are that the Government take seriously the questions concerned with the protection of privacy and basic civil liberties raised in this part of the Bill. I hope that they will now feel able to indicate how they intend to deal with these matters, particularly now that they have the experience of the Scottish Act and implementing that Act behind them.
I suggest that there are two basic reasons for us to support Amendments Nos. 58 and 86. First there is a practical argument. If the Government wish to maintain public confidence in this new system of comprehensive taxation they must take care with the manner in which the community charge is to be introduced and the manner in which it is to be enforced. The second reason is perhaps more important. As I have already indicated, the administrative aspects of the Bill have profound consequences for civil liberties. Without such amendments as are now proposed, there will be a serious gap in the Bill.
Clause 6 and Schedule 2 set out the various powers and duties of the registration officer but make no attempt to define how those duties should be carried out or to limit the exercise of those powers. I suggest that it will not be enough for us to be told that this is merely framework legislation and that guidelines will be in the regulations, especially when we see that the regulation-making powers are so discretionary. The basic proposition to be stated in the Bill should be that the information to be obtained and retained should be the absolute minimum necessary for the efficient administration of this charge. I would have hoped that with the Scottish experience behind them the Government would now know what they intend to prescribe and what they intend to proscribe in their regulations. Indeed, if they know what is to be in the regulations, it would be much better for that information to be on the face of the Bill.
I touch briefly on one specific matter which is covered in Amendment No. 86; that is the proposed prohibition of reference by the registration officer to social work records. That, I would suggest, is an especially important area because one knows from experience of how social workers have to operate that even the names and addresses of those with whom they come into contact can be sensitive information. The effectiveness of social work depends on confidentiality. They protect vulnerable members of society, and it is right therefore that we should try to protect the social workers.
Baroness Faithfull: May I take up a point that the noble Lord has just made? As a social worker I know that the members of the British Association of Social Workers working in local authorities are seriously concerned that they may be compelled to jeopardise the ethical principle that they are required to uphold, namely that information clearly entrusted for one purpose should not be used for another without

1109
sanction. I believe that the social workers consider that when obtaining information and in order for information to be given, the data must be processed fairly and lawfully.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, social workers working in local authorities have access to a great deal of information of a very sensitive nature. Their relationship with their clients could be seriously jeopardised unless this was safeguarded.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are concerned with the implications for civil liberties and the data protection of the community charge registration process, as are the amendments to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Bonham-Carter. As with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there is no doubt that my arguments will span over those amendments as well. That is inevitable, but it is the agreed grouping. I assure the Committee that the Government take these concerns very seriously. It is evidence of this concern that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has met the Data Protection Registrar and has agreed to co-operate with him in drawing up a data protection code of practice for local authorities' community charges registration officers. Nevertheless, the amendments in this group are not acceptable to the Government.
This is not, as I have indicated, because of any lack of concern on the part of the Government about civil liberties and data protection. It is simply because we believe the amendments in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to be either misconceived or otiose, as I hope to demonstrate to the Committee.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seek to insert into the Bill a new schedule which would achieve two things. It would require registration officers to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act and it would prohibit them from using certain categories of information. There are a number of reasons why the amendments are unacceptable. First, it is entirely otiose to require registration officers to act in accordance with the Data Protection Act or to obtain and process information fairly and lawfully. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in particular on that important point.
Registration officers will be bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act in exactly the same way as are all other data users. They will be required to comply with the provisions and principles of that Act, including the requirement that data should be fairly obtained and processed. There is, therefore, simply no need to duplicate in this Bill provisions which already have the force of law under the Data Protection Act. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that we should not be in the business of reproducing in new pieces of legislation provisions which already have the force of law.
The second reason why the amendments are unnecessary is that paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to place certain categories of information off limits, as it were, to
1110
registration officers. We have made it clear that this power will be used to prevent registration officers having access to police records and sensitive social services records. Moreover, the Bill does not in any case allow registration officers to have access to health authority records or any other national sources of data.
I have, however, listened very closely to what both noble Lords have said today. I am sure that the points will be reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he comes to move his amendments, should he do so. I must say that the arguments deployed have undoubted merit and I should like to respond positively to them. I am therefore able to say that the Government are prepared to extend the categories of information to which registration officers will be denied access. I can confirm that we shall use the power in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to provide that registration officers shall not have access to the employment records held by their own or other local authorities. We believe that that will settle some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords.
I believe that there is a balance to be drawn. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for us to place any further sources of information off-limits to registration officers. It would simply be unreasonable to do so because it would have the effect of severely hampering registration officers in carrying out their functions. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that one would not wish to do that. I know that there is concern about the issue of civil liberties. Indeed, that was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, earlier. However, I should like to remind Members that the only information which registration officers will require will be the names and addresses of adults resident in their area. Thus it is right that they should have no power to require a supply of sensitive or personal data, and nor will they.
It will not have escaped the attention of Members of the Committee that any system of local income tax, to which I believe both the major opposition parties subscribe to some extent, would involve the supply of information about everybody's income. This would involve a far greater infringement of privacy than anything which the community charge will entail.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that we have taken enormous care to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. We have made it clear that certain sensitive information will be placed off-limits to registration officers. As Members now know, I have given a new commitment that employment records will be added to the list of information sources to which registration officers will be denied access. Moreover, as I have explained, a code of practice will be drawn up in consultation with the data protection registrar.
For those reasons, and in the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendments should not be accepted.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I heard one or two phrases from the noble Earl which led me to think that he would make significant concessions on this

1111
matter. When it comes down to it, however, we have as little as I could have conceived. The noble Earl quite rightly says that the registrar is bound by the
provisions of the Data Protection Act. Therefore paragraph 1 of my proposed new schedule, which provides that the data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully, is not necessary. I accept that and I am grateful for it. I also accept that it would be desirable not to repeat it in legislation.
However, that is only a preamble to the meat of the new schedule. In making what appear to be concessions, the noble Earl has gone a short distance along the way to understanding or, rather, towards recognising the significance, importance and validity of the points that are being made.
In particular, he does not appear to recognise the validity of the point which was urged on him by his noble friend Lady Faithfull. In Amendment No. 86 we talk about a whole series of records which we believe that the community charge registrar should not be able to refer to. The first is police or criminal records, which are normally maintained confidentially. The thought of police or criminal records being accessible to a community charge registrar, and in a register in which some items not only can be made available but must be made available in public, appears to us to be unacceptable.
As regards medical records, the noble Earl referred to health data being excluded. Perhaps the point is covered, but medical records are held by other than health authorities and we should need greater assurances on that point before accepting that the issue was adequately covered. I have already referred to social work records, which are matters of the utmost confidentiality. They affect some families in the worst conditions, both physically and psychologically, in our community. For example, they deal with families in which members are in conflict with each other. It would be extremely undesirable for social work records to be used by the community registrar with the possibility that information might get out and damage the power and ability of social workers to do the best possible job for those families. We should find quite unacceptable the possibility that social work records could be made available for such purposes.
Turning to education records, perhaps many Members of the Committee do not have social work records and I hope that very few have police and criminal records. However, nearly all have education records of some kind. Do we want education records, which were devised for a totally different purpose, to be made available to the community charge registrar? Surely not. That cannot have been intended or recognised as being a necessary result of the community charge legislation. The idea that such records should be included, or potentially included, in information available to the community charge registrar is quite unacceptable.
The noble Earl appeared to make some concession about employment records. However, if I heard him correctly, he referred to employment records held by the local authority concerned or by other local authorities. That is by no means all the employment
1112
records that may be held. Employment records are held by many other employers and by the Department of Employment and its agencies. Unless the noble Earl is to tell us that those records also shall not be used by the data protection registrar I am afraid that the concession goes a very short way towards meeting the justifiable concern which has been expressed.
Our new schedule refers also to records of individuals under the age of 18. We have tabled later amendments for consideration by the Committee which will stop the community charge registrar from anticipating the fact that someone will become 18, and therefore vulnerable to the community charge, and so obtaining information in advance. Again, that is a matter which is particularly sensitive when we are dealing with people who have not attained the age of majority.
Finally—and I am only dealing with one part of the schedule but it is the most important part—there is information relating to housing benefit or housing allocation which is of a sensitive personal nature. Any Members of the Committee who have taken part in local government or in the local government housing service will know that many of the records which have to be kept for the purposes of the housing service are extremely sensitive and personal and it would be most undesirable if the community charge registrar could request or hold information of that kind or demand it from the local authority.
I am bound to say that the Minister's friendly tone in replying to this amendment, or to some aspects of it, is not acceptable. Unless he can go a good deal further—and I am glad to give him the opportunity to do so—we cannot be satisfied with his response.
The Earl of Caithness: When I drafted what I planned to say to the noble Lord, I looked at the word "misconceived". I believe that I was right to use that word because I honestly believe that some of what we have heard from the noble Lord confirms my belief that he has a misconceived opinion of our proposals in the Bill.
Perhaps I may deal with what information will be available. Police information will not be available. Medical records will not be available. Sensitive data in social services records will not be available, and rightly so. As regards education records, the information available will be solely to the extent of names, addresses and possibly ages of people where appropriate. Employment records will not be available. Records of under 18 year-olds generally will not be available. Again, housing benefit records will be available but only to the limited extent of names and addresses. I believe that covers many of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I believe it fully meets the concerns of my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the sensitive records of social workers.
If the registration officer is to carry out his task as we would all require him to do, then surely it would be wrong to deny him access only to names and addresses. We all agree in this Committee that, for example, sensitive information of social workers or education directors should not be available. I believe

1113
it is on that basis that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had a misconception of what we were after and I hope I have met his point.
Lord Jay: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one point. As I understand it, he has offered two concessions: first, that a code of practice should be established at a later date; and secondly, that certain information relating to employment shall be, as he called it, "off limits" for the purposes of the register. As this is a crucial matter of civil liberties, can the Minister tell us whether these changes will be included as amendments in the Bill or whether Parliament is simply asked to take it on trust that by some administrative method the Government will carry out those changes at some future date? Is it not desirable that they should be clearly embodied in the Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has raised an important point and it is one on which I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I differ. We believe it is right that these matters can and should be dealt with by regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. I believe that was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Lord Meston: Before the noble Earl sits down, is he saying that the Government's view is that there is some information held by social workers which is sensitive and therefore should be protected and that there is some other category of information held by social workers which is to be regarded as not of a sensitive nature and should therefore not be protected?
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that the noble Lord is almost right. The names and addresses might well be relevant to the registration officer. However, he is not concerned about why they are there.
Lord Peston: The Minister referred en passant to income tax, albeit local income tax. Can he tell us whether the registrar will have greater access to data of this kind than the Inland Revenue currently has?
The Earl of Caithness: I believe it would be very difficult for the registrar to have greater access than the Inland Revenue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I can clarify one point with my noble friend. He referred twice to a code of practice. I understand this to be a code of practice as to what information should and should not be available. What kind of legal status will that code have?
The Earl of Caithness: My understanding is that it would have legal status under the Bill because that is what sets it up.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend will forgive me, it has status under the Bill but what kind of legal status? It is a serious question.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, it is a serious question. It jogs my memory and I believe that my
1114
noble friend and I have trod this course before with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps I may inform my noble friend as soon as possible.
Lord Mishcon: Is that really good enough, however politely uttered? If this amendment is to be dealt with seriously and on the basis, as the noble Lord has just indicated, that we know that what the Minister has said will have the force of law even though it be not written into the Bill, it is essential for the Committee to know whether a code of practice is merely persuasive or mandatory otherwise it may be unconsciously misled by the noble Earl. Is it not a fact that a code of practice is only persuasive whereas a regulation is mandatory? Is the noble Earl prepared to say that what can or cannot be seen by the registrar will form the basis of a regulation, or is he merely telling the Committee that there will be a document which can be acted upon at the will of the parties concerned because it will be purely guidance?
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I can clarify that point for the Committee and may I say how nice it is to be debating again with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Those items which we consider to be off limits will be under regulations; that is, under paragraph 6(1)(d) of Schedule 2. The guidance will be as a result of the discussions that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government is having with the data protection registrar. The important point which I believe satisfies the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the point about which we have been talking throughout our discussions is that that which is off limits will be under regulations in the Bill.
Lord Jay: The Minister has not told us about the code of practice and how it is to acquire legal force. Is it to acquire legal force and if so, how, if it is not to be embodied in the Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: I thought I had clarified that point just now with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The guidance to which I referred, following discussions between my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the data protection registrar, will not have the same legal effect as the off-limits items set by regulations under the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Earl tell the Committee when the codes of practice, the regulations and all these other matters will be placed before Parliament? The register has to be compiled by 1st December next year. Local authorities have to put all such measures into operation and they are left with very little time to do so if all the procedures we have been talking about for the past 10 minutes are not in their hands by the end of next year.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope I can meet the concern of the noble Baroness and slightly pre-empt what I shall say later. Work is well advanced on many of the regulations because discussions with the local authority associations and the Data Protection Registrar are being conducted, but until they are

1115
complete the regulations cannot be laid. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wanted to take into account what was said here today.
Baroness Faithfull: May I seek further clarification from my noble friend in regard to social workers? He generously said that there was certain information of a sensitive nature in the social service departments of local authorities which would be safeguarded. However, did I understand him to say that names and addresses would be required? That presents difficulties. Social workers deal with homeless families. They deal with women who have left their families for one reason or another or left their husbands because of cruelty and neglect.
I imagine that these people, who move about a great deal, are of great interest to the registration officer. At the same time, however, in divulging merely a name and address the implication is that such information is of a serious and sensitive nature. Can my noble friend clarify the position?
The Earl of Caithness: I take the point made by my noble friend. There are two aspects. There is that of the homeless people, which we discussed two weeks ago and which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and I said we would consider. As regards a wife perhaps moving out of her sole or main residence without notifying the registration officer, that is an offence under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, one is bound to do that. It is right that the social services should be required to provide that information, but nothing more sensitive.
Indeed, I could go further for my noble friend. I find it difficult to see why in such a case, that could be attributable to the social services officer in charge of a case and connect the fact that the registration officer happened to have the name and address of that person.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: What the noble Earl said is somewhat worrying to me. We had a debate about battered wives. I thought they had protection under the Bill. Where they are put into hostels I understood that such information could not be divulged to anybody who requested it. In other words, the husband cannot look at the register and find the address.
If, as often happens, a woman leaves council property which is under joint tenancy, thereby relinquishing the abode, and the matrimonial discord is settled, she will be deemed to have given up the tenancy, having moved away. That is what the noble Earl appears to have indicated. The woman would have put herself in a very serious position.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is not only battered wives but various other groups that can apply to have their names deleted from the register. What I have said does not impinge on that position in any way. I can assure the noble Baroness of that.
Lord Auckland: In the main I am in complete agreement with my noble friend the Minister in his patient response to the many questions put to him.
1116
However, I am slightly concerned about the records held by health authorities, which are large organisations. I should like to put two questions to my noble friend. First, from what level of seniority within the local health authority will such information be divulged? Secondly, there are a number of illnesses and conditions which are of a confidential nature. Will that aspect be taken into account?
The Earl of Caithness: As regards my noble friend's second point, of course medical records, regardless of the illness, will be sensitive information and cannot be disclosed to the registration officer. As regards the first point, I take note of what my noble friend said, but we will be issuing guidance on precisely that aspect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened with great care to the patient and courteous responses made by the Minister to cross-questioning from all parts of the Committee. I listened with great care because I wanted to believe that his answers would be good enough. However, there are two basic matters which leave me profoundly dissatisfied.
The first is the status of the safeguards which the Minister proposes. My noble friend Lord Jay asked whether they would be in regulations or on the face of the Bill. The answer he received was that they would be in regulations. My noble friend Lord Mishcon and others asked about the status of codes of practice, but the legal position of these is still not entirely satisfactory or clear. There is no provision for enforcement. I suggest, not being a lawyer, that it would be unsatisfactory for provisions for the enforcement of codes of practice to be made by regulation rather than by statute. If we are to have a code of practice which is not in the Bill—and that may well be the right thing to do—there must be a back-up other than ministerial say-so; otherwise one has legislation coming in in effect at third hand down the administrative ladder rather than being made by Parliament. Therefore, that matter has not been satisfactorily resolved.
The second question which was not adequately answered
by the Minister relates to the type of information which would be available to the community charge registrar from all these sources. He said that names and addresses would be disclosed, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out, in certain cases it is the names and addresses which are themselves sensitive. A woman could be traced by reference to the community charge register by a vindictive husband or by someone else who wished to cause harm.
There was considerable debate in Scotland concering dates of birth. A few moments ago we were assured by the Minister that no records would be kept of those under the age of 18. That is all very well, but in order to establish whether a person is eligible for the register many community charge registrars—probably all of them—will look for information on date of birth, because that is a qualifying factor.
When dates of birth are included on the register, whether or not ultimately they are made public in a

1117
commercial form is neither here nor there. However, the dates of birth of elderly people living on their own is a sensitive matter. In many cases it leaves them with the fear— whether justified or not, and I suggest that in many cases it is justified—that the fact that the information is available and that they are living alone makes them more vulnerable to attack. I wish that it were not the case, but I think it may well be so.
I did not weary the Committee by going through the many sensible protection provisions included in the proposed new schedule to which I was speaking: for example, keeping information up to date and not keeping it any longer than necessary; ensuring that it is adequate and not excessive; ensuring that it can be destroyed if it proves to be wrong; and seeing that there is a remedy against damage or distress as a result of a breach of any of these provisions. I could have taken a great deal longer in setting out to the Committee what is already available in the text of my amendments. However, the response of the Minister has not been adequate to any of the major points that have been raised. Under those circumstances it is right that I should seek the opinion of the Committee.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 125.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Blease, L.

Lytton, E.

Blyth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Caradon, L.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Manchester, D.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Fletcher, L.

Raglan, L.

Flowers, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Serota, B.

Hooson, L.

Shannon, E.

Jay, L.

Shepherd, L.

1118

Soper, L.

Thurlow, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Stallard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stedman, B.

Underhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Allerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Alport, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bauer, L.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lovat, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brightman, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denning, L.

Derwent, L.

Porritt, L.

Dormer, L.

Portland, D.

Dudley, B.

Pym, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rugby, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernbethy, Ly.

Fisher, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Goold, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Halsbury, E.

Torphichen, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trafford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.49 p.m.
Clause 6 [Community charges register]:
[Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 5, line 3, after ("maintain") insert ("and keep up to date").
The noble Lord said: The amendment makes the point that the community charge registrar should not only maintain his register but keep it up-to-date. That was one of the many points made in my proposed new schedule which we have just been debating. I venture to move the amendment now because it seems so self-evidently justifiable that I very much hope the Minister will feel it necessary and desirable to agree to it.
If a register is to be maintained surely it will not be of any use to anyone let alone for community charge purposes, unless it is kept up-to-date. This has implications not only for the efficiency of the community charge registration process but also for the register's validity in respect of the other purposes for which it is intended. It also has civil liberties' implications as regards the difficulties which would arise from an out-of-date register which would be no longer in force. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that for the purposes of registration it is necessary that the register should be kept up to date. I am asking him to say that that is what a good registrar should do and also that there should be a requirement to do so on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot see the necessity for this amendment. If the duty is first to set up and then to maintain a register, surely that carries an obligation to keep it up to date? The noble Lord's amendment is a double statement and is quite unnecessary.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the Scottish Act, where the obligation as regards keeping up to date is put on the poll tax payer, who may have liability to pay two taxes unless he remembers to inform the registrar?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not have the Scottish Act with me but I am prepared to discuss the matter simply on the merits—if the noble Lord does not regard it as offensive—as they apply to the English Bill. I ask how one can possibly maintain a register if one does not keep it up to date.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That may well be so for England but an undertaking was given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that the Scottish legislation would be kept in line with that for England. If the obligation is to be put on the registrar and not on the payer of this tax I trust that the change will take place for the Scots as well. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has omitted the Welsh. Are they not to be included in this provision?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, this is not a question of the Scottish provision. It is simply a
1120
question of the English language. If the registrar is to maintain a register, he will not be maintaining it if he does not keep it up to date. That is my submission to the Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In moving the amendment the noble Lord rather gave that answer himself. He asked a question in the form of an amendment and then said pretty much what my noble friend said—that you would expect this to happen. Are these not unnecessary words? What does "up to date" mean? Up to what date? When does it start and when does it finish? Does not the amendment insert uncertainty? This is not an amendment to be proceeded with.
Lord Somers: I do not often dare to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but surely to maintain a list means, strictly speaking, to keep it as it is and not to make various alterations that may be necessary?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, it depends on what one is talking about. If one is talking about a register, one is not maintaining it if one allows it to become out of date.
The Earl of Caithness: I thought that this would lead to such an argument, and indeed I come down firmly on the side of the clear and concise argument of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The Government's clear legal advice is that it would be tautological to accept Amendment No. 60 moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We believe that it is inherent in the concept of maintaining the register that it will be kept up to date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have had not perhaps a semantic argument but an argument about definition of terms. I shall certainly not pursue the matter in conflict with the Minister's legal advisers but it seems to me that public administration provides far too many examples of things which are maintained but are not kept up to date. For example, our road surfaces could be criticised in that way. There is a budget for maintenance but it does not stop the roads having potholes.
The issue here is important and is not entirely satisfactorily dealt with in the Minister's reply. It still seems to be that it is desirable from the Secretary of State's point of view and from the community charge registrar's point of view that the register should be kept up to date as well as being maintained, because I do not think that those words mean entirely the same thing. However, it seems that there would be some virtue in ensuring that a certain person is responsible for keeping it up to date rather than, as in the Scottish Act, it being the responsibility of the individual community charge payer.
I am afraid that this is the type of difficulty that the Government have created for themselves by demanding that there should be a register which is capable of being altered from day to day as the obligation to pay the community charge alters from day to day. It is a much more vulnerable instrument for abuse, mistakes and administrative chaos than the rating register, which is a register of properties.

1121
The Government have got themselves into this difficulty in regard to the detail with which the register has to be considered and which must be provided for by legislation. However, it is not an appropriate matter on which to divide the Committee. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and with subsection 8 (A) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 65. Amendment No. 65 makes the important provision that:
"A registration officer shall seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions".
That general proposition is intended to complement and supplement whatever other safeguards there are, or ought to be in the Bill or in the underlying regulations, however they turn out to be.
I venture to suggest that the amendment is perhaps all the more important now in the light of the Committee's recent decision to reject the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendments provide, especially Amendment No. 65, what I suggest is a long stop in the absence of any more specific guidelines in the Bill. It says to the registration officer that his powers are limited to the gathering of such information as is reasonably required, and no more than that.
I am most encouraged by the fact that on Report in another place the Government indicated that they would consider an amendment to this effect. Therefore I now hope that they will accept the amendment, or something similar to it. As I suggested earlier, without the amendment there is a considerable gap in the Bill because there is no clear limit which indicates what the registration officers can do, and there is also no limitation on overzealous registrars or registration officers adopting perhaps some of the less attractive techniques of the private detective. Therefore, with that in mind, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: The word "reasonable" is admittedly somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, most reasonable people are broadly in agreement about what consitutes reasonableness and would surely consider it wholly reasonable that the registration officer's powers should be modestly circumscribed by this important safeguard. For that reason I gladly support the amendment and hope that Members of the Committee will feel the same way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I too support the amendment and take the opportunity to raise another question regarding the Scottish demand, which last year's Bill insisted upon as regards date of birth. If the Minister remembers, as I am sure his colleague does, my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael, and myself fought
1122
very hard about the iniquity of insisting upon a person's date of birth being recorded on the register. I wonder why it is necessary to have Alistair MacDonald's date of birth in Scotland but, on the other hand, not apparently ncecessary to have the date of birth of John Smith in England. Why is it that the one is not to be confused, whereas the other might be? I hope that Minister will answer my question.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 60A and 65 would require the registration officer to seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, just reminded the Committee, a similar amendment was tabled on Report in another place. On that occasion my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said that he understood the motivation for the amendment and undertook to consider whether the Bill should be amended to incorporate the concept that registration officers may seek only such information as they reasonably require. I can inform the Committee that the Government's intention is precisely that registration officers should be subject at all times to the duty to act reasonably. As a result, we have obtained advice on the point and have received confirmation that the powers will, because of the Wednesbury principle, already be read in that way. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary because they will be duty bound to act reasonably.
In response to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I shall have much to say about the differences between England and Scotland at a later stage. I hope, therefore, that he will be pent up and ready to argue those matters at that time. Nevertheless, I should like to say to him at this stage that of course there will be some differences in detail between the English Bill and the Scottish Act. That is absolutely in accord with the principle that there is a different legal system in Scotland than in England. I am sure the noble Lord would not want it otherwise. However, on the point he raised with regard to dates of birth, this was imposed because the Scottish local authorities requested it and as a result of their request were subsequently given the provision.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Would it were that Scottish local authorities received everything that they asked for! Nevertheless, they somehow seem not to receive the money they need. However, that is perhaps a different point. Surely the Government have a duty occasionally to consider the rights of the citizen as an individual, their personal rights. It may be most convenient for the Inland Revenue, for a local authority or any government body to know something about someone. However, if a lady of 85 years of age wishes to hide the fact that she is 85 and not 90 or 80, and also that she lives alone, and therefore does not want that fact to be on a public register, is it not sensible for the Government to take account of such a situation where a person can be properly identified?
I turn now from the Scottish situation to the other one. I found the reference to the Wednesbury principles quite astonishing. The Wednesbury principles apply only to administrative action. If the statute lays down a rule, the Wednesbury principles

1123
only apply, as judicial review only applies, to whether that duty in the statute is being reasonably carried out. We are talking about the statute at this stage. If the statute lays down the rules, then the principles as to whether they are being reasonably applied by the local authority will operate. The statute leaves the whole matter vague and open, as does the Bill. There is nothing for the court to deal with. Therefore, with the greatest respect, it does not seem that the response given on the issue of judicial review is really an answer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just for the record, I think that when the noble Lord recollects the debate we had about the inclusion of age in the register, he will realise that we had an important discussion about that aspect. The Government were asked to include age in order to make it easier to tell one John Smith from another in the same household. We were told that often one has the grandfather, the grandson and the son—I am getting my generations confused—in the same household. However, what I mean is that there are sometimes three John Smiths in the one household and therefore the provision would help identify which was which. Nevertheless we received an assurance—I think the noble Lord has forgotten this—that the age would not be on the published register; that would be the part that was not published. That was why the provision was agreed to. It is a most important point.
If Scottish local authorities require the provision and the English ones do not, then I suppose the difference is not enormously significant. Nonetheless, I am surprised that if it is a useful tool in one place, it is not so useful in another; and if it is a dispensable tool in one place, it is not dispensable in another. This is not a major issue because the information is private. The forms presently being circulated in Scotland, which are being filled in by responsible people in each house, include age. When it is explained to people that it is merely a matter of identification, I have found that they do not mind. In my view it is not the major issue it may seem to be.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is right and I am most grateful to her for what she has said. Indeed this is a point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned when he wound up on the first amendment. He confused the two points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. They confused what is available on the register with what is on an extract of the register. The content of the register will be slightly more detailed but will only be available to the person named because of the Data Protection Act. In other words, a person can only see the extract which relates to himself; he will not be able to look at other matters because they will not be public. The extract of the register which contains the names and addresses will be public, as indeed the rating valuation list is at present. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, there are cases where those who wish to be exempted—for example, battered wives do not want their husbands to know, or for other reasons—can be exempt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out to him that the responsible person has to ask everyone in the house their date of birth. Therefore, if one can imagine various relationships in a house that can sometimes lead to a difficult situation.
Lord Meston: I am most grateful for the support I have received for this modest amendment, especially for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He indicated—as indeed I think a lawyer would—that reasonable people can differ reasonably as to what is reasonable. Nevertheless, that is not a reason for not including the words in the Bill. Frankly I am most concerned that the Government feel, because their advice is to the effect that this is governed by the Wednesbury principles, that it is possible to leave these words out of the Bill. If the point is covered by the common law, surely there is nothing for the Government to be afraid of in having on the face of the Bill a clear statement that the registration officer should only seek such information as he may reasonably require.
I understand that the Government have taken advice on the matter, as the noble Earl indicated. I too wish to consider the position in law, in particular the potential operation of the Wednesbury principles and whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, they are limited in their relation to administrative law so as not to be the safeguard that I would wish to see in the Bill. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve my position at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60B:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and shall not obtain any information for this purpose from any electoral register.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 60B, I wish to speak to the connected amendments, Nos. 63 and 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 are intended to prevent cross reference by the registration officer to the electoral register. On the face of it, that may appear to be a surprising proposition, but it is widely perceived and predicted that if such cross reference is allowed, and understood to be allowed, there will be a considerable disincentive to those people entitled to register to vote, especially those entitled to register for the first time.
It is widely feared that if that happens it will cause a substantial disservice to the democratic process. It has been widely reported that there is already a considerable lack of interest among younger people in the political and parliamentary processes of this country. That is all very salutary for the politicians but for society as a whole it is essentially unhealthy. It is especially unhealthy if people who are entitled to vote do not register because they will now have a further excuse not to do so.
I am conscious of the fact that in proposing the amendment I am leaving myself open to the suggestion that I condone the evasion of the charge; but the fact is—it is a fact—that those who think that

1125
they can evade or avoid the charge by not registering to vote are shortsighted because of course registration for the charge can be secured by other means. People will think that they can avoid the charge by not registering for electoral purposes. That is too high a price for our democratic process.
There is another practical consideration for not allowing cross reference in that way; that is, it will make life considerably more difficult for electoral registration officers. The electoral register, which is already not an altogether reliable document, will tend to become yet more inaccurate. The Government argued in another place that the two registers are separate and should be kept separate. If that is so, I propose the amendments with the intention that the registers should be seen to be kept separate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord's amendment is understandable because he rightly, like most Members of the Committee, does not wish to discourage people entitled to go on the electoral register from going on it. As many Members of the Committee with experience of local and parliamentary government know, the electoral register is not always as complete as one would wish and as it should be in a democracy. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord fully appreciates the imputation he is making against the moral standards of some of our fellow countrymen. He suggests that there are people—he referred specifically to young people—who wish to go on the electoral register so as to be able to vote and determine the policy of their local authority but who at the same time wish to evade making the financial contribution which the decisions of that local authority may impose.
I suggest that it is not a creditable posture for any citizen—if there be any citizen so disposed—to say, "Yes, I want to be able to vote. I want to be able to make my policy views known, but I want to avoid the financial consequences by evading my duty to go on this other register for the community charge". That is not a reflection that many of us would wish to make upon the moral standards of our fellow countrymen. I do not believe there are many—there may be a few—who would act in that deplorable way.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: Is the noble Lord implying that he is convinced that there is no one in our democracy who goes in for tax evasion? I do not think that that is a realistic attitude.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I did not say that there was no one. I said that it was a grave reflection on a large number of people to suggest that there were substantial numbers of people who would have the curious mental attitude that they wish to be able to determine the policies of the local authority by going on the register but wish at the same time to evade their financial responsibilities. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that is the point, rather than the more general question of tax evasion or tax avoidance, which is a complex subject relating mainly not to this topic but to income tax, which I shall be
1126
happy to debate with him on some occasion when it is perhaps relevant.
I believe that the proposal is a tiresome reflection. I see no reason why on occasion the information which the registration officer requires should not be obtained from the electoral register. It is a possible source of information. I know the views of Members opposite about the community charge. They are of course against it. However, if we are to have it—the decision of this place the other day confirming that of another place makes it clear that we will have it—surely one wants to have it in the fairest way possible; and the fairest way possible is that the maximum number of those liable to pay it should be on the register and should have to pay it.
If there is substantial evasion, it merely means that other people have to pay more. It therefore seems a pity that we should take any step, for the rather flimsy reasons that the noble Lord put forward, which could have the effect of diminishing the number of people on whom the community charge is properly levied in accordance with the decisions of Parliament.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord has made an extremely interesting speech, with perhaps rather more far-reaching implications than he is aware. This is the first time in this place that I have heard set out the case for moral qualifications for citizenship. I find it curious. We live in a country which for good or ill has universal suffrage for young and old, rich and poor and good and evil, saving only condemned criminals, lunatics and Peers of the Realm.
Hitherto, Parliament has severely set its face against any exceptions to that principle. I have listened to the noble Lord on many occasions. I never thought to hear him setting forth the case for the rule of the saints. I am somewhat taken aback.
Many of us arc well aware that the electoral register is an imperfect document. Many of us who have tried to make it less imperfect are aware that the feeling one encounters when trying to persuade people to register is not usually a specific desire to evade the specific purpose, with which I have no sympathy and with which I said on Second Reading that I have no sympathy. It is a simple, generalised fear that the information may be used against one. If one wishes people to fill in their names for the electoral register one must be able to assure them categorically that that is not the case.
Unless the amendment is carried, I cannot see how that requirement can be satisfied. If the requirement is not satisfied, our claims to live in a democracy are, however mindlessly, called into question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As one would expect of him, the noble Earl put his case much more plausibly than did his noble friend who moved the amendment. However, it was plausible rather than convincing. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, made the point that if it were known that the electoral register could be used to construct the register, quite a number of people who would otherwise go on the electoral register would not put their name forward. That was his clear statement. It was to that clear statement and the reflection that it conveyed on a number of our fellow citizens that I took, and take, exception.

1127
The noble Earl is much more vague about it. He says that there might be some strange idea, however unfounded, that if one is on the electoral register one will be caught for the community charge. However, he put that point with a certain statesman-like lack of precision to which we are accustomed from those Benches.
Your Lordships must decide whether the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is right; whether there will be deliberate abstention from going on the electoral register because the individual concerned fears being caught for the community charge, or whether there might be some vague apprehension without any particular intention to evade tax which, as I understand it, is the view of the noble Earl. I think that both of those views are wrong but it would be interesting to know which of them is the view of the Alliance.
Lord Jay: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seems to be arguing that we should have no anti-tax evasion provisions at all because such provisions would have an implied grave reflection on the moral conduct of our fellow citizens. I hardly think that he wishes to push matters as far as that. His main argument seems to rest on a mistaken view of what has been argued from other parts of the Committee. He says that it is very wrong and deplorable that someone should say that he wishes to exercise his vote and thereby reflect the policy of local authorities, and at the same time not contribute to their expense.
However, that is not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is that some people, unhappily, might say that having to pay the community charge is such a hardship that they would rather sacrifice as an exchange their ability to vote. It may be deplorable that that should be so, but that is the suggestion. Most of us, at any rate in a common-sense mood, would agree that that might happen on a not negligible scale. That is even more undesirable than the movers of the amendment suggested. The number of people exercising their democratic right to vote would be diminished. In addition, the number would diminish in a biased fashion because most of those who gave way to the wish not to exercise their vote would be people whose incomes were very low and who found the community charge a very serious burden.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, suggesting that tax evasion is simply the prerogative of the poor?
Lord Jay: I think that if the noble Lord thinks that, he did not really listen to what I was saying. I said that it was not a moral reflection on large numbers of our fellow citizens to say that we should make our tax system proof against evasion. I should have thought that most of us would agree with that. However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has answered the point that some people might be driven by this provision to relinquish their right to vote. That would be a highly undesirable development.
Lord Underhill: As most noble Lords will know, I have spent a great part of my life trying to get electoral registers up to date. Therefore, I am the last person who would wish to diminish in any way the importance of the electoral register. However, we are dealing with two registers. The Bill makes it perfectly clear. It appears that the same officer might be the registration officer and the electoral registration officer, but we are dealing with two separate operations. The intention is that there should be a separate canvass for the community charge register. In addition, we have been pressing for a proper canvass for the electoral register. This is not carried out in all areas.
One must not ignore what my noble friend has said. During the Second Reading debate, regrettable though it may be, a number of noble Lords stressed that the community charge could lead to a break-up of families, particularly poorer families, where young men move away from home. I always give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his excellent debating arguments, but the other points which have been raised must be taken into account.
I should like to draw attention to Amendment No. 67 in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. He does not just refer to the question of information not being obtained from any electoral register. Incidentally, my interpretation of any electoral register includes an absent voters' register which contains essential information which it may be desirable should go to the community charge registration officer. My noble friend's amendment says that the registration officer's duty to compile and maintain a register does not include the power to cross reference. I think that that is a rather important point. The electoral register only contains names and addresses and the date at which a person is due to become 18 before the expiry of the register. There is no other information at all on the electoral register. The absent voters' electoral register may contain other information.
It could be that the cross-referencing by the electoral registration officer or his staff with the community charge register could provide information which people may not wish to divulge. The important point raised in the Bill is whether a man and a woman are living together as man and wife. That information is not contained in the electoral register. Mr. Jones is Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith is Mrs. Smith. No other information is given at all except their address. The community charge register will indicate whether Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith are living together as man and wife, because they will be charged accordingly. The noble Earl seems mystified but I gather that people who are living together in this category who are believed to be man and wife can be charged with the community charge; and one may be responsible for the other if one does not pay. That is the importance of the cross-referencing to which I am referring.
There can also be the possibility of tracing. I agree that it is desirable that people should obey a law. However, I can readily understand the position of a poor family where two lads decide to come down to London, but they are still on the register in Glasgow

1129
until the end of the qualifying register. The qualifying date each year is the set date of 10th October. I gather that the community charge register will be added to regularly.
There is more in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston and my noble friend's Amendment No. 67 than some noble Lords have given credit for. I support not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but in particular the amendment of my noble friend which refers to this important question of cross-reference.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The opening of Clause 6 reads:
"The registration officer for a charging authority shall compile, and then maintain, a community charges register for the authority in accordance with this Part".
When the Bill becomes an Act, it will insist that whoever is the registration officer shall carry out this task. His job is to obtain—he must do it, that is what the Bill is all about—a full and complete register in order to meet the problem which has given rise to this Bill. In doing that, he is particularly helping the other people who appear on the register. The more people who are on it, the more the load is shared. That means that the problem which has brought the whole Bill about will be that much lighter for everybody concerned.
How can we write into this Bill the very clear words that "the registration officer shall compile"—there is nothing about "may"—this register? It gives him the duty to see that it is as full as it can be. He should not then be denied access, in order to carry out his task, to something which he knows exists. He knows that there is an electoral register. We know that people refer to it for all sorts of purposes. I do not think that we can agree to the first paragraph of Clause 1 and then deny to the man who must carry out the task which we have given to him the facilities for doing it fully and sensibly.
For those reasons, I believe on this amendment that if one is against the Bill then nothing ought to be done. We might say, as both noble Lords have said, that we agree with obeying the law and agree as a Parliament that this Bill is necessary. But if we put this clause in which says that the registration officer must compile the register and then say that he shall not have access to much of the evidence to make it the sort of register we want it to be, I believe that would be rather silly and we ought not to pursue it.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend answer a question? I am asking it solely as a matter of interest and curiosity. If there is to be a new register for the poll tax, will the registrar be able to check it against the electoral register? Or is the electoral register going to be secret? If the registrar checks it against the electoral register, it will have the same effect since it will be the same register. Perhaps my noble friend could answer that question.
Lord Underhill: I should like to intervene and say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. A Bill may place responsibility upon an officer to do a certain thing. Surely that does not
1130
mean that he can act in a way which we might consider to be wrong socially and wrong from the standpoint of responsibility. Therefore there must be some qualifications laid down. The duty of an electoral registration officer is to compile the electoral register. But there are certain practices which he should not carry out. There are other practices which I should like to see him carry out. He does not carry out the door-to-door canvassing which I would like to see for the electoral register. Therefore we may lay down what an officer's responsibility is, but it must be constrained within what is regarded as responsible, decent and socially desirable practice.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in support of these amendments, but I have to say that I find them (as did my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter) unconvincing. I do so for two compelling reasons. The first is that in the Government's view there is nothing objectionable in allowing community charges registration officers to have access to electoral registers. The second is that these amendments would in practice achieve absolutely nothing and would be quite unenforceable.
The electoral register is a legitimate source of information which is already in the public domain. There will of course be no question of community charges registration officers basing their registers on the electoral register. The two registers will not have the same coverage and they will be compiled and maintained separately. There will be people who appear on the electoral register but not the community charges register, and vice versa. There will be no question therefore of appearance on the electoral register being evidence that a person's name should also appear on the community charges register. Nor will the fact that a person's name does not appear on the electoral register mean that person will be able to avoid registration for the community charge.
The truth of the matter is that community charges registration officers will compile their registers by means of canvasses of households in their areas and by cross-checking, in the interests of accuracy, against the many sources of local data at their disposal. The electoral register will be just one such data source among many, and I can see nothing objectionable in that.
Let me turn then to what I think is the clinching argument against these amendments—the fact that they would achieve nothing and would be quite unenforceable in practice. This is a point which has not yet been covered, although I have to say that my noble friend Lord Onslow came closest to it. The electoral register is, as I have said, a public document which is open for inspection by anyone who wishes to see it. This means that even if we were to introduce a provision banning community charges registration officers from inspecting the electoral register, that provision could not possibly achieve anything. Surely, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would agree that it is a nonsense to say, on the one hand, that as a member of the public the community charges registration officer may inspect the electoral register,

1131
but on the other, in his official capacity as registration officer, he may not. I hope that the noble Lord will find that a convincing argument because he as a lawyer will see the difficulty of enforcing it.
Perhaps I may turn to two points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The community charges registration officer in England and Wales cannot he the electoral registration officer. Of course, the noble Lord is right. He was casting his mind back to Scotland where it can and indeed will be the same person. In England and Wales it cannot be the same person.
Lord Underhill: Would the noble Earl give way? I am glad he has made that correction for me, but it makes our case even more important. They are two separate officers.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, but as I have said, the electoral role is already in the public domain and can be inspected by the community charges registration officer as a private citizen, should he so wish.
The second point is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who rightly said that I was looking somewhat quizzical at one stage when he referred to couples. I fear that the noble Lord was under a slight misapprehension about the couples. We can deal with them in more detail when we come to Clause 16 later on. A this stage I shall just say that joint and several liability will not appear on the register, so the fact that a John Smith and a Jill Smith are married will not be apparent from the community charges register, nor known to the registration officer. The joint and several liability point which comes in is only when they separate and one person does not pay the community charge. However, that is an argument for Clause 16, not for this stage.
Lord Meston: The simple fact is that the availability of the electoral register to the registration officer for the purposes of the community charge will be a deterrent to electoral registration. I suggest that that is not a flimsy supposition, it is a fact. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in many ways the idea that people will not register to vote, because they will be tempted in that way to try to avoid the charge, is not a particularly attractive or credible proposition. I emphasise the phrase "try to avoid the charge" because of course the charge may be enforced against them in other ways. But the fact is—and it is a cynical fact—that we must consider people as they will behave and as they are likely to behave, not as they ought to behave.
Perhaps I should have mentioned this point in my opening remarks. The indications are that what I suggest will happen is already happening. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities carried out a survey. One northern metropolitan district found that a man had deleted his wife and daughter, both eligible to pay tax in their own right.
Baroness Seear: He deleted their names.
Lord Meston: I am reminded by my noble friend that he deleted their names, not the people. They were
1132
both eligible to pay tax in their own right for the first time. A council in the north-west cited examples of 18 year-olds and rising 18 year-olds being deliberately left off by parents who fear that they will have to pay the poll tax for them. If it is the fact that parents will be tempted to leave the names of their teenage children off the form, that will not be good for democracy nor for the work of the electoral registration process. Of course the noble Earl is right when he says that the electoral register is a public document. It is meant to be a fairly comprehensive public document containing the names of almost all adults in the country. I suggest that without this amendment it is hard to believe that the registration officer, for the purposes of the community charge, wilÌ not be tempted to rely on it as a primary source of information.
Of course it will not be the only source of information, and because it is not the only source of information I would suggest that my amendment does not greatly weaken the powers given by this Bill to the registration officer for the purposes of the community charge. But if the electoral register is to become more unreliable by virtue of the fact that people will be tempted not to put their names on it, the purpose of my amendment would be undermined. I accept that. However, in view of the strength of feeling on this side I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord decides finally what to do with his amendment, may I make two points? He cited a case in the North of a parent who had not put down the names of his child or wife or declared their income because of fear of the community charge. That goes to show what misconceptions there still are about the community charge and about parents being responsible for their 18 year-old children and above. When people realise that parents will not be responsible and that the child or indeed the grandparent living in the house will be assessed separately on their own income, I believe that that, and the many, misapprehensions that there still are sadly, will disappear.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that if he was the electoral officer and I was the community charge officer and I asked to inspect his roll, the noble Lord would doubtless turn to me and say, "No. You are the community charge registration officer. You cannot inspect my roll." But I would then say, "But I am now looking in my capacity as a private citizen." So the noble Lord would then show me the roll. That is not workable in practice.
Lord Sefton of Garston: All that does is to prove how unworkable the Bill is. I have been trying to find out where the inquiry form is which I hope has been circulated to Scotland. I have not found one available in the House. I should have thought that we would have needed to know what that inquiry form that the registration officer sends out contains. I do not think it is right that when I go to the Printed Paper Office I am not able to obtain it. All I can obtain is a booklet entitled You and the Community Charge. That concerns the charge as it affects the people of Scotland.

1133
There is no doubt that there will be a connection between the electoral register and the community charges register. The Minister emphasises the fact that even if a law were passed prohibiting the community charge officer from inspecting the electoral register, he could get round that by asking to inspect it as a private citizen. He could use that means of checking the register.
That merely proves that the connection is there. Why are we playing about with words? But, worse still, why do the Government not tell the people of Scotland that? I am assuming that the same principles apply to Scotland. If they do not I understand that at some stage in the future the Government will make them apply equally to Scotland as to England and Wales.
What does the booklet say? If the English language means anything, it states in the booklet:
"Will it affect my right to vote?"
That question is supposed to be one that a Scottish person would ask. That is a plain, simple enough question. The answer from the Government is:
"No. The community charge and its register have nothing to do with your right to vote".
Is that really what the Minister thinks personally—that it has nothing to do with peoples' right to vote? People are compelled to put on the electoral register the address of a person who is entitled to vote. Then the Minister tells us that the community charge officer can go and check up on the register and, I assume, subject that person to a fine or a penalty. To suggest that that has nothing to do with one's right to vote is sheer fraud, and it is being visited upon the Scottish people at the moment.
The Earl of Caithness: I must contradict the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. There is no evidence to substantiate his case at all. According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and indeed the Home Office, there has been no significant effect from the community charge in Scotland or elsewhere in reducing the accuracy of the electoral register.
To the small extent that there has been evidence of any reduction in some authorities in the numbers on the electoral register, that is equally explicable by many other factors such as it being the year after a general election.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister must agree that that is playing with words again. The principle that I have been underlining is that the Government are wrong to say that there is no connection. There is a connection and the Minister has indicated to the community charge officer how, even if he were refused access to the electoral register, he can get round it. That will not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. This is a poll tax and nothing else.
The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support, rather oddly, my noble friend on the Front Bench. He knows perfectly well that I think this is a pretty bad tax. But, having said that, we have now agreed that we are going to have this wretched tax. To put an amendment in the Bill which states that one public
1134
servant may not read another public document strikes me as being even sillier than the tax itself. Therefore I support my noble friend.
Lord Meston: The fact is that the Minister said that the example that I cited only went to show what misconceptions there still were about the workings of this Bill and how it will work. If there are misconceptions, I am bound to comment that it must be the fault of the Government. But in the real world parents will feel liable to pay for their children who are coming up to the age of 18. In practice, in the real world, they will all be paying out of the same family budget.
If a registration officer feels tempted to sneak a look at the electoral register, there is nothing one can do in practice to prevent him. But if he does do so he had better do so in his own time. We certainly should not approve of the practice on the face of the Bill. Therefore I am unpersuaded; I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 144.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ardwick, L.

McNair, L.

Attlee, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Banks, L.

Meston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Molloy, L.

Blease, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington. L.

Nicol, B.

Caradon, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffc, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Flowers, L.

Stallard, L.

Foot, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Auckland, L.

Allerton, L.

Balfour, E.

Arran, E.

Barber, L.

1135

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blatch, B.

McFadzean, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manchester, D.

Brain, L.

Manton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Onslow, E.

Chelwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Conslantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Denning, L.

Pym, L.

Derwent, L.

Radnor, E.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reigate, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Foley, L.

Rugby, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Goold, L.

Sharples, B.

Grantchester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Todd, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Torphichen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60C:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and shall be responsible for ensuring that the register remains the property of the charging authority in accordance with subsection 8(A) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60C, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 66. This takes us to a separate area of concern, but a very important one.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85 are now grouped separately.
Lord Meston: I may say that I am not consciously speaking to those amendments. The amendments to which I am speaking are concerned purely and simply with the question of whether or not the register can be copied or sold and used by commercial organisations. I am not sure that the matter is covered by Amendment No. 61E, but, if so I wish to cover the same ground.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I try to help the Committee? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the amendments are related and refer to the uses to which the register can be put for commercial purposes or otherwise. I certainly intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85, which I find on the same line.
Lord Meston: So be it. The amendments standing in my name are particularly concerned to prevent the sale or other commercial use of the register. There is a very genuine worry that under the Bill a power may be given to the registration officer to sell the register to outside organisations quite unconnected with the collection of the community charge.
As I understand the position, at Committee stage in another place the Government indicated that they were considering the competing interests concerned in this area. To that extent, if the Government have retained an open mind I shall be glad to hear that that is still the position. If the Government have reached a decision I should also be glad to hear what it is.
My proposal is that the register should be used only for the statutory purposes of the registrar, to assist him in carrying out his statutory duties. It should not be used to enable local authorities to profit from the personal information provided by people for the specific statutory purpose of registration for the community charge. The register should not be used to provide commercial organisations with new and better material which they can use for their own business purposes. One thinks particularly of estate agents, debt collectors and the catalogue companies who can use information in this way, aided by the large computerised data banks which exist to assist them and them alone.
The great majority of people already disapprove of the way in which the electoral register is used, and there are opinion polls to support what I have just said. The register to be produced under the Bill would be more valuable to such commercial organisations because it is what is called a rolling register; it is more up to date. It will probably provide more valuable information indicating the relationship of all the people in the household, their status under the Bill, whether they are students, suffer from a handicap or the like. It will indicate ethnic origins, and as has

1137
already been touched upon earlier in the debate, it will also indicate clearly to the person reading the register whether an individual within a household is a single person living alone.
So one is not just concerned -although one is concerned——with the irritation to ordinary members of the public caused by junk mail. Most, if not all of us, are strong enough to throw that into the waste paper basket. There is a positive danger to the vulnerable, particularly from the aggressive, the intrusive, the unscrupulous or the criminal.
One only has to think of the way in which published registers are already used. I think particularly of the rent register which is used by property companies which write to small landlords asking to buy up their properties. Having pursuaded them to sell, the property companies then persuade the tenants to leave. It is all very undesirable.
Unsolicited junk mail can be not just a nuisance; it can be a positive menace. In one particular example which occurred within my own professional practice a couple sold their house. The purchaser put in tenants who were less honest than they ought to be. Some advertising material arrived addressed to the couple who had already sold their property. The new, unscrupulous tenants, using the names of the already departed couple, bought goods on hire purchase in the names of the previous owners of the property, forging signatures. The people who had sold the property only found out that their names had been used in that way when they themselves wanted to enter into a perfectly legitimate credit transaction and found that they had a very bad credit rating which they had not earned, but which had been brought about by the tenants in their former property having misused their names. They were lucky not to find themselves embarrassed by the police making inquiries into what had happened.
My basic proposition, therefore, is that it is not only unnecessary but undesirable for local authorities to be enabled to sell the register. There is no public interest in allowing local authorities to sell the register and there is certainly no interest from the individual's point of view in allowing the register to be used in that way. I would suggest that the public are entitled to be reassured that the register will not be used for those ulterior purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: In speaking to Amendment No. 60C, I should like also to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raises the very serious point—which I know the Minister will have taken on board—of the possible abuse of the register by organisations which themselves are of the highest repute. I do not think that any aspersion is being cast upon either the business integrity or the bona fides of the people who would use the information. However, we are not talking in terms of commercial organisations, we are talking in terms of the nexus of the individual who is subject to the law and the law will indicate what he has to go through, whether he likes it or not. The registration officers will do their job. Then we are faced with the problem of making sure that the good faith shown by the citizen—to
1138
which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, alluded earlier, quite fairly—does not result in intrusion into his privacy for some business or commercial purpose. I think that we all understand that such information can be valuable.
The noble Lord will be well aware of much of the background to the matter. For instance, in 1986, the BBC conducted an opinion poll which indicated that 79 per cent. of the public disapproved or strongly disapproved of the sale of such information without their permission. That is the purpose of the amendments to which I am speaking. We are not arguing that the registers ought not to be accessible to a range of people, which is the burden of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are arguing that we should make sure that if information which is of commercial value is to be made available it should be with the permission of the people who arc affected. That is why we move our first two amendments
Clause 6 states that the details contained in the register shall contain a number of items. We want to add an additional item which states:
"Whether or not the person has indicated his consent for the copying or supply of information recorded under this section for any purpose unconnected with the collection of the charge".
If the Minister can tell us that there is a means of ensuring that the information supplied will be used solely and exclusively for the purposes for which it has been collected, that would go a very long way towards persuading my noble friend and me not to press the matters in this instance.
I am sure that the Minister understands that there are many people who will be loath to feel that their personal details will be released. Previous amendments have gone over the ground and we are not in the business of simply repeating points for the sake of taking up time. I am certain that the Minister will have taken the point that we wish to make.
Amendment No. 85—and I think that it is as well that we go straight to the face of the Bill—relates to the provision that:
"The regulations may include provision that the registration officer shall (on request) supply a copy of the extract and list to any person".
It adds the words:
"The extract and list shall not be copied and supplied to any person for any purposes other than for the purpose of administering the collection of the community charge and related purposes specified in the Act".
The Minister will recall that I showed an interest in this matter at a previous stage in the debates. I can understand that he has to make a fine balance of judgment between the privacy of the individual and the business needs of the community. We are not arguing that the issue is black and white. What we are arguing here is that the interests of the individual, who is entitled to privacy, must be considered. He is entitled at least to be advised. He is not entitled to opt out of having his name on the register but he is entitled to be certain that the information will not be available for commercial purposes. The Minister knows that two kinds of register will be compiled.
The Minister can be helpful to our case. It is very strongly supported by the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has quite fairly written to a great

1139
many people about the matter. I have copies of that correspondence and also of speeches that were made by the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, who is sympathetic to the points that have been raised. However, they were not resolved in another place. I should be grateful if the Minister could help us on this matter before we decide how to proceed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Instinctively I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments. When a job needs to be carried out, I am reluctant completely to close the door on every point come what may. The arguments that have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord who has just spoken carry considerable weight. I hope that my noble friend will be in a position to assure the Committee either that the risks outlined do not exist or that he intends to do something which will eradicate any risks which he may have to admit exist at the moment.
Lord Monson: The merits of this group of amendments are obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just indicated. There is not much that one can usefully add. We must all agree that it is quite improper for extracts from the registers to be sold to organisations that peddle time-sharing or commodity schemes or the rather more straightforward and respectable unit trusts, life assurance business or mail order catalogues and the like. I added my name to the second amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but I shall be quite happy to support Labour's grouping of amendments if that were to be preferred by the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward during the debate on this group of amendments. Before responding in detail it may help if I set the scene by explaining the Government's proposals so far as the inspection and sale of the register is concerned.
Under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 every individual will have the right to inspect the whole of his own register entry and to take a copy of the entry on payment of a reasonable charge. The public will have no general right to inspect the register other than the right to inspect their own entries. Under paragraph 16, however, the registration officer will maintain an extract of prescribed information taken from the full register and a list of dwellings designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. The extract and list, but not the full register, will be available for public inspection. The extract will consist only of a list of addresses and names—the addresses of all properties in respect of which a community charge is currently payable and the names of the persons subject to a charge in respect of those addresses. I should also add that anyone living under threat of violence will be able to apply to have his or her name and address omitted from the extract.
The Government see nothing objectionable in making the extract and list available for public inspection. The public, after all, have a legitimate interest in the accuracy of the community charge
1140
register. It is just as important that the extract and list should be available as it is for the electoral register or the rating list to be open to the public.
The question of the sale of the extract and list is a slightly different matter. Paragraph 16(3) of Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State a power to authorise the sale of the extract and list. We have, however, received a number of representations about the use of this power. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged that there is concern about this issue. He has therefore undertaken to consider all representations very carefully before deciding whether and how to exercise his power. One option would be not to use the power at all, thus preventing the extract and list being sold. Another would be to allow people to have their names removed from the extract before it is sold. Yet another option would be simply to allow the extract to be sold. There are arguments on both sides and, as I have indicated, my right honourable friend's mind is not finally made up on this matter.
Having stated the Government's position in general terms, I shall now turn to each of the amendments before us. Amendments Nos. 60C and 66 would provide that no part of the register should be supplied to anyone, other than for the purpose of administering the community charge. Amendment No. 85 would have a similar effect: it would prevent the extract and list being copied and supplied for non-community charge purposes. In other words, all three of these amendments are concerned with the sale of the public extract from the register. As I have indicated, my right honourable friend has said that he will consider all representations carefully before deciding whether and on what terms the extract should be sold. I am sure that the representations made in the course of this debate will bear particular weight with him.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to ask whether it is his intention or that of his right honourable friend to indicate their views while the Bill is still being considered by this Chamber or whether we shall hear them when the Bill has passed from this House.
The Earl of Caithness: I am coming to that point and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it at the end of my comments on this group of amendments. I should like now to turn to Amendments Nos. 61E and 61F. They are slightly different from the subject that we have been discussing although they are related to it. They would require the registration officer to note beside each entry on the register whether or not the person concerned has consented to the supply of his details for non-community charge purposes. We believe that this is an inappropriate proposal for two reasons. First, the register will contain only the information that is necessary to determine a person's community charge liability. Whether or not a person has consented to the sale of his name and address has nothing to do with his liability. Secondly, it would be very odd indeed, not to say wasteful, to require the register to contain this

1141
information if the Secretary of State were to decide that in the light of the representations received the extract should not after all be sold at all.
To sum up, I ask the Committee to accept the Government's proposals concerning the sale of the extract and list as sensible and reasonable. Our mind remains open on this issue and I shall want to consider carefully all the arguments that have been put forward this afternoon, in another place and through other representations before deciding whether, and if so, how, the register extract should be made available for sale.
The very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is also something that I should like to consider. I think it is right that the Committee should know before the Bill leaves this Chamber; but perhaps I may be allowed to discuss that matter also with my right honourable friend between now and another stage, whereupon I shall give him a definitive answer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will return to this point. In the light of the Minister's considerations, he may come back and say that the list shall not be sold, and in effect that will remove our concern in one fell swoop. However, if he returns to say that the list and extract shall be sold in accordance with the powers in the schedule but that there are certain caveats, we shall need to look at those conditions while we have the opportunity to do so at Report stage or Third Reading.
I believe that the Minister should take into consideration the extent to which the current electoral registers are available and used. It is quite frightening. The two largest debt recording agencies have on their registers details of 43 million people in this country. It is quite clear that there is an enormous need, demand or requirement by commerce to have access to the personal details of many individuals. We are concerned that provision should be made to cover an individual who does not wish to make such information available.
Another point that I should like the Minister to hear in mind when he considers the sale of such information is that we ought not to provide local authorities that may not wish to sell the registers with such an opportunity to receive income. Pressure is put upon local authorities to economise or to make money in one way or another and we believe it sad that expense can be saved, money made or commerce served by way of selling personal details. They are quite brief but can be significant and used by various organisations.
I give due credit to commerce and industry, which are in the business of maximising their markets, but so far as we are concerned in relation to the amendments that we have tabled we are certainly prepared to wait at least until the next stage of the Bill to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe I heard the Minister say that there may be a case for leaving in the Bill the power to sell, but not to use it. I sincerely hope that
1142
should it be decided that it is not right to sell the list, the power will be taken out of the Bill. To enact a power specifically with the promise not to use it seems to me to be a mistake.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: While the Minister is considering that contribution perhaps I may invite him to reconsider the words that he spoke a few moments ago. He said that he would talk to his right honourable friend and that he planned to come back to this Chamber before a further stage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Graham with his usual generosity assumed that the Minister meant the next stage. Can he make it clear that he means Report stage and not Third Reading?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I support the very reasonable point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Having spoken to his right honourable friend, if it is agreed that no sale will be allowed, that ends the matter. However, if he returns with what he considers to be a reasonable answer which does not completely close the door but leaves it marginally open I think that this Committee ought to have a chance to debate that proposal before we accept it. If it were not satisfactory he may not have my vote—and that is important!
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is it not a fact that these registers are being compiled for one single purpose only: for the collection and payment of poll tax? The Minister has gone part of the way by agreeing to consider the matter to see whether he can come forward with a suggestion. Does the Minister understand that some of us feel even at the final stages that he ought to go further and make it an offence for the register to be made available for any other purpose, in order to give people adequate protection rather than the half-way measure that is proposed at present?
The Earl of Caithness: I understand the concerns that have been raised in the last few minutes and I shall need to consider them with my right honourable friend.
The next stage is Report stage; but if I have so convinced the Opposition that they feel they can do without Report stage I am happy to talk to my noble friend the Chief Whip on that matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord, Lord Meston, replies, I believe that he said that one of his anxieties was that the ethnic origin of the community charge payers would be on the register. Can my noble friend tell me whether that is correct?
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry. I missed my noble friend's question.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understood the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to say that one of his major concerns was that the ethnic origin of community charge payers would be revealed on the register. Is that correct?
The Earl of Caithness: My understanding at the moment is that that is not correct. What is required on the register is the name and address of the person, the liability of the person to pay, and the date at which that person should pay.
Lord Meston: Dealing with the last point first, it will not be expressly stated on the register but the ethnic origins of any household may well be apparent simply by looking at the name. It is not my foremost argument, I hasten to say.
I am grateful for the support that I have had in moving this amendment and in the debate on the connected amendments. It shows that this is not an area of the Bill which has any party political connotations. The Government have been good enough to indicate that they are considering the matter. I join noble Lords in urging the Government to hurry up.
Reading the debates in another place the indication was that the consideration process was already in train and that the Government had an open mind. I join Members of the Committee in saying that the Government should speed up matters so that we know the position when the Government have come down on one side or the other.
I agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If the Government's decision is to disapprove of sale of the register then the power to sell the register should come out of the Bill. To do otherwise would be bad legislation.
Without having considered the matter in great depth, I prefer the blanket prohibition of the amendments in my name rather than a system which leaves it to the individual to have a right to ask the registration officer not to use his name for a particular purpose. We debated earlier whether the use of the electoral register would discourage registration for the purposes of the community charge. One matter is quite clear in the context of these amendments. People will be encouraged to register for the purposes of the community charge, and the registration officer's task will be much easier if people are quite sure that the registration for the purposes of the community charge will not be used, and will not be potentially misused, by people who have no concern whatever with the process of the community charge. One must not underestimate the sophisticated use of the most rudimentary information that can be made by the computerised databanks, and those who work them. Names and addresses can be used for commercial purposes and for assessment of the people who will be vulnerable to a particular commercial approach.
I wish to consider the matter further and in particular the form of any amendment to bring forward at a later stage if unfortunately the Government either do not come down one way or the other by Report stage, or indicate that their view is to allow the sale of the register. For that reason, and that reason alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("and any regulations made in relation to registration shall first be made and come into force before 1st January 1989").
The noble Lord said: The provisions of Clause 6(2) are a classic example of Whitehall seeking to restrict the actions and demand deadlines from other people without doing the same for itself. The Bill provides that the charging authorities shall prepare their register by 1st December 1989. It provides for a very large number of cases where the Secretary of State has to lay down regulations which are essential for the charging authority to know in order to compile its register. But it does not provide any deadline for the Secretary of State to make those regulations. It therefore sets an indeterminate time—which we suggest should be a mere 11 months which is not over generous—for charging authorities to act on these regulations.
I am not sure that I can give a comprehensive list of the regulations concerned but I can certainly point out some of them. Under Clause 10(5) there will be regulations about the interpretation of formulae in respect of contributions. Under Clause 12(6) there will be regulations about the personal community charge. Under Clause 14(7) there will be regulations about the standard community charge. Under Clause 28(9) there will be regulations about rules for ascertaining what is to be treated as the greater or greatest part of various types of premises.
However, Schedule 2 paragraph 1 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to make regulations about the collection of amounts of community charge, the collection of contributions to the collective charge, and many other matters. There are about 54 areas in Schedule 2 in which provision can be made by legislation. Clearly it is possible to make progress towards the compilation of a register without having all these regulations fully in force. However, I suggest to the Committee that it is totally unreasonable not to put some time constraint on the Secretary of State and ensure that he gives the charging authorities a reasonable time to comply with the provisions of the Bill.
If we are to stick by the date of 1st December 1989 for the compilation of the register—I see that that is necessary if the register is to come into force by 1990, and I am not contesting that—then Whitehall and Marsham Street must play their part as well and the Government must see to it that the regulations are made available to the charging authorities in good time for them to act on them and in good time for them to do an efficient job of compiling the register.
I do not think that this is in any way a wrecking or an antagonistic amendment. It is proper for Parliament to require that the administration of central government should be subject to the same kinds of constraints and disciplines as we are requiring of local authorities. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord was quite right when he said that it was important that the major regulations should be made in good time so

1145
that the local authorities have time to set up the quite complicated administrative machine which will be needed by the date laid down in the Bill. That is plain, but it seems to me that this a very inflexible provision in that, as I read it, it will inhibit, after 1st January and during the 11 months leading up to the preparation and finalising of the register, even the most minor amendment which experience has suggested might be made.
Any of us who has had experience in Whitehall or in other governmental activities knows well that when one is making a major change such as is involved in the provisions of the Bill, with the best will in the world one sometimes comes across quite minor and often quite significant unforeseen difficulties which require amendment of the regulations. A blanket prohibition for 11 months from 1st January next on any amendment, however small, in the provisions in respect of registration seems to me to be a recipe for inefficiency and for leaving the Government helpless while certain things go wrong.
There is a further point. As I read the amendment it would prevent any further regulations in respect of registration for ever after 1st January—let us assume that the scheme is in force or has been in operation for years. It is obvious in everybody's experience with schemes of this kind, or even in schemes much less complex than this, that as time goes on one needs to adjust the machinery to deal with unforeseen difficulties that may have arisen and one would need to do so in such a case by regulation. But apparently to make 1st January 1989 the end of everthing, finalised, regulations frozen indefinitely, seems to me to be an extraordinarily unhelpful contribution to our discussion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It might be helpful if I were to respond to that before the Minister replies. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has vastly more experience of legislation than I have and he must know perfectly well that one puts down an amendment in this form and at this stage of the consideration of a Bill to find out from the Government what their plans are about the making of regulations.
It would have been possible to say in an amendment or in a series of amendments that regulations, for example, under Clause 10(6) shall be made by 1st January and that regulations under Clause 12(6) shall be made by 15th January and so on. We could have gone into a great deal of detail and we could have provided a much more flexible instrument for the Government to work to. We could have made provisions for further amendments to regulations or for new regulations to be made after the community charge had come into force. There would be no difficulty in tabling amendments of that kind, but in my short experience what one does at Committee stage is to put down amendments in the hope that government will recognise the force of the point behind the amendment, which is raised in a simplified way in the hope that concessions and indications of timetable will be given which will
1146
enable us to withdraw the amendment in good conscience.
I still hope that that will be possible and that the Minister will be able to give the assurances which local authorities require if they are to undertake the task of compiling the community charge register with proper effectiveness.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that commentary. But it amounts to the fact that he is perfectly legitimately seeking the intentions of the Government on timing but is proposing an amendment which he does not want to put into the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this amendment would require regulations in relation to registration to be made and to have come into effect by 1st January 1989. The Committee will be aware that there is no provision in the Bill for regulations concerning the register itself, but clearly some of the regulation-making powers have a bearing on the registration, for example those of the information gathering powers of the registration officers in Schedule 2.
Of course we accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is important that charging authorities should know as early as possible the regulatory framework within which they will have to work. It is for that reason that we have for some time now been in close touch with the local authorities on this issue. We have had regular meetings with them at which matters of policy and practice have been discussed and clarified. I believe that these arrangements have been useful and I hope that the local authority associations will acknowledge that also.
I can update the Committee by advising it that work on drafting the regulations has been progressing. We hope to be consulting the associations on the first drafts very shortly. We shall continue to involve the local authority associations at all stages as the drafting continues.
Given what I have said, it must be right to ask whether the amendment helps. It does not because it is unclear and it does not define what regulations are meant. It leaves unresolved the question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter of what will happen if by any chance the regulations are not in place by the specified date. Most of all, in the light of the arrangements that I have outlined and the close consultation and work that is being carried out between my department and the local authorities, the amendment is not necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am duty bound to press the Minister a little further than that, particularly in relation to Schedule 2 where the whole process of the compilation of the register is very much affected by a wide range of regulation-making powers which is given to the Secretary of State by these provisions. I agree that on many other matters the making of regulations is probably marginal to the compilation of the register and it is possible that the compilation of the register could proceed effectively without the regulations being completed.

1147
Can the Minister tell us that the draft regulations under Schedule 2 will be made available to the local authority associations, if not by the time we reach Schedule 2 in Committee stage, at any rate by the time we reach Schedule 2 at Report stage? This is important not only from the point of view of the efficient compilation of the register but because Schedule 2 has such a vast amount of delegated legislation contained in it. It gives so many powers to the Secretary of State that it surely is desirable and necessary for Parliament to understand what the Secretary of State has in mind before we come to consider whether to give Schedule 2 a reading as part of the Bill in the Chamber. I hope the Minister will be able to go a little further with regard to the regulations under Schedule 2.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not think that I can go so far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like. However, I repeat that meetings have already taken place between my department and local authorities on matters of policy and practice. At the moment we are trying to arrange two further meetings with representatives of the local authority associations and we hope to hold them before the end of next month. They will focus particularly on the draft community charge regulations. At the meetings we also hope to discuss many of the regulations that will be needed to implement this part of the Bill.
I am confident that many of the regulations will be laid well before the end of this year. However, I believe that it is right that we consult the local authority associations at the same time, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will applaud that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for those comments and I must read most carefully what the Minister has said. However, because he has referred to a period well before the end of this year it must be said that he is moving as fast as he can, I am sure, in the direction of giving local authorities not only the right to consultation but to the efficient implementation of the register. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61B:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("subject to the availability of adequate resources to the authority such that it incurs no net loss").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 61C. We turn to an extremely important aspect of the community charge. It is the question of the cost of collection. The financial memorandum to the Bill, which I recognise at once does not form part of the Bill, makes estimates of the cost to authorities of the community charge in a full year. It also estimates the costs in 1989–90 of the establishment of the register and the preparatioin of the new billing and collection system. Those costs are quoted as being between £160 million and £200 million in a full year for the administration of the community charge and
1148
between £70 million and £90 million in 1989–90 for the establishment of the register.
Those estimates were made last year when the Bill was first published. Subsequently the Bill underwent very detailed scrutiny in another place particularly in relation to this matter. In January of this year the Government recognised that there may not be sufficient evidence to support the statements in the financial memorandum and recognised that some external evidence would be desirable on the matter. They appointed Price Waterhouse to carry out a study of the estimates and to produce the best estimate that it could of the cost of collection of the poll tax. I do not know the exact brief that was given to them. The report from Price Waterhouse was due to be delivered to the Government on Friday, 6th May.
We have only secondhand evidence about what happened and about when, in what instalments and with what degree of finality the report was delivered to the Government. The only direct information that we have from the noble Earl is a reply to a Written Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Mulley. He said:
"We shall address what the costs are when we receive and have studied the Price Waterhouse report".
That sentence could be read in two different ways. It could read, "when we (receive and) have studied the Price Waterhouse report". In other words, it could mean that the Minister is not admitting whether he has received the report; he is saying only that he has not received and studied it. Or it could read, "received, and studied".
That is rather like the London Transport regulations which state that it is an offence to travel on the Underground without a ticket and with intent to avid paying the fare. I have always assumed that the syntax of that sentence was deliberately ambiguous so that London Transport could interpret it in a severe way or avoid doing so, as it wished. I think that the situation is the same as regards the Price Waterhouse report.
Reports in Accountancy Age indicate that the first part of the report was delivered on Wednesday, 11th May and that the second instalment was delivered on 16th May. As a consultant, I can well understand that there could be rough edges on one or two sections of the report. However, the basic point is that the bulk of the material in the report commissioned by the Government has (unless the Minister chooses to deny it in very specific and unambiguous terms) already been received by the Government and they have had some time (the full extent of which I do not know) to consider the report.
This is not merely a matter of timetable and semantics. It is a very important matter because the indications that we have from the local authorities' study of the costs of implementing the community charge are that they will be much higher than was originally indicated. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils have carried out an inquiry of rating officers and have received replies from approximately half. They are the people on the ground who know about the costs of implementing

1149
local taxation. They say that instead of the set-up costs being between £70 million and £90 million, they will be £266 million over the 3-year period 1988–89 to 1990–91. They also say that the whole system will cost £494 million per annum to run; that is £280 million more than the rating system.
They are not small figures. They are not matters on which the Government can be allowed to delay their consideration of accountants' reports or on which they can be allowed to remain silent when independent reports from the local authority associations, which should know what they are doing, are in conflict with the Government's figures. The Government must defend their figures. They must show that they stand up to the scrutiny of Price Waterhouse. They must show that they are better than the figures produced by the local authority associations. If that is not the case we must come to the conclusion that the situation is very much different from that set out in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
The people of this country will want to know that legislation is being proposed to them on a basis which cannot be sustained when the evidence is examined. That is not good enough. The answers to the Price Waterhouse survey must be clearly exposed to the public. They must be published and they must be published in time for this Committee to consider them as it goes through the process of considering the Bill. We must be able to take account of the cost as an important and essential element of the justification for the community charge. It has been claimed throughout the Government's case for the community charge that the costs, although higher, are not extravagantly higher. The best indications that we have are that the costs are extravagantly higher. It is now the Government's responsibility to clear up the matter once and for all, and I invite the Minister to do so in his response to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: With permission, I should like to say a few words on the general subject of costs and then deal with the specific issues raised by the amendments.
I do not seek to disguise the fact that the community charge will cost more to run than the domestic rating system. However, as I have listened to the debates it has become obvious that domestic rates have few if any friends in the Committee. Certainly there is every reason to believe that the community charge will be cheaper to run than a local income tax especially combined with capital value rates, as we understand the Labour Party's informal policy to be.
There are two reasons why the community charge will be more expensive to administer than rates. The first is that many more people would pay it. We believe that the unit cost can be broadly the same as it is in respect of the rates. We accept the increase in overall costs that will result as being the necessary price to pay for ensuring that every adult receives a bill.
1150
The second reason for additional cost to local authorities is the need to compile and maintain the community charges registers. Of course, this is an entirely new duty for them which will entail an offsetting saving of about £12 million a year in the Inland Revenue which will no longer be required to maintain domestic rating lists. It must also be borne in mind that if there were domestic rating revaluation, which would be inevitable if the rates were kept, that would also impose a cost.
The financial memorandum to the Bill sets out the Government's current estimate of the cost of running the new system and the cost of the necessary preparatory work. The cost of setting up and maintaining the register is included in these figures.
The immediate concern of local authorities is to have the resources to set up the new system. The Government have already given capital allocations amounting to £25 million for spending in 1988–89. Clearly the cost of the new system in both revenue and capital terms will also need to be taken into account in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and subsequent years. Because a number of different estimates have been made of capital and current expenditure implications, the Government have appointed a firm of management consultants to provide advice on their estimate of costs and to advise on best practice by means of which costs can be kept to a minimum. This was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but as he said he was working on second-hand information. I can update the Committee and inform it that the Government have not yet received a copy of the consultant's final report. It is true that some draft material has been produced but there is still a fair way to go before a final report is ready. When the final report is available the Government certainly intend to make the results available. We shall of course use the findings to help to decide the levels of capital and current expenditure in 1989–90 and subsequent years.
With those undertakings, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. Amendment No. 61B refers to the availability of adequate resources to the authority but in fact the operation of the community charges register will be the responsibility of the community charges registration officer. Under 'Clause 23 the local authority is required to provide the community charges registration officer with:
"such staff, accommodation and other resources as are sufficient to allow his functions … to be exercised".
I hope that what I have already said will satisfy the Committee that the Government intend to recognise the additional costs that will arise as a result of the new system. Equally, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that I cannot give an absolute commitment, such as this amendment envisages, that no authority will face any increase in costs. Quite apart from the difficulty of the computations necessary, Members of the Committee will recognise that the Government could not possibly be expected to underwrite the whole of every local authority's costs, however misconceived. That surely would be a recipe for profligacy.
Equally, I hope that the second amendment has served its purpose as a peg on which to hang this

1151
debate and that the undertakings I have given to publish the results of the consultant's report and to use these to help to determine capital and current expenditure levels will satisfy the Committee. The actual costs will also be returned in due course although I do not believe that a formalised procedure of reports to Parliament which the amendment proposes is necessary.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he said that this is an important subject and that we must have clear figures. If we had the report to hand now I am sure that I could give the Committee clear figures. However, we do not have the report to hand but Members of the Committee can be assured that when it is to hand figures will be available.
Baroness Seear: I should like to put it on the record that it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that these sums were not done before the Bill was presented to Parliament. To use plain English, the Government are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know at all what is to be the level of expenditure. When one is producing something of this kind surely one would expect it to be costed before the legislation comes before Parliament to be discussed.
The Earl of Caithness: I have to disagree with the noble Baroness. Of course we carried out our costs, estimates and figures. That is why there is a financial memorandum to the Bill. As matters proceed it is quite in order for the Government to employ consultants to firm up those figures. If the figures are different, which I do not know because I have not seen the report, then, as happens on numerous occasions, figures can be updated up or down.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If one examines what the Minister has said, what appears to be a very conciliatory reply in fact contains no real concessions at all. The only new thing that the Minister has said is that the report from the consultants, when it is received, will be published. However, those who have acted, as I have on many occasions, as a consultant to government departments know perfectly well that the time between when the draft report is produced to the department for discussion and the time when a final report is produced, complete in every detail with every figure checked and every graph—probably in glorious technicolour—can be as long as the department wants it to be. One must suspect that, unless Price Waterhouse was lying when it said to the press that the first part was delivered to the department on 11th May and the second instalment on 16th May—and if that is not the case I should be grateful if the Minister would deny it—this Committee is being denied information which it should have in order to consider the whole issue of the compilation of the register.
I should be very interested to hear if the Minister would like to deny that useful figures or drafts of the two instalments of the report have been received in his department. I shall gladly give him time to receive further information on that point. I am also aware from a passage at arms that the Minister and I had
1152
earlier this year that there can be a slip between something being delivered to a department and it being seen by the Minister. That was the case when there was a quite unjustifiable period of time between a High Court judgment on the planning uses of County Hall being made public and being made available to the Minister so that he could answer a Question in this Chamber on the subject. I am prepared to give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to give the Committee as much help as he can.
The Earl of Caithness: I reiterate that some draft material has been received at the department. I believe that the noble Lord is being a little less than his normal generous self in his attitude towards this. We want the figures as badly as he does and are anxious to produce them because that is right and proper and that is what we shall do. The noble Lord is right: when we have the figures there will have to be a short period during which we must study them. However, I do not renege from the undertakings I gave him earlier.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Earl saying that the information given to the press by Price Waterhouse is not true? Is that what the noble Earl is saying?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness obviously did not hear me correctly. I said that some draft material had been received.
Lord Jay: Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether Price Waterhouse is telling the truth in saying, as I understand it, that two draft reports were delivered to the department in May.
The Earl of Caithness: I have not denied the fact that draft material was received.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hate to appear ungenerous to the Minister. I should hate him to feel that I was not taking his assurances seriously. I am sure that they are the best assurances he can give. However, I do not think that they are satisfactory for the purposes of the business of this Committee and the Committee's duty to consider the Bill and, in particular, the whole basis for and cost of collection, because if we do not do that we shall not be fulfilling our duty as part of Parliament.
It has been confirmed that material has been in the hands of the department for some time. The figures, which have been published, have not been denied. In any event, the department ought to have ensured that by the time this part of the Bill came to this Chamber for detailed consideration the proper figures were available. There should have been a response to the figures produced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils. There has been no adequate response on that matter. The only assurance we have been given is of future publication, but we have not been assured that it will be in time for consideration in this Chamber at a later stage of the Bill. We cannot keep going backwards and forwards. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to ask the Committee to decide on this amendment.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 144.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McCarthy, L.

Attlee, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Caradon, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Raglan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Flowers, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Thurlow, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Allerton, L.

Cross, V.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Denning, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Dormer, L.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Biddulph, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blatch, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blyth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Borthwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brain, L.

Gainford, L.

Brightman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Goold, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hemphill, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Henley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hertford, M.

Colwyn, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Hooper, B.

1154

Hunter of Newington, L.

Radnor, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingrow, L.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reigate, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kimball, L.

Romney, E.

Layton, L.

Rugby, L.

Long, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lyell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Manton, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Milverton, L.

Swansea, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Terrington, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Torphichen, L.

Nelson, E.

Trafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Tranmire, L.

Norrie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Pender, L.

Weir, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Portland, D.

Wynford, L.

Pym, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
[Amendment No. 61C not moved.]
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 61D:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("except that a person falling within section 13(1) below who is not a United Kingdom national may elect to have his or her name and address omitted from the charging authority's register if the register is to be made public").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is specifically to allow overseas persons, especially students, to elect to have their names and addresses omitted from the published version of the charging authority's register. It is not an attempt to release them from the obligation to pay tax but merely to provide protection for persons who could be placed in personal danger by the publication of such details.
I shall not attempt to justify my stance by reference to the Data Protection Act, though I believe I could do so along the lines that other noble Lords have indicated with reference to other amendments debated this afternoon. Moreover, I am not clear that my concern is answered by the assurances already given by the Minister. Perhaps I may say briefly what it is that I am worried about. The fact is that we have in this country a number of overseas students of good standing who for political or religious reasons need and deserve our protection.
Lest any Member of the Committee considers that I am being merely fanciful, perhaps I may give one

1155
specific example which comes from a school of the University of London. A few years ago the national union of Iraqi students attempted to obtain the names and addresses of all Iraqi students in the United Kingdom in order to enforce their support for the policies of the Baghdad Government. As far as I know, all universities refused to divulge information to that union though some addresses were discovered and there is definite evidence of at least one student having been severely beaten up as a result.
There is evidence of a similar kind from other universities. Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that most of the students are from Middle Eastern countries undergoing revolutionary ferment. Some are from elsewhere such as Africa where from time to time there may be oppressive regimes in certain countries. Some of the students are seeking asylum status, some are merely frightened, while others fear not for themselves but for the safety of the families they have left behind. The universities have always done everything in their power to safeguard such students. Now it appears that those safeguards are endangered by this Bill.
There exist two reputable bodies, namely, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs and the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, which have very wide experience of these matters. I believe they would confirm what I have said. I hope that the Government will consult them. The amendment seems justified on humanitarian grounds. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that the undertaking given by my noble friend as regards a previous amendment covers this amendment. I believe that this is one of the aspects he had in mind when meeting the points on the previous amendment about whether information should be made public. If at the end of the day the position is that which some Members of the Committee prefer, that the information is not available at all for general distribution, then even with this amendment the name on the register would not apply. I believe the undertaking given by my noble friend covers this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord takes into account the point which he made before he moves against what was suggested in the previous amendment.
Lord Flowers: Before the Minister replies, I confirm that I heard him give an assurance. He mentioned the word "violence" and I accept that it would be covered. However, I mentioned other things where the person concerned may not be afeared for himself but for his family at home. It may not be a question of violence but of interferences of various and lesser kinds which are nonetheless quite obnoxious. I should like to hear from the Minister about the concerns I have expressed and not just about violence, which has been covered.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I have considerable sympathy with the principle of this amendment. However, I can assure the Committee that the Bill
1156
already confers upon the Secretary of State a power to meet the concern which this amendment represents, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just pointed out.
I believe that the amendment goes too far in seeking to provide that all foreign students who have their main residence in this country, should be able to have their names removed from the public extract from the register. Perhaps I may take as an example a student from the United States of America or West Germany who is subject to the personal community charge. Such a student will of course pay only 20 per cent. of the charge, like all other full-time students. I can see no reason why such a student should not appear on the register extract in the same way as all other adults. However, I accept that some people will need special protection. By no means all of them will be students; for example, there will be women who have left the marital home and who are living in fear of violence from their husbands. Some will be foreign students, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has mentioned.
There can be no doubt that some students from certain countries are effectively political refugees and live in fear of being tracked down by governments. However, what distinguishes them from other adults for these purposes is not the fact that they are foreign students but that they live under the threat of violence or other assault. I can assure the Committee that the Government have not been slow to recognise the need for special treatment for people who live under these circumstances.
Last December we announced that anyone who demonstrated to the registration officer—that is the key that I am sure the noble Lord will understand has to be the criterion—that he or she was living under such a threat would be able to have his or her name, and where appropriate address, omitted from the public extract from the register. We intend to give effect to this clear and unequivocal commitment by use of the regulation-making power under Schedule 2, paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Bill. That paragraph empowers the Secretary of State to provide that registration officers should compile "an extract of prescribed information" taken from the register which will be available for public inspection. In using this power we shall prescribe that the extract must not include the name of any individual who demonstrates to the registration officer that he is living under threat of violence or other assault.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, responds to that, I must say that this is the most extraordinary example of the Government making a rod for their own back that I have ever heard. After all, this is the country in which a woman police constable was shot dead in St. James's Square; this is the country in which a Bulgarian exile was murdered with a poison-tipped umbrella; this is the country in which an Israeli ambassador was gravely injured; this is the country in which it is well known, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, that those who seek exile—this is the price we pay for being available for exiles, and all credit to us for it—are very often pursued by their governments. For example, it may be the government

1157
of Iraq, Iran, Libya or many others. Apparently what the Government are now saying is that a student in this position must demonstrate to the community charge registrar that his name should not be put upon the register.
The Home Office has enough trouble trying to deal with such questions in cases of genuine political asylum where people are under threat from their government. Such people now have difficulty enough in proving their situation. Are they now to have to demonstrate to another group of people that there is a real danger? Will there be a group of other people who have the responsibility of learning about the politics of Iraq, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and many other countries? I suggest to the Committee that such an arrangement is completely outside either the skills or the terms of reference of a community charge registrar. It is a severe imposition upon him to demand that he should be put into a position of adjudicating on the demonstration of a danger which would enable such a person to be taken off the register. If the amendment is defective in some drafting way, then let us hear about it. The answer given by the Minister is totally unsatisfactory.
The Earl of Caithness: I am surprised by the noble Lord. At one stage I thought that he preferred a different political system to what we have in this country according to some of the matters that he itemised. However, he then said that he was glad that we had our system in this country. There are some people, not only students, who live in fear and it is for that very reason that the Government have gone to the extent that they have in giving the commitment to protect those people.
Lord Flowers: The Minister has given a full assurance which I am inclined to accept. However, I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I very much hope that it does not come to pass that one has to be dead before one can plead that one's life is in danger. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a point. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Minister's intentions are as I would wish them to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61E and 61F not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61G:
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("practicable and equitable").
The noble Lord said: This is genuinely a probing amendment. I realise that we have had, as we always do in Committee stage, a discussion of the meaning of the word "reasonable". Noble Lords on this side of the Committee have been arguing for the word "reasonable". They say that it is well accepted, that it makes sense in law and is well justifiable. However, I suggest that this is an occasion where we could with advantage not use the word "reasonable" but instead use the words "practicable and equitable". We are talking here about the steps to be taken to obtain information for the purpose of compiling and
1158
maintaining a register under the powers conferred on the registration officer.
Inevitably, conflicting duties are placed on the registration officer. On one hand, he is required by the Government, by the charging authority and by everybody who is interested in having as wide a spread of the burden of the community charge as possible, to have a complete register. That is the purpose of the word "equitable". On the other hand, he is charged by the Government, by the charging authority and by all of us who have to pay taxes and the community charge, with the duty of doing so at the lowest possible cost. This was underlined by the noble Earl in his response to an earlier amendment when he talked about reimbursing the charging authorities for reasonable costs and about the need not to have the charging authorities running away with the costs of collection. Under those circumstances, where there is a conflict of pressures on the registrar, the words "practicable and equitable" might be preferable to the word "reasonable", which is otherwise, I accept, a perfectly suitable way of constraining the duties and powers of the registration officer. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that to accept his amendments would be a backward step. They do not add in any way to the Bill. Let us try to define a practicable and equitable step. What is a practicable step? Is it merely a step that is capable of being taken? Presumably it is. Is it not rather absurd to include such a requirement in legislation? I am not quite sure what an "equitable step" is. I find that a difficult one to understand. Presumably it is supposed to mean a fair step as opposed to an unfair step. By contrast, the concept in the Bill of a reasonable step is infinitely clearer and more readily comprehensible. It is a step which is moderate, rational and not excessive in all the circumstances. That, I am sure the Committee will agree, is a much more sensible requirement than the one this amendment seeks to impose; and, after all, that is the common ground between both of us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has a case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61H to 66 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66A:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
("(8A) A registration officer shall prepare, and submit to the authority, in respect of each financial year a report setting out—

(a) the number of complaints received in relation to invasion of privacy in the area;

(b) the categories of complaint received;

(c) the number and type of complaints upheld and rejected respectively; and

(d) any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area;

and the report shall be published by the authority in such manner as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66B and 66C. In a sense this continues the discussion we

1159
have been having about privacy, but it raises a new point which deserves consideration.
We have discussed at some length the relevance of the community charge register procedures to the Data Protection Act, and the Committee has taken a view on that matter. It has been confirmed by the Minister that the whole process of the compilation of the register is subject to the Act, and that gives us some degree of consolation. However, one of the significant elements of the Data Protection Act is that there must be an annual report of the data protection registrar. A large part of the Data Protection Act is taken up by spelling out the remedies for those who feel that they have been aggrieved by breaches of the Act.
In these amendments we propose a more direct procedure for learning very quickly about complaints in respect of invasion of privacy. We ask that the community charge registrar should record the number of complaints received in relation to invasion of privacy, the categories of complaint received, the number and type of complaints upheld and rejected respectively, and make any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area. We are asking for the report to be published. In Amendment No. 66B we say that as a longstop, in case there were to be a dispute between individuals living in an area and the charging authority, this procedure should be subject to the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman. I recall with thanks that in considering the Local Government Bill earlier this year the Minister was able to extend the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman. That was a wise move. I suggest that this would be an appropriate extension of the powers and duties of the local authority ombudsman.
Finally, in Amendment No. 66C, we say that the charging authority should establish a complaints procedure in order to make it easier for people to make complaints (if they feel they have to do so) about invasion of privacy. It puts the responsibility on the charging authority; but the detailed guidelines for the exercise of that responsibility are to be issued by the Secretary of State.
I sense that it will generally be agreed that invasion of privacy is a matter of considerable concern. It is a problem which has been recognised by virtue of the concessions which the Government have made this afternoon. Nevertheless, I am not one of those who think that the concessions are satisfactory or extensive. However, the Government have recognised that the problems exist, even though they are not willing to go as far as we wish in dealing with them. I think that the amendments proposed are sensible extensions to the principle of the protection of privacy against invasion and that they provide reasonable and moderate procedures for dealing with such complaints. I hope therefore that they will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I do not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment. I say that for various reasons,
1160
one of which is this. If it were added to the Bill it would perhaps become an invitation to many politically motivated people to make complaints on purpose, merely to try to throw discredit upon the scheme which many of us think is not only right, but necessary. Therefore, for that reason alone, I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee not to accept it.
However, there are other reasons. We should not place unnecessary administrative burdens upon those who serve us in central or local government. So far as I know, the only equivalent that one could possibly find is under the police complaints procedure. However, that is a different situation from the present one and it should certainly not be regarded as a precedent. Further, if one looks at paragraph (d) of the amendment, it reads:
"any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area".
It is not made clear whether they are to be his recommendations—which may well be what is intended—or whether there are to be any recommendations from any other source. I do not think we should spend too much time on the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In addition to the specific point made by my noble friend, I must say that I hope the Committee will turn down the amendment on the general procedure aspect. When amendments of this type are moved it is always suggested that we should have an annual report from whoever must do it, as though the making of an annual report is merely a matter of writing a letter in two minutes and that is all there is to it. As my noble friend said, it puts an unnecessary and extra burden upon the officers who have to write such reports. Further, it may well be that in so doing one is taking time from other jobs which are more important and which ought to be concentrated upon. I do not like the procedure. I do not believe that an annual report—just for the sake of satisfying someone's doubts—on a matter which is not likely to happen, is a good way to prepare a statute. For that reason, apart from the detailed ones outlined by my noble friend, I trust that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Harmar-Nicholls for taking on some of the arguments that I intended to raise when advising the Committee to resist the amendments. My noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right to raise the point about the member of the public who would seek to use the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in a political sense, constantly to complain and thereby try to influence the role of the registration officer. Indeed, I had intended to make similar points if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had moved Amendment No. 61H. In that case the thrust of my argument would have been not about a member of the public, but about the whim of the local authority—and Members of the Committee need no reminding about what the whims of local authorities have shown in recent years.

1161
The Government find the amendments unacceptable because they are designed to undermine the role of the community charges registration officer as an independent officer with specific statutory rights and duties placed upon him by Parliament. The registration officer's job is an important and demanding one. He will be responsible for compiling and maintaining a register of almost every adult in his area; of every second home; and he must also designate homes for the purposes of the collective community charge. Further, he must exercise those important responsibilities, at least initially, against a background of political controversy.
There can be no doubt that against such a background the registration officer needs to be given a measure of autonomy so that he may carry out his duties efficiently and effectively. For that reason the Bill provides that each charging authority must appoint a registration officer and confer certain duties and rights directly upon him. He will of course he a local authority employee and will owe the authority all the normal duties and obligations of employee to employer. However, it is important that he should have some degree of independence so that he may be one step removed from direct political influence and interference. We believe that the amendments proposed would destroy that important feature of the registration officer's role. They would restrict his day-to-day operations and his job could be made virtually impossible. He would find his every action open to the closest, most interfering form of political investigation, scrutiny and criticism.
I suggest to the Committee that the result of the amendments would be an administrative and indeed political nightmare for the registration officer. They would create an environment so oppressive that he would not be able to carry out his job properly. We believe that those are compelling reasons and, therefore, recommend to the Committee that the amendments should not be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government are overreacting somewhat wildly to this matter. No one likes complaints; civil servants do not like them; Members of Parliament do not like them and indeed those of us in this place who are still considered by some people to be Members of Parliament—or members of local authorities—do not like the complaints we receive from such people who still think that they are our constituents. It must be said that complaints take up time and are a nuisance. Some of them are unjustified; some of them are written in green ink and some of them are written in capitals with three underlinings. Okay—that is the price we have to pay; I do not consider it to be a high price.
Further, I certainly do not give any great weight to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on the matter. If it is established throughout our public administration, and throughout our political system, that people have a right to make complaints about those who seek to rule over them, we must pay the price—even if those complaints are in many cases unreasonable.
1162
The point made by the Minister about the relationship with the local authority is of course a more weighty point and one which deserves greater consideration. I am fully aware that the Bill's intention is to set up the registrar as being in some sense independent of the charging authority and that to have a system of reporting in too great detail to the charging authority would undermine the independence of the registrar. Such a system would also undermine the whole structure which the Government have been forced to introduce to implement this indefensible tax. So be it. That is the position in which the Government have placed themselves. They must live with the contradictions of their attempts to implement the community charge. There is enough in what the Minister said about relationships with the charging authorities for me to think that it would be undesirable to press the amendment at this stage. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, if necessary, I shall return to the subject at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66B and 66C not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I call Amendment No. 67.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In moving Amendment No. 67A, I suggest that we deal also with Amendment No. 67B. The two amendments introduce safeguards as to the inclusion in the register of persons not liable to the community charge. The first amendment provides that no person should be entered on the register before the beginning of the financial year before that in which they become liable. In practice, the most likely application of that provision would be to limit the registration of teenagers until the financial year in which they become 17. The purpose of the amendment is to illustrate both the principle and the practical considerations. The principle is that information should not be held about individuals where it is not strictly necessary for the administration of government.
While it may be for the administrative convenience of the registration officer to maintain a register of such children for some years before the date upon which they become liable—
The Earl of Caithness: I have been given a message. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I believe that he got up just a moment too soon and that he is talking to Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B, whereas the Deputy Chairman put Amendment No. 67. To get the record straight, perhaps we could deal with Amendment No. 67 and Clauses 6 and 7. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I believe that that is the right way to do things.
Lord Meston: The noble Earl is right. It was not made clear that Amendment No. 67 was not being moved, having already been spoken to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Registers: miscellaneous]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert ("except that no entry shall intentionally be maintained or made in any subsequent financial year in respect of a person who has ceased to be subject to such a charge or who is deceased").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67B. It will be necessary for me to begin the exercise again. The amendments introduce safeguards as to the inclusion in the register of persons not liable to the community charge. The first amendment states that no person should be entered on the register before the beginning of the financial year before that in which they become liable. In practice, the most likely application of that provision would be to limit the registration of teenagers until the financial year in which they become 17. The purpose of the amendment is to illustrate both the principle and the practical considerations. The principle is that information should not be held about individuals where it is not strictly necessary for the administration of government.
While it may be for the administrative convenience of the registration officer to maintain a list of children for some years before the date on which they become liable, the recording of such information could lead to an undesirable intrusion into the privacy of those individuals, their families and parents. The sale of information about the size of families, for example, may lead to unsolicited approaches with goods appropriate to those with children. Equally, children might be subject to unsolicited approaches or even harassment from individuals or companies, subject to no legal constraint.
There is increasing concern, for example, at the incidence or racial attacks upon members of ethnic minorities. They often bear disproportionately upon children, who may be least able to bear the physical stress, or they may even form the physical target. The creation of a public record of an entire family, as opposed merely to the adults and older children recorded in the electoral register, could act as an incitement to certain individuals. For that reason, it is strongly suggested that in a way similar to the electoral register, names are recorded only of those who will become liable to the charge in the following year. A further practical reason for the amendment is merely that authorities may end up duplicating cases because young people are likely to move from one area to another and may maintain little connection with an area in which they were brought up. To avoid confusion and the maintenance of overlapping records, it would seem sensible to commence the recording of the young person's liability to pay at about the age of 17.
The second amendment bears heavily on what is proposed in the first amendment. I hope that the Minister will have regard to what I have said, because there could be gross intrusion into the privacy of families if the Bill goes through as it is. We know that the only reason for the Bill is the collection of the poll tax, or whatever it is to be called. Without safeguards—I am not talking about selling information—people may have ulterior motives for
1164
having the information. On that basis, it is necessary to give people, especially younger people, the ultimate protection of privacy. On the basis, I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Although one appreciates the noble Lord's motive—which is obviously an innocent one—in moving the amendment I wonder whether he has thought through the consequences of what he proposes. He is getting at an entry which is intentionally maintained or made. That presupposes that there may be some unintentional entries made. If those unintentional entries are made, they will have to be corrected. A correction would amount to the making of an intentional entry. That may seem an absurd situation, but I believe that it is the one that would arise administratively. It would therefore surprise me if my noble friend found the amendment acceptable.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendments deal with two matters concerning community charge registration. Although I too sympathise with the principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, put forward, I agree with my noble friend that the amendments are unacceptable. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that his fears are unfounded.
Amendment No. 67A deals with someone who dies. We all agree that where that happens we want to avoid causing distress to the relatives and friends of the person who has died. I am confident that our proposals achieve that.
I must emphasise that the register we are discussing in these clauses is the full register that will be conclusive for the purposes of establishing liability. It is not the document that will be available for inspection by the general public. That document, which is dealt with in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, will contain merely the names and addresses of those currently liable for charges. So it will not contain details of those no longer liable, for whatever reason.
The main register will not be open to inspection by the general public. It is essential that it should be accurate. I am afraid that that is where the noble Lord's amendment would cause difficulties. It would require to be deleted the names of those who had died in a previous financial year. Imagine, for example, that a person died in late March. Their name would have to be removed from the register on 1st April. If, as is quite possible, an amount of community charge was due to the estate because payment had been made for the whole year, unless the calculation were completed by 31st March it would be impossible. Repayment would be impossible because the register is conclusive and all details of that person's liability would have to be expunged from the register.
To take another example, a person may die with a community charge appeal outstanding. That appeal may involve tricky issues such as ownership of a second home. It may be several months before the matter is resolved, or even longer if it is subsequently appealed to the High Court. Under the noble Lord's proposals all details would have disappeared from

1165
the register. If the appeal was successful, there would be no way of amending the register retrospectively so as to reimburse the community charge.
Clause 8 provides for a two-year rule—effectively a two-year statute of limitations. Subject to the point I have already made about the coverage of the published register extract, I believe that two years is the right period for everyone and that it would be undesirable and potentially counterproductive to have a special rule for people who died.
The second amendment, No. 67B, concerns people who become liable. Here I hope that I can clear away what I suspect may be a misunderstanding. The community charges register will be updated throughout the year. There will therefore be no need to include on the register those who are not expected to become liable for many months. Indeed, it might be a waste of time to do so. The person approaching their 18th birthday might still be at school when they become 18, in which case the date of becoming liable would be deferred; or they might have moved away from the area entirely.
We expect that local authorities will want to collect information about those approaching 18, just as electoral registration officers do. But they will not at that stage need to add those names to the register. They will do so only shortly before the person becomes liable. Just how shortly will depend on the precise way the individual registration officer chooses to run his register. However, it is unlikely to be more than a week or two. In that way the registration officer will minimise the number of cases where the person does not in fact become liable on the date shown. I hope that what I fear might have been a misunderstanding has been clarified.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's very detailed and in some respects helpful reply. However, I must latch on to the remark which he made about the individual registration officer. Are we to assume that there could be a different interpretation or different time factor depending upon the particular registration officer in a particular area?
The Earl of Caithness: Although we will set down the parameters within which the registration officer should work, it will be up to each individual registration officer to adopt a method that he thinks is suitable. Some registration officers might do it fortnightly, some monthly, some two-monthly. There has to be some flexibility.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but I do not understand some of the points with regard to a death. If the register is being kept up to date, would it be the responsibility of the relative to inform the registration officer of the death and then the dead person would be expunged from the register, or would the deceased person be kept on the register and sent a bill at the end of the year—or even refunded money that they should not have paid?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness highlights a point that needs a little clarification. If somebody dies, it will be either the executors or another member of the family who notifies the registration officer. The community charge will in all probability be charged in 10 instalments and therefore the executors will not want instalment reminders coming in unnecessarily. At that stage the name will be taken off the extract of the register which is open to the public but will be kept on the main register for the very reasons I described. Arrangements could have been made with the local authority for the community charge to be paid six-monthly in advance or a year in advance, and there might be some amount to be credited back to the estate of the deceased. If the name of the deceased was expunged from the main register, all the details would be expunged and therefore the reimbursement could not be made. It should quite rightly be taken off the extract which is open to public view and kept on the main register for the two-year limit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister but I still have some reservations. I should have asked him whether the Bill as at present drafted would allow for retrospective claims in respect of death.
I am not legally qualified, but am I right in assuming that registration officers would be in a quasi-judicial position, having certain statutory functions that they would have to carry out? I have seen a variety of judgments from eminent judges when helping to guide juries, and there are a variety of sentences for similar offence. My view, which has just emerged on this amendment, was not something I had previously taken on board. The Goverment may think after having looked into the question of issuing guidelines to registration officers that they should stipulate in the Bill what they require. Otherwise different parts of the country will be dealt with on a different basis.
Although I am pleased with the general tenor of the Minister's reply to the two amendments, I feel bound to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I should like to come back at a later stage. Perhaps the Government will think about the question of introducing some uniformity into the statutory duties of registration officers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67B not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: This may be a suitable moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
6.59 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill has survived the arduous legislative process of another place, first through the initiative and skill of my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Day and secondly because the restraint of human freedom implied in the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts applies only to children under 14 years of age. In this respect, it will bring the law into line with the existing position under the 1981 Transport Act which requires a child under 14 to wear a seat belt when seated in the front seat of a motor car.
The philosophy behind the Bill is that the parents or other adult drivers are responsible for the safety of a child below the age of 14, riding in their motor car, and should provide the necessary safety device. The legal assumption is that a child under 14 cannot be expected to be a judge of danger to himself. The casualty figures confirm that a motor car is a potentially dangerous place in which a child may travel. Annually more than 60 children are killed and more than 7,000 are injured while travelling in the backs of motor cars. Approximately 90 per cent. of these accidents happen when children are in the back of the motor car. This is a distressingly high figure which I am sure all noble Lords would wish to see reduced or eliminated as soon as possible.
The mandatory fitting of rear seat belts arrived on 1st April 1987, affecting last year's model of motor cars. Therefore, this Bill would only apply to all such cars as soon as the regulations were approved. Since 1981 anchorage points for rear seat belts have been fitted to all new motor cars so that the owners of these vehicles would have the option to fit seat belts. I expect that most parents would wish in the interests of protecting their children to fit rear seat belts, but the choice is theirs and there would be no legal requirement.
Thus the impact of the Bill is only a beginning in terms of legal requirement to protect children travelling in the rear seats of motor cars. It will grow year by year as the new models equipped with rear seat belts come into use. I expect that the publicity given to the regulations will stimulate most parents to take action to make their children as safe as possible in older motor cars.
I expect that other noble Lords, like myself, often see motor cars on the daily school run, usually driven by busy mums, with children climbing about all over the inside. It fills me with alarm to contemplate the risk of injury which they are running if there were to be an accident. This Bill will be a first solid step towards reducing these dangers.
There are many important points of detail which may be raised with regard to the various restraints which may be used to protect children in motor cars. Some of these will be covered by regulations, but many of them are concerned with what will be optional but very desirable extras; for instance,
1168
things like rear-facing baby seats, etc. Nevertheless, there is a number of important points to be dealt with in regulations after the Bill has been approved. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that his department will undertake the fullest consultation to ensure that all points are adequately catered for. I should record that the police are entirely in favour of this measure and see it as virtually self-enforcing, like compulsory front seat belts.
Turning to the Bill, it is short and simple. Clause 1 requires that a child under 14 years of age shall not ride in the rear of a motor car fitted with a seat belt unless he is wearing a seat belt. The driver is made responsible for the observance of this condition; exemptions for those holding a medical certificate, etc. are provided for. Regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State covering those various other points in connection with the wearing of rear seat belts by children under 14.
Clause 2 provides for the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council. Clause 3 provides for the Secretary of State to bring the Bill into action by a statutory order which shall be laid before Parliament.
The Bill has wide support outside. It has the support of many public bodies, including the AA and, I am glad to say, my old friends the RAC, who sometimes take a different view on seat belts. In particular, I thank my friends in the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety who have been a major help to me in providing me with briefing material. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
7.5 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to have the opportunity of addressing your Lordships for the first time.
The Bill before us this evening is commendably brief, but no less important for that. It deals with a straightforward point of principle—that it should henceforth be compulsory for children under the age of 14 to wear seat belts when sitting in the rear seats of cars.
I am concerned that this Bill represents a further incursion of the state into areas which should rightfully be the responsibility of the individual or, in this case, of the family. It is, I believe, another example of the "nanny state" at work. I am not of course against the wearing of seat belts by children and adults. Indeed, I strongly support it. Seat belts have undoubtedly reduced the risk of injury to the occupants of motor vehicles involved in accidents. What is less easy to determine is whether the benefits from this reduction in risk are sufficient to require that the wearing of seat belts should be compulsory.
My own four children are all over the minimum age of 14 and so will not be affected by the Bill, should it become law—that is, until they themselves become parents. However, I recall many long journeys in the past, more often than not en route for a family holiday, when the wearing of seat belts by the children would have caused all sorts of problems. We used regularly to invest in estate cars rather than the

1169
saloon variety. This was not just because it was easier to access the impedimenta of child care—food, drinks and mopping up equipment—from the back of an estate car than from the boot of a saloon. More importantly, it was because on long drives it was possible to flatten the rear seat and make a bed of rugs and cushions on which the children could and did sleep. On other occasions we used a camper or small self-contained caravan. In these vehicles it was possible for the children to sit at a table to read, draw and play games and occasionally to stretch their legs.
I appreciate that by not wearing seat belts, the children may have been at greater risk than had they been wearing them, even though at the time no seat belts were fitted. But I do not believe that the risk was significantly greater than the many other risks that have to be managed continuously by parents in respect of their children, in the conduct of everyday life.
The Prime Minister, in recent speeches, has been placing great emphasis on the family as the centre of responsibility—the building-block of society—a policy for which she has my full support. It seems to be contrary to this policy to place upon parents the burden of compulsion in performing the instinctive function of protecting their children. Furthermore, it will place an added burden on the police and the courts, when there are many more serious problems with which they need to be concerned.
True, it is envisaged in the Bill that exemptions may be granted (as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has told us) for any child holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him or her to wear a seat belt. But for a naturally restless child, medical grounds may not be applicable.
It would be sad if active children were denied the opportunity of going on a family holiday by their aversion to wearing a seat belt and by their parents' understandable reluctance to break the law. Indeed, on the assumption that most cars will accommodate a maximum of three children with safety belts on the rear seat, it is difficult to see how families like mine with more than three children would cope at all. Furthermore, as we have already heard, the law would in this way also restrict the ability of parents to share the important job of picking up each other's children from school. There will, I believe, be many such inconveniences which will not obviously be of benefit to the children and may put them at greater risk by forcing them to cycle or to walk.
As I have said, I support all moves to make roads and vehicles safer for all users. I applaud the considerable progress that has been made in this respect in recent years. I believe the Government have a right and a duty to promote and to publicise new safety features and to educate the public in their use. However, in this instance I believe the Government are going too far in interfering with the natural responsibility of parents for the safety of their children.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House this evening I do so
1170
with great pleasure in order to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on a serious minded, non-controversial contribution to the matter before us. It was a speech entirely conformable to the traditions of your Lordships' House. I beg to inform the noble Lord on behalf of your Lordships that we shall hope to listen to him on many occasions in the future. I have known various members of the noble Lord's family from prep school days onwards. As the years have lengthened some of them are now listening from the Elysian fields. I am sure they are nodding commendation and approval for the quality of the speech to which we have listened.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for taking up this Bill today, I again have some congratulations to offer—to wit on his birthday. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships in wishing him many, many happy returns. He drank my health for the same reason the day before yesterday and I shall hope to drink his at the conclusion of the proceedings this evening.
Not for the first time we appear as companions in arms. However, I must tell your Lordships that in this particular context I did not see eye to eye with the noble Lord until I suffered a conversion as spectacular as that of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. However, my conversion took place on the M.4 from Heathrow to Central London. Three of my grandchildren, who had spent two years in Canada following my son-in-law's posting to a NATO assignment in Ottawa, expressed indignation that there were no rear seat belts for them.
That resolved the doubts in my schizophrenic mind, equally balanced between the AA aspect of my persona and its RAC counterpart. The one was marginally favourable towards compulsory seat belts, the other was marginally unfavourable. It had seemed to me for some years past that in so marginal a situation the status quo should have it. However, my grandchildren recruited me to the camp of the noble Lord. I have remained a faithful adherent of that camp ever since and in that spirit I support this Bill.
7.13 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, upon initiating this Bill. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on his maiden speech. I must be, honest, however: I would not exactly have said that he was uncontroversial. But he did bring up some very interesting points.
I have read the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the Bill was short and simple. I have read it several times and I found it rather convoluted. All I do know is that from a certain date children under the age of 14 sitting in the back of a motor vehicle must wear seat belts if the vehicle is fitted with them.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said. I had never thought about estate cars, although I drive one. Actually it is a hatchback but I can put the rear seats down. If there are two or three children lying in the back they cannot have seat belts put on them because the seats are not there. Perhaps we should think about that in future.

1171
However, the Bill mentions specifically children up to the age of 14 years. If children are in the back of a car and that car hits another car or an immovable object, the children will be catapulted forward and they will go through the windscreen. They will knock it out and, if they are not killed, they will be seriously disfigured. Are we honestly saying that this can happen up to the age of 14 but that beyond that age it does not happen? Of course it does. If an adult is sitting in the back of a car and that car is in an accident, that adult, whether he is 14, 15, 16 or 60, will go over the front seat and through the windscreen should the car come to a sudden stop.
I know someone very well who will hate me for what I am about to say. She told me that there was no way that she would wear a rear seat belt because she regarded it as an invasion of her privacy. I heard that argument when the law concerning the wearing of front seat belts was brought in. Before that law was brought in I personally wore seat belts even when they were not legally required. I was once in a head-on collision with another car. It was not my fault and the insurance company backed me up on that. I wrapped the steering wheel around the steering column. My passenger did himself no good at all. If he had been wearing a seat belt, I think he would have been all right.
I have always worn a seat belt. I started off with the aircraft type of seat belt. They took about five minutes to get into and five minutes to get out of. They were very cumbersome. The modern seat belts are very good except if one happens to be a lady. The people who publish pictures of motor cars design seat belts for men. It is all right for a man but the seat belt cuts across the neck or the bosom of a lady. They can be very uncomfortable. They should be adjustable. I have an MG Metro turbo in which the seat belts are adjustable. They can be unscrewed and lowered.
I appreciate that I am meant to be talking about rear seat belts but I am trying to get over the point that seat belts save lives. If they will save the life of a 14 year-old, will they not also save the life of a 15 year-old, a 16 year-old, a 17 year-old and those in other age groups? I should like to bring these points up at a later stage in the debate.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for introducing this modest but very important and necessary Bill to your Lordships' House tonight. As many noble Lords present will be aware, I have the honour to be the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It will, therefore, come as no surprise that I speak with considerable personal commitment to the content and purpose of this Bill.
Over the years, the Department of Transport and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, have produced and disseminated considerable volumes of publicity designed to educate adults about the risks involved when young children are carried unrestrained in the rear of a motor vehicle.
Clearly it is right that such publicity efforts should be directed at adults, as young children are not in a
1172
position to provide for their own safety while travelling as passengers in the family car. There can be few parents who do not know just how dangerous it is to carry their children unrestrained on car journeys. They must also be aware of the modest cost involved in providing a good standard of protection. Indeed there are now schemes under which the necessary safety equipment may be borrowed, and, thanks to the enterprise of a company known as Kwik-Fit, a national scheme exists to provide for the free professional fitting of safety seats and a full refund of the purchase price once a child has outgrown the equipment.
Despite all of that, on the latest published data available to us over 1,000 children under the age of 14 are killed or seriously injured each year as unrestrained and helpless passengers in the rear seats of motor cars. It cannot be right that this young and vulnerable group of road-users should continue to be placed at risk by the foolhardiness of adults. Given our current state of knowledge and the low-cost availability of suitable safety equipment, I urge your Lordships to support the Bill and to provide for the protection of those who cannot act in their own defence.
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Bill and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on introducing it. I should like also to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cobbold on his excellent maiden speech.
I support the Bill and applaud its aims. However, I should like to put in a plea for the licensed hackney drivers of this country. I think the Bill perhaps places an unreasonable burden on licensed taxi drivers because in my view a taxi driver cannot be held responsible for the actions of other people's children, especially if the parents are in the cab with the children.
Children are of different sizes—they come in an amazing variety of sizes—and require different types of restraint. It is unreasonable to expect a taxi to carry several different sizes and types of this equipment. Although there is a "reasonable cause" clause in the Bill, a taxi driver could still be required to justify his conduct in court, possibly with costly results. I should like to ask the Minister for some reassurance that he will give due consideration to these points and that he will bear in mind the difficulties faced by the licensed hackney carriage profession.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, introduced this short but far from modest Bill with his customary elegance; and we have been privileged to hear an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, with which I am pleased to say I agreed wholeheartedly.
It goes without saying that this is a well-intentioned Bill. Naturally no Private Member in either House of Parliament ever introduces a Bill

1173
without being absolutely convinced that in some degree it will be a positive benefit to at any rate a substantial section of the people of this country. The same is probably true even of governments. But good intentions do not automatically ensure that such a Bill is a good one: still less, that it should be given an unqualified welcome. Indeed, only a short time ago a Private Member's Bill emanating from a most distinguished and senior Conservative Back-Bencher in another place (now unfortunately deceased) was thrown out lock, stock and barrel by your Lordships without even being given the courtesy of a Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, with whom I have often crossed swords in the past on the issue of seat belt compulsion, will not be in the least surprised to learn that I am one of the many people who oppose the Bill. Do the objections to this particular Bill correspond to the objections to the original seat belt compulsion measure? Yes, to a considerable extent; but there are also important differences. On the one hand, the argument that the sense of security conferred by seat belts positively encourages complacency, not to mention careless or even aggressive driving on occasion—an argument well supported by the evidence since 1982—obviously does not apply here since children, by definition, are not normally in the driver's seat. On the other hand, there are certain moral arguments against this Bill which are even more powerful that those which were raised against the original measure. I shall come to these in a moment; but let me first deal with the practical arguments, although of course even practical arguments often have a moral tinge.
First, the Bill will knock the well-known "school run" mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on the head. When our sons were small it was customary for parents living in a particular street to take it in turn to pile four, five or six children—or possibly even seven or eight children if the car was an estate car—into the car and run them to and from the school. During all this time over many years not one single child suffered so much as a bruised finger as a result of this practice. It not only saved parents an immense amount of time and expense, but was much safer for the children too, who did not have to cross busy roads to catch buses and were not at risk from sex maniacs when walking along the street. So unless this Bill is amended to exclude the school run, children will actually be at greater risk in future than they are at present.
Then, what about large families, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold? Rear seats belts, when fitted, normally cater for two or, at most, three passengers; but many families have four or five children under 14 and smaller families frequently want to take cousins or friends out on picnics or excursions with them. What are these unfortuante families to do? Assuming they are not single-parent families—a big assumption nowadays—they must buy two cars and drive everywhere in convoy, very expensively, or they must switch to an old car where no rear seat belts are fitted.
Old cars are often more reliable than new ones. For instance, one of my cars was first registered in 1964
1174
and on a frosty winter's morning it usually starts up far more readily than my other car, which was first registered over 20 years later. However, it cannot be denied that older cars lack the braking power, the road-holding ability and the visibility of newer cars and, as such, they are inherently more dangerous, not only to the occupants but to other road users. It seems strange that the Department of Transport is apparently agreeable to a measure which would have the effect of keeping inherently less safe cars on the road instead of their being scrapped.
Then what about the police? The police are going to have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of which makes, which models and which years of cars are or are not fitted with rear seat belts. They will also have to be able to distinguish in a car moving at speed, possibly through tinted windows, whether a child is 11, 12, 13 or 14. That is difficult enough in a static queue of young people waiting to get into an X-rated film.
Finally, what about fidgety or naughty children who unbuckle their seat belts, either accidentally or deliberately? Is the child to be hauled before a juvenile court in the latter circumstance? If not, and if the parent is to be prosecuted for the child's misdeeds, will not this encourage the driver of the car constantly to swivel his or her head round when driving at speed to check whether the buckles are fastened, thereby putting themselves, the children and all other road users at enormous risk?
Now I come to the purely moral, as opposed to the partially moral, arguments. I do not intend to go down the libertarian road regarding the individual's right of free choice in matters concerning his personal safety and wellbeing. That is because it is all too obvious that a majority—I hope merely a temporary majority—of people in Britain today want to deny others that choice. The chief ambition of a surprising number of people nowadays seems to be to achieve the age of 95 or 100, with all other considerations subordinated to that aim. Of course that is their own affair; but what one objects to is their evident desire to compel other people by law to alter their lifestyles so as to maximise their chances of attaining the age of 95 or 100 too, whether they wish to do so or not. However, it is no use swimming against a transient tide. One has to accept that if a majority of people feel that adults have no rights in this matter it follows that an even larger number will believe that children and young adolescents should have no rights in this matter either.
However, there is another moral argument that may even make the paternalists among us stop and think. When some years ago the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was speaking to his amendment which first introduced seat belt compulsion, he readily admitted that compulsion would lead to the deaths of some individuals who were compelled to wear belts. He justified this, as others before and since have done, on the grounds that for every individual killed by the wearing of seat belts hundreds would be saved. It is true that very many more lives are saved than lost as a result of compulsion, although that does not alter the ethical objections to compelling people to put themselves at risk, other than in time of war or grave national emergency.

1175
However, where children are concerned the position is worse, in that the ratio of lives saved to lives lost is likely to be narrower. There are three reasons for this. The first is that a child's head is heavier in relation to its body than is an adult's head: this is likely to lead to a greater incidence of whiplash injuries. The second is that because children are by definition much shorter on average—and that has already been mentioned this evening—the belts are much more likely to lie across their throats, with the risk of serious injury to their throats or even strangulation in the event of sudden deceleration. The third is that, notwithstanding that small children may accidentally release their belt buckles while fidgeting, they are far less likely than adults to be able to release their belts deliberately in the panic circumstance of the car catching fire or plunging into water.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that 120 cars burst into flames every day, according to the statistics given by someone who is strongly pro-compulsion, and last year more people drowned in their cars than drowned in boating accidents.
That leads us to an extraordinary paradox. If the Bill goes through it will be perfectly legal for parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated against dangerous and possibly fatal diseases, despite all the pleading of the authorities and the medical profession, on the grounds that vaccination is very occasionally dangerous. Yet it will be quite illegal for parents to refuse to strap in their children on the grounds that belts are occasionally dangerous, despite the fact that the principles are identical in each case. I do not think that such double standards can be defended.
All those objections of principle and practice will, I am sure, be dismissed on the grounds that on balance the legislation would save lives. One must stress the words "on balance". But to compel by law all those—whether adult or juvenile—who ride bicycles or horses to wear crash helmets would also save lives. To lower the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways to 55 miles an hour, as in parts of the United States, and on minor roads to 35 or 40 miles an hour, as in the Channel Islands, would save lives. Undoubtedly to treat tobacco like heroin or cocaine would save lives. To outlaw alcohol, animal fats and sugar would save lives. To ban boxing, rugby football, steeplechasing and mountaineering would save lives. But where will it all end?
It would be discourteous to treat the Bill in the same ruthless way as the late honourable Member for Kensington's Bill was treated the other day: I for one certainly do not propose to do so. However, the Bill deserves thorough scrutiny at a later stage. Thorough scrutiny is what it will get.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak in this debate. I am a longstanding honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I support the Bill wholeheartedly. My wife and I have six grandchildren and our two daughters are fanatical supporters of rear seat belts.
1176
I think that it is important to bear in mind that this is not retrospective legislation. It applies as I understand it to new cars in which seat belts have all the aids of modern technology. I should like to point out that in Australia, which I visited at the end of 1986 on parliamentary business, seat belts are mandatory and have saved lives galore. It is difficult to decide on a mandatory age, but 14 seems reasonable.
Those who say that children fidget in the back of cars are quite right; of course they do. If one drives 200 or 300 miles with three small children in the back of a car of course they will fidget. But if they tap mum or dad on the shoulder it is much better for them to be wearing seat belts because if they do not wear them there is much more chance of their being thrown through the windscreen than if they are restrained.
In a serious accident there is no guarantee that children or anybody else will survive. However, I believe that the Bill is a valuable addition to efforts to curb the enormous loss of life among young people in accidents on motorways and elsewhere. In that spirit I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's Bill.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like everyone else this evening I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on bringing the Bill forward from another place and presenting it to your Lordships so clearly tonight.
There seem to have been only two speeches from which I would dissent. One was that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which does not surprise me at all. I do not say that in any aggressive sense. I greatly respect his logic, his libertarianism and the way in which he always makes the point on this kind of Bill. I shall deal with that in more detail in a moment.
The other speech with which I have some disagreement was that of my noble friend, Lord Cobbold. The Companion tells us that we should not all congratulate maiden speakers on their maiden speeches. I do not intend to do so. What I intend to do is to say how pleased I am to see him in his place and to have a new recruit to our ranks who has now made his maiden speech and will speak on many other subjects, much to our enjoyment. Perhaps I may take him up on one or two things that he said.
I respect very much what he said in relation to the problem of carrying children in motor cars. Going back a few years I remember trying to carry five children in a car. It was not a station waggon; it was an ordinary saloon car. Indeed, the problems came back to me as he spoke. I think that he raised a question which needs an answer from the sponsors of the Bill. How do you cope with the situation of a family going on holiday with a large number of children and perhaps a dog or two in the back and travelling a long way? Quite clearly it is very difficult to fit them all with seat belts. Similarly I think that the questions which have been raised about school runs are important.
Having said that I nevertheless believe that children in the back seats of cars should be restrained. I have no doubt in my mind that where seat belts are fitted—and they should be fitted in all cars—children

1177
should be restrained by them. The question of children fidgeting is difficult. I know that from my own experience. However, it is far better that they should be restrained while they fidget than that they should be crawling all over daddy or mummy who is trying to drive down a motorway or along a winding lane in mid-Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also raised certain objections to the Bill. He rightly said that people are seeking immortality these days, and that is perhaps foolish of them. I think that a lot of attitudes in this country and the world today are dictated by the foolish expectation of immortality. It seems to me that while people may be wrong to seek to legislate for everyone to live until they are 95 or 100 there is nothing wrong with legislating so that parents take control of the situation so that their children can at least live to the point where they can make decisions for themselves. That seems to me to be the distinction in relation to this Bill.
Parents do indeed have a duty to keep their children alive. I think that that duty should be drawn to the attention of parents by legislation.
It is not just a question of immortality but of the strain on the National Health Service and other matters. At the purely human level there is the sadness that so many children should be killed in accidents, which is something from which we cannot step away in this debate
I listened with interest to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the time limit. I should be perfectly happy to support a Bill that insisted that seat belts should be worn by everybody who was travelling in the rear seat of a car. There is a phenomenon known as the flying mother-in-law syndrome. A number of people in this country have been killed by a mother-in-law popping out of the back seat and being hurled not through the windscreen of the car but onto the spouse sitting in the front passenger seat. That may contain a certain comedy element in terms of the old music-hall tradition of this country, but nevertheless it is a serious matter. A number of serious injuries, though not necessarily fatal ones, have resulted from rear seat passengers being propelled over the front passenger seat.
There is also the consideration that if these provisions become law some parents may well feel grateful to have them on the statute book because at least they can say to their children, "You jolly well stay there—because the law says you must stay there and not just because I say so!" There are other methods of making children do as they are told but I shall not go into them now.
Basically speaking, with the qualifications which my noble friend Lord Cobbold has rightly made and which need to be answered, these Benches very firmly support the Bill. There is just one assurance that we should like to have from the Government tonight which concerns Northern Ireland. We should like to be assured that it is their intention to bring forward an Order in Council to make sure that this legislation applies to Northern Ireland when, as we all hope, the Bill has passed through all its stages. Once again I
1178
congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and hope that the Bill will pass speedily through your Lordships' House.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on his maiden speech. As his noble friend said, there may have been disagreements with his comments but his point of view is taken seriously and is worthy of consideration. I am sure that in the course of making many speeches in this House he will recognise that although views may differ they are listened to and discussed and we are grateful that they have been brought forward. Your Lordships will gather from those remarks that I support the Bill.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on sponsoring the Bill in this House. He and I were comrades in arms when we promoted the amendment to what is now the 1981 Transport Act which resulted in the compulsory wearing for all of front seat belts. I also congratulate him because it is his birthday and I hope that he will receive the good present of having the Bill passed without dissent through this House. In the other place the Bill had all-party support and it is obvious that it will receive all round support in this Chamber.
This is a private Bill and I speak in a personal capacity without committing my colleagues, although I doubt whether any one of them would oppose this measure. It is a question of common sense. The Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transport Safety to which many tributes were paid in the other place has communicated with a number of noble Lords and listed some 17 very responsible organisations which support this small Bill. They include the two automobile associations, medical bodies and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That may supply one of the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The association's traffic committee wholeheartedly supported the Bill and has said that it can see no problem with regard to the enforcement of this law any more than it had any problem with the enforcement of the law about front seat belts.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, gave various details about its effects and I shall not go over them again. Research has indicated that some 90 per cent. of children who travel in front seats wear seat belts but that only 31 per cent. are restrained when they travel in the rear. Those are two very important figures to which we should pay close attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, reminded us that this is not retrospective legislation. Cars which are now on the road do not have to be fitted with restraints. However, as new cars come on to the roads the number of restraining belts will accumulate because all new cars have to be fitted with rear seat restraints.
Generally speaking I prefer details and conditions to be written into a Bill. However, I recognise that consultations have to take place on a number of points in order to meet the provisions contained in Clause 1(3). I hope that noble Lords who have with them a copy of the Bill will look very carefully at

1179
subsection (3) and its various provisions for exemptions:
"children of any prescribed description, vehicles of a prescribed class"—
that might meet the point about taxis that was made by one noble Lord—
"or the driving of vehicles in such circumstances as may be prescribed".
That may deal with some of the points raised about the number of children in the back of a vehicle. Subsection (3)(b) provides that regulations may be made:
"defining in relation to any class of vehicle what part of the vehicle is to be regarded as the rear".
Paragraph (c) describes the type of seat belt to be covered under this Bill. All those provisions will be the subject of regulations, which normally I should like to see written out.
When the Minister replies to this debate, I should like him to indicate whether or not this will be done by affirmative or negative procedure. At the Third Reading of this Bill in another place the Minister involved referred to:
"enabling regulations, which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/88; col. 645.]
Did he mean that affirmative approval would be required or merely the silent approval that is given unless one has a Prayer to annul?
It is essential to put this legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible so that consultations on these important questions can take place. We should have the Bill enacted as soon as possible and have the regulations thoroughly defined. As has been mentioned, there was much controversy when the front seat belt regulations were put into effect. People said that that measure would not be accepted. Now 95 per cent. of people accept it. The police cite that creditably high figure for the number of people who wear seat belts. I remember one noble Lord who said, "I never wear a seat belt but when the legislation is passed I shall never drive without one". I believe that at least 95 per cent. of drivers now wear seat belts.
A survey by Gallup showed that 91 per cent. of car drivers support the compulsory restraint of children in rear seats. I respect the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and appreciate his argument that an adult may prefer to say, "Yes, I want freedom". It was an argument that was used when the amendment of which I spoke earlier was debated. But can that argument be sustained when it is applied to children? Admittedly I no longer have young children. My children would not care to be referred to as such. Nevertheless I have eight grandchildren, four of whom would be happy to be referred to as children. I can assure your Lordships that their parents ensure that the restraints on their cars are used.
Once this Bill has become law, most parents will take the same view on this question as they have taken on the compulsory wearing of front seat belts. They will do so, if I may be permitted to say so, in the same way that people have readily accepted the bar on their freedom to smoke in underground stations and trains. That bar has been readily accepted by the
1180
overwhelming majority of people. I believe that we need to have the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. We need to consider these regulations in some detail, with the highest degree of consultation with the bodies concerned so that it can take effect on a date which I hope will not be too far in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, perhaps I may join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford both on his birthday and on introducing this Bill to your Lordships' House this evening.
Although it is not a government measure, this is one which the Government are happy to support, contributing directly as it will to a reduction in the number of children killed and injured in road accidents. As my noble friend said, over 60 children are killed and over 7,000 injured each year while travelling unrestrained in the backs of cars. It is irresponsible of us as drivers to expose them to an unnecessary level of risk. If a child rear-seat passenger is restrained, the chances of death or injury in a crash or collision are reduced by two-thirds.
The level of compliance with the law on front seat belt wearing (95 per cent.) shows that the value of seat belt wearing as a common sense precaution is now accepted. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that children travelling in the front of a car are restrained. The Bill extends that responsibility to children travelling in the rear, where they are no less vulnerable, and where most child passengers travel. Some 90 per cent. of child car-occupant casualties are rear seat passengers.
It is all too easy to put children on the back seats thinking that they are safer than on the front, but when unrestrained they are not. In a crash—even at low speeds in built-up areas—they can be catapulted over the backs of the front seats into the windscreen.
The publicity generated by this Bill has led to an enormous increase in the sale of rear seat belts and child restraints this year as people have become aware of the vulnerability of unrestrained children. More and more people are having rear seat restraints fitted to older cars. All new cars must now have them fitted anyway. This Bill proposes that where such restraints exist they should, where practicable, be used by child passengers.
It does not require that all children in the rear of cars should be restrained—only that restraints which are fitted should be used. A large group would not be prevented from travelling together simply because there were insufficient seat belts. Equally, it would not be practicable to use rear seat restraints if there were four or five children squeezed onto the rear seat.
This Bill establishes the principle of compulsory child restraint. There are many issues still to be resolved in deciding how the law should apply in practice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Does the Bill do what he said? It only provides for compulsory child restraints in the back seat of motor cars. Child restraint in other directions has yet to come!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We are talking about the rear seats in motor cars. As I say, there are issues still to be resolved in deciding how the law should apply in practice.
The enabling regulations will need to accommodate a wide range of circumstances: the large family, the very young child, the school run, and so on. I hope that that will give some reassurance to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in his excellent maiden speech. I doubt very much whether I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in any way.
The 1972 Road Traffic Act, which this Bill's provisions will become a part of, requires the Secretary of State to consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit before making the regulations. My honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave an undertaking during consideration of the Bill in another place that the Government would consult widely about the drafting of the regulations. I am happy to repeat that assurance this evening.
So far as concerns taxi drivers—a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham—the regulations may well exclude them from responsibility for seeing that child passengers are restrained. That has yet to be decided, but their representations will certainly be borne fully in mind.
Furthermore, in another place the Bill was amended so that the making of regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That was a question that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me.
Regarding Northern Ireland—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—I understand that it is the intention to seek an Order in Council extending the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland.
The voluntary use of rear restraints is increasing. We shall continue to encourage that with regard to adults. However, we have no plans at present to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts by adults sitting in the rear seat.
There is now a growing body of public opinion that we should move towards obligatory use of rear seat restraints for children. This Bill reflects that shift. This measure will make a significant contribution to increasing the safety of children travelling in the back of cars. It has the Government's full support.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his substantial support. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have given me such generous support for the Second Reading of this Bill. I must say a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on his maiden speech. Although I did not agree with it—he would not expect me to—I admired the cogent points that he made. They were all points which must be catered for as effectively as possible in the regulations.
However much I may have appreciated his speech, it is as nothing to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, did so. He never had a better ally. I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monson,
1182
going through the arguments once again on this Bill, which is much more difficult for him to oppose, I should have thought, although it did not seem to be. He managed with his customary fluency to marshall his arguments on why this was an altogether unacceptable interference with the liberty of the subject. I am grateful to him for saying that he did not intend to divide the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. I suspect—and I say this to the Minister—that we may have a lively time at the Committee stage when we see the amendments that have been put down.
I think the point has been well covered by my noble friend that where there are more children than seat belts the law would not require children for whom there are no seat belts to wear them. They will be worn only in so far as there are seat belts provided. The regulations have to cover a number of tricky points and some interesting questions have been raised this evening. I have no doubt that my noble friend has taken note of them.
I am sure that I should not spend more time now trying to answer a debate which in the main has been most helpfully supportive from all sides of the House. My old warrior colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was supportive in trying to get this seat belt Bill on the statute. I hope that we shall do so very soon.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended, from 7.58 to 8 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 [Liability to contribute]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 68:
Page 7, line 24, after ("the") insert ("following").
The noble Viscount said: While reserving my right to return on this point at the next stage, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Contributions: interpretation of formula]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 8, line 5, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the local authority Associations and such other bodies or individuals as appear to him to be concerned").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also take into consideration Amendments Nos. 70E and 72M. As I think has been stressed on

1183
a number of occasions, the Bill contains numerous provisions for the Secretary of State to make regulations. I gather from calculations which have been made that there are no fewer than 58 clauses or schedules under which separate sets of regulations may be made. This gives considerable power to the Secretary of State and it makes it imperative that regulations are given the utmost scrutiny. I gather that the Bill provides 508 separate occasions for decisions of various kinds to be made. One means of achieving this scrutiny is for the Secretary of State to be required to consult local authority representatives and other parties prior to the making of regulations. That would ensure that the input of local government expertise was used and would avoid any administrative failure for which, if it should occur, the local authorities would be held to blame.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has said how useful some consultations have been. He recognises the value of consultations with local authority associations. But this group of three amendments will impose a duty upon the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations and other bodies and individuals concerned before making the regulations, specifically on the drawing up of rules for determining which buildings, premises and property fall within a local authority's area. That is why the three amendments deal with Clauses 10, 12 and 14.
The local authority associations pressed for consultation requirements to be put on the face of the Bill while it was being debated in another place. The Minister's response invariably—unfortunately we have heard it on other Bills in this Chamber—has been that this was absolutely unnecessary as Ministers will consult anyway. In fact, as I have already said, the noble Earl has paid tribute to some of the consultations that have taken place. Nevertheless I must draw noble Lords' attention to Clause 82(5) and to Clause 86(2), where we see rather different wording to that which I propose in the three amendments. We discover that the Secretary of State:
"shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".
That is totally different to the wording which I suggest:
"after consultation with the local authority Associations and such other bodies or individuals as appear to him to be concerned".
In other words, we want it clearly laid down in these clauses, which are very important clauses, that the local authority associations will definitely be consulted irrespective of whoever else the Secretary of State may consider in his own view to be concerned.
I hope the Minister will recognise that there is this difference of wording. Perhaps I should also say that, on grants, which are dealt with in Part VI of the Bill, we find that even there there is only a requirement by the Secretary of State to notify representatives of local government of the general nature of the contents of grant distribution reports. Again, there is no necessity to have consultation with local authority associations.
In the light of the praise which the Minister has kindly given to some of his contacts and the
1184
consultations that have already taken place on certain aspects of the Bill, I hope that on Clauses 10, 12 and 14 he will accept the three amendments, which contain the same wording in each case. They will enable us to have the position of the local authority associations clearly defined. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He will know that that is no discourtesy to him, but it seems pointless to keep on talking at length to the Committee when my answer can be brief. These amendments would require statutory consultation with the local authority associations before regulations were made containing rules for deciding the area in which a property falls if it straddles a boundary. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, when he moved the amendments, I had indeed informed the Committee of the progress that had been made in consultation with local authority associations and others. Indeed, further meetings are to take place. I therefore again repeat to the Committee that the Government will consult the local authority associations fully before making the rules. Not only will they consult on the implementation and practice of the rules, but they will have discussions on the drafting of the regulations. That was the point I made to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, earlier this afternoon. I know that the noble Lord would prefer the wording in the Bill, but at least one can say that I am being totally consistent with what my honourable friend said in another place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise briefly to welcome the Minister's undertaking to consult local authorities before—I hope he means before and not after—the event. I believe that the Minister will recall that a few days before our Recess, when we were discussing the Bill in Committee, not I but another Member stated that unfortunately over the past few years the Government have dealt rather shabbily with local government and its proceedings. In doing so a tremendous amount of historical goodwill towards the Government, whether Conservative or Labour—I am not trying to politicise it—has been dissipated.
Over the years, members of the Minister's own party have in increasing numbers expressed concern that the present Government and their immediate predecessor seemed hell-bent on reducing the role of local government and more or less emasculating it. The Minister may recall that I spoke on that occasion. I made the point to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, that those who took over after he left the difficult job of Secretary of State for the Environment were people who indulged in this. I hope that in his remarks tonight the Minister is serious when he says that the local authorities and their associations will be consulted in the fullest sense before the decisions are taken. Knowing him, I am sure that he is. I hope it will not be on the basis of what has happened in the past when "consultations" meant being told how the decisions had been arrived at with no time for input or anything else.
I thought that it was necessary to make those remarks because if meaningful discussions take place

1185
in advance of decisions I am sure, as a founder member of the AMA and one of the last members of the old AMC, that people in local government will respond. It may well repair some of the bridges and the damage that has been caused over the last few years by the Government riding roughshod over local authorities and deeming "consultation" to mean informing local authorities of what has happened after it has happened.
The Earl of Caithness: Of course I repeat the assurance that local authority associations will be fully consulted. Of course we want good relationships with the local authority associations. The noble Lord has lain the blame fairly and squarely at the door of government. Perhaps there is another argument which might suggest that it is not all one way traffic as regards that matter. We should not carry on with that point; we should look forward to better relationships because that is what we want.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I may have made the point rather badly but I was trying to explain that it was not I who raised the point in previous proceedings in this House. It was raised by a distinguished ex-Secretary of State who is now a Member of your Lordships' House on the Government Benches. I joined in only as a party to what has taken place with local government.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister but also disappointed. I am grateful to him because, as one would expect, he has given a definite promise that the representatives of local government will be consulted. I am worried about a couple of references which have been made to the representatives of local government and not to local authority associations and therefore I wish to have this provision written into the Bill.
I have looked quickly at the three clauses to which I referred. They relate to the question of drawing up rules for determining which buildings, premises and property fall within the local authorities' areas. They are important matters and I can see no reference to consultation even with representatives of local government. I have the Minister's firm assurance that even in those three cases there will be consultation. The only problem is that Ministers change and they might even change before the Bill comes back for Third Reading. We hope that that is not so because we all like treating with the Minister but he has a Secretary of State above him.
In the light of the importance of the three clauses to local government, I cannot understand which properties come within their areas for the purpose of the community charge. I cannot understand why the simple words to which I have referred cannot be incorporated in the Bill. We would then have not only the Minister's assurances but simple amendments. There will be many amendments to the Bill, including many in the name of the Minister. Therefore the three simple amendments will not add anything except to confirm that, as well as other individuals and bodies concerned, the local authority associations will be the subject of consultation.
1186
I wish that the Minister would accept the three amendments because they are so simple. However, I gather from his demeanour that he stands by his view and that is an attitude I cannot understand. As regards other Bills I have raised the point that, where it is possible to accept an amendment which loses the Government nothing, a favourable impression will be created for the Government if they accept such an amendment. However, in the light of the Minister's view that he cannot budge, I have no alternative. I readily accept his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Contributions: further provisions]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 70B:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("day") and insert ("night").
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment deletes the word "day" in line 13 and inserts the word "night". Nothing could be more simple but it is a serious amendment. It concerns the operation of the collective charge. It is difficult to understand what is meant by the words:
"the whole or part of a day"
if one thinks of the type of place to which the collective charge will apply. A typical example is a Salvation Army hostel, or something of that nature. I believe that the Government intended to mean that people who have a bed for the night or part of the night will have a liability to pay their collective charge, without entering into the question of whether it is practical to collect it from them.
The Minister may appreciate the fact that hostels which provide beds for homeless people sometimes provide other facilities during the day. They sometimes provide meals, a cup of tea, or a seat for a few hours while it is bucketing with rain. Does it mean that for six hours out of the 24 hours a person must pay the collective charge because he is resident for the whole or part of the day? Alternatively, do the Government intend the provision to apply only to those people who are resident for the night? I believe that that is the general intention but it is not clear. It would be clear if the amendment were allowed. Otherwise, is the Salvation Army to say, "One 365th of the collective charge per person is X amount. You are coming in for two hours and you will pay one 12th of that"? It will be an interesting arithmetical exercise if that is really what is meant. However, I assume that the Government mean only those who have a bed for the night and nobody else. On that basis I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I had not looked at the amendment in quite the way that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has described it. Of course the collective charge is being levied in a situation where the property might be used as a main or sole residence. Towards the end of his argument he was coming closer to what I had anticipated he would say in that he asked whether we meant day or night. The

1187
answer is that we do not want someone who is facing a collective charge to pay twice. In other words, if a person arrives on Monday evening, stays the night, leaves on Tuesday morning and then goes to another hostel on Tuesday night, he could face a double charge under the wording of the Bill. Of course that is not our intention.
I suggest to the noble Lord that, rather than import into the Bill the idea of "night", which is a new concept and one which I believe to be inappropriate given that the liability for the personal or standard and collective community charge is explicitly built on a day basis—
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am not sure, and I may be wrong, that the noble Earl is aware of what happens in these places. One cannot get in until a certain time at night if one wants to spend the night and one is thrown out at a certain time in the morning. The places are used for a different purpose during the day. It is quite absurd to speak of a person being resident there for "part of the day" if it is really meant that he has a bed for the night. If one means that he has a bed for the night then why not say so? I know that the legal profession is attacked at times for not being clear but, speaking as a member of that profession, I cannot see why it should not be clear and why it should not be said that this collective charge is only to be paid if one has a bed for the night. I am sure that that is the intention.
Lord Meston: In support of the spirit of this amendment, surely the Bill should make it clear, if it is not entirely clear, whether a day means a period of 24 hours or whether it means the hours of daylight.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may say what a complicated situation this is because day centres, which are supposed to be just for the day, nevertheless in some cases provide beds for some people who cannot go home at night. I suppose that those people are registered at home. Day centres play a dual role of caring during the day and in some instances at night but not always for the same person every night. Therefore, day centres such as those described by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, present a very complicated problem.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to support my noble friend. There is a hostel in Birmingham called the Trinity Centre. One part of the centre is used as a place to which police bring drunks whom they have picked up from the road or wherever rather than put them into police cells to be charged the next day in the magistrates' court. It was felt that to do that was a complete waste of time and a waste of public expenditure. This hostel takes in these tramps only during the night, and the police will be bringing them in at various times. However, as my noble friend said, they have to leave the hostel at eight o'clock the next morning. One does not know where they go during the day but, if they are found drunk again on the succeeding night, they will be brought back in. As a result, there are about 50 men who are being brought in from various parts of the city. The idea has been to save public money, because it is very
1188
costly to keep these people in the cells below the magistrates' court. They are charged and fined and the fines are never paid, and this is an alternative which receives money from the charity and also from Inner City Partnership.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister rises, I suggest that this is an extremely difficult point to cover and on which to try to legislate. For example, as my noble friend said regarding the question of day and night, the people who use the beds are not allowed to stay in the day centres during the day. Are we not reaching a situation, unless the Government look again and reconsider, in which the authority which is trying to do a particular job for people at the bottom end of the social scale may well be charged for doing that particular job when the people whom they are helping have flown?
I remember in my days as a youth in Manchester—and I do not suppose that I am the only Member of the Committee to have done this—delivering newspapers to make a few coppers. Near to where I used to do that there was what was known as a tramp board and a poll tax was levied. That tax was not in the form of money. The tramps received a night's lodgings and breakfast but, in order to qualify for it, they had to stay behind the next day and perform some sort of community work such as chopping wood or stoking the boilers. On a Sunday morning as a youngster I used to see people dropping from a 12, 14 or 16 foot wall to avoid carrying out the commitment. It may sound rather amusing but surely the principle is the same. Are we not reaching a dangerous situation, as I have said? My noble friend Lord Morton mentioned the Salvation Army and there are also Church Army associations and Catholic associations which tend to keep hostels as a last resort for people who, unless they are catered for, will be out on the streets.
London is a high pressure area and in many cases we are talking of young people who board trains or buses or hitch-hike to London from the North or Scotland and other regions in order to try to establish themselves and obtain a job in London. We know that these children—and in the main they are children because they are no more than teenagers—end up outside stations and various parts of London which are not very desirable. Unless the Minister can look at this situation I fear that the very bodies that my colleague mentioned—the Salvation Army, the Church Army and the Catholic hostels which cater for this situation—will be called upon to fund people who have gone and may never return. I believe that this is a very difficult situation and I suggest that the Minister may wish to look again at the provision because I feel sure that as it stands it will catch the wrong people.
The Earl of Caithness: The argument has progressed somewhat since I gave way to the invervention by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and perhaps I may pick up where I broke off before I return to the points which were added subsequently. At that moment we were discussing whether "night" was an appropriate word instead of "day". Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who is a lawyer, that I believe that

1189
importing that word into the Bill would give rise to further anomalies if we were to tie liability for collective charge contributions to a test different from that which is used elsewhere in the Bill. An alternative which does not have the unfortunate consequences which his amendment would have is that we should stick to the concept of days but to add to Clause 11 a provision that whereas a person is to be charged for the day on which he becomes a resident of a designated dwelling, he is not to be charged for the day on which he leaves. That means that a person arriving on Monday and leaving on Tuesday, and therefore staying only one night, will pay only one day's worth of contributions. Members of the Committee may notice that that mirrors the provisions in Clause 8(6), which already prevent double charging in respect of the same day for the purposes of the personal community charge.
Our amendment will deal with all the problems which Members of the Committee have raised during the discussion on this amendment without importing the foreign concept of "night". The day a person becomes a resident he will be liable. The day he ceases to be resident he will not be liable. The day that he both becomes and ceases to be resident he will not be liable. Therefore, a person who stays for one night pays one charge. Someone who stays for two hours during the day pays nothing. I believe that that solves the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I believe that he has drifted away from sole or main residence being the basis for the collective community charge.
With regard to the noble Lord's proposal to use "night", that would cause problems on its own. For instance, let us suppose that a person stayed in a collective charge establishment overnight and then became subject to the personal community charge the next day. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that that might be a difficult problem to resolve in its own right. The system is built using days. That is right and we believe that it should be adhered to. However, we must ensure that no one pays two days' worth of collective charge for a single night's stay. That is the proposal in my suggested amendment, which I will be happy to bring forward at a later stage.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It will be interesting to see that amendment. If it is put forward I foresee that we shall change the habits of the people who could be described in Scottish terms as "dossers". They will go into hostels at seven or eight o'clock in the evening and will leave 15 minutes before midnight. They will then wander the streets for a few hours and return, on a different day, for another period of a few hours in a bed. They will escape the collective charge.
The police will have desperate problems with people wandering about the streets in the centres of towns between half-past eleven and half-past twelve. That does not appear to have been fully thought out, especially as some of those people occasionally have a certain addiction to alcohol.
The Earl of Caithness: Of course there are problems with people who do something similar at present, but I shall very much bear in mind what the noble Lord said during the consultations we are having following the points that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and I took away to consider at an earlier stage of our discussions. What the noble Lord omitted to say to the Committee is that we have generous provisions to take into account the incomes of the people to whom he refers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is great. Has the noble Earl ever tried to obtain the income of someone who does not give his name, does not give his address and refuses to say how much money he possesses? Such a person might say that he would like 50p for a cup of tea but one suspects it is used to get something stronger.
There is a total unreality about this approach. Basically I should have thought the Government would be well advised to take such people right out of the charge because the concept of making them accountable in any real sense is totally unreal. Making the Salvation Army, the Church Army or similar bodies who run these charities responsible for collecting these peculiar sums is totally unreal. However, at this stage, in the hope that a realistic amendment will be put forward, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 70C:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("becomes and ceases to be exempt") and insert ("is, ceases to be and again becomes a qualifying individual").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 70D. These are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: What is the purpose of these drafting amendments? We are again dealing with people who are wandering about. We have someone who becomes and then ceases to be exempt. Then we have someone who is, ceases to be and then again becomes a qualifying individual. What is the purpose of this change? The noble Earl said that this is a drafting amendment but perhaps he can explain why it has to be made.
The Earl of Caithness: I am delighted to assist the noble Lord. As it stands, Clause 11(5) provides that a person resident in a collective charge property shall be liable to make different payments to the landlord of the property in respect of different periods of his residence during which he becomes and ceases to be exempt. In other words, if a person moves into a collective charge property, becomes exempt and then ceases to be exempt, each of the periods concerned has to be treated separately for the purpose of calculating how much he should pay by way of collective charge contributions.
In fact, this provision is defective because it refers to individuals who become, or cease to be,
"exempt for the purposes of Section 9".
Clause 9 does not actually refer to people who are "exempt". It refers to "qualifying individuals"—a

1191
qualifying individual being defined in Clause 11(2) as one who is aged 18 or over, not exempt and not a full-time student.
To be technically correct therefore Clause 11(5) should refer not to a person who,
"becomes and ceases to be exempt",
but to one who,
"is, ceases to be and again becomes a qualifying individual".
It should not refer to a person making different payments by virtue of different periods when he is "not exempt" but to the person making different payments by virtue of different periods when he is "a qualifying individual". It is very simple.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If a Salvation Army hostel has someone who starts off by being a tramp, or similar, who becomes for a period a student and then ceases to be a student and returns to being a tramp, is that what the noble Earl envisages?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord is having a great deal of fun, but I can assure him that the amendments make it clear beyond peradventure where it is not clear at present.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 70D:
Page 8, line 32, leave out ("not exempt") and insert ("a qualifying individual").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Personal community charge]:
[Amendment No. 70E not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Relief for students]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 9, line 213, at end insert ("or nursing education").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment with perhaps the greatest confidence that I have ever had in moving an amendment to a government Bill. Ministers have argued that student nurses should not be entitled to the 80 per cent. rebate as they are paid much more than students receiving grant. However, since the Bill was published the position has changed somewhat.
On Monday 23rd May, at the Royal College of Nursing conference, the Secretary of State for Social Services announced the Government's response to Project 2000, which is the proposed reform of nursing education. As part of the proposals, nurse education will be closely linked with further and higher education and nurses will have full student status, with non-means-tested bursaries instead of salaries.
When the Secretary of State was questioned by the student nurses about the 80 per cent. poll tax rebate, Mr. Moore said that they would be entitled to the same rights and privileges as all other students. That seems perfectly clear. I know that Project 2000 has not yet been implemented, but I understand that it is
1192
hoped full implementation could occur six months after the poll tax is introduced in England; that is, 18 months after it is introduced in Scotland.
Under the circumstances, I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: I believe it is absolutely unprecedented for me to share an amendment with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps this indicates the widespread nature of the concern about this issue.
In supporting this amendment perhaps I may first express my very warm appreciation that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, said, indicated that when the Project 2000 reforms for nursing education come into effect, student nurses will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as other students. To that extent it would make this amendment seem very much less urgent. This amendment is of very great significance not only because of the six months' time lag—an 18 months' time lag in Scotland to which the noble Baroness referred—but because there is a very important aspect to that delay which I must draw to the attention of the Committee.
It is of the utmost importance that there should be no time whatever during which student nurses have to pay the community charge which would mean probably an intolerable burden for them. For example, in an area such as Tower Hamlets, even after the pay award, when their salaries will be running at something like £87 per week, the community charge may take 12 per cent. of that. A student nurse's lot is not a happy one under the present dispensation. That is reflected in the fact that a third do not complete their education and go on to achieve their qualification. This is partly because the way of life of student nurses is fundamentally different from that of other students.
For example, under the present dispensation they are primarily employees and they carry grave responsibilities. I have seen an 18 year-old on her first ward put in charge of a coronary care patient who has already arrested four times that morning. That is not the kind of stress to which any young person should be subjected. In addition, student nurses work long and anti-social hours. This often means that they have to forgo many of the more general education activities enjoyed by other students. For example, they cannot continue regular participation in sports or music activities, which is often a very great personal cost for 18 to 21 year-olds.
Most important, as I have already indicated, they suffer very severe stress levels. Research has shown that when they are working with patients in acute pain or who are dying or when working with bereaved relatives, the anxiety and stress levels of student nurses are as high as if they themselves are suffering bereavement. Therefore, it is essential not to exacerbrate anxiety and stress by increasing financial worries. Particularly, it is inappropriate to add to the problems of student nurses at a time when the profession itself and the National Health Service are suffering acute problems of recruitment into nursing.

1193
With the fall in the birth rate, the drop in the number of school-leavers and the drop in the proportion of school-leavers choosing to enter nursing, we are entering a period of acute crisis in the National Health Service. To exacerbate that crisis by this financial problem seems eminently undesirable.
In conclusion, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to some extent already made this amendment unnecessary after the introduction of Project 2000. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment to cover that interim period. It would give significant reassurance to students entering a profession which is going to make enormous demands on them anyway and in which they are going to need all the support that it is possible to give them.
Lord Trafford: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I hope very much that my noble friend will look favourably upon this amendment. There are a number of arguments which have already been adduced on both sides of the Committee on this subject; for example, the relevance of the introduction of Project 2000 and the fact that nurses will become students in full-time education in the same sense, or we assume in the same sense. We do not know yet the details of the actual introduction. There is also the fact that this measure will be introduced at approximately the same time as the community charge comes into play. There are some differences relative to Scotland.
Perhaps I may put another point which has not been laid down. I would not make the plea in quite the same terms as my noble friend Lady Cox. Nurses suffer from one difference that she did not emphasise compared with other students. They do not have spare capacity to do an outside job in order to earn money. Many other students have the capacity to do so. Many of them also enjoy longer vacations and so forth in which if they are so suited they can earn a few pounds. However, I feel very strongly that if we are moving—and we are—towards full-time student nurse education in terms of education more than in terms of training—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already referred to payment by bursary rather than payment as an employee—that makes all the difference. I very much hope that in some way my noble friend is able to look at this matter sympathetically.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to make three points. First, the latest award to the nurses has lifted their morale. This was one of the most important factors in Project 2000. If the Bill goes through as it stands at the moment their morale is going to decline again. The nurses I have spoken to feel that this Bill is diminishing their profession just at the very moment when we are trying to raise professional standards and morale.
The second point is that a number of courses are in fact degree courses. These courses are at Manchester, Edinburgh, King's College, Leeds and Cardiff and at three polytechnics. I imagine, though I am not of the nursing profession, that this is the direction in which
1194
nursing training is going. If nursing students are not to be treated as other students—we are trying to work towards that with university standards for university courses—this Bill will diminish the courses.
Thirdly, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether in view of what the Secretary of State said at the conference to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred, the Department of the Environment has been in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security in connection with this matter.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Perhaps I may say a few words because, as Members of the Committee know, I spent the past two months in the care of the National Health Service. I thought I would never experience that in the course of my life. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the National Health Service operates for ordinary people like myself.
I spent a little over two weeks in Law hospital, Carluke, which is an enormous national health hospital. I was there because of an accident, and therefore came absolutely unprepared and unknown to anyone in the middle of the night. The care which I was dealt with was simply marvellous. Added to that, I went to another hospital, the Cottage Hospital in Hawick, which is also a national health hospital. Nothing could have been better and the staff were kindness itself and efficient.
Anything that we can do to support the National Health Service and those who work in it is not only an investment but one which is well earned by everyone. We all ought to be extremely grateful to the service and I am one of the most grateful people. I strongly support this amendment. I hope the Minister will realise what an opportunity this is to do something for the training of nurses, who are vital to the health service.
Lord Morton of Shuna: After all the eloquent speeches it is a little difficult to say anything more. I raised this issue last year as regards the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill. I wish to know what is the attitude of the Government, because they have changed it. Under the Scottish Bill, from April of next year trainee student nurses will have to pay the full community charge. Is that the intention? Is there to be a change? If there is not going to be a change, how is a very large health unit such as Edinburgh training unit or Glasgow going to compete with Newcastle and Carlisle where nurses can be trained without paying the collective charge? It is a serious problem. As the Government are no doubt fully aware, there is a shortage of people who are qualified to be trained as nurses.
There are other people in the health service who receive very low pay. Student dental technicians receive £66 a week. Are they to be regarded as students? Student laboratory scientific officers receive £71 a week. Student medical physics technicians receive £67 a week. Where do they fit in? No doubt trainee physiotherapists come into this as well. What is the Government's attitude to those people? Are they all covered by the Secretary of State's announcement that student nurses should have non-means tested bursaries instead of salaries; and if so, will they

1195
be treated as students and pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, or under the Scottish Act, will they all pay 100 per cent.? If they are to pay 100 per cent. in Scotland and 20 per cent. in England there will be a row. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, might join in that.
Lord Renton: I would regard this amendment, to which I am not a party, as a probing amendment. It has been brilliantly argued and is very sincere. It is a good probing amendment with the object of getting a firm undertaking from the Government. I have been able to find no definition of education in the Bill but we must all understand that the word "education" in this context means any conventional education, whether academic or vocational. It is important that those who are in full-time nursing should be given the relief for students which Clause 13 applies. However, if we are to mention nursing education specifically, we should be thinking of other kinds of education as well: dare I say it?—legal education, clerical education for the church, the education of chartered accountants, education for farming and for surveyors and so on. All kinds of education should be mentioned if nursing is to be specifically referred to. Having said that, I hope that we shall have a firm undertaking from the Government to the effect that nursing education is indeed already covered by the expression "full-time course of education".
Lord Trafford: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider the point that there is a difference between some of the types of education that he has mentioned and nursing education. The basis of the case that was put forward was that nurses are at the moment paid employees and are also trained, but in future they will be in full-time education. That was the first point put to my noble friend the Minister. That is the difference between some of those to whom my noble friend Lord Renton was referring and nurses as they will be—not as they are now. This is not to be confused with the other point, which is that of low pay, although we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for pointing out to us exactly how to solve the nursing problem in England.
Lord Renton: In answer to my noble friend I would say that every kind of vocational education is different from every other kind of vocational education. In some cases there is an element of part-time service, with or without pay, with a professional body. The main point is a simple one and one which can be the subject of a simple undertaking from the Government. Is full-time nursing education included in the expression already in the Bill "a full-time course of education"?
Lord Trafford: I am sorry to rise again to interrupt my noble friend but he has missed my point. For half the time a lawyer is training he is a full-time student. He then does pupilage or works in a solicitor's office and so on. That is different from what a nurse does. At present a nurse never does that. A nurse is a full-time employee who also at times is trained. That will
1196
change. It is the basis of the argument that I put forward to my noble friend that on the point of that change we ask my noble friend the Minister for that kind of undertaking. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Lord Renton: I have already said that nursing education and other forms of vocational education are different, and I have nothing to add.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Last year we were told that nursing education was not education in that sense and therefore was outwith the terms of education as defined in the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act. Therefore the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services is very important indeed. That is the basic change that we are facing and of which we have to take account.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baronesses, Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lady Cox, seek to extend to the nurses special relief which is given to full-time students in the form of an 80 per cent. discount from the personal community charge. It is entirely understandable that the Committee should wish to ensure that nurses, and student nurses in particular, are fairly treated and that the valuable contribution they make to the community is properly recognised.
Full-time students currently differ from student nurses and from other trainees in two important aspects. First, students in further and higher education are engaged in full-time study for which they receive a grant to cover their basic living expenses. Student nurses and other trainees are different. They are salaried employees who receive training as part of their employment. There is a clear difference therefore in the status of the two groups. Student nurses would not therefore come within the definition of "student" at the moment and the Government do not believe that it would be right to widen that definition so that it covered student nurses or others in a similar position.
I emphasise, however, that student nurses do not at the moment come within the definition of "student" but it is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, pointed out to the Committee, that a change is envisaged in the status of student nurses in the not too distant future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 23rd May that the Government intend to accept many of the recommendations of Project 2000 including the proposal that student nurses should receive non-taxable bursaries instead of salaries and become synonymous with full-time students when those recommendations are implemented. Then, assuming that the qualifying conditions concerning the supervised study and similar matters are met, student nurses will automatically become students for the purposes of the personal community charge.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the noble Lord make clear what will be the position from April in Scotland? If trainee nurses can get jobs in Newcastle, Carlisle, Preston and so on very easily indeed, why should they go to Edinburgh and Glasgow where they will have to pay 100 per cent. of the community

1197
charge, which they will not have to pay next April in England? I raised this point last year and received no satisfactory answer. Perhaps this year we may do, and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give me an answer.
Lord Hesketh: I shall shortly be referring to that subject. However, there is a transitional period which is indicated by the fact that Project 2000 is being adopted. The period will be transitional both in England and in Scotland, but of course there will be anomalies.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again but, if the anomaly were to be against England, I should be quite happy; however, it seems to those of us who come from north of the Border that the anomaly is always against Scotland.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Is it not true that nurses in Newcastle and so on will be paying rates at the time referred to by the noble Lord opposite, when the Scottish people will be paying the community charge?
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will tell me what nurse in a nurses' home—student nurses normally reside in a nurses' home—pays rates, she-will enlighten me. As a student nurse in Edinburgh, my daughter-in-law did not pay rates.
Lord Swinfen: Those students from England who are actually in Scotland will start paying the community charge next April, while the family is still paying full rates in England. In my view, that is worse than the situation in Scotland.
Lord Hesketh: The simplest answer would of course be if the whole of Project 2000 were implemented on the same day. However, that will never happen. When the recommendations are implemented, and assuming that the qualifying conditions concerning supervised study and similar matters are met, student nurses will automatically become students for the purposes of the community charge. No amendment to the primary legislation will be needed to achieve that result.
Various Members of the Committee have asked specific questions, and I hope that I shall be able to answer at least some of them. My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security had been in contact with one another to discuss Project 2000. I am glad to say that I can give her an affirmative answer. I was pleased also, as I am sure were many Members of the Committee, to see the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, present in this Chamber, and to hear her give a warm testimony to the health service in the Borders.
My noble friend Lord Renton inquired as to the definition of "student nurses". That aspect will be covered in Clause 27 and it is extremely likely that they will become recognised as students in the definition clause.
My noble friend Lady Cox raised many points, some of which, it is only fair to say, dealt with the
1198
problems of nursing as opposed to the problems of the Bill. I feel that I should remind her that at present there is a substantial difference between student nurses and full-time students. The maximum student grant outside London is just under £2,000; in London it is just over £2,000. Of course, many students do not receive the maximum grant. I ask Members of the Committee to compare those figures with the salaries for student nurses following the recent pay award. The basic pay of a student nurse outside London starts at £4,825 and rises to £5,575; in inner London the equivalent figures are £5,996 rising to £6,783.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the noble Lord tell the Committee what is the normal holiday period for a student nurse, and the normal holiday period for a university student? Do they bear any comparison? Further, is it known to the Government that sometimes university students work for money during term-time as well as during the holiday period, and that that opportunity is not available to student nurses?
Lord Hesketh: There are differences in many walks of life. I am not entirely sure whether that issue will take the debate much further this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, brought to our attention earlier that, during the transition to the new system, it is quite possible that some student nurses may be eligible for the student discount and some may not. That is entirely logical since those who do not qualify for student discount will still be in receipt of the full student nurse salary and, as I have explained, it is considerably more than the maximum mandatory student grant. In other words, those who do not receive student discount will have the means to pay the community charge. On the other hand, the student discount reflects the financial situation of full-time students who are dependent upon bursaries rather than a salary. I cannot see that there is any basis for objection to this entirely consistent treatment of two groups of people.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry to interrupt yet again. Does that mean that a student nurse will receive £2,000 per year instead of £4,500 to £5,000? If so, has that fact been made clear to the Royal College of Nursing, because that is the level of the student grant? If that is what the Government mean, it has not been clear—at least not to me—that they will put the trainee nurse on the same level of pay as the full bursary student.
Lord Hesketh: That is not quite what I said. As the noble Lord is well aware, only a few moments ago I mentioned to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that the Department of Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security were in contact with one another. It would not be fair to expect me to go further than the Secretary of State for Social Services did when he made his announcement. As soon as the Project 2000 proposals are fully implemented and all student nurses are trained and reimbursed on the same basis, they will of course all be treated in the same way in relation to the community charge. I hope therefore that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Borthwick: I apologise to Members of the Committee if my voice is not too clear. Surely nurses are part of a state service as are those serving in the Army and the Navy. Do members of those forces have to pay for their lodging? If not, then why should nurses? Has anything been done in that connection? What I am trying to say is, members of military institutions pay rates but they will not have to pay the new tax, whereas nurses will. They are all working in state services so why should nurses have to pay?
Lord Hesketh: If I have understood the question aright, if someone in the armed forces is undertaking full-time student training, such as a short service commission officer at university, I suspect that he will probably be eligible for the discount.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister, when justifying the course that the Government are adopting, started to quote figures comparing student nurses with full-time students. I have a list of figures (which I do not intend to read out at this time of night) which shows that the balance in favour—if that is the right term—of student nurses is nothing like as substantial as the Minister said. Full-time students have access to other opportunities which student nurses will not have.
I have listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Elliot, and other noble Lords from all parts of the Chamber. Their main worry is not Project 2000 but what will happen in between. We can have elitist consultants in all fields of medical care but we need an adequate number of nurses—nursing has become more specialised as medicine advances and surgery improves with all the new techniques—in a profession which is becoming more specialised and dedicated. Members of the Committee to whom I have referred are frightened at the thought of the incalculable damage that may be done. The nurses rightly cheered what Project 2000 promised them. If the Government get this provision wrong they will quickly learn that most of the benefits that they expect will be—I do not want to use the word attacked—strongly affected by what the Government propose.
My worry is that the seedcorn of the nursing profession will disappear and go elsewhere. The Minister talked as though £5,000 in London was a great deal of money. It is peanuts. He cannot tell me of any girl who can exist independently in London on £5,000 a year. That is nonsense. There is no way that they could exist on that sum.
The Government would be unwise to proceed on the present basis unless the Minister gives some indication to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that they will consider this matter seriously. We are talking about the future care of the nation—the health service, although parts of it may be privatised. With this proposal, they are attacking its foundations. Unless young girls are attracted into nursing, we can forget all about medical advances and people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, being cared for in an emergency, because people will not be there to do it. The Government would be well advised to take back this amendment and consider it seriously.
Lord Hesketh: To an extent I feel that the concession that the Government have made has been disregarded. It is a substantial concession. It is one that will be of great benefit. It is slightly saddening that when such a concession is made it is passed by as if it did not exist. It is important to understand how far the Government have gone to try to provide an equitable and satisfactory settlement. I hope that the Committee will contemplate what has been done, away from the rhetoric, and realise that the concession is made in good faith and with a good intention.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: When I moved the amendment, I said that I moved it with great confidence. However, I have never been so disappointed by a reply. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is saying when he talks about concessions. If the Secretary of State means what he says and Project 2000 comes to pass, unless we introduce the amendment we shall have the anomaly that has been explained—for 18 months student nurses in Scotland will have a different standard of living from student nurses in England, and in England we may have six months or a year of student nurses not being proper student nurses.
It is ludicrous that the Government cannot make that concession, and I propose to test the feeling of the Committee.
9.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Faithfull, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jay, L.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Balfour, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Dormer, L.

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Borthwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hives, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

1201

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinton, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Torphichen, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Romney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("or is registered as participating in a Manpower Services Commission or similar training or employment scheme as may be approved from time to time by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to include people who are participating in MSC schemes within the provisions made for students. This amendment aims to create a fairer situation for all young people. At present only students registered at college and certified by their institutions will pay a reduced poll tax. Young people participating in MSC schemes will receive no relief unless they qualify for a rebate or income support. The Government have always claimed that MSC schemes for young people—for example youth training—are as much about education and training as about work experience. They have pursued this argument particularly vigorously when being accused of using these schemes to remove young people from the unemployment register, thereby massaging the figures.
With the disparities existing in the Bill as drafted it will be predominantly young people from the better-off backgrounds who will pay only 20 per cent., while children from the more deprived backgrounds who fill the vast majority of places on MSC schemes will be expected to pay the full charge or apply for rebates. The rebate scheme that young people on the MSC schemes will have to use to gain any relief from the full charge is biased against young people. This is because the scheme is modelled on the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986.
Following the Secretary of State's announcement of changes to the rebate regime, calculations have shown that a single person aged 25 or over will be facing an average poll tax of £224 and will lose all help from benefits as soon as take-home pay exceeds £50·10p a week. If they are aged between 18 and 24 this cut-off point will be significantly lower at just £50·75p a week. The Government have given differential treatment to young people because they fear the lobby of parents or students. This will mean that young people generally from the poorer backgrounds, certainly with less future earning potential and who will be liable for the full charge, will be discriminated against. For a fairer scheme the Government should standardise the treatment of young people. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: When the Scottish legislation was introduced into Parliament, it was envisaged that students would be liable to pay the full personal community charge like other adults. However, during Parliament's consideration of the legislation, doubts were expressed about this proposal and the Government decided therefore to make students liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the charge. The Government's intention in the long term is that students should cease to be eligible for social security benefits and should return to the position whereby they are supported by the student award system and parental contributions where appropriate. The 20 per cent. level of community charge for the students is therefore intended for those full-time students who will not be eligible for rebates.
Those on Manpower Services Commission courses and other employment training courses are different from students in two respects. First, the Manpower Services schemes are not intended to be full-time courses in education, but rather to encourage employers to take on and train people and to give those people an opportunity to gain work experience combined with training. Moreover, if we accept that one group of trainees should be treated as students, then it would be extremely difficult to justify not extending that special treatment to other trainees, for example, trade apprentices, police cadets, trainee catering staff and even trainee accountants.
The second difference is that those on training courses will be eligible for community charge rebates. They will therefore receive help via that route if they are on low incomes. As regards trainees on MSC schemes, the new adult training allowance which is paid to trainees over and above their existing benefit will be completely disregarded for the purposes of calculating their rebate entitlement. Therefore those who were receiving a maximum rebate before they joined an adult training scheme will continue to receive the maximum 80 per cent. rebate during the course. This will put them in exactly the same position financially as full-time students.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wish to make a special plea for a special group of students. They are those who are attending the Queen Alexandra College, which is a training college for the blind. It is part of the provision of the Birmingham Royal Institute for the Blind.
There are students at that college who come from all over the country. They follow pre-vocational courses and vocational courses. All the students at the college are registered blind. As regards DHSS payment, they receive the severe disablement allowance, which comes to about £26 a week. They are all maintained by the local authorities who have sent them there.
They are accommodated for the two years in the college in hostel accommodation. As a result of the new courses that are now being laid down through the education legislation, during the final six months of the course they have to leave hostels and live in private lodgings. The idea behind that is that, as they leave the college and hope to take up employment, they will most likely have to leave their own homes and live in lodgings. The idea is that the education

1203
continues in the college but that the training that they received in the hostel accommodation gets carried over into the private lodgings.
The concern of the college is whether their students will have to pay the poll tax because they are on local authority grants. But the students themselves of course only receive the severe disablement allowance. If they have to pay only 20 per cent. when they are attending the college and are in hostels, then when they go into private lodgings will they have to pay a higher rate? I know that they are a special group of students but their number fluctuates between 90 and 120 each year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In his reply the Minister gave some details regarding the various categories of people who would be included under the terms of this amendment. But he did not quote the terms in sums of money, and that is what the people whom this amendment is about are concerned with. They are not concerned with the percentages of relief that they will get. They are concerned with what they will actually have to pay.
In order to reach a more satisfactory conclusion on this particular amendment, may I ask the Minister whether he will indicate in the figures that he has given or the classes of people undergoing various training courses that he has given, what the minimum as paid by one group of individuals will be, and what the maximum will be? The Minister referred to people on adult training schemes. In other words, can he translate what he said in terms of percentages into terms of money? It may help us to understand better what we are talking about: otherwise it is meaningless to the people involved.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, will understand that I do not have the details to hand at the moment. However, I shall check immediately on her specific point and write to her, if I may.
With regard to the examples I mentioned earlier and to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred, I mentioned them more as a comparison, because of the principle of who is and who is not going to be in receipt of the discount. I was giving the example that one could keep on extending it to a limitless degree. That is why I gave the example—not on the basis of a comparison of earnings: that is not what it is about.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am rather sorry that the Minister has not been able to give more information in his reply. As I understand it, the amendment is mainly concerned with people on Manpower Services Commission schemes. They are not very well rewarded. There has been a lot of friction even on the MSC itself about this and indeed only recently the trade union representatives were talking about withdrawing because of what is considered to be a poor rate of remuneration for people attending those particular schemes. It seems odd that if people are being encouraged—and quite rightly, because I believe in training schemes as an alternative to
1204
unemployment—and are now being given no option because if they want to draw any money at all they have to participate—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dean, a question? He started off by talking about the YTS. That has nothing to do with it, because the community charge does not apply until the age of 18 and the YTS ends at 18. The other scheme is the job training scheme and, as I understood it, my noble friend said that the amount a person gets on a job training scheme above benefit level would be disregarded; so I do not really understand what the noble Lord is actually talking about.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry the noble Baroness has put it in that way, because there are people involved in all these schemes who could be affected in some way by the proposals in the Bill. The point I am making is that where the Government encourage people to participate in these schemes, whatever they may be, to start to load on to that substantial payments of the poll tax or the community charge—whatever it is termed—could well be a disincentive. That is the only point I am making. The present Secretary of State, who is now responsible for industry but who used to be responsible for employment, has made great play of, indeed a career out of, promoting these kinds of schemes on the basis of attracting people to a wide variety of schemes. I am asking the Government to look at this on the basis of where people are in training and where there is no other option. I have to say that if the training schemes were withdrawn in certain areas the unemployment figures would rocket once again because there are no alternative jobs other than the training. That is why I make this serious point. I ask the Minister if the Government would look at the situation, because once again I think we may well be hitting people who ought to be given every assistance to continue with what they have been encouraged to do.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to press the same point as my noble friend Lady Carnegy, but it seems to me that a point is being missed here. Already my noble friend the Minister in his reply has said that for the purposes of determining rebate the allocation that will come via the job training scheme will be disregarded. Therefore I cannot imagine a young person who would not fall into the rebating scheme. If a young person—to take the example that was used earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—is left with £50 per week net after tax, having disregarded the allocation from the scheme, I suggest that, as a person in training, he is rather well paid. The reply given by the Minister leaves me with the impression that a young person who perhaps works as an assistant in a shop and earns very low pay is considerably disadvantaged by comparison with a young person on an MSC scheme who has that allocation disregarded for the purposes of rebate.
I think that the rebate scheme deals adequately with the point raised by the amendment. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed and that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will wait to read what

1205
the Minister has said in order to understand that such young people are not disadvantaged. By treating them even more generously, the noble Lord would disadvantage many more young people on low pay who are not in training.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not totally disagree with what the noble Baroness has said. She doubts the premise on which I had questioned the Minister. I shall certainly look at what he has said and try to translate it into terms of pounds. I do not want to go down that particular road now.
There is a tendency today for young people to opt for independence outside the family. A tremendous number of youngsters these days want to be independent as quickly as they can. I put a point to the noble Baroness, although it is not really germane to the amendment. The noble Baroness thinks that a young girl or young man in London could exist independently on £50 a week, but that is absolute bunk.
I know that because of the disbandment of the wages councils wages at the bottom end of the scale
1206
are held down in order to attract people into certain types of job. The point that I am trying to make is that unless we treat that particular aspect carefully we shall hit people who will have very great difficulty in meeting their commitment. I honestly wish—although I do not criticise the Minister for it—that his brief could have translated into financial terms what he has said. Then we should know what he is talking about. I honestly believe and a lot of other people believe that if we do not get this right the very people who have been encouraged by government policy to enter a variety of training schemes or work training schemes—whatever they are called—will be caught up by this provision and very seriously disadvantaged.
On the basis that I know that the Minister will look at what I have said I have no desire to take the matter further and be abrasive about it. I withdraw the amendment on the basis that we may have to come back to the subject. I think that it is a far more serious issue than the Government accept at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this group of amendments is to remove the liability of students to pay one-fifth of the community charge in the area in which they are studying while undertaking their full-time course. The fourth amendment would, as a consequential amendment, remove the power of the Secretary of State to vary that proportion.
The amendments are intended to exempt students from the very considerable burden which is likely to arise as a result of paying a community charge while they are attending a full-time course. The amendments would not exempt students as individuals since they would remain liable during the period when they were not attending their course.
There is, however, very considerable concern that many students will simply be unable to pay the 20 per cent. for which they are to be liable for the duration of a student grant which is already widely considered to be inadequate. The Government have sought to represent the 20 per cent. formula as a concession to students without answering the question of how students are to be expected to pay contributions at all after several years in which the real value of the student grant has been reduced.
In Scotland, where students studying at Scottish universities and colleges will be liable for 20 per cent. of the charge from 1st April 1989, as we know, the Government have decided not to uprate grants to meet the additional burden. Ministers should be pressed in this debate—and this is why I am doing it now—to state whether a similar decision has been taken in respect of England and Wales as is covered by that Bill. The university vice-chancellors asked the Government last month to reconsider their decision in respect of Scottish students. In a letter to Mr. Robert Jackson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science, the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Professor Sir Mark Richmond, stated:
"In the meantime, however, students studying at Scottish universities from next October will find their resources stretched still further at a time when the level of the student grant is recognised by the Government itself to be inadequate to cover their essential expenditure. In the circumstances I hope that the Minister will feel able to reconsider the question of compensating these students for this additional expense without prejudice to the outcome of the student support review".
It would be useful if Ministers could give a response in this debate to the appeal of the CVCP for students to be compensated for the 20 per cent. charge in Scotland. I think that my noble friend, who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber, made that point quite forcefully earlier in our proceedings this evening.
A similar assurance in respect of students in England and Wales would meet the concern expressed in this amendment. However without such compensation the amendment is necessary to prevent students suffering greater hardship at a time when greater education and training are seen increasingly as a prerequisite of a more efficient economy. It
1208
would seem perverse for another area of government policy to have such contradictory consequences on these programmes of the Government.
Once again in this amendment we have had to compare what will happen in Scotland with what will happen in England and Wales. As an afterthought I wonder what would have happened in another place and in your Lordships' House if the proposals for Scotland and the different provisions for England and Wales had been brought forward in one Bill. I suspect that the Bill would have been kicked out under the claim of hybridity. However, because two separate Bills are involved, that argument does not seem to apply. I find it distinctly odd that this Chamber can debate something which will take place in England in terms of something which has already been programmed for Scotland and which, although it is supposed to be identical, in some respects is a quite different animal. However, I put forward the amendments as I have spoken to them and with Amendment No. 72A I have also included Amendments Nos. 72B, 72D and 72H. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I propose to reply to Amendments Nos. 72A, 72B, 72D, 72E, 72F and 72L. I have listened with care to the arguments employed by the noble Lord in support of these amendments and I did so because I am afraid that their meaning was not altogether obvious from the text on the Marshalled List. In some cases I suspect that the amendments would not achieve their intended purpose.
I have already reminded the Committee, in the context of the previous group of amendments, of the history of the 80 per cent. student relief. That figure was chosen because 20 per cent. would be the minimum payment by those on low incomes receiving maximum rebates. Full-time students will not be eligible for rebates. However, it seemed appropriate that they should pay the same amount.
The Government have no intention of altering the 20 per cent. upwards or downwards, but for the sake of prudence we felt that it would be sensible to have an order-making power, especially as the 80 per cent. maximum rebate will also appear in secondary legislation under Schedule 13 to this Bill. If that were not the case and a change were made to the maximum rebate level, we should need primary legislation to amend the student discount level. Of course, were the student discount figure ever to be altered for any reason, it would have to follow consultation with interested parties. I hope that this deals satisfactorily with Amendments Nos. 72E and 72F.
Clause 13(8) requires student status to appear on the community charges register. This is entirely logical given that the clause reduces students' liability by 80 per cent. and that the register is there to indicate who should pay community charges. If students were not separately identified, it would not be clear that they were entitled to the discount. There is nothing sinister here; and I must emphasise that students will not be separately identifiable in the published extract from the register, produced under the powers of Schedule 2, paragraph 16. The published extract will contain only a list of addresses and names. I see no

1209
reason, therefore, to delete Clause 13(8) as Amendment No. 72L seeks to do.
This leaves Amendments Nos. 72A and 72B. I confess that, even with the best advice available to me, I have found it difficult to make sense of these amendments. Again, it may be that if I explain what Clause 13 will achieve, that will deal with the noble Lord's concerns.
The 80 per cent. student relief applies throughout the period that an individual is a student. Clause 13(2) deals with a case where he is a student for the whole of a financial year, from 1st April to the following 31st March. I must emphasise that such a person will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. during vacations as well as during term time. Amendment No. 72A would delete Clause 13(2). At best that would cause confusion; at worst it would actually deny the 80 per cent. relief to someone who was a student for a full year. That, I am sure, is not something that the Committee would welcome.
Clause 13(3), (4) (5) and (6) then deals with cases where a person is a student for less than a full financial year. That might, for example, be someone in his final year at university, who was a student only from 1st April to the end of June, when his course ended. Such a person would pay 20 per cent. of the community charge during the period he was a student, and 100 per cent. during the period after he ceased to be a student (unless, of course, he became exempt, or was eligible for a rebate). That is what subsections 13(3) to 13(6) achieve. Again, I am not entirely clear why the noble Lord wishes to delete Clause 13(3), especially as his amendments do not tell us what would happen during the period when the individual was not a student. Indeed along with Amendments Nos. 72D and 72E, which are being taken separately, they would delete all reference to what happened when he was a student. In short, they would make Clause 13 unworkable.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may intervene. The point was well publicised in the press that the higher academics in Scotland have shown deep concern about the way students there are being affected, despite what the Minister has said, and assurances that he has given.
In his reply to these amendments, can the Minister dispel the disquiet in Scotland? As sure as night follows day, if there is disquiet among the higher academics in Scotland at what is happening to the students it will follow here as this Bill catches up with their Act. Can the Minister dwell for a few moments on that aspect? Is there some genuine reason for the disquiet by the university chiefs in Scotland? There must be.
Lord Hesketh: I do not think that I can usefully do more than explain how the Bill will work, as I have just tried to do. I do not believe that there is anything that I can add to that. If there is disquiet, there is disquiet. However, that does not affect the technicalities that I have tried to outline this evening.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister is trying to convey that there is no need for disquiet. I am trying to make the point in the amendments that there is deep concern about how the students will be affected. I quoted the body concerned. The higher academics in Scotland support the students' case that they have been harshly dealt with. If that is not so, I am asking the Minister to prove that that case is wrong. What is happening in Scotland now will occur in England if the Bill is passed as it stands. That is the point I am making.
If the issue is too detailed to be answered now, let us have the answer at another stage of the Bill. But I believe that it requires answering. Although not from my knowledge, as I do not come from Scotland, it is obviously an issue which the university chiefs in Scotland feel is relevant now.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe this point is quite important and we have not entirely sorted it out. It seems to me that the change on the Scottish Bill was that the student, instead of being rebated according to income, would pay 20 per cent. What we did not know was whether that would be taken as part of the cost of living in consideration of the sum which the student grant would be in any given year.
What we need to know is how the Government will treat this in fixing the student grant. At present students pay an element of rates through their rent for their lodgings. That will stop, so the rent for the lodgings will drop according to the element that makes up the rates. However, they will have to pay the community charge. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, talked about a possible community charge of £220. If that is so, we divide that by 52, which gives us the weekly amount of £4, and 20 per cent. of that comes to 80p. I believe I am right in saying that the community charge of £220 would result in an 80p charge per week. My question is whether that 80p is more than a student would have paid for the rates element on his rent or rates, if they pay rates because they are in lodgings. That will be either an addition or a reduction in the cost of living for which allowance has to be made in the grant.
I should like to ask my noble friend to find out for the Committee how this matter is being treated—whether it is considered that students will pay less and therefore their grants will not be increased or whether it is considered that students will be paying more and if so whether it will be taken into account in the fixing of a student grant. I asked about this during my Second Reading speech on the Bill. It is an important point for students and not one to be treated lightly.
At the same time I am none too sure that students will be worse off. I have a feeling that the academics in Scotland may be worried about something which is not a problem. If it is possible I should like my noble friend to find out and to let us know before the next stage exactly what is happening.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If my noble friend is answering that question, perhaps he will also answer something to which he referred that seems a little

1211
uncertain, and that is the construction of Clause 13(2):
"If he is undertaking the course on each day of that period".
Does that apply to the vacation? It is well known that although students do a good deal of academic work in the vacation they also treat much of it as holiday. More and more students are now following the American example and working for pay in the vacation. Do the words of subsection (2) cover the vacation or only the term?
Lord Hesketh: I shall first answer my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. A vacation is the same as the term. I cannot say how the student grant will be affected by the 20 per cent. liability because that matter is currently under consideration by the Jackson review. However, my noble friend Lady Carnegy asked what the effect of the change would be on students. The DES has done a survey which shows that on average students currently pay about £70 a year in rates—more than the 20 per cent. community charge liability will be. Thus it seems that they will actually be better off under the community charge.
Lord Tordoff: Arising from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made, it seems that we need a definition of the phrase "undertaking the course". I am sure that my professor would not have regarded me as undertaking my course at certain times in my academic career. However, I should not want to follow that frivolous point. But the wording seems to me to be slightly sloppy. Does it simply mean from the registration day to the day on which the graduation ceremony takes place? As the noble Lord has suggested, there are periods which might be slightly ill-defined under the wording.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, there is a power to define what is meant by a "course" in Clause 27.
Lord Tordoff: I understand that, but is there a power to define what is meant by "undertaking a course"?
Lord Hesketh: I am reliably informed that that point will be covered.
Lord Underhill: Grouped with the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Dean spoke is Amendment No. 72L which leaves out subsection (8) of Clause 13. Little has been said about that. Subsection (8) defines "student". The purpose of putting the amendment forward is to clear up doubts which exist about the definition of "student". During the Committee stage in another place on 2nd February the Minister for Local Government, the right honourable Michael Howard, stated at col. 301 that the Government will shortly be producing a definition of "student" which would be the subject of consultation in the context of the Scottish community charge regulations.
1212
The consultation paper has now appeared and a number of the comments which have been made appear to be relevant to the position regarding England and Wales. CoSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has raised a number of points with the department regarding the definition of "student". I shall not now go into them but numerous points were made. Have they been considered and what attitude was taken in reply to CoSLA?
Lord Hesketh: The Scottish regulations have been laid and debated.
Lord Underhill: That is not what I asked. I said that the local authority association representing all the Scottish authorities—CoSLA—has raised a number of points in respect of the consultation paper. I asked what kind of reply had been given to CoSLA. My information, which is only a few days old, is that CoSLA has submitted various points regarding the consultation paper on the definition of "student". Therefore, if an order has been placed, can the Minister say when it was placed? If it has been placed and my information is wrong I shall apologise.
Lord Hesketh: It is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they have been debated.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry but I must return to the Minister. I referred to the fact that the distinguished professor in Scotland indicated support for the students in Scotland. Professor Sir Mark Richmond said:
"In the meantime, however, students studying at Scottish universities from next October will find their resources stretched still further at a time when the level of the student grant is recognised by the Government itself to be inadequate to cover all their essential expenditure.".
There is no dubiety in what Professor Sir Mark Richmond said. Having regard to his position I expect him to understand the extent of what he was saying.
I believe that cuts across what the Government portray to be their general policy of expansion of higher education and it being adequately funded. If one is talking about people who aspire to become our purveyors of excellence in the future, one is talking about the students of today. It would appear, according to this particular distinguished gentleman, if we take what he says about Scotland as being de facto, as night follows day, that the effects will follow in England. Is Sir Mark Richmond right about the effects of what is happening in Scotland? If so, perhaps I may ask the Minister to look at this situation with a view to avoiding it happening in England in this particular Bill before it becomes an Act.
10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I can only say that I could never know as much about Scotland as my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I feel that she pointed out the contradiction here as I hope I did in a smaller way when I gave the example of the survey by the Department of Education and Science. That showed

1213
that students would be better off under the community charge rather than worse off as they are under the present rates system.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have to come back reluctantly once again. Who is right? Are the Government misinterpreting the matter? If they are then I do not believe there is anything sinister about that. Governments of all colours have made mistakes before. However, we have a very distinguished educationist in Scotland who I believe would be totally aware of what these measures mean and what is going to happen. What he says is in contradiction with what the Minister says. Are the Government saying that Professor Sir Mark Richmond is wrong in what he said in the statement which I believe was in the press at the weekend? Someone has it wrong. I suggest that we should go away in order to see who does have it wrong because I cannot see a distinguished academic, with all his knowledge of mathematics and so on, being so wrong in this particular situation.
Lord Beloff: For the record, I should point out that although it is true that Sir Mark Richmond held a post in a Scottish university some years ago, he has long left Scotland and is not in a position to speak from first-hand knowledge of a Scottish seat.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may suggest that it is riot a question of having it wrong. The only indeterminate factor is that raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy; namely, will the Government take into account the 20 per cent. which students will have to pay in allocating grants? Apart from that, it will mean something different for each individual student. It will depend how much they are at present paying in rates and whether or not it exceeds the 20 per cent. The example given by the Minister, based on a survey already carried out, shows that the majority of students will be better off. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, rather than pressing this amendment, will wait to see, as must the rest of us, whether or not the 20 per cent. will be taken into account by the Government in allocating grants and the effect that it will have in Scotland.
Lord Dean of Beswick: We shall obviously have to wait and see. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, scores a point. I do not know the particular gentleman concerned and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, does. I understand that although the gentleman may have left Scotland some time ago, he is the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and that he is at present the vice-chancellor of the Manchester University. I believe that that indicates that he has a strong claim, although perhaps not domiciled in Scotland, to speak from a very powerful position. That reinforces my argument. We are not only talking about Scotsmen North of the Border. We are talking about somebody who is chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and who has a much wider national perception of what is about to take place. I would be prepared to look at what the Minister said and I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and
1214
examine what has been said. I am convinced that what some of us have said tonight will be mirrored by people outside. As I have said, there is a difference between what the Government say and what Professor Sir Mark Richmond says.
The position will need to be re-examined because someone is wrong. I do not know who it is, but I suspect it is the Government. I hope it is. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72C:
Page 9 line 32, after ("A") insert ("B").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is not controversial. Clause 14(3) gives a formula for determining the obligation of a student to pay the community charge. Subsections (4) and (6) give to A and C in subsection (3) the meanings given in Clause 12. Although B does not appear in the formula itself, it is implicit in the formula because B is the number of days, under Clause 12, which fall within the financial year in which the student is shown in the register as subject to the charge. Therefore, if the formula is to be complete, it would appear not that the formula itself should be changed but that the definition already given to B in Clause 12 should be extended to Clause 13.
Perhaps we have misinterpreted the drafters' intention, but that appears to be the significance of subsection (4). I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I was under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be speaking to Amendments Nos. 72G, 72H and 72J at the same time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 72C stands by itself.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 72C is somewhat mysterious. It provides a definition of B which would be fine except that B does not appear in the equation in Clause 13(3) and is not proposed to be added by any of these amendments. The amendment is perhaps based on a misunderstanding. I can assure the noble Lord that it will add nothing to the student discount provision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what I said. I said that it did not appear in the formula but that it appears in the sense of referring to each day of the period. If the day of the period is determined by B, as it is in Clause 12(4), the extension of the definition to Clause 13 should apply. However, I leave that thought with the Minister.
Lord Tordoff: I intervene merely to say that B occurs in the clause, standing separately from the clause itself. It is in Clause 13(1)(b). If the Government assume that its meaning is the same as in Clause 12, that is fine; but they should say so.
Lord Hesketh: B is not implicit in Clause 13(3). The number of days in the period is covered by P and Q.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, it occurs in Clause 13(1)(b):
"on any day in the period represented by B he is undertaking a full-time course of education."
If one is redefining in Clause 13 what A and C mean, then perhaps we should redefine what B means.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am content to leave the Government to take this matter away and consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and myself. It appears that there is, in algebraic terms, B in Clause 13(1)(b) which is only defined in respect of Clause 12 and not Clause 13.
However, this is becoming an arcane point best left for mature consideration in a quieter, more restrictive place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72D not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): If Amendment No. 72E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 72F to 72J inclusive.
[Amendment No. 72E not moved.]
[Amendment No. 72F not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72G:
Page 9, line 41, after ("such") insert ("lower").
The noble Lord said: In case there is any confusion about the grouping, Amendments Nos. 72G, H, J and K are all taken separately in my list. Amendment No. 72N is taken with Amendment No. 72P.
Amendment No. 72G, which I am now moving, would restrict the power of the Secretary of State so that he could not impose a higher figure than 20 per cent. on the amount which would have to be paid by students. Having listened to earlier debates and to the explanations of the Government of the regime for students, I do not believe in practice that it is the intention of the Government to increase the percentage which may have to be paid by students, but the Bill does not actually say so. I hope that the Government will be able to give an assurance that no higher figure than 20 per cent. will be imposed though a lower figure could be. That would not cause us any difficulty. If the Government can give that assurance we shall withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 72G would restrict any change in the amount payable by students to a lower amount, as the noble Lord points out. When we discussed the previous group of amendments, I said that the Government have no plans at present to change the level of discount either up or down. It seems only sensible not to restrict the changes at the outset. The best approach must surely be to take into account the relevant facts if and when a change becomes necessary.
Lord Tordoff: This is an important matter of principle in relation to the Bill. If this Government or any other were to consider increasing the level above that proportion, I believe it would be a serious matter. We are not arguing simply about numbers;
1216
we are arguing about a principle. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not believe this is the right way to look at the issue. It seems to me that the critical factor in fixing what a student pays is that which will make the student appreciate whether local government spending increases or decreases; how the value for money relates to that and how it compares with what other students are paying in other local authority areas. The total sum that a student is paying is critical. The proportion depends on the size of the grant. I would only wish to put it up if the proportion he is paying for education becomes less in order to maintain the figure at about the same level. That could happen. Should the proportion that the student pays through the grant go up very much, which could happen, then the proportion could become less, presumably. The critical factor is that we worked out on a £200 community charge that it would be about 80p per week. If that increases or decreases by a few pence that would be noticeable. It would have to do that or the point is missed by the student.
To say that the sum must not go beyond 20 per cent. in order to sound as though we are being good to students is completely unrealistic. It may easily make the community charge mean nothing to a student. I believe that flexibility is important because we do not know the proportion of a student's education which will be paid from the grant.
Lord Hesketh: I am very grateful for the intervention by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I reiterate that the Government have no plans either to increase or decrease the figure. The simple fact of the matter is that for the sake of prudence we felt it would be sensible to have an order-making power especially as the maximum 80 per cent. rebate will also appear in secondary legislation under Schedule 13 to the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the Government fully appreciate the degree of concern which students could well feel that a future less well-intentioned government—I can conceive of such a thing—might be tempted to increase the figure in order to punish students for some imagined misdemeanours. The campaign being carried on by Conservative Back-Benchers in another place against student unions is evidence of the considerable antipathy of many members of the noble Lord's party towards students. I can well imagine that a future Secretary of State might use his power in a quite undesirable way. However, at this time of night I do not think we shall make any significant progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72H and 72J not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 72K:
Page 9, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of this section, a person undertaking a full-time course of education shall be regarded as being solely or mainly resident in the area of the authority in which he is resident during the term time for the purpose of undertaking the course until he ceases to undertake the course.".
The noble Earl said: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for writing to me about this amendment; but I should still like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions. The last two lines of my amendment state:
"the area of the authority in which he is resident during the term time for the purpose of undertaking the course until he ceases to undertake the course".
Clause 2(5) refers to a student being,
"resident in England and Wales".
A great many Scots attend English universities; and, equally, a great many English students attend Scottish universities. I wonder whether the words "England and Wales" are desirable. Might they not separate us when in the case of students I think we want to be as closely aligned as possible?
Subsection (5) refers to:
"residence, on each day of the course, in the place where he is resident for the purpose of undertaking the course".
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the wording of Clause 13(3), which states:
"If he is not undertaking the course on each day of that period, the amount he is liable to pay under that section shall be determined in accordance with the formula".
We then see a rather complicated formula which I shall not attempt to read out. I get the impression from this that a student in England might be subject to paying the full community charge when he is on vacation and only receive the 20 per cent. reduction when he actually attends the university. I rather hope that that is not the case because they are usually desperately working to make enough money to finance themselves through the next two terms.
There is one last point that I should like to make which I think is relatively important. I return to the amendment tabled in my name. I want to make it quite clear that it is the term time with which we are dealing. I ask Members of the Committee to consider the position of someone living in Kent attending, say, Oxford University. Let us assume that he is on a university course for three or four years. Is he definitely registered at Oxford, and not at Kent? I am sorry to ask such awkward questions, but I hope that I make myself clear. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend Lord Balfour was good enough to write to my noble friend the Minister giving advance warning of the amendment. I hope that he has now received a reply. The important point is that there is nothing between us in principle. As my noble friend pointed out, we need a special residence rule for full-time students which is equivalent to that included in Section 8(4) of the Scottish Act. I think that my noble friend may have failed to take into account the fact that the Bill already contains such a special residence rule in Clause 2(5). It provides that:
"A person undertaking a full-time course of education … shall be treated as having his sole or main residence … in the place where he is resident for the purpose of undertaking the course".
Therefore an Englishman attending St. Andrew's University would be deemed to be resident at that university in Scotland; on the other hand, if a Scotsman was studying at Oxford University, he would be deemed to be resident in the City of Oxford.
1218
I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept that we have adequately reflected the point he seeks to make. Perhaps I should also remind him that early this evening I pointed out that term and vacation are one and the same. There is no liability during vacation. In other words, if you are in full-time education you are in full-time education and therefore in a position to benefit from the 20 per cent. reduction.
In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply which has cleared up many doubts. Accordingly, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72L not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Standard community charge]:
[Amendment No. 72M not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Collective community charge]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72N:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("5") and insert ("10").
The noble Lord said: While moving Amendment No. 72N, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 72P. We have now moved on to Clause 15 which is concerned with the collective community charge and its administration. I should like to point out what happens to one type of establishment which is subject to the community charge; namely, the voluntary organisations. I shall say a word or two especially about the Salvation Army. Such organisations are being used in effect as tax collectors. They are being asked to take on the responsibility for the collection of the community charge on behalf of the people living in their homes.
Further—let us be clear about this—they are being paid to do so; in other words, they are being given a discount on the community charge. However, the discount being offered is only five per cent. of the charge. I ask the noble Earl, in all humility, whether the Government fully appreciate the amount of work which will be required of those organisations in calculating the community charge; in determining who is subject at different levels; and, above all, in actually collecting it and making different charges to the many residents in their homes.
An organisation such as the Salvation Army provides about 200,000 free nights' sleep for homeless people every year. No one would suggest that the Salvation Army will collect a share of the collective community charge from its residents. It will come from the money given to support the Salvation Army. The cost of collection, in addition to the cost of the community charge, will be substantial. How will the SalvationArmy keep records on all of its residents—who they are, what their status with

1219
reference to the community charge will be, where they have come from, what they have been paying before and what they are likely to pay in the future. The thought appals me, and I know nothing about the administration of such an organisation.
I cannot imagine how it will be possible for an organisation such as the Salvation Army—I have given only one example and there must be many others—even to start to work out the basis upon which it can do so. The administrative and financial burdens upon it are bound to be substantial.
In the amendment we propose an increase in the discount from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. with the hope that the Government—whether or not they accept the figure of 10 per cent.—will see fit to recognise the problems caused to voluntary organisations. For that reason, we have also tabled Amendment No. 72P, which proposes that the Government should consider the administration of the community charge,
"after consultation with the local authority Associations and such other bodies or individuals as appear to him to be concerned".
It appear to us that it is voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army that are likely to be concerned. The wording of the amendment is not dissimilar to that which has been discussed previously this evening. The substance of the amendment and the fact that it relates to the community charge makes a difference. We hope that the Government will see their way to lessening the bureaucratic burden which will otherwise fall on voluntary organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: Before the Minister replies, could he tell the Committee whether the wording, as it stands, leaves open the possibility of a proportion of less than 5 per cent. being prescribed by the Secretary of State, because it seems to me that that would reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh?
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I can deal speedily with Amendment No. 72P, which seeks to require statutory consultation with the local authority associations. We dealt earlier, as the noble Lord will be told by his noble friend Lord Underhill, with three similar amendments—Amendments Nos. 70A, 70E and 70N. The Committee then accepted my assurance that consultation would take place without the need for an express provision to that effect.
I trust that the Committee will accept an identical assurance as regards consultation if any regulation is made under Clause 15.
I turn now to Amendment No. 72N. I was intrigued, because I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. The Committee might find it informative to hear what the Labour Party spokesman said about the 5 per cent. discount in Committee in another place. I quote from the Official Report (col. 681–682) of 11th February:
"It is astonishing that the Bill provides a 5 per cent. discount for those landlords who collect"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that the standing orders of this place provided that it was permissible to quote from Ministers but not other Members of another place. I have no objection to the Minister paraphrasing.
The Earl of Caithness: I accept the noble Lord's correction. Therefore I believe that it would be right to say that the Labour Party spokesman said that he was astonished that the Bill provided for a 5 per cent. discount for those landlords who collect the collective community charge. He went on to argue that: some landlords in the traditional private sector provide accommodation that is covered by the collective community charge. They cannot run fast enough to the bank each week. They make enormous profits. Yet we are expected to legislate to allow such landlords a 5 per cent. discount for collecting taxes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl will forgive me, but I do not think that he escapes the compass of the Standing Order by failing to give the name of the person he is quoting. He is still quoting from the official record, from somebody who is not a Minister.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I was paraphrasing the noble Lord's honourable friend. The Opposition spokesman said that he believed that 5 per cent. was far too high. Now we have the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, saying that it is far too low. I wondered whether the noble Lord might have a word with his opposite numbers in another place so that they could sort out their act on this. It is not the first time that the Opposition Front Benches have disagreed totally on many things.
Needless to say, the Government's position is very different in that it is clear and unequivocal. We do not claim that there is anything magical about the figure of 5 per cent. There is no figure which can be proved in advance to be the correct figure. However, we wish to ensure that landlords will not be out of pocket. We believe that 5 per cent. is the correct starting point since it recognises that landlords will have to bear extra costs, while stopping short of a windfall gain. We believe that 2½ per cent., the figure pressed on us by the Labour Party in another place, is too low, and we believe that 10 per cent., the figure favoured by the Labour Party in your Lordships' House, is too high. Our minds are not closed on this matter. We shall monitor the operation of the collective community charge to establish whether 5 per cent. is the right figure. That is why, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, Clause 15 includes the power of the Secretary of State to increase or reduce the percentage.
In view of the total disarray of the Opposition on this matter, perhaps it is only right that the Government have got it right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the Minister aware that although he is trying to compare members of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House with members of the Labour Party in another place, we are not always in tandem? I think that events on the television last night prove that at this time the brains appear to rest at this end of the Palace of Westminster.
There is nothing new in governments historically having taxes collected completely gratis. There has been a long-standing grumble from people like secretaries of working men's clubs. I am not criticising this particular government because Labour

1221
governments have also done it. Those of us who were secretaries of working men's clubs and labour clubs were given the job of tax collectors, completely free of remuneration, and we were held to be legally liable if we did not do it. For 22 years I was secretary of a labour club which was owned by its members. I had the function of collecting pay and other forms of taxes weekly. No particular past government recognised that.
We are suggesting something different here. I suspect that small businesses are affected in the same way. They have to show a return on capital or some form of profit. We are talking in this amendment about people who are not in the business of making a profit. I have no desire to breach the rules of the normal behaviour of your Lordships' Chamber by attempting to quote from another place. I think people of all parties at the other end of the Palace have been known to be wrong on more than one occasion and ever it will be thus. We do not come here on the basis—I certainly do not—that I get my orders from another place and carry them out religiously. That is the name of the game.
I suggest that the role that we like to adopt in this House is to have a greater degree of dependence. I believe that if an attempt were made to say, "What the other place wants is what we will bring forward as amendments", we would have been doomed to failure in the last Session of Parliament when the Government lost about 112 Divisions. It was nothing to do with orders or suggestions from another place because a great many of the amendments were moved without any political motivation or spleen by prominent Back-Benchers of your Lordships' House.
While I can understand the Minister, even at this late hour, wanting to politicise things a little, I think he is coming it a hit strong. Perhaps I might suggest, going back to the amendment on charitable organisations, that 5 per cent. is very low. Anybody who has anything to do with charities knows that even collectors on behalf of charities do not do it for nothing—but they do not get 5 per cent. That is a fact of life which must be recognised. If the Government cannot give an undertaking at least they could say that they will review the situation. For the charitable institutions to be asked to operate on this basis is, in blunt terms, not paying the rate for the job.
Lord Tordoff: I think the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has a fair point. I do not feel at all constrained by anything that may have been said in another place from Benches other than mine. I do not want to get into the private grief of another party.
However, there is a question I wish to ask on this. The words,
"as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order",
rather beg the question as to what rules he will apply for that prescription. Is it on the basis of a fair return for the work that is being done on behalf of the tax man, or are there some other criteria? It seems to me that there is something in the wording of this clause which needs to be better described than it is at the moment. Perhaps the noble Earl can offer some explanation as to what rules the Secretary of State might apply when prescribing these things by order.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for a further opportunity to try to elucidate what I said earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said that it did not matter to him that there were differences of opinion between the Front Benches here and in another place. Of course I am sure that he would be the first to appreciate how difficult this makes life for us. We try to be helpful to—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the Minister not aware that the objective of the House and the Committee tonight is for the Opposition to try to persuade the Minister to change the mind of his colleague in another place? That is what we are about. It is not about an election and what certain of our colleagues think in another place. The objective of these amendments is to persuade the Minister, sympathetic as he is, to get the Secretary of State in another place to yield a little more in the direction in which we are trying to push him. It has nothing whatever to do with what people in another place think about the issue at all.
The Earl of Caithness: The point that I was making is that, as I hope the noble Lord will be the first to join me in saying, we are very keen to help, understand and improve the Bill. That is why we listen carefully. But to find ourselves being pushed in one direction in the other place and in another direction in this House by the same party is difficult.
I think that I can give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who is not the only one who cannot understand or follow his party in another place. Seriously, I think they both had a point on charitable institutions. They mentioned the Salvation Army in particular. That is why we have taken powers in Clause 15. The Committee will find those on pages 10 and 11 of the Bill. Clause 15(4) states:
"the relevant proportion is 5 per cent. or such other proportion as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order".
It is precisely because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State realises some of the complications that the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Tordoff, have drawn to the attention of the Committee tonight that we decided that we should have this power, so the proportion could be varied up or down.
We shall monitor the situation and we shall of course liaise closely not only with the local authorities but also with those people who run collective community charges. This will vary from the charitable institutions such as the Salvation Army to the private landlord. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In those past few seconds we have made very considerable progress. I am going to open up a gulf between myself and my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. I think that my colleagues in another place were exactly right to attack the greedy private landlords who would make money out of administering the community charge, and I think I was exactly right to point to the difficulties which arise for voluntary organisations.
If we are in any way at fault in drafting amendments which do not adequately distinguish

1223
between those two cases, then I accept that we are at fault. But we are nothing like as much at fault as the Government are in providing in subsection (4) for the Secretary of State to prescribe only:
"such other proportion … by order".
It should of course, according to what the Minister has just said, state "proportions". In other words, there should be provision for a differential discount to be given to such voluntary organisations as the Salvation Army who do have extra difficulties in identifying different individuals among their residents who may be subject to different proportions of a collective community charge, as compared with those private landlords who have a very much simpler task and who are, in any case, making substantial amounts of profit out of these people.
So on both occasions we were right. Our drafting, if imperfect, is not as bad as the Government's drafting, but, on the basis that the Minister now recognises that there is a significant difference between the cases of voluntary organisations and the cases of private landlords, I hope he will now feel—I am not necessarily asking him to confirm this or otherwise—that he should go away and pay attention to the different cases which have been raised in this debate. I hope that his almost final words will lead the Government suitably to amend subsection (4) at a later stage in our consideration of this Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72P not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.