Lords Sitting of 29 June 1988

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

Acute Hospital Sector: Statistics
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the statistics for the acute hospital sector are compiled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the centrally-available statistics provide information about acute sector inpatients and day cases and are compiled by tabulating coded data of around 7 million anonymised hospital records. Those on waiting lists and hospital facilities such as beds and operating theatres are compiled from forms submitted quarterly or annually by hospitals or health authorities.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I have asked a number of Questions which rely on hospital statistics. Perhaps I may give the reason for my concern.
Noble Lords: No, no!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, would the Minister mind if I gave the reason for my concern? The statistics that he gave me about operations and waiting lists at Worcester Royal Infirmary vary much from the statistics taken from the operating theatre books. For example, in 1983 the Minister said that 650 operations had been carried out, whereas there were 874. He could not give me any figures for 1987.
Noble LordsOrder! Question!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in fact there were only 490 operations carried out.
Noble Lords: Question!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not important that the statistics gathered are accurate in order that planning for facilities for various hospitals may be carried out with some degree of accuracy? Can he give any assurance that the new system for statistical analysis will be more efficient and therefore more effective with regard to patient treatments?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Körner system will indeed be considerably more authoritative and also faster because of computerisation. The computerisation has been delayed by about a year for the proving of the software package which is why matters are not so far advanced as the Government would like. On changes in statistics, I cannot give a reason for hospital theatre statistics being changed. However, statistics in most cases have to be revalued
1586
before they are put together to form a national statistic base.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that consultants throughout the country are very concerned about the financial situation affecting their districts? Bearing in mind the statistics which have just been given by the noble Countess, is the Minister prepared to withdraw a statement that he made on 9th November that an orthopaedic surgeon, Mr. John Guy, in Worcester Royal Infirmary made a statement which misrepresented the situation? Is he aware that the facts that the noble Countess has given substantiate the claims made by the consultant at that time? Is he aware that the consultant much resented the allegation made by the Minister that he was misrepresenting the situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not have in front of me the details of that exchange in your Lordships' House. However, now that it has been drawn to my attention I shall look into it and apologise in writing to the surgeon concerned if I find that it is necessary. However, the important factor is the services to patients and whether we are becoming a healthier or a sicker nation as a result of the changes that have been taking place in the health service. I have a whole raft of examples on that but the most telling one is that the expectation of life for both males and females is now over four years more at birth than it was in the 1950s, and two years more at birth than it was in the mid-1970s.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that the statistics are improving. Can he say whether account has been taken of the fact that, for example, fractures of the neck of the femur are three times more prevalent in the elderly than the growth in the elderly population, and that they are taking up a lot of hospital beds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is also a longer experience and expectancy of life among the elderly. The number of hip replacement operations has almost doubled since 1974 as a result.

Hospital Admissions: Criteria
2.41 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria are applied by hospital consultants in deciding whether or not a patient should receive hospital treatment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, consultants' decisions on admission to hospital are based on their clinical judgment. Each case will be treated as individual.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the problem caused with the closure of beds—I shall not say "cuts" because the Minister does not like the word—is that the consultants are no longer able to use their clinical knowledge when deciding whether or not a patient should be admitted to hospital? Is he aware that patients are suffering because they cannot have a guaranteed bed when they need it in an emergency, in particular for intensive care?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is important that people in emergency should be treated somewhere. It depends how one classifies "emergency." If one means by "emergency" within 12 hours, I believe that this is always achieved. There have indeed been closures of beds for a number of reasons. We have discussed this a number of times over the past 12 months in this Chamber. However, I have also pointed out that the number of cases treated, and operations conducted, has consistently risen over recent years.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the Minister aware that, while some noble Lords were sitting very late last night, I was with the Hereford Health District where I was being told by the chairman of the medical committee of drastic cuts in the basic services to patients, including the closure of theatre wards and the standing down of theatre staff, doctors and nurses? Is he surprised that some local people were saying to me that this is a deliberate policy to boost the private sector of the health service because people are now having to wait longer and longer?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I am very surprised on two counts. First, I regard myself standing at this Dispatch Box as a rather tired statistic. Secondly, because in his discovery I am surprised that the noble Lord did not achieve understanding of the fact that, in spite of the closures to which he referred, even in that district health authority the number of cases treated has gone up, as in other parts of the country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is extremely difficult to answer this Question on the Order Paper in the form in which it is put because, quite fairly, the criteria must depend largely on ruling circumstances?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, they must depend on ruling circumstances, but clinical judgment forms the major part of all decisions on admission to hospital.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some places, for people who have not been able to get treatment in this country, their communities have raised money and sent them abroad for treatment? How does he view that kind of circumstance? Does it not show how keen the community is for health services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I could not guarantee that every treatment possible in the world is available in this country. There are some treatments which the medical establishment here treats with a certain amount of suspicion. Therefore it is hardly surprising that if people are determined to have a particular treatment which they cannot have here they raise funds both privately and publicly to send their relatives, or indeed themselves, to other parts of the world to be treated.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, tired as we both are—the noble Lord on the Front Bench and myself on the Cross-Benches—has the Minister read the extremely interesting leading feature article in The Times this morning about the unique opportunity presented by the present investigations into the
1588
National Health Service to rectify conceptual misconceptions in the original Bevan scheme? Will he write to me about it?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I have not read it. Yes, I shall certainly write to the noble Earl.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the general population in this country must be coming round to realising that National Health Service facilities have to be rationed? Would it not be a good idea if the Government opened to public debate clear guidelines of some kind for who should and who should not be treated and for how long they should be treated?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think that that is the proper role of government. Rationing in the health service in certain areas has existed for many years. An example of such rationing is the waiting lists.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have very close association with the health service? We have been very proud indeed of the National Health Service since its inception, as we are today. It is doing a magnificent job. Is it not a fact that it has always been taken for granted that the consultant will decide whether a case is urgent enough for a patient to be admitted? My experience, which spreads over a large number of years, is that consultants usually get their way.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I only add that I am alive today purely because of the good services of the National Health Service.

Trade Deficit
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now revised their estimate of the trade deficit for this year and if so why.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, recent figures suggest that the current account deficit in 1988 will be larger than forecast at the time of the Budget. A new forecast will be published in the usual way at the time of the Autumn Statement.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord does not answer my question. If the Government have changed their forecast, why? Why was it that in March the Chancellor forecast a deficit of £4 billion, which has almost or totally already been reached? How does what he has said square with his constant reiteration in this House and in the country that the country is booming? Our trade deficit last month was the largest in history. Is this not a reflection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy in the Budget of reducing taxes for his rich friends who are now spending the money on imports rather than investing in the productive activities of this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, should take more care. He confuses a deficit today with the conditions that existed in the early and middle 1970s, and indeed in the 1960s, when the economy was such that we were in considerable difficulties. We have today an economy that is growing as fast as, if not faster than, any other economy in the industrialised world. Today's deficit of £4·7 billion should be compared with our overseas direct and portfolio assets, valued at the end of 1986 at £236·5 billion equivalent to £4,200 per head. When an economy is growing as fast as ours is growing, it is quite likely that there will be temporary imbalances and periods in which imports will exceed exports. Any similarity between this and the middle 1970s exists only in the mind of the noble Lord.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Secretary of State care to tell the House how he believes that personal tax cuts in the Budget will be helpful to this year's deficit?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that tax cuts in the Budget will be helpful to the growth of enterprise and the economy, and will ensure that the economy continues to grow faster. That is the important question.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I agree with him that the massive nature of our reserves and overseas assets make an apparently qualitative difference compared with the position in the 1960s and early 1970s? Nonetheless, will he bear in mind the dramatic experience of the United States in the 1980s, which showed that with remarkable speed a country can turn itself from being the biggest creditor in the world to being the biggest debtor in the world? Will he therefore avoid being too complacent about the present position?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall resist being too complacent. I accept the fact that the noble Lord agrees with me and I look forward to that continuing in the future. However, I am sure that all noble Lords will accept that there is a difference between the years during which the United States of America ran at a substantial deficit and the economy of the United Kingdom which runs at a surplus.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend not surprised that, at a time when the industrial development in this country is obvious, so many well-informed people who have previously held office and who should have a real understanding of the matter should want to draw attention to the odd quirk which, of necessity, is bound to exist at some time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that imports have increased substantially this year. In the three months to May imports of motorcars and consumer goods increased by 12 per cent. Imports of capital goods and intermediate goods, which are the components for manufacturing products, increased by 18 per cent. We are seeing industry gearing up and stocking up, and I believe that that will be a good omen for the future.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does not the Minister take comfort from a dictum of the Greek
1590
philosopher, Heraclitus, in the fifth century B.C.? He said, "Panta rhei"—all things are perpetually in a state of flux.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this Lord has been a Member of your Lordships' House for long enough to take comfort wherever he can.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, things may be in a state of flux but, on the assumption that the noble Lord has taken a serious interest in the structure of the trade figures that he has been kind enough to provide to Parliament, does the position between ourselves and the EC give him any cause for concern? Is the noble Lord aware that, whereas in 1972 we had a positive visible trade balance of some £200 million, in 1986 we had a deficit of £9·5 billion? Last year we had a deficit of over £10 billion, and on the basis of the results of the last five months the trade deficit with the remaining countries of the EC is running at an annualised rate of £14 billion. I ask the noble Lord not to give a purely rhetorical answer to this question. Has he given the matter serious consideration? What does he derive from an examination of the figures which he has provided? What do they hold for the future and on what basis can he predict any improvement in the balance of payments over the current year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I recall well the conditions in the early 1970s. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may be aware that I existed in the outside world in those days and knew well the conditions.
It is my privilege to spend some time travelling up and down our land, seeing the conditions in the country today. There is no comparison between the two periods. I do not believe that one can take part of the trade figures and from that make judgments. I take comfort from the economy as a whole and so, I believe, do most people in industry today.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in financial circles the estimate is that the net effect on the balance of payments for the end of this year will be a deficit of approximately £10 billion? That may or may not be right. However, bearing that prospect in mind, will the noble Lord indicate whether, in addition to increasing interest rates, which appears to be the policy of the Government, they have in mind any other measures which may deal with the situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are forecasts and forecasts. It is an occupation of many people in the City to continue to make forecasts. I look forward to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer publishing an estimate of the forecast for the balance of payments deficit or surplus in the usual way at the time of the Autumn Statement. I do not believe that at this time it is for me to speculate about the course of interest rates in the future. It is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the situation as and when the condition arises.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while not being complacent will the Minister confirm that the adverse balance of invisible payments deficit was £9 billion in

1591
1987 but that there was a balance of over £8 billion in invisible exports? Can he give an indication of the buoyancy of the banking, insurance and other services in this year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I admit the great difficulty of measuring the invisible balances and I believe that is well accepted. It causes us concern and the provision of the statistics is being examined at the present time. For example, 10 million or 15 million tourists visit this country each year. Many of them, if not the vast majority, acquire goods in this country. They may be registered, not registered at all or registered in some way as invisible when perhaps they should better be registered as visible. It is difficult for us, and I believe that it would be dangerous, to take too much from one month's figures. The long history of such figures has shown that they continue to be revised, and almost invariably revised for the better, as the months and years go by. I believe that we must see what the future brings.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, will the noble Lord give a broader breakdown than he gave in answer to a supplementary question when he contrasted the growth in the imports of motorcars with growth in the imports of capital goods? For example, can he say whether there has been a larger growth in the import of consumer goods than in capital goods and raw materials? We should all like to hope that it is the growth of the latter which is creating the deficit at the moment rather than a huge surge in consumer goods?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have only the percentage increases, which are notoriously difficult if one does not know the base figures. They show that motorcars are up by some 19 per cent. in the first three months while other consumer goods are up by 10 per cent. However, both are up by far less—one-third less than capital goods and equipment for industry. I shall write to the noble Lord and give him a breakdown of the figures. I shall also cause a copy to be placed in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he still has not answered my Question? Why in March did the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that forecast of £4 billion, which has already been achieved in June? Is that the way in which the Government handle the economy? Has the noble Lord read the report of the Committee on Overseas Trade chaired by his noble friend Lord Aldington which forecast precisely what is now happening since the oil revenues began to decline? Is the noble Lord's idea—
Noble Lords: Order, order! Too long!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord's idea of a boom one led by credit which will lead to a crash or a boom led by exports which the present figure shows are in decline?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, believes that he is infallible but as a Minister I know that I am not infallible and nor does my noble friend Lord Aldington believe that the report of his Select
1592
Committee is infallible. They were the best estimates made at the time and that is what estimates are intended to be.

Business
3.1 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill will take place on Thursday, 7th July, As noble Lords will recall, on Monday evening a number of your Lordships on both sides of the House expressed unease with our original intention to proceed with the Third Reading on 5th July as it would not have given enough time for proper consideration of the text of the Bill as amended. I have taken advice on this and find that there can be Rio certainty of receiving the reprint of the Bill as amended on Report by the end of this week. I have concluded that therefore it would be in the interests of the whole House if the Third Reading were deferred until 7th July.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for letting me know in advance that he was to make this Statement this afternoon. He will be aware of our general feeling about the way in which this matter has been handled and that it has caused considerable inconvenience to a number of people. Of course we shall do our best to adapt to the new arrangement to which he has referred.
However, can the noble Lord say that he is now quite satisfied that one day is sufficient for the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill. Secondly, when will copies of the reprinted Bill be available? He has just referred to the reprint. Is he quite satisfied that that will be available in time for noble Lords in all parts of the House to study it before the Third Reading takes place?
I must once again place on the record our concern about the way in which business is being handled in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: If the legislative programme had been studied with greater care some months ago, it would not have been necessary for this House to sit into the early hours of the morning on several occasions and it would certainly have been unnecessary for the House to sit all night as it has done. Without doubt that places an intolerable burden on noble Lords on all sides of the House and particularly upon those who are chiefly concerned from the Front Bench in dealing with the legislation and those on the Back Benches who have been playing an active part in the debates.
In my view it is not satisfactory for this House to sit on three consecutive days on the Committee or Report stages of a Bill, and on consecutive weeks. It places an unwarranted burden on noble Lords. I hope that that will be considered by the Leader of the House. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to announce at any early date when the House will rise for the Summer Recess and when we shall be expected to return for the overlap period and, indeed, whether the gracious Speech will be made at the normal time.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it was entirely because the Government had to ask for a postponement, and not because representations were made, that they had to change, at some considerable inconvenience, from next Tuesday which had long been a date in the diaries of many noble Lords most concerned? That was inconvenient but it might have been tolerable had the noble Lord been able to negotiate an alternative date. However, as I understand it, the convenience of the Commons received total priority over the problems of this House. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that to be an even-handed Leader he should give regard to the rights of this House as well as to the convenience of the Commons
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to express my regret to both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about any personal inconvenience that that may cause. Indeed, I am aware of two particular Front Bench spokesmen for both the Social and Liberal Democrats and noble Lords opposite who not only have worked exceedingly hard on this Bill but have also worked throughout the whole of last night and for whom this is not convenient—in fact, it is not convenient at all. I should like to say that I am extremely sorry about that.
The fact is that it is impossible to find an alternative date which is convenient for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether I am satisfied that one day will be enough for Third Reading. It is most unusual for your Lordships' House to spend more than one day on the Third Reading of a Bill.
The noble Lord also asked me when copies of the reprinted Bill will be available. As I said in my original statement, because there is no guarantee that the reprinted Bill will be available before the end of this week, I expect and very much hope that the reprinted Bill will be ready for us on Monday morning bright and early. Indeed, if the reprinted Bill were to appear a little before that, no one would be more glad than I. However, I do not believe that that would alter the prudence of having to take the proposed step.
The noble Lord referred to the very heavy burden of work on your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday in the House. I am the first to recognise the very great burden of work which falls on this House during the summer months generally in years and not least in the year in question. I recognise the work which is being done on major Bills—good work at that and work which I believe is for the good of the legislative process. However, this is not the first time that your Lordships' House has been very busy in the months of June and July.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I know the Government in both Houses will be announcing as soon as possible the dates of the Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked whether or not it was the case that it was the Government which asked for the postponement. The noble Lord is absolutely right about that, but it was for a good reason—the reason which I gave in my original announcement to your Lordships; namely, that there can be no certainty of receiving the reprint of the Bill as amended on Report by the end of this week.
1594
The noble Lord then asked whether or not it was for the convenience of the House of Commons that I was standing up and making this statement and was it not necessary for the Leader of your Lordships' House to be even-handed. As Leader of your Lordships' House I believe that I have a responsibility to take account of the needs of the House and the need to make good progress with legislation. I believe that to defer Third Reading on this Bill by two days even-handedly fulfils those two needs.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask whether he is absolutely certain that the reprint of the Bill will be available on Monday. The latest information which I have received is that it will not be available until Tuesday. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to check that matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course I shall check that and shall get in touch immediately with the noble Lord. However, that is not the information which I have received.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one of those who on Monday raised the question of the timing of the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill with my noble friend, perhaps I may thank him warmly for the way in which he has dealt with the submissions made to him which, provided that the Bill is delivered as he has said on Monday, gives sufficient time for your Lordships to study it with a view to the possible submission of amendments. Some of us with ministerial experience realise how difficult it is to alter the timetable and therefore we appreciate all the more the action taken by my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Provided that the Bill appears on Monday, that gives two and a half days for consideration of the Bill as amended and for the tabling of amendments.
Perhaps I may say that for Third Reading that is perfectly acceptable. It will mean that the interval from the end of Report will have been eight days; that is to say six sitting days. What is required in our Companion to the Standing Orders is three sitting days between Report and Third Reading.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Education Reform Bill is, in fact, three Bills rolled into one. It is a disgrace and something of a contempt of Parliament that the Government have put so much in one Bill. Therefore, is there not a case for giving, exceptionally, a second day for the Third Reading?
Secondly, from this week's Times Educational Supplement it is apparent that the Secretary of State is already making his preparations to implement the Bill. Indeed, he has already started to do so as though the Bill had passed through Parliament, so there could be no great inconvenience to the Government if it were to be deferred for another week. Why cannot the Third Reading be deferred to the following week, and why cannot we have two days on it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord finally asks why the Third Reading cannot be deferred to the

1595
following week. I am not by any means sure that that would be for the convenience of the House. As I said earlier, it is difficult to find a day that is convenient for everyone.
Of course, I have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who will remember this very well as a senior business manager himself, that the Government must wish to make as good progress as they can with their Bills, having regard always to the minimum intervals set out in the Companion to this House and the availability in good time of working texts of the Bill.
As regards the period of time for Third Reading, I repeat that, even allowing for very large Bills which have come to your Lordships' House, it is most unusual for a Third Reading to take longer than one day.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we admire the tolerant way in which he has accepted the wholesale criticism regarding the management of the House? Is it not time that the House itself looked at the mote in its own eyes? Recently the Leader of the Opposition said that the House generally had been exemplary in the way it carried out its part. However, anyone present in the House should be appalled at the way arguments made in Committee were repeated on Report. They should be appalled at the length of speeches and at the repetition of one argument by several noble Lords when it was unnecessary, all against the general rules of this House. If we want to save time without in any way interferring with the efficiency of the House, it would not be a bad idea if all Members of the House adhered to the rules in the way that they used to and ought to if we are to continue.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for his generous personal remarks. I simply content myself with saying that there is no question but that we have a very large Bill which has had a large number of amendments. That is exactly what this House is all about, but in this case it has placed a considerable strain on the machinery and that is why I have made a statement today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must follow the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which was without foundation. I followed the debate very carefully in Committee as much as I could. I must say that my noble friend Lady David and her colleagues on this side of the House behaved impeccably in the way in which they dealt with the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The noble Lord has no grounds at all for making that criticism. If there have been long speeches, they have been from the noble Lord and his colleagues.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is no one like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure that we are making much progress. Shall we simply content ourselves with saying that there has been a great deal of debate on all sides of the House and for that reason the Government gave one extra day on Report and now we are giving two extra days' interval before Third Reading?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, yes, but may I say to my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that if Opposition noble Lords want any grounds for the comments that I made a moment or so ago, all they need do is read Hansard. That will justify all that I said.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: The Chief Whip.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to say—
Noble Lords: Order! The Chief Whip.
Lord Denham: My Lords; if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will give way for half a minute I will sit down and allow him to rise. Out of courtesy to the House, when a noble Lord rises at the Dispatch Box it is generally accepted that noble Lords have the politeness to give way. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House appears to consider that it is an act of God that the House has been abused, as it was last night. It is not; it is an act of the Government. The noble Lord says that it is usual for this House to be busy at this time of the year. We all know that. However, is it not the case that this year the Government are trying to pour a quart into a pint pot and that we are the victims because of the excessive legislation, the delays in receipt of that legislation and the use of the guillotine procedure in the other place? Those are the reasons why the practices of this House have been abused and why the personnel of this House have been abused, as they were last night.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not on to a good point. The noble Lord says that the House is receiving legislation very late and that that, among other things, is causing intolerable strain. This busy Session is remarkable for having received legislation in very good time. The last of the main Government Bills due to come here has now arrived—and that, of course, is the Housing Bill which arrived this week.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Building

1597
Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Order 1988 and the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988 will be taken.

Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Finance Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [The charges]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 8, after ("Part") insert ("and subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the Notices and Orders of the Day this Report stage is starred, or flagged, as being set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages. Our agreement to that is evidence of the responsibility with which we have been taking not only this Bill but all other major Bills which have come before your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 1 is to be taken, if the House agrees, with Amendments Nos. 3, 31 and 32. The purpose of these four amendments is to seek to secure the confidentiality of social work records and of all health records, not merely medical records, from the community register. In speaking to these amendments I recognise that the Government have already acknowledged that medical records themselves shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to the community charge registrar. I recognise also that the Government have always given assurances that the only information to be made available from the community charge registrar and made public will be the names and addresses of those concerned. I wish to persuade the House that this by no means goes far enough in protecting the necessary confidentiality of the records of social services departments, health authorities and other health organisations. Perhaps I may first of all deal with social services departments though the two cannot be fully taken together because of the interaction between the health and social services departments and the health and social services functions in our society.
Social workers are very often located in hospitals or attached to general practices as well as being located in social services departments. Every day they are collaborating with their medical and nursing colleagues to deal with the very grave social problems which confront them. When they are located in hospitals many of them are approved under the Mental Health Act, which requires them to be concerned, for example, with compulsory admissions to hospitals for people suffering from mental illness.
When this happens and though their main professional connections are with the health and hospital authorities, they are still professionally
1598
employed by the local authorities and their records are still the property of those bodies. I suggest to the House that under those circumstances, if they are required as employees of the local authorities to have their records made available to the community charge registrar, a coach and horses is being driven into the protection which the Government seek to provide for medical records. The two kinds of records cannot be adequately distinguished and the only way to provide good protection for medical records is to have the social work records provided as well.
I acknowledged a moment ago that the Government would ensure that only the names and addresses are made available. The names and addresses of those who are the clients of social workers is of itself highly sensitive information. Social workers tend to be involved with families where there are hostile individuals and where there is conflict which is causing social or mental problems. A mother could he at risk if information about her whereabouts was made available to the father who had been violent in the past or who could be violent again. Noble Lords who have been reading the pages of the popular press will be well aware that this is by no means a theoretical claim. It happens every day of the week and it is a matter of very grave concern to not only the social work and medical authorities but I believe to all of us in society.
If mothers at risk with children leave the matrimonial home, they will be followed around by the community charge registrar because that is his duty. He is required to do that if he is to maintain a proper register. I suggest to the House that unless the names and addresses themselves remain confidential in these circumstances, the confidentiality and the security of those people are not being adequately protected. The register is not yet in force and has not yet been published, but the evidence from Scotland shows that there are fears of this kind already surfacing. There is suspicion of social workers and the very fact of going to a social worker may lead to information which provides the name and address to someone who might be hostile and cause damage to the people concerned.
That brings me to another point, which is the relationship between the social worker and the client. In very many cases the name and address of the social work client will appear on the community charge register. It should appear on the register because that is the law which we are in the course of enacting at the moment. It will reduce the degree of confidence between the social worker and the client if the client believes that the information is only there because the social work records are not adequately confidential and they are not adequately protected from those who might misuse the information.
It has been suggested that the primary obligation of the social worker should be compliance with the law. Of course they wish to comply with the law, but they have professional obligations to the client which may be in conflict with their general obligations towards society as regards this law. I suggest that that conflict could cause difficulty to social workers. There are also legal reasons why social workers should not be required to contribute to the compilation of the community charge register. For example, social workers are subject, as we all are, to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Later on we have amendments to deal with that point.
There are particular regulations that require absolute confidentiality on the part of social workers if they are to do their job. I give as an example the adoption regulations where the confidentiality of the identity of the adopted child and of the adoptive family from the natural parents, and sometimes vice versa, is absolutely essential to the successful adoption process. If there is to be a breach of the confidentiality of the social work records and particularly those social work records which come under the adoption regulations, doubt must be cast on the ability of the social workers concerned to comply with the adoption regulations. For all those reasons it seems to us that social work records should not be available to the community charge registrar and there should be an absolute guarantee of confidentiality.
I now turn to Amendment No. 32, which deals with health records. This is a probing amendment because I believed, and I hope that I acknowledged, that the Government have made considerable progress in the protection of medical records generally. The Secretary of State said that the data held by family practitioner committees and district health authorities would not be required to be transferred to the community charge registrar. He said so in a Written Answer in another place on 5th May 1988 at col. 568 of the Official Report.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in response to his noble friend Lord Auckland on 6th June, and perhaps unintentionally, appeared to cast doubt on that decision. In response to a question as regards the confidential nature of these records, he said:
"As regards the first point, I take note of what my noble friend said, but we will be issuing guidance on precisely that aspect".—[Officiai Report, 6/6/88; col. 1116.]
I believe and hope that he will wish to set the record absolutely straight, and that is the purpose of this amendment. We wish to be sure that not only the medical records but all health records are confidential, that their confidentiality is maintained and that the original intention of the Government, as we understood it from the Secretary of State, is continued. We hope and believe that the regulations will reflect that without any doubt whatever. I know that the noble Earl will wish to set the record straight as regards that matter if he possibly can.
I believe that the substantive issue here above all others is the confidentiality of social work records. I hope that for all those reasons the House will feel that an amendment on these lines contributes to public confidence in the social services and also in the health services without in any way significantly damaging the ability of the community charge registrar to do his job effectively. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the four amendments in this group are essentially more concentrated versions of amendments which we discussed at an earlier stage. Your Lordships will recall that we divided on one of those amendments, Amendment No. 58, and that it was defeated. I do not complain for one moment, however, about debating some of the issues again, since these are important matters which both your Lordships' House and the Government take very seriously.
1600
The effect of these amendments would be to prevent the community charges registration officer from having access to two categories of information. The first category is information held by a local authority for social services purposes; the second is information held by or originating from a GP, a family practitioner committee or a health authority. Both of these proposals are unacceptable to the Government for reasons which I gave in full at an earlier stage. We do not believe that they are desirable, or necessary, or that they would achieve anything in relation to the Bill as it stands.
I should like to start with the prohibition on the use of health authority and GP records. This proposal is, quite simply, otiose because there is no provision in the Bill that would empower a registration officer to request information from these sources. In the Government's view, which will I am sure be shared by the House, it would be absurd to provide that a registration officer should be prevented from doing something he is already prevented from doing.
I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, concerning what I said to my noble friend Lord Auckland at Committee stage when he raised the question of health authority records. On reflection I fear that I may perhaps have given an answer which was less than entirely clear. I should therefore like to repeat in the interests of absolute clarity that no health authority records will be disclosed to any registration officer.
I turn therefore to the second part of this proposal—the prohibition on the use of social service information. It is the Government's firmly held belief that certain non-sensitive information, once it is held within a local authority, should be available to the registration officer for the purposes of compiling the register. It is vital to remember that this information will be restricted to that which the registration officer requires in order to carry out his functions—that is, the names and addresses of adults and, where relevant, the length of time the person has spent at that address. Registration officers will simply have no power, therefore, to require social services departments to supply any sensitive or personal data. The basic information will simply be names and addresses; not, for example, an individual's personal history or even the reason why he is known to the social services department.
I know that some people regard even the supply of names and addresses as in some way objectionable. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, clearly takes that view. The Government simply do not believe that it is objectionable to supply a person's name and address to the registration officer if that person is already required by law to register for the purposes of the community charge. I think it is clear that in arguing about the supply of names and addresses we are not talking about sensitive, personal information. We are in fact talking about the evasion of a statutory duty.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also raised as part of his argument the fear he had about those who might suffer violence—perhaps a wife who had left home because her husband had been attacking her. As he knows full well, under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 2 there is a power for the Secretary of State to require community charge registration officers to

1601
compile and maintain an extract of prescribed information. We shall prescribe that the extract must not contain the names of people who are living under threat of violence. The concern of the noble Lord is taken care of under that part of the Bill.
I should like to add one final point which I made at an earlier stage on this subject. It relates to local income tax. When listening to the arguments that have been put forward about the community charge, it is essential to bear in mind that any system of local income tax would involve the collection and supply of information about everybody's income. I am sure the House will agree with me that that would pose a far greater threat to privacy and personal liberty than anything which the community charge will entail. In conclusion, I can only reiterate that, while some subsequent amendments deserve your Lordships' support, this one does not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the assurances he has given about medical records. I am sure that those involved in the caring professions will be grateful that the record has been set absolutely straight. If the amendments were separated out I would certainly withdraw any amendment referring to medical records. However, the increased security of medical and health records, curiously enough, makes it all the more essential that there should be protection for social services records greater than is provided in the Bill. The arguments which the Minister rejected seem even stronger as a result of the clarification which he has just given.
The Minister said that all we were concerned with was non-sensitive records. He referred to the fact that this information would be restricted to the names and addresses. I thought I had made it quite clear that for many of these cases it is the names and addresses themselves which are the sensitive records. It is simply not enough for the Minister to say that he is prepared to provide by regulation for the names of people living under threat of violence to be excluded from this. In many examples, it is not the names of the individuals concerned on the register which are the significant ones. It could be the names of relatives.
One could have a case of child abuse where an important element in the detection of the abuse would be to know which adults were living in the house. If by any chance one or more of the adults living in the house were not on the community charge register, there could be some reluctance among people in the house or outside the house to come forward and report a case of child abuse for fear that they would be reporting a failure to appear on the community charge register and therefore it would rebound on the person reporting it. It is third parties who have to be considered; not merely the names and addresses of adults themselves.
The assurances which the Government have given on the social services records are simply not good enough. The noble Earl did not make an adequate attempt to answer the points which I made about social services workers who are based in hospitals and are authorised under the Mental Health Acts, those who are dealing with families with hostile individuals and those whose effectiveness as social workers depends on a degree of mutual confidence with their clients.
1602
The noble Earl did not answer the point about social workers' obligations to their clients. Above all, he did not seek to answer my question about the absolute confidentiality required under regulations such as the adoption regulations which would be compromised by the requirements of the Bill. Under those circumstances, we cannot be satisfied that the Government have gone anything like as far as they ought to go. I think it is proper that I should seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.
3.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Willis, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ampthill, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Caccia, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Bethell, L.

Chelmer, L.

Blake, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Blyth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cowley, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cox, B.

Brookes, L.

Craigavon, V.

1603

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Daventry, V.

Marsh, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dulverton, L.

Morris, L.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Ferrier, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Forbes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Porritt, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pym, L.

Greenway, L.

Radnor, E.

Gridley, L.

Reilly, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hastings, L.

Romney, E. St.

Henley, L.

Davids, V.

Hesketh, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hives, L.

Sharples, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hunler of Newington, L.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Terrington, L.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Layton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lovat, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lytton, E.

Whitelaw, V.

McFadzean, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wise, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Official Secrets Act: Reform
3.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think it might be convenient if I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Statement is as follows:
"In a debate in this House on 15th January, I explained that the Government had since the previous April been studying possibilities for the reform of Section 2, and that I hoped to bring forward proposals in the form of a White Paper in June.
"I have laid the White Paper before the House today. We have aimed to find proposals which are effective, enforceable and reasonable. We hope to break the deadlock which has beset this question throughout its long history.
"We have taken careful note of the criticisms made of the government Bill introduced in 1979, together with comments and suggestions made since then, including in the debate on the Bill introduced in January by my honourable friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. As a result, the proposals in the White Paper include some major changes, as well as similarities, compared with previous attempts at reform.
"I invite right honourable and honourable Members to read the White Paper in full. But I offer the House now an outline of the main points.
"The essence of the proposals is that it would no longer be a criminal offence, as it is under the present law, to disclose any official information without authority. The scope of the legislation would be confined to the very small amount of information which it is in the whole nation's interest to keep secret and which should therefore have the protection of the criminal law. Other information which cannot be disclosed without breaching the trust between Ministers and officials, or which a Crown servant has been instructed not to disclose, would continue to be protected by normal disciplinary arrangements.
"Only six categories of official information would be within the scope of our proposed legislation. These are information relating to defence, international relations, security and intelligence; the interception of communications; information received in confidence from other governments and from international organisations; and, finally, information which is likely to be useful in the commission of crime or in helping a prisoner to escape from custody. These are the areas which we think the legislation must cover. We do not propose that the criminal law should any longer apply to, for example, economic information, or to Cabinet documents or ministerial correspondence in general.
"Nor do we now think it is necessary for information received in confidence from firms or individuals to be covered by a general law on official secrets. The proposals thus represent a further narrowing compared with the 1979 Bill.
"We think it should continue to be an offence for any person to disclose any information relating to or obtained by interception, or any information received in confidence from other governments or international organisations. Any such disclosure damages the national interest. We accept, however, that not all information in the defence and international relations categories needs the protection of the law. We therefore propose that the disclosure of information falling within these categories should be an offence only if it is likely to result in specified damage to the national interest. Proposed tests of damage are set out in the White Paper. They are narrower and more specific than the broad test of serious injury to the interests of the nation which was recommended by the Franks Committee and contained in the 1979 Bill. They are designed to leave no doubt about the reasons for including information within these categories in official secrets legislation. The same applies to information likely to be useful in the commission of crime or in helping prisoners to escape from

1605
custody. In this case a test of damage is built into the categorisation and the prosecution would have to show that the test was satisfied.
"For information relating to security and intelligence, we propose a distinction between the position of those whom the nation trusts to carry on their work in complete secrecy, on the one hand, and of those outside the field of operation of the security and intelligence services on the other. For members and former members of these services, together with a number of other persons who work in close association with them, we propose that it should be an offence to disclose any information concerning the work of the services or to make any statement which purports to disclose such information. For other persons, however, we propose that the disclosure of official information should be an offence only if it can be established positively that it was likely to damage the operation of the security and intelligence services.
"If disclosure of information within a particular category is to be an offence only if it can be established that it meets a specified test of harm, the question arises by whom and by what means this is to be decided. The Franks Committee, and the Government in their 1979 Bill, proposed that the question should be conclusively settled by ministerial certificate. This was one of the principal points of criticism of that Bill. Others later suggested that a certificate by a Minister should be reviewable by some other person or body. Under our new proposals, however, there are no ministerial certificates. The harm likely to arise from the disclosure would be a matter for the court alone to determine on the basis of argument from the prosecution and the defence. In relation to persons other than Crown servants, the prosecution would have to prove not only that the specified harm was likely to arise but also that the accused person knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that it was likely to arise. We are putting our trust in the impartial determination of a jury.
"The abandonment of ministerial certificates and introduction of specific tests of harm for the courts to determine are major changes from previous proposals. They provide a new framework within which other proposals, made in the context of the 1979 Bill, must be considered afresh. I have in mind particularly suggestions that there should be a defence of prior publication and a defence that publication was in the public interest. Within the framework of our new proposals, we do not think it right to provide an overriding defence of prior publication. In our proposals arguments about the effect of a second disclosure are for the judgment of the courts within the ambit of the specific tests of harm set by Parliament. It would be possible on this basis for the court to conclude that further harm was unlikely to arise from the disclosure in question because there had been a previous disclosure which had already caused the harm. But we think it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of prosecution altogether, just because the information has already been published elsewhere—perhaps in different form to a different audience. Nor do we think it right to introduce the
1606
uncertainty into the law which a public interest defence would inevitably entail.
"These are the main features of the Government's proposals as set out in the White Paper. They represent a considered attempt to find the basis for a wide measure of agreement in replacing Section 2, which all of us wish to do. If carried into effect, they should dispel any notion that the criminal law is being used to protect information simply because its disclosure would be embarrassing to governments, still less so merely because it is official information. But the law must firmly address the problem of disclosures which are truly damaging to the public interest and provide clear and enforceable definitions and procedures to enable this to be done.
"It is the Government's wish that the House should have an opportunity to debate the proposals before they are put into legislative form. We shall also take careful note of views expressed outside this House. We shall then want to move to early legislation to introduce a fair and effective alternative to Section 2."
That concludes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that Statement. I listened to it with some pleasant surprise. Having read The Times of this morning, I had prepared myself for a violent denunciation of the Government's proposals in view of the fact that it has a headline:
"MPs' alarm at secrets reform".
I thought that the Government had learnt no lesson at all from their previous but recent experience when I read there:
"The Government's attempts to reform the law in 1979 foundered on the issue of ministerial certificates".
and then:
"The main focus of concern was the possibility that ministers would be given sole power to decide whether certain information, if published, would be damaging to the security of the state".
My teeth have been painlessly extracted by the Minister. I merely say that it is gratifying to know that those of us who criticised the 1979 Bill upon that basis find now that their criticism has at least been listened to by the Government. To that extent and, I hope with a little graciousness, I congratulate the Government upon that result.
There was no doubt about the fallibility—if I may put it that way—of Section 2. Those of us who have had the opportunity over the past few minutes to read the White Paper found these words in paragraph 8:
"The drafting of Section 2 is archaic and in places obscure, but the central objection is to its scope. It penalises the disclosure of any information obtained by a person holding office under the Crown or a Government contractor in the course of his duties, however trivial the information and irrespective of the harm likely to arise from its disclosure. The catch-all nature of Section 2 has long been criticised".
I do not think anyone could have put that in better language when describing the situation under Section 2, which at present is in force.
It is a great relief to know that under the proposed legislation there will be only one adjudicator of damage to the nation, and that will be the judge in directing the jury and the jury in making its decision. That is a happy outcome of the various deliberations and debates that have taken place.

1607
I do not want to say any more other than to refer to the last paragraph of the Statement where a promise is made that the White Paper will be debated in both Houses of Parliament in July. Having listened to the exchange which took place at the beginning of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, I am left in some doubt as to the adequacy of the time that may be found in July. I merely ask, knowing full well that this is a matter for the usual channels, whether the Minister can confirm that that is a firm date—if I may use that expression—and that whenever that date is reached, full time will be given to the House to debate what obviously is a most important matter for the nation.
My concluding remark is that it appears from the White Paper that although information which is circulated can be the subject of prosecution under the criminal law, there is not a word about what information ought to be available to the public in regard to matters which concern them. One would have hoped that that was covered in some way by the White Paper so that there was an entitlement to information as well as to a prosecution where information is passed on. I merely note that omission with some sorrow.
4 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and in saying that I think it is right to acknowledge that the Statement was a great deal better than we had been led to expect. Perhaps I may ask a number of specific questions relating to it, bearing in mind that one has obviously had very little opportunity of looking at the detailed provisions of the White Paper.
First, is the noble Earl aware that we certainly warmly welcome the dropping of the catch-all provisions of Section 2 of the 1911 Act which creates a criminal offence in disclosing any official information without authority? That is clearly right. The provision, as I think we all recognise, was an absurdity. Quite apart from anything else, it was increasingly difficult to obtain convictions in courts before increasingly sceptical juries. I think it is right to acknowledge that the new provision would have made it impossible to prosecute an official like Sarah Tisdall, the young woman who was sent to prison for the disclosure of information which the prosecution acknowledged did not in any sense represent an official secret. That being so, we welcome this provision. We also welcome the fact that officials who improperly disclose information, as she certainly did, will be proceeded against under the appropriate Civil Service regulations. That is clearly right.
Secondly, is the noble Earl aware that we also welcome the proposal in the White Paper that the criminal law should no longer apply to the disclosure of economic information or, and I quote the noble Earl's Statement, "ministerial correspondence in general"? Will the noble Earl help us a little about what the qualification "in general" amounts to? We certainly welcome the fact that this means that the disclosure in the Westland case would not now amount to a criminal offence. Here again we believe that obviously if officials or anyone else behave with gross impropriety, as they clearly did in that case, appropriate action should be taken against them.
1608
Next, we welcome unreservedly the abandonment of ministerial certificates. I think all of us recognise that this was one of the most unsatisfactory features of the 1979 Bill. Also we support the accompanying introduction of specific tests of harm for the courts alone to determine. This is something which, I think, is a major improvement. As I have indicated, we welcome it without any reservations at all.
Finally, is the noble Earl aware that we are deeply disappointed that the Government have refused to adopt the proposal in Clause 7 of Mr. Shepherd's Bill? The noble Earl will recall that this featured in our debate in this House and that Mr. Shepherd proposed a defence that a disclosure was in the public interest in so far as the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the information concerned indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority and neglect of official duty. That defence would only have been available, as the noble Earl will recall, if the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to draw these matters to the attention of the appropriate authorities. Is the Minister aware that we very much regret that the Government have not adopted Mr. Shepherd's proposal?
As I have indicated, we think that what the noble Earl has said on this occasion is a substantial improvement on what has been said by Ministers on previous occasions on these matters. However, given some anxiety on some aspects of what has been said today by his right honourable friend, I think we need an early debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has indicated, we recognise the state of pressure on parliamentary time at the moment. But as the Home Secretary has indicated that there is to be a debate in the House of Commons, we very much hope that we shall have a debate in this House. Given the expertise that is available here on matters of this kind, it would be profoundly unsatisfactory were we not to have the opportunity of such a debate.
I very much hope that the noble Earl will discuss the matter with his noble friend the Leader of the House so that we can have a debate, if not before the end of July, certainly in the spill-over Session. We want to receive some assurance that the Government will not take up a final position on the Bill before that debate takes place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to this Statement. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had prepared himself for a castigatory speech, only to find that the Statement was not quite as bad as he had expected. In fact, I think he would agree that it was agreeable to him. It just shows that the newspapers are not always accurate—even such papers as the noble Lord reads. However, I am grateful to him for giving a welcome to the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to whether there should be a debate. It is the Government's intention that there should be a debate in this House. It was the Government's intention, as was mentioned in the White Paper, that it should be during July. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, generously pointed out, obviously there are certain problems with regard to the timetable. Whether the debate is before July or in the spill-over is a matter for negotiation within the

1609
usual channels, but it is our intention without question to have such a debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that this Statement on what to do with Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act refers to what information should not be published. It does not refer to what information the public is entitled to receive. The noble Lord said that that was an omission in the White Paper. I have no doubt that that was because the noble Lord had not had the benefit of reading the White Paper with quite the thoroughness which is his normal custom. I do not blame him for that because time was short, but he will see that in paragraph 5 the White Paper says:
"This White Paper is principally concerned with information which would, under the Government's proposals, be protected by the criminal law. It does not, therefore, address such matters as the question of public access to official information not covered by the Government's proposals. That is a separate issue which does not arise directly out of the reform of section 2".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl is very gracious. However, I read that paragraph and my reference was supposed to be one of sorrow that the White Paper was not dealing with the information which the public is entitled to have.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon's complaint related merely to the fact that that was not included; I thought that the complaint related to the fact that there was no reference to it, and that was why I drew the noble Lord's attention to it. But, as the White Paper says, it is a different matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was kind enough to give a slightly more guarded welcome than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He referred to it no longer being a criminal offence to relay ministerial correspondence and so forth. He asked me what it meant when it referred to "general matters". I do not think it would be appropriate to go into the detail of what this refers to. Still less would it be appropriate to go into a retrospective case. The whole point of this is that if there is to be a criminal prosecution, it will be for the courts to decide whether an offence has been committed.
I was glad too to see that he was glad that ministerial certificates were not going to be included. I realise that in a White Paper such as this concerning an issue on which there is a great breadth of controversy and where opinions are genuinely held covering a wide spectrum, not all views can be accommodated. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about Clause 7 of Mr. Shepherd's Bill. We shall have an opportunity to debate this in due course.
I shall refresh noble Lords as regards the procedures that we have adopted. Having considered what we think should be done and having taken into account views which have already been expressed, we produced a White Paper giving the Government's considered views. That White Paper is then to be the subject of discussion in this House, in another place and in the public arena in general. It is only after that that a Bill with firm proposals will be brought forward.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as the unfortunate Home Secretary who had the responsibility of introducing the previous Bill in 1979, I think it would be reasonable for me to make a short plea to my
1610
noble friend, and indeed to the House, on this occasion. I am encouraged to do so by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am certain that this subject has to be tackled by Parliament as a whole. We must have a new secrets Act—that is essential. We can only have it if there is a wide measure of consent throughout both Houses of Parliament with the Bill that is produced.
In 1979 I was told that the one thing which prevented that Bill from being acceptable to your Lordships' House—I was not in your Lordships' House of course at that stage—was the ministerial certificate. Consequently, I was very pleased to hear that my colleagues had decided on this occasion to remove the ministerial certificate. I am surprised because I suspect—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will remember this too—that the ministerial certificate played some part in proposals made by the previous Labour Government before 1979, as it did in the proposals of the Government when I was Home Secretary. Perhaps we were all wrong on that occasion. But at any rate, having now moved this way, I hope very much that such a consensus will be able to develop in Parliament.
I hope that we shall not move from one objection in this very difficult field—the ministerial certificate, which is now removed—to another objection on some other matter. There are endless objections which can always be raised. But I believe that in the end Parliament must make a job of it on this occasion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for having made that intervention, not only because of his personal experience of having introduced the previous Bill and of the problems which that ran into, but also for the fact that he said that there must be a consensus on this issue. Inevitably not everyone will he satisfied. If we are to remove the absurd position which exists at the moment, we must move into a position which, broadly speaking, has the common accord of Parliament, both this House and another place. If we do not do that, the present position will remain. That would be a great pity. I wish to reinforce the view of my noble friend and say that I hope that we shall be able to get the future Bill through with a reasonable degree of accord.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we too wish to add to the unanimity which appears to be present around the House this afternoon. We give the White Paper a cautious welcome. We are delighted to know that ministerial certificates are being abandoned. We have always doubted them. We have always taken the view that a judicial committee of the Privy Council should make these decisions rather than Ministers. But we are delighted that the White Paper appears to have taken on board a lot of the points that were raised in the Shepherd Bill and is certainly an improvement on the 1979 Bill. We shall of course study the White Paper. We hope, like other noble Lords, that it will be possible in our present rather heavy legislative programme to find time to have a debate in this House and to make our views known. But for the time being, without having read the White Paper completely, we offer it a cautious welcome.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I wish to join with others who have congratulated the Government both on confounding their many critics in this area and also on showing comprehensively that one should not always believe what one read in the press. The fact that the Government are proposing not to introduce a ministerial fiat over official secrets will have a widespread welcome. It is excellent that under the proposed legislation the courts will decide what constitutes damage to the national interest.
I hope that the fact that this matter will be left to the courts may to some extent take care of some of the other aspects of Mr. Shepherd's Bill, in particular the defence of prior publication and the national interest defence. It will of course be open to a defendant in such a case to argue before a judge and jury that damage has not been done to the overriding national interest because of a certain prior publication, whether in this country or abroad. Twelve good men and women true will have to decide whether this defence makes sense.
I have only one note of caution that I wish to strike, and that is on the vexed question of the lifetime duty of confidentiality imposed on certain individuals, especially employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services. This matter will need to be looked at very carefully. It is extremely delicate. But I can see that the proposals in the White Paper could emerge as repressive. One thinks not of this Government or of past governments, but perhaps of some government in the future where the avenues open to employees of this type might not be so welcoming and so available as they are now and have been.
An oppressive government in the future could perhaps use this measure to launch some unauthorised illegal Act through the security services and the intelligence services. There would be no way for a patriotic officer to react other than by breaking the law of the land as it was proposed. However, this complicated matter will have to be looked at very carefully. I am grateful to my noble friend for assuring us that there will be a chance to debate this measure in your Lordships' House. I wish to add my voice to others who have in general terms welcomed what my noble friend has just said.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is exactly 50 years since I began protesting against the Official Secrets Act. I have gone on protesting throughout the years. It has been a kind of hobby, but I hope that at last that hobby is to be taken away from me. I was much relieved to hear the Statement this afternoon.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may we assume that government actions in this field from now on will be carried out on the basis of the principles set out in the Statement and in the White Paper and in accordance with the spirit of those two documents?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the Minister consider again the defence of public interest?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may we have a few replies from the Minister?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I shall be delighted to help the House. I thought that it would be more convenient if those who wished to ask questions put their questions and then I would try to answer them one after the other. That would prevent me from jumping up about six times. But if the noble Lord would prefer me to jump up six times, I shall oblige.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am worried that the noble Earl will have forgotten the questions by that time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have been trying to write the questions down. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathy because it is difficult to write, to listen and to think at the same time. But I am doing my best.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wanted to ask whether the Minister would consider persuading the Government to look again at the defence of public interest. As he is aware, once a jury has retired in this country, no judge can control it. It is widely believed by those of us who have conducted official secrets cases that juries consider the public interest but put their own interpretation on it. Would not it be safer for the Government to define what the public interest would be within that context? Will the Government consider that matter before the presentation of a Bill?
Lord Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend, when he considers the wording of the debate which we shall have on the subject, to ensure that our consideration is confined to the subject of official secrets and not broadened to the totally different issue of freedom of information. That would be an aid to our debate. It often happens that questions as regards official secrets are broadened so widely as to obfuscate the issue in its entirety.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl has suggested that we should not be retrospective. That is very convenient for the Government. But surely history governs the present and the future. The reason for the publication of the White Paper is the failure in the past of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
The Minister also said that there was no intention to avoid embarrassing the Government. I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, under the new proposals relating to the issue of defence in the White Paper, would Sarah Tisdall or Clive Ponting have been prosecuted? Will the Minister say that the cover-up which the Government and successive Ministers of the Government undertook over the sinking of the "Belgrano", with which both those people were connected and in connection with which the Government used the Official Secrets Act to protect themselves, could not happen again? Would the economy with the truth which went on for two years happen again under the protection of the new provisions within the White Paper as distinct from the present Official Secrets Act?
Secondly, the noble Earl informed the House that one of the exceptions to be included would be ministerial information in general. Would that have avoided the whole scandal of the leaking of the letter from legal officers of the Crown involving Downing Street and the Department of Trade and Industry? Is

1613
it the intention of the Government to make sure in future that that will not be an offence, that the leaking of such letters cannot be an offence, and that there are no grounds for prosecution if such an action is repeated? Is that not an attempt to avoid embarrassing the Government in the way in which they have been embarrassed over the past four years?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I ask—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and answer some of the questions which have been asked. Otherwise, not only shall I forget what has been asked but I fancy that the questioners may forget as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave a welcome to the White Paper on behalf of her party for which I am grateful. She said that it was a cautious welcome. However, I hope that as time goes on she will not be quite so cautious. There has been a real effort to obtain a reasonable result. I am also grateful to her for her welcome of my assurance that ministerial certificates are not going to be reintroduced.
My noble friend Lord Bethell also indicated his support. I am especially grateful for that. I know that he has been concerned about the matter and has introduced debates and a Bill on the subject. It is encouraging that he is in favour of what the Government have done. He mentioned the matters of prior publication, national interest and lifelong duty. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to discuss those matters very much at the moment. This is only a Statement which indicates that a White Paper has been published. It would be better for noble Lords to have time to digest the White Paper and bring the matters forward properly when we have a debate on it.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for giving a welcome to the Bill. He said that he had been lobbying like mad over the issue for 50 years and that it had become a hobby. I am delighted that we have been able to satisfy the noble Lord. However, I am sorry that we have taken away his hobby. Whether he will be obliged to take up gardening instead, I do not know. However, I hope that it will not detract from this House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked whether the Government would act within the spirit of the White Paper. I certainly hope that we shall; otherwise, there is not much point in producing a White Paper which indicates our intentions. However, we are still prepared to listen before producing a Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned the defence of public interest. Those who have supported a public interest defence must recognise that the Government's proposal would entirely change the context of the argument. We are now proposing that the harm to the public interest caused by disclosure should be defined and should, when it is not self-evident, be proved to the satisfaction of a court. A general catch-all defence would detract from the clarity which we hope can be achieved in the new law.
Perhaps I may now refer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I believe that he has
1614
misinterpreted my use of the word "retrospective". I said that I did not wish to get involved in discussing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about Sarah Tisdall and the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has produced about that lady and the "Belgrano". I do not believe that it is particularly helpful in discussing a Statement to attempt to go back and decide what might have been the case had such and such a position existed and what the position would be if the law which is going to be changed and which has not yet been changed or decided on had been in operation. I do not believe that that is constructive.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, frowns. However, I am certain that he understands perfectly well that I am saying that I do not propose to indicate what the course of events would have been had a different set of laws applied in those circumstances. My noble friend Lord Morris asked the Government not to stray onto the subject of freedom of information. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that is indeed a different matter.

Local Government Finance Bill
4.29 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, which is a paving amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 20 and I shall make reference to the amendments to be moved by the Minister which are grouped with mine. I should like to thank the noble Earl for writing to me and for sending me a copy of the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
We welcome the concessions made by the Government in the amendments to be moved by the noble Earl and we thank them for going as far as they have. However, before I proceed I should like to make one thing clear and I should like to seek an assurance from the Minister. In view of the fact that there is now to be no community charge imposed on people sleeping rough, I wonder whether the Minister can give an assurance about Open Christmas organised by Crisis at Christmas. That organisation is not a hostel in the true sense. Under the original proposals in the Bill Crisis at Christmas would have been responsible for paying a community charge for its visitors for the six days it was open over Christmas. Most if not 100 per cent. of the people who make use of the six days of Open Christmas are people who normally sleep rough. Can the Minister set my mind at rest by assuring me that there will be no imposition of the community charge at all on the provision of Open Christmas by Crisis at Christmas?
We welcome the concessions made by the Government in relation to hostel accommodation for people undergoing personal care either for drug addiction, alcohol abuse or various other medical reasons. We also welcome the Government's

1615
concession as far as it goes in relation to general purpose hostels. The Government have agreed that those hostels will not now have to collect the full community tax and then ask for a rebate; they will now collect 20 per cent. of the community tax. However, that still leaves charities with the role of tax collector. In my view that is unsatisfactory.
One can anticipate that many people who need to use those charitable voluntary hostels may be put off from using them because they feel that they must pay the 20 per cent. community tax, which they cannot afford. It could therefore increase the number of people who sleep rough on the streets.
Furthermore, I do not believe that many of those voluntary hostels would even attempt to collect the 20 per cent. charge. It would be almost physically impossible to do so. As a result, as I pointed out at Committee stage of the Bill, the level of service that the hostels could provide would be reduced because they would have to use some of their voluntary contributions to pay tax. That could impose quite a substantial drain on their income and therefore on the services they can provide.
The Minister, in justifying the Government's decision not to allow voluntary hostels relief from the collection of the community charge, states in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that:
"People who stay in these hostels make use of local services and can vote in elections".
He also says in the final paragraph of his letter to me that it is essential for
"preserving the vital principle of local accountability".
I should like to ask the noble Earl what are the services from which people who stay at voluntary and charitable hostels benefit. I can see that if a local authority runs a hostel they benefit from the services of the local authority. However, when that accommodation is provided totally from charitable contributions it has nothing to do with the local authority. My contention would be that the only service provided by the local authority is a pavement for sleeping on and the occasional park bench. I do not consider that one should have to pay the community charge for those.
I should also like to ask the noble Earl whether or not he can estimate how many of the people staying in voluntary and charitable hostels are included on the electoral register. It is not very easy to get on to the electoral register. It is certainly not easy for those people who tend to stay one or two days, a week or maybe two in one hostel and can be at the other side of the country when it comes to election day.
I am afraid that I do not believe that the question of accountability and of enjoying the benefits of local authority services and the right to vote in elections applies to the people about whom we are talking. In view of the fact that the Minister has been so good as to make concessions I sincerely hope that he will make this last concession so that we can all agree about the provision. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before we proceed perhaps I may raise a question of procedure. We have here an amendment moved by the noble Baroness with which has been grouped some very significant government amendments. I wonder whether the House would agree that, although
1616
normally at Report stage the Minister would be the last speaker before the proposer of the amendment, it would be appropriate for the Minister to introduce his amendments now, for the debate then to proceed and for the Minister to have a further opportunity to reply to the debate.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if that is the wish of the House I should certainly like to do so and take the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has been kind enough to offer me of saying a final word at the end of the debate.
I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Baroness in proposing her amendment. Perhaps she would allow me to concentrate on my own amendments but inevitably, because the amendments are grouped together, discussion will at the same time take on board her concerns.
The government amendments are Amendments Nos. 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 238, 240 and 241. These follow the undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in Committee to look again at the effect of the community charge on short stay hostels for the homeless. As your Lordships are aware, we have considered very carefully the points raised in Committee about the homeless and hostel dwellers. As a result we have brought forward a number of amendments which take into account, and I believe go a very long way to meeting, the concerns which your Lordships expressed at an earlier stage.
Perhaps two of the major groups of amendments that I shall be moving at a later stage are linked. First, there is the question of the homeless, to which the noble Baroness referred. In that respect we have put forward a government amendment that would exempt those who sleep rough. That is a major concession and a major change following consideration of what your Lordships said. The second point is covered by the amendments which we are now considering. The effect of those amendments will be that residents of certain types of hostel will be liable to pay only the minimum 20 per cent. daily contribution for the area without having to apply for a rebate.
So far as concerns hostels, we have already provided—in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1—an exemption for residents of hostels which provide a substantial level of personal care or treatment. We intend that regulations under paragraph 9 will cover many of the hostel residents about whom concern was expressed in Committee: for example people receiving personal care while undergoing a programme of rehabilitation for drug or alcohol abuse in hostels such as those run by Phoenix House—which is of concern to my noble kinswoman Lady Masham of Ilton—and the Simon Community, which is of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The exemption will also cover people with mental or physical disabilities receiving personal care in hostels. I believe that many of those in Ryder homes come into this category, so some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, are also met.
The hostels not covered by the exemption will be what we call general purpose hostels, which provide accommodation and food for individuals who stay there for anything from a day or two to, in some cases, much longer. Residents of such hostels are

1617
quite different from those people in need of a substantial degree of care for whom we believe an exemption is justified.
People who stay in general purpose hostels make use of local services and can vote in local elections. Because they are not receiving professional care or treatment, they are considerably freer to come and go than those in the hostels we shall be exempting. That in turn means that there is inevitably a rather different relationship between the owner or manager of a general purpose hostel and those who stay there than in the case of a hostel providing care and support where we accept that the relationship may be particularly sensitive.
We therefore do not believe it would be right to provide a blanket exemption from the community charge based solely on the fact that a person stays in a general purpose hostel as opposed to a bed-sit, a flat or a house. We have therefore decided that to widen further the hostels' exemption to take in residents of general purpose hostels would not be justified.
However, we fully appreciate that many—and in some cases most—of the people who stay in general purpose hostels will require help in paying the community charge. Many of them would qualify for a maximum rebate under the provisions of Schedule 13. We are sympathetic to the concern rightly expressed by such bodies as the Salvation Army that residents of short-stay hostels may find it difficult to claim a rebate. This would put hostel managers in the position of having to demand the full unrebated charge from those who should have received help in paying.
Because of that—and particularly because of some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, at Committee stage in col. 713 of the Official Report of 23rd May—we now propose an entirely new provision under which the residents of certain types of hostel, which have been designated for the purposes of the collective community charge, will be automatically liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the collective charge contribution for the area without having to apply for a rebate. The landlords of these properties will be required to collect contributions at only 20 per cent. of the full rate from all those who stay on the premises and so the landlords' liability will be reduced accordingly. The income support payments of the residents will also include an amount to help pay the 20 per cent. contribution.
This substantial concession will be restricted to hostels used mainly by people who would be eligible for community charge rebates. But we envisage that it would cover, for example, all Salvation Army general purpose hostels. We believe that this new provision, together with the proposed treatment of the homeless, and care hostels, meets the concerns expressed in Committee.
Obviously I have not gone far enough to satisfy the noble Baroness and at a later stage in the debate I shall, of course, be dealing with some of her further points which she raised earlier today. But perhaps I may deal with a matter which I know is dear to her heart, namely, Crisis at Christmas, and which indeed, is dear to the heart of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve who has been associated with it since its inception.
1618
The noble Baroness referred in Committee to work carried out by Crisis at Christmas. I understand that it provides free accommodation to homeless people for seven days over the Christmas period. It goes without saying that I have the greatest respect for the people who run Crisis at Christmas and other free hostels. In devising our proposals that residents of certain hosels should pay only 20 per cent. of the usual collective charge contribution, we have hostels that provide free accommodation very much in mind. We have accepted that in such hostels a daily charge of perhaps just under £1 could have represented a substantial burden, either for the residents or for the organisation running the hostel, even if the residents were able to reclaim a rebate. I feel that reducing the residents' contribution to only 14p a day in the average area, or perhaps 19p a day in an area with a high charge, brings the problem down to a manageable proportion and represents a very real concession by the Government.
So far as Crisis at Christmas in particular is concerned, it does not seem particularly likely that a property used for one week of the year would be designated at all for the purpose of the collective community charge. But I can give this assurance to the noble Baroness: my officials will enter into discussions with representatives of local authorities to consider how such a very short-term hostel should be treated in practice.
But even if it were the case that a very short-term hostel were to be designated, its residents would certainly benefit from the special concession that I have announced, and would have to pay only a very small amount—less than 20p a day—in contributions. That means that the sum of all the contributions for Crisis at Christmas would be under £1,000—far less than the £4,000 mentioned by the noble Baroness. That is the measure of the Government's concession.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to raise one point. The Government gave an undertaking during the proceedings on the Scottish Bill, which is repeated as regards this Bill, that any concession made in this Bill would be followed up and that the Scottish Bill would be amended to the same extent. I have looked in vain for these concessions in government amendments to Schedule 15, which I think is where they should be.
May I ask whether these amendments could be available fairly soon because, as the noble Earl will appreciate, they are fairly technical and we need advice? I am sure that those of us who are interested in the Scottish Bill will want to make sure, as I am sure will the Government, that we get it right. As I understand it, the last day of the Report stage is now planned for Tuesday of next week. We do not have very much time and it would be of very great help to the House if we could have these amendments as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Earl for having met me on the point on bail hostels about which he wrote to me. This represents an improvement so far as this part of the Bill is concerned. But may I come back to the point about Crisis at Christmas? As I understand it, the noble Earl has suggested discussions with local authorities on the point, but I am bound to say,

1619
having listened to him carefully, that I find it extremely difficult to understand the logic of the Government's position.
As I understand it, the noble Earl's position is this. As a result of his amendments, the tax imposed on an establishment involved in Crisis at Christmas will now be far smaller. That is as a result of what he has put down on the Marshalled List. That obviously is welcome. But why should there be a tax at all? The proposition seems to me to be quite absurd. The noble Earl says it is highly desirable that people going to hostels even for a period of seven days, which is the period to which he referred, should pay this because, after all, they will have the right to vote. Quite apart from the question of how many people stay in hostels over a period of seven days at Christmas, how many are likely to be passionately knocking at the doors of the polling stations waiting for them to open? I do not know how much involvement the noble Earl has had with local government, but those of us who have been involved find it extremely difficult to persuade those who are normal ratepayers to vote in elections. The idea that there will be a march from these hostels to the polling stations seems to me a little unusual.
But let me come back to the central point. The people we are discussing go to these hostels at Christmas for seven days, but the register for the next local elections is not made up until the following September. So the people who are staying at a Crisis at Christmas hostel this Christmas could not possibly get on the electoral register until September next year, on a register which comes into operation in February of the following year. When the noble Earl comes forward with an argument of this sort, I really must ask him to look at the basis of his case.
It seems to be that the Government are really adopting an extraordinarily doctrinaire position. They could quite easily agree to make a concession on this point. It has nothing whatever to do with accountability so far as concerns the local authority. I very much hope that when his officials and his right honourable friend have read the report of our debate today, they will realise the threadbare character of their argument and agree on Third Reading to make this concession which they should have made today.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I hope I am right in assuming that the noble Earl was speaking also to his Amendment No. 19. I had to leave the Chamber—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Hunt: In that case, I shall sit down.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the Minister referred correctly to Crisis at Christmas, which is a one-off charity looking after people who are homeless at Christmas-time and which was started 20 years ago this year. The idea that the people who come to us as free guests for seven days and seven nights are always those who have been sleeping rough is incorrect. Crisis at Christmas was started because many people were sleeping rough when the agencies where they would normally be looked after for the rest of the year closed because those running them wished to go to their own homes for Christmas. That was why Crisis at Christmas was started, and that is why it continues.
I would be right in saying, I think, that our guests have other accommodation to go to during the rest of
1620
the year and that very few would always be sleeping rough. If I am correct, Crisis at Christmas surely should not be required to collect any money. That would prove very difficult and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, most people would think that the meanest thing that the Government had ever done was to collect money from people when everything else is free.
I make the plea to the Government that Crisis at Christmas should be treated as a one-off charity and that we should not be obliged to collect money from our guests, who have never had to pay for medical treatment, haircutting, sleeping or any of their three meals a day for the last 20 years. It would be a great pity if we were put into the position of having to collect money from them.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, anyone who has been a junior Minister must have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl. Junior Ministers—I have been one myself—are occasionally landed with some nonsense that their masters dream up, and have no choice but to read it with a straight face. I have every sympathy with the noble Earl. In some years' experience around the building, I have never encountered anything sillier than this measure. It is based on a doctrinaire nonsense. The assumption in the Bill as a whole that people will suddenly take a passionate interest in local government because the basis of their local taxation has changed is a nonsense. To suggest that the halls used over the Christmas period for the purpose of Crisis at Christmas would in future be alive with animated discussion about local government and which councillors they will vote for in the next round of elections is, I think, open to argument and some disbelief.
What worries me even more—and anyone involved in local government politics is immune to dealing with nonsenses because all governments have them from time to time—is that this will be a very expensive bureaucratic nonsense. The amounts involved are laughable. The machinery that will have to be devised to cope with it is amazing.
The noble Earl would do the House and himself a service if he were to go back to his Minister and say, "I've done my best with this; I have read it! I don't believe a word of it; I think it's rubbish. Please, for the reputation of the Government, give way in this area because it is indefensible on grounds of common sense, sympathy, logic or any other basis".
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I have had to sleep rough in my life and have shared the conditions of being frozen by the cold and stiff from rain followed by the feeling of being unable to face the ordinary people of society and ashamed of being dishevelled. As a social worker and auxiliary nurse, I am never surprised in the work which I represent to see these homeless people resort to drinking from the tops of ordinary citizens' milk bottles on their doorsteps or trying to pinch sandwiches or fruit from a barrow. We cannot say that it is all their fault that these people are homeless because there are so many reasons for an individual to sink rapidly to this point. They are travellers of the road; the mentally deranged; the genuine persons who cannot cope without a job in areas of high unemployment and who misguidedly thinks that by reaching London he

1621
or she can find work easily; and they are the socially inadequate and those whose families have rejected them or those who have literally no one in the world. I could go on ad lib.
I am of course pleased, thankful and delighted by the Government's change of heart about the charging of people sleeping rough. To have no fixed abode is bad enough, but sleeping under a bridge or under a cardboard box if one is lucky imposes strains that few of us can imagine. It seems to me eminently sensible, necessary and humane to exempt these people from the community charge.
That said, however, the Government should think further about the position of homeless people who are lucky enough to find a roof over their head for a few days at a time in a short stay hostel. Short stay hostel accommodation provided by organisations like the Salvation Army is the only respite that many homeless people have from the continual wear and tear of their barren existence in parks or under bridges. We should remember that the consequences of being homeless are far wider than not having a home to call one's own. Employment may he difficult or impossible and health can and does suffer. The physical surroundings create stress and affect mental well being. The existing structure of public provision increases the social isolation caused by homelessness so that hostels can he a real lifeline for these people even if they can stay for only a few days. The proposals to charge homeless people when they stay in hostels threaten this very lifeline, and can only add to the plight and distress of rejected people.
The amendment makes clear that the force of the argument put forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and others has been reconsidered. I appreciate that the decision to levy 20 per cent. of the local charge per resident in any hostel or short stay shelter home is a substantial improvement on the original plans to make the full charge. However, I am bound to say that what was originally an error has become a rather mean-minded exercise to squeeze a few pounds out of homeless people and, further, out of the very charities that provide for them. We should be under no illusions about what the prospect of 20 per cent. would do: it would deter people from taking up hostel provision and introduce an unnecessary and unsavoury fear factor in decisions about where people can afford to sleep, as mentioned by the noble Baroness.
I do not believe that we can afford to build these financial barriers against entry into civilised existence. A 20 per cent. charge represents a substantial amount of money for the severely disadvantaged. Indeed, many have nothing, and I know many reasons why they have nothing that are too long to tell. We should not take solace in the knowledge that many charities will refuse to levy the charge on their residents but will draw on their greatly needed and slender resources to save their clients from the charge.
The Government have gone some way to recognise the difficulties inherent in their plans for a collective community charge. I should like respectfully to suggest that logic should be combined with emotion in this instance. By adopting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, the Government could exempt homeless people from the indignity of turning down a chance of sleeping in a bed for one night, and at the same time relieve charities of this
1622
extra and immoral burden. It seems to me a winning combination of arguments. I hope and pray that the Minister will regard the amendment sympathetically.
This work is not only vital hut is becoming daily more so as, sadly, the numbers increase. We are trying to cope on a one-to-one basis where possible. However, the work is exceptionally hard for reasons that I have outlined: the different emotions, and the different circumstances in which people find themselves on the streets. If a hurricane or an earthquake should hit this city one can imagine all the instant action groups. We should be swamped by help. But, because the homeless are there in the long term, they are not emotive nor even understood.
We call ourselves a civilised nation. We thank the Government for their concessions and—I truly mean that—but let us please go the whole way to tackle such an appalling contrast in our very midst.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in introducing his amendments the Minister said that they constituted substantial concessions. I agree, and I thank him sincerely for the concessions that he has made. They are clearly made with the right spirit and in response to a very strong feeling which was made clear at the Committee stage.
From reading the amendments that he has put down perhaps I may say now that this will not be the first occasion during this Report stage when I shall thank him sincerely for the concessions that he has made. However, we still have very grave difficulties with the particular cases which are referred to in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and which were referred to with such knowledge, understanding and feeling by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder.
These short stay hostels are a particular case. I am not saying that Crisis at Christmas is a one-off case because that would raise many difficulties about a government Bill. However, short stay hostels of the kind described must be treated with a degree more consideration than others. If the Government have difficulty with the wording of the amendment, I beg them to maintain the impetus that they have given themselves towards humanity by saying that it is the wording that is at fault and that they will come back with something better at Third Reading. Under those circumstances, the position of these hostels under the Bill, even as amended, is nonsensical. Here we have people who come in to short stay hostels who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, are not paying for their lodging, food, or the services provided for them during this short time. These are not people who will claim back from income support the money that they are paying out for the 20 per cent. of the community charge. These are the people, almost by definition, who are not claiming their income support.
We know that a very high proportion of people throughout the country do not claim their income support because they are too proud, too apart from society, or that they do not understand what it means to claim income support. As has been said, they are clearly not voting. The idea of accountability, even reduced to the 20 per cent. Level—to 14p, 20p or 25p, or whatever it may be—is a bureaucratic nonsense and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of

1623
these people who are on the fringes of our society and whom we ought to be helping to come back into our society.
I beg the Government to recognise that, even if there were no element of rehabilitation—which would clearly be a nonsense in many cases—general purpose hostels of this kind do not deserve to be put in the position of taking away and then seeking to give back small amounts of money in response to this principle. I shall not argue it now. I believe that the principle has less validity than the Government argue. It is certainly not applicable in these cases. I should like to see the Government find some way out of the difficulty in which they find themselves by accepting the principle of the proposal even if they cannot accept the wording of the amendment. Let us make progress on this very important matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the people who worked on the Scottish Bill have been considering this matter for a long time because it arose previously. We appreciate that the the crucial question is where one draws the borderline. That is what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, touched upon the argument that the collecting of the community charge from the least well off people is nonsense. Although one can say that, noble Lords know that I do not think it is nonsense. We discussed that at Committee stage.
However, the question of the borderline is raised where none of the reasons for the community charge apply. I do not think that noble Lords have been over-emphasising the position on this occasion. They are not being sentimental. These are hard facts. The position becomes not only pointless but wrong. It is extremely difficult to know where one draws the line. I do not know enough about short-term hostels. I do not know whether there are people who live entirely in short-term hostels and who, by going from one to another, might be exempted from the community charge where others in a very similar position are not. That would be very unfair. The noble Baroness knows a great deal about this problem. Perhaps she is sure that she is drawing the line in the right place. When she replies to the debate perhaps she will tell us about that.
I hope that my noble friend will also justify his suggestion of where the line should be drawn. We can then understand and form our attitude on this issue. It is not the same debate as that on the community charge with regard to the least well off. We are discussing those on the fringe. It is a question of where we draw the line. I shall listen to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness with great attention.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may pick up the kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I may begin on a positive and, I hope, generally acceptable point. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked when the Scottish amendments would be available. Of course we can oblige. They will be available shortly and in good time for the noble Lord—I hope today. However, as we know, some of the amendments—unfortunately from both sides—have not been tabled as early as we would have hoped.
1624
Perhaps I may deal with the one matter which is slightly different from the rest; namely, Crisis at Christmas. For the purpose of this debate I shall class it as a one-off. What my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve said surprised me. She said that Crisis at Christmas is used by people who have a home for the rest of the year. However, if people staying in Crisis at Christmas have other accommodation they will most likely have their sole or main residence at that other accommodation.
The consequence would mean that Crisis at Christmas could not be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge, because property can be designated only if it is used by people who have no other sole or main residence. That is provided in Clause 5(3)(b). If that is the case, Crisis at Christmas is in a class that will not be subject to the collective community charge. But I should like to take up and exemplify a point I made earlier—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I have been listening with some anxiety. My understanding is that Crisis at Christmas will house certain guests; some will have homes that they have come from to spend time with Crisis at Christmas. But others will be homeless. If that is so, is it still true that Crisis at Christmas will not have this levy imposed upon it or upon any of its guests?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that was just the point I was coming to because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The Bill gives the registration officer a discretionary power to designate properties for the purposes of the collective community charge. In general that power will be used to designate hostels which are used all the year round. Crisis at Christmas is, as the noble Lord knows and as we have been told, open for only seven days in the whole year. It seems to me to be most unlikely that a hostel that is used for only seven days in a whole year will be designated at all in practice. It is that practical matter of designation that we wish to discuss with local authorities. However, when we discuss it with local authorities I assure the House that we shall bear very much in mind what your Lordships have said today.
In moving her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, suggested that the collective community charge would turn those who run some hostels into tax collectors. In fact any landlord who runs a hostel at present effectively acts as a tax collector if he collects any payment at all from the hostel residents because at present he pays non-domestic rates, even if only at a reduced rate of 50 per cent. In most cases he recovers the cost from the residents. I draw to the attention of the noble Baroness the new provision in the Bill which allows the collector of the charge to retain 5 per cent. of the charge for what he is already doing and will continue to do in future.
I move now to a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She took up the point of where one draws the boundary. We agreed to an exemption for those who sleep rough because of the arguments put forward in Committee, but we did so in the knowledge that any exemption creates a boundary problem. One of the disadvantages of an exemption is that it deters people from taking up

1625
permanent accommodation. If we were to exempt those who stay in some hostels, we should not avoid a disincentive but merely change the place at which it applied. An exemption for hostel dwellers would, I must point out to the House, inevitably create a deterrent for people who stayed a long time in accommodation which would not be exempt and where the individual might then be subject to the personal community charge.
As I have listened to the debate, I feel that we have missed some of the main arguments and perhaps the debate remains a little confused, as it was in Committee. The Government are saying that, first, there are hostels where there is care and rehabilitation. Those individuals are exempt, for very good reasons which your Lordships will appreciate. Then there are what we call the general purpose hostels. These cover a wide range of hostels. They cover the hostels where people are charged and make a contribution at the moment. I suggest to your Lordships that many of the Salvation Army hostels charge people something to stay the night at the moment, perhaps a few pounds for food and the ability to stay the night. What we are saying is that in those situations a person would have to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge.
If that is in an area of average community charge that would be 15p a night over and above what that person is probably paying now. It may not be, because, as I have said, included in the charge at the moment may be a contribution to the rates that exist. At the other end of the spectrum we move to the hostels that are free and provide facilities and food for people at no cost because they are run by charities. That covers quite a wide band.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The noble Earl mentioned these very small amounts that would be levied; he mentioned, for example, a figure of 15p. Can he tell the House what the administrative costs of dealing with those kinds of sums would be, even as a proportion?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be an administrative cost to the local authority which I am afraid I do not know. There will be a slight cost to the person who runs the hostel. But there is a provision in the Bill that that person should retain 5 per cent. of the charge. That matter was debated at some length in Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while we are discussing this matter, perhaps the Minister can help the House a little more. If I have followed his arguments correctly, in many of these hostels some of these residents or guests will have a home and therefore will not be subject to the collective community charge. But others will be. The people running the hostel will not only be responsible for collecting the money and taking away 5 per cent. of 15p—a very grand sum—but they will also be responsible for deciding from whom they should be collecting.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. They will be responsible for collecting from everybody.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister just said in relation to Crisis at Christmas that people who had a home would not be forced to pay the community charge, but we also have people who do not have any other homes. The Minister stated that they would have to pay the community charge.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. What I said was that if those in Crisis at Christmas were the small number who had homes elsewhere, then it would not be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. Perhaps that has clarified this fact for the noble Baroness.
To go back, even after the Government's generous concessions on the homeless—and we shall be coming shortly to community service volunteers—we are left with these general purpose hostels. They cover one extreme, namely, those who are already charged a few pounds a night at the moment right through to the those whose accommodation is provided totally free, where the food is also provided free and no charge is made. That is what one might describe as an overnight stay hostel.
Where a charge is already made, such as at a Salvation Army hostel, we have gone a long way towards meeting concerns about collection and reducing to the 20 per cent. contribution. I believe it is right that there should be a contribution. I take the point where meals and accommodation are provided free at the other end of the spectrum. I should like to discuss that point at another stage with my right honourable friends.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying, as he has just indicated on this narrow point, that he will consider this matter and return to it at Third Reading?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I shall be discussing these matters with my right honourable friend. It is important on this narrow point of where accommodation and food are provided free.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, some years ago I used to be chairman of the Church Army. We have one of these hostels in Great Peter Street. I urge my noble friend in the course of these consultations just to visit that hostel, and possibly the Salvation Army hostel next door, and talk directly to the people who administer them. I am sure that if he does that he will not persist in this argument. He will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that it is totally untenable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with leave of the House as the noble Earl has not resumed his seat, will he point out to his right honourable friend that many of these hostels make a deliberate point of levying a small charge for accommodation. This is not true of housing and of Crisis at Christmas. But it is true of others because they want to instil a sense of responsibility in the people who are staying in their hostels. The very limited concession which the Minister has indicated that he might be willing to discuss with his right honourable friend does not cover that matter. Therefore I suggest that it does not go nearly far enough to meet the points made in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I finally sit down, I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just said and also what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said. I assure him that we have already had detailed discussions with those who run the Salvation Army and Church Army hostels, and we shall continue to do so.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not hear the end of the Minister's answer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall continue to do so.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I must admit that I was hoping for a much more forthcoming answer.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, there was a slight reassurance as regards Crisis at Christmas. However, that is a minute part of the whole problem, although the organisation provides a wonderful service.
Towards the end of his reply the Minister said that he would look at some of the hostels which provide free board, accommodation and food. That is a concession, subject to it coming to something when we reach Third Reading. But in my view it does not answer the question. The amendment provides for short stay hostels, and I believe that there is no difficulty in defining such a hostel. Most of the hostels have rules about how long people can stay. They look after people who have failed to find any other accommodation. I should like the Government to make the final concession on this matter but I do not consider that the assurances that I have been given are adequate. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Falkender, B.

Amherst, E.

Flowers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Glenamara, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blyth, L.

Greenway, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grimond, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hooson, L.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Leatherland, L.

Ezra, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

1628

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

Lytton, E.

Seebohm, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Shepherd, L.

McNair, L.

Somers, L.

Marsh, L.

Stallard, L.

Milverton, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stoddard of Swindon, L.

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Thurlow, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peston, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Walston, L.

Porritt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whaddon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Russell, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Marley, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brookes, L.

Mottistone, L.

Broxhourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caccia, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cox, B.

Portland, D.

Craigavon, V.

Pym, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Radnor, E.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Daventry, V.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Dulverton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elibank, L.

Strange, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elton, L.

Swansea, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Terrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Forbes, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trafford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hanson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Havers, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Clause 2 [Persons subject to personal community charge]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("(3A) A person's sole or main residence shall be determined by the registration officer and shall be the premises occupied on the greatest number of occasions by the individual during the preceding twelve months within the area of the authority. Any such decision of the registration officer shall be subject to an appeal by the individual to the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal in accordance with section 23 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we turn to a different issue; namely, the question of how one determines a person's sole or main residence. Your Lordships may recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, initiated part of the discussion on this in Committee by taking his personal example of living somewhere in Huntingdonshire and somewhere in Camden and discussed which was to be his sole or main residence.
This is a very difficult Bill to construe for various reasons. One of those reasons is that we start with the basis of the Scottish Act passed last year by this Government and the general legal presumption that if a Bill dealing with the same subject or trying to deal with the same subject deliberately uses a different word, it means something different. A difference is meant to be there if a different approach is used. That is a fairly normal approach to statutory construction.
If one begins with the Scottish approach, Section 8 of the Scottish Act states:
"Any person who is solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority in any financial year shall be liable to pay".
That is not the approach of this Bill. Clause 2 states that a person is subject to a charging authority's personal community charge on any day on which he has his sole or main residence in the area of the authority at any time on the day. Therefore one approach asks, "How many houses does this person have and which is his sole or main residence on Tuesday, and is it the same on Wednesday?", and so on.
The other approach should be to look at where he resides on the day. That approach is assisted if one goes to the amendment discussed in the last group; namely, government Amendment No. 22. Presumably the draftsman of that amendment had some connection with the drafting of the Bill. That states:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if (a) throughout the day he has no fixed abode in England and Wales or elsewhere and (b) at the end of the day the place of his sole or main residence does not consist of a building, caravan or residential boat".
Therefore he is not excused if he goes into a Salvation Army hostel for the night and that then becomes his sole or his main residence.
You cannot have the words "sole or main residence" meaning different things in different parts of the Bill without saying what you are doing. If the Government are trying to say that each day should be looked at and it should be asked: "Where did you have your residence on that day?" I am sure that one or two of us who were here until fairly late this morning would like the Minister, who I believe had the night off, to tell us whether we were solely or mainly resident on these Benches. If not, where were
1630
we solely resident on that day? Perhaps I may speak personally. I came into this building at 10 o'clock yesterday and did not leave until about half-past seven this morning; and I left early. Where was I resident on that day?
It may be that that is not what the Bill means, and I suspect that that is not what it is intended to mean. However, it is an interpretation which could be argued for, especially bearing in mind the distinction in the approach of the Scottish and the English Bills. I have some difficulty in understanding why, when the Government fought so hard to get the Scottish Bill through and knew that it covered matters such as community charges, they did not take that section and adjust it for an English approach and use it as the basis instead of wandering off in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to be as different as possible, which makes matters difficult.
If the intention is what is achieved and we have to look at a person and say of a person who has a home in Huntingdonshire and a home in Camden, "Which is your sole or main residence'?" we must set some standard by which it is to be judged. Certainly over the past few months I have regarded myself as still having my home, which is not a word used in this Bill, in Edinburgh. However, I seem to spend two nights of the week there and therefore on a mathematical basis it is not my sole or main residence.
What is the basis of this approach'? Of course one can choose which is to be one's home for income tax purposes or for mortgage relief; and it perhaps does not really matter very much in view of the way house prices are at the moment because there is a limit on the amount of mortgage relief which one can claim. However, it matters immensely if one thinks about a situation of somebody living in an area having two homes, one in an area which has a very high poll tax rate and another in an area with a very low one. Perhaps I may take an example. If the personal level is £500 in the high area and £100 in the low area a single person will wish to be resident in the area with the high poll tax because he will pay his standard charge, which may go up to one and a half or two times in the low one. On the other hand, if he is the earner in a family of four people, all of them over 18, the reverse will be the case. If there is a difference between the two poll tax rates then there is a great deal of confusion; so that is very important.
I mentioned mortgages. The other element which comes in in considering what is one's home is capital gains tax, which will affect some people far more than others. However, it is very important for a person who pays capital gains tax to know which is their home and which is their second home. This Bill does not help us at all. There is no guidance given as to how valuers, the registration officers, are to decide where these people with two residences are to be looked at.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh attempts to do that. I appreciate that this may not be the logical answer. It is difficult to say that there is a logical answer because this is a very illogical Bill. Even assuming that a poll tax is a logical approach, the logical approach is to get away from the idea of residence on the day and get back to the idea of where one is usually resident for a period, as did the Scottish Bill.
In case the Minister has forgotten his title, the Scottish Bill was steered through by this Government. Therefore, I do not see why the approach of the Scots Bill is so inimical to the Minister's department. It is very difficult to work out how people with two homes in different areas will be dealt with, quite apart from the other difficulty we are talking about. I suspect there could be a very nice argument put forward that, by taking it as where you are resident on the day, especially on Amendment No. 22, you are talking about where you actually live that day, in which case people who move about will have an entertaining time comparing different areas and different poll taxes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how nice it is to continue the discussion with the noble Lord on the differences between Scotland and England. I can assure your Lordships that this is not the last discussion we shall be having on the matter. I know that the noble Lord will be teasing me gently throughout the rest of the Report stage and doubtless on Third Reading. He knows well that there are innumerable differences between any piece of Scottish legislation and an equivalent piece of legislation for England and Wales. The differences result from different legal—I am sorry, I cannot read the next word.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me while he is trying to read his notes, may I say that there is one similarity? We both use the same language and, unless they are technical legal terms, English words tend to mean the same. We both use the same dictionaries north and south of the Border.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not all the time but I hope most of the time.
The differences reflect the different legal traditions, different legal systems, different histories, different local government practices and even different draftsmen. The noble Lord would be the first to complain if we swept away all these differences. Indeed, I remember in earlier discussions with him when I was dealing with the Scottish legislation how keen he was to keep the differences. The important point is that there is no difference in intention, nor, I am advised, in outcome, between this Bill and the Scottish Bill as far as the meaning of "solely or mainly resident" or "sole or main residence" is concerned.
The noble Lord is inconsistent in his approach. He wants consistency with the Scottish Act, yet he wants us to elaborate on what is meant by "sole or main residence". He will recall that there is no such elaboration in the Scottish Act.
These amendments attempt to provide a specific definition of "sole or main residence" for the purposes of the personal community charge. We have considered very carefully over a long period how liability for the charge should be determined and what is the best way of providing for that in the Bill. We do not believe that the test proposed would be satisfactory; indeed, it could produce some extremely odd results.
1632
It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the basis of the community charge liability. Each adult, other than those who are exempt, will be subject to the personal community charge in the area where they have their sole or main residence. In the vast majority of cases it will be obvious where that will be: most people will have only one home. They will be subject to the personal charge there; if they move house, they will become subject to the charge at their new address.
A few people have two or more homes. In their case it will be necessary to decide which is their main residence—the place at which they will pay the personal charge. That decision will be one for the registration officer, though obviously the individual concerned will have the right to express his view. There will also be a right of appeal. Registration officers will take account of the facts of the case.
The Government's policy on this has been clear for a considerable time. In December 1986, for example, the Department of the Environment published a booklet which said:
"The registration officer will look at the individual's particular circumstances and will be able to consider such evidence as where the person is employed and where children go to school, as well as the length of time spent at each address".
That brings me on to Amendment No. 4. In some ways that offers an enticing prospect: a simple test in the legislation based on the period spent at an address. I fear, however, that because it is so simple it inevitably fails to take account of other factors that will be relevant. I must emphasise that the individuals concerned will frequently want factors other than simply time spent in an area to be relevant.
Let me take an example which is relevant to your Lordships' House. Many of your Lordships necessarily keep two homes one in London for use when the House is sitting, and one elsewhere which we generally regard as home and which is likely to be where our families and most of our possessions are. It is possible that in a year we might spend more days in London than we do elsewhere. This amendment would mean that our London addresses became our main residences for these purposes. Many of your Lordships would not be happy with that outcome.
I have a number of other concerns about these amendments—fears, for example, that they would oblige everyone to keep a time sheet of where they were on every day of the year. But the only point I want to dwell on is the retrospective nature of the test proposed and the results that would produce.
Amendment No. 4 requires sole or main residence to be determined on the basis of the number of days spent at an address in the preceding 12 months. That would mean that after you had moved house you would continue to pay the personal community charge at your previous address for six months and a day after moving. That seems to me to be a nonsense and one that would be resented, especially by those moving from an area where the community charge was high to one where it was low.
I hope that what I have said has clarified the Government's intentions. We believe flexibility is needed to take account of factors other than length of time spent at each address. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that we must set standards. Of course we shall be issuing guidance to local

1633
authorities to minimise variations in interpretation and the rights of appeal will obviously be important also in securing consistency. But the amendment proposed is simply too restrictive and would produce results that were undesirable and sometimes plain odd.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the noble Earl has read his brief very well and I congratulate him on it, but it does not answer the point. The words in Section 8 of the Scottish Act, with which I presume the noble Earl has been provided, are:
"any person … who is solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority in any financial year".
That uses the verb "is resident". It is quite easy to find out: either you live solely in Glasgow, Edinburgh or wherever for the whole of the year or you are mainly resident there and go away for short periods.
In the Bill we are considering, a person is subject to the personal community charge in the area in which he has his "sole or main residence". There a noun is used—"residence". I should have thought that in normal use "residence" means a building, but it can mean anything, including a residential boat according to Amendment No. 22. As far as one can see from subsection (3), it could be a park bench. However, we are dealing with a different concept. The whole build-up of the Bill is that you are liable for the day because you are resident on that day. When it comes to the question of joint and several liability, it is taken to extend from the day after a person is married and not the day on which he gets married. That demonstrates the difficulty.
The noble Earl in answering did not seem to appreciate that some people with two houses had them in different registration areas. The example we were talking about of Huntingdon and Camden would involve different registration officers. The point we discussed in Committee, and to which the Government have not come up with an answer, is what would happen if the two registration officers both decide that the gentleman concerned is mainly resident in both Huntingdon and Camden. Where do they go? How do they prove it? On what standard do they work it out? Those questions are what our amendment seeks to address.
One of the difficulties I have is that the noble Earl seemed to suggest that if one of your Lordships had his home in, for example, Edinburgh and had a small flat here in London in which he spent three or four nights a week, he would not want to make the flat his main residence. He appeared to think that there was a financial advantage. In fact the financial advantage would come from making the small flat the residential home because in the centre of London the poll tax will be higher. One only pays for one person, but if one keeps it as a second home one may have to pay twice the poll tax under the standard community charge arrangements. The home where the wife and family are does not become a second home because there is someone normally resident in it.
It seems that on that issue the noble Earl has perhaps not understood the Bill very well. In the circumstances I do not wish to take this amendment to a vote but I assure him that there is a serious
1634
problem here. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("than") to ("is") in line 17 and insert ("an individual for the time being exempt)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 128. These amendments give effect to a commitment which I gave to your Lordships at an earlier stage when I announced that the Government would exempt from the community charge all those individuals who were detained in legal custody, with the exception of those committed for non-payment of fines and of the community charge and residual domestic rates.
As currently drafted, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 exempts convicted prisoners detained in penal institutions in pursuance of their sentences. An exemption for that group is clearly justified on the grounds that local accountability cannot be said to operate and they have no means of earning money with which to pay the charge. Initially the Government were not convinced that the same arguments applied to other people who were detained in custody such as remand prisoners. Their situation is rather different since they are typically held in custody for shorter periods than convicted prisoners. However, as your Lordships may recall, considerable concern was expressed in another place that anomalies might arise if this distinction were maintained, between convicted prisoners and non-convicted prisoners. In particular it was seen as unfair that a remand prisoner who was convicted and had his sentence backdated would be exempt, whereas a remand prisoner who was found to be innocent would not be exempt. Concern was also expressed about people detained under the Mental Health Act.
In the light of these concerns expressed both in another place and in your Lordships' House, the Government have reconsidered the position. We have concluded that an exemption is justified for all persons detained in legal custody with only these exceptions: those committed for non-payment of community charges, residual domestic rates or fines. An exemption for these individuals could not be justified because it would give a clear and most undesirable signal that non-payment of the community charge, residual domestic rates or a fine was a sure route to avoiding the community charge.
Your Lordships may wonder why it is necessary to produce such involved amendments in order to exempt persons held in legal custody. The answer is that there is no simple generic description of such people. It is necessary to refer to all of the statutory provisions under which a person may be detained as well as to the places in which he may be detained. This is the approach adopted in these amendments.
The people covered by the amendments include persons detained in a prison, a hospital or any other place by virtue of' an order made by a court in the United Kingdom or a standing civilian court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976. This applies to convicted and remand prisoners alike.
Exemption is also conferred upon those detained under the Immigration Act 1971, the Mental Health Act 1973 and the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984; and the exemption also applies to those who are released from prison for a few days on compassionate grounds, for example, to attend a funeral. However, as I have indicated, it does not apply to those detained under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 for non-payment of the community charge, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 for non-payment of residual domestic rates or under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or the Criminal Justice Act 1982 for default in payment of a fine.
The amendments also empower the Secretary of State to provide by order that people detained under armed forces' legislation should also be exempt. This order-making power will be used to make parallel provision for service personnel to that made for civilian prisoners. I believe that these amendments are yet another example of the Government's willingness to listen to your Lordships and to respond positively to arguments put forward both here and in another place. I therefore commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the second occasion this afternoon—I promise that I shall keep a tally—on which I rise to thank the Minister for the concessions he has made which are in line with the undertaking he gave at an earlier stage and also in line with the discussions which we had at Committee stage. Amendments of this complexity we would find very difficult to draft and we are grateful that they have been so comprehensive and that they cover so fully the points made. The only caveat we enter concerns not exempting those imprisoned for non-payment of the community charge. As the noble Earl knows, we do not feel that anyone should be imprisoned for non-payment of the community charge. Having failed to convince the Committee of that, we shall be seeking tomorrow afternoon to convince the House that there should be as few cases as possible of people imprisoned, certainly by magistrates' courts and without consideration of alternatives to prison, for the non-payment of the community charge. With that very minor caveat we welcome the amendments and support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Personal community charge: exemption]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 92, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
("Persons in detention.
1.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

(a) he is detained in a prison, a hospital or any other place by virtue of an order of a court to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies,

(b) he is detained under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (deportation),

(c) he is detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (detention in place of safety), or

(d) he is detained under a warrant issued under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to the following courts—

(a) a court in the United Kingdom, and

(b) a Standing Civilian Court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976.

(3) If a person is temporarily discharged under section 28 of the Prison Act 1952, or temporarily released under rules under section 47(5) of that Act, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above he shall be treated as detained.
(4) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply where the person is detained under regulations made under—

(a) paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 below, or

(b) paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 below.

(5) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply where the person is detained under section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, or section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, for default in payment of a fine.
(6) In sub-paragraph (1) above "order" includes a sentence, direction, warrant or other means of giving effect to the decision of the court concerned.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—

(a) at any time on the day he is imprisoned, detained or in custody under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and

(b) such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 92, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
("The severely mentally impaired.
4.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—

(a) as regards the day he fulfils one or more of the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below,

(b) at any time on the day he is severely mentally impaired, and

(c) he is stated to be severely mentally impaired at that time in a certificate of a registered medical practitioner.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) he is entitled for the day to an invalidity pension under section 15 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(b) he is entitled for the day to a severe disablement allowance under section 36 of that Act;

(c) he is on the day of pensionable age within the meaning given by section 27 of that Act.

(3) A person is severely mentally impaired if he is suffering from—

(a) a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which involves severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or

(b) an injury to the brain causing severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning which appears to be permanent.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (2) above as it has effect for the time being (whether by adding, deleting or amending conditions, or by any combination of those methods).
(5) The Secretary of State may by order substitute another definition for the definition of severe mental impairment for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, might have to say (unless I convince him otherwise) as regards Amendment No. 8 before responding to his amendment to my amendment. I am confident that this government amendment will also be welcomed by your Lordships since it gives effect to a commitment that I gave at an earlier stage and exempts from the community charge a further group of people who are severely mentally impaired and who were not exempt under the Bill as it stands.
The group of people in question are those who become severely mentally impaired as a result of an injury to the brain in adulthood. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is in addition to those already exempted; namely, those who are severely impaired as a result of congenital handicap or accidents in childhood.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I run briefly through the terms of the amendment. Subparagraph (1) provides that a person is exempt from the community charge if he is severely mentally impaired, if he has a certificate from a doctor stating that he is severely mentally impaired and if he fulfils one or more of three conditions.
The three conditions are set out in subparagraph (2). They are designed to act as a filter, to ensure that before a person seeks to claim the exemption he must already have passed a preliminary test. Your Lordships will know that under the Bill as it stands there is a single preliminary test; namely, entitlement to a severe disablement allowance. That single test is no longer appropriate on its own in the light of the new, extended definition of severe mental impairment, because not all the people concerned will qualify for SDA. We have therefore added a second. alternative test; namely, entitlement to an invalidity pension. Many people who become mentally impaired in adulthood will be in receipt of this benefit rather than SDA.
The reason for the third condition is that there will be a relatively small group of people who, despite being severely mentally impaired, are not in receipt of SDA or of an invalidity pension. Since this group will all be above pensionable age, the third preliminary test is that a person must be of pensionable age.
Subparagraph (3) of the new provision gives the new, extended definition of severe mental impairment. It includes, as I have already said, those who suffer brain injury in adulthood as well as those impaired congenitally or in childhood.
Finally, subparagraphs (4) and (5) give the Secretary of State the power to vary the definition of severe mental impairment and the qualifying conditions. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible reserve power, since it will enable us to review the exemption in the light of changing circumstances without the need for primary legislation. It might, for example, become necessary to refer in subparagraph (2) to a new benefit because of changes in social security arrangements. This power would enable us to make that change. I am confident that the amendment will be welcomed on all sides of the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I now call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8.
6 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
Leave out paragraph 4(1)(c) and insert ("(c) he is assessed as having severe mental impairment by a panel, the membership and functioning of which shall be specified by the Secretary of State by regulation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although, as I explained in Committee, I should have preferred the severely mentally impaired to have been dealt with in quite a different way, I am grateful for the changes that have been made in this paragraph, including in particular the decision no longer to limit its provisions to those who suffer from congenital handicap. However, the one point that disturbs me is the provision in paragraph 4(1)(c) which rests on a certificate from a doctor.
The word "certificate", of itself, conjures up undesirable memories of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913. It is not like issuing a certificate of vaccination. Nor indeed in practice is it just about getting exemption from the poll tax. In effect, what is involved is a step marking out an individual as incapable and as someone to be set aside from the rest of society. It is bound to be a traumatic experience for the individual and for his family.
The noble Earl was good enough to write to me and explain that he thought that the procedure set out in his amendment had the merit of being straightforward and involving a minimum of formality even if the doctor concerned, who would normally be the individual's GP, was no expert in mental handicap. The fact is that assessment of severe mental impairment can be a complex and difficult task. For the most part, the ordinary GP—I attach no blame to him for this—does not have the necessary experience and qualification.
There are perhaps 175,000 severely mentally handicapped people in the country, something like three or four per 100,000 of the population, so that no one GP would have more than a tiny number on his list. We have had the experience at Mencap conferences of GPs explaining that they had little relevant training or education, that they had little experience of the special problems involved and that they even had little knowledge of how to communicate with these individuals. To leave this decision to the GP in isolation when all he has to guide him as a definition of severe mental impairment are the words of subparagraph (3)(a) is a prime recipe for inconsistent decisions up and down the country.
The Government's draft does not even specify that the doctor must have some relevant qualification, which I should have thought was the absolute minimum. The Government have not accepted the suggestion made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that two doctors should be involved. As regards my suggestion at that stage that there should be a right of appeal, the Minister wrote to me to say that if one doctor turned down the individual he could always go to another, a suggestion which, to put it as kindly as I can, seems a somewhat informal approach towards what is such a momentous decision for the person concerned. I know that the department is extremely expert on matters such as waste disposal and the green belt, but I wonder whether it really understands the likely impact on individuals of what is being proposed here. So far as I know the department has not consulted those outside the Government who have some practical experience.
I suggest that we should get away from certification and go instead for assessment. I suggest that the assessment should be the responsibility of a multi-disciplinary panel, based perhaps on the existing community mental handicap teams which consist of experts from the various interested professions—consultants in mental handicap, clinical psychologists, and so on. My understanding is that there are 350 of these teams covering some 70 per cent. of the country. The precise way in which it would all be managed is best left to regulation but it is essential to do something about the provision in the amendment resting on the registered medical practitioner.
There are many things to be sorry about in regard to this legislation. One is that the Bill has brought us round to the need to identify in some way people who suffer severe mental impairment. I urge the Government to think again about the arrangements for decisions which will so profoundly affect the lives of thousands of unfortunate people and their families. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is in a receptive frame of mind. I begin, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, began, by acknowledging that the government amendment is sensible and is an improvement. We hear that those who will be deeply involved in the implementation of the nexus within the Bill are saying to the Government that it can be improved on the margin. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said in simple terms that there is an argument between certification and assessment in establishing the bona fides of those who can legitimately be exempt from the charge. It is miserable for the individual and for his family and friends to be involved at all in having to plead a case in this way.
Noble Lords may be wondering about the lapel badge I am wearing. We are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service. The Royal College of Nursing has a small reception downstairs and the people down there very much hope that the Minister will say something helpful about the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
In this case there are people from outside 2 Marsham Street who seek advice from the department. They are better qualified than the advisers to the Minister on how to deal with an important point. The Minister can demonstrate his willingness to get it absolutely right by acknowledging these difficulties. The Bill will receive Royal Assent in the not too distant future. Once that is done many good people and many sad people will live with it for a long time to come. The Minister has had a good record this afternoon of acknowledging where, on the margin, people in special difficulties have had those difficulties taken into account. Of all the groups in our society which deserve not just fair treatment, but extraordinarily fair treatment, it is those who suffer from an impairment to their mental health. Therefore I very much hope that the Minister can be kind this afternoon.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is proposing seems most sensible, and I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to give it the right kind of reception. I should like especially to thank my noble friend for the letters he wrote to me and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship recently covering this amendment and others.
I should also like to say that I have discussed the amendments with the NSF and how much we welcome this amendment, Amendment No. 6—which sadly I missed—and Amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 22. They all seem to be a great advance. Perhaps I may thank noble Lords who spoke in Committee, when I was not able to be here, on this subject. I think that my noble friend has gone a long way to achieve
1640
the kind of refinements that we want to see in this area, and I thank him for that.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to speak strongly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said from a great depth of experience. However, I should like to approach this from the point of view of the Government's Amendment No. 7, paragraph 4(1)(c); and also from the point of view of the family. First, heading (c) in the amendment states:
"a certificate of a registered medical practitioner".
That can mean anyone who is medically qualified; he might be a surgeon, an anaesthetist, or a general practitioner. I think that against the background—which has been so eloquently described—of this tragedy in the family, every step must be taken to ensure that what is done is seen to be done. Therefore I hope that the Government will at least be prepared to amend heading (c) of the amendment to make it clear that it applies to a physchiatrically qualified medical practitioner. In common parlance, the words, "registered medical practitioner" mean either anyone or a general practitioner, and therefore the wording must be changed. I should have thought that in response to what has been said here, this could be the minimum we could hope for from the Government.
There is a great deal to support assessment by a panel which would then have a record of the views about this person, which is available if the circumstances change—which they might do, say, in six months time. Therefore when they want to review the situation again, they can look at the record and check the progress. So I think that there is a great deal to be said for this part of the amendment and I urge the government to be sympathetic in their response.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved with characteristic clarity and authority by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who, as the House knows, is the distinguished president of MENCAP. Therefore there is little that I as a very undistinguished vice president of that organisation can, or should, seek to add. In the circumstances I am in the happy position to which Metellus Cimber in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar could only aspire:
"Is there no voice more worthy than my own,
To sound more sweetly in great Caesar's ear".
It is, I suppose, by a happy coincidence that the noble Lord sitting on the Woolsack is the distinguished chairman of MENCAP—
A Noble Lord: A previous president!
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, yes; a previous president. I take it that the noble Lord was not going to query my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I am sure he would warmly associate himself with it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I associate myself with the tribute; but we always like to get things accurate in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, having served as chairman and then as president, is now a past president of the society.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I make my brief intervention only because I have in that capacity received representations and it is perhaps appropriate that I record my support for the amendment. I am not at all critical of Ministers in making these submissions. I fully acknowledge their good intentions and, as—I hope—a good friend, I seek only to help them avoid the proverbial dangers and destinations of good intentions.
The Bill recognises that severe mental impairment should be a ground for exemption from the collective community charge. That is obviously very proper and, in principle, would meet with general assent. The difficulty arises in terms of a definition. Amendment No. 7—tabled in the name of the Minister—makes the criterion at paragraph 4(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of:
"a certificate of a registered medical practitioner"
which, as has already been pointed out, really means a general practitioner in the ordinary usage of language.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to broaden the definition and increase the expertise in making the assessment. A single medical practitioner, unversed in the complexities of mental health and acting in isolation, may well not be equipped to make an informed and accurate assessment. That the complexities in these matters are great I well recall, as will the noble Lord sitting on the Woolsack who played such a distinguished part in the proceedings during the long days of the passage of the Mental Health Act 1959. The amendment would give a more expert assessment.
In an ideal world I think that the composition of the panels would be prescribed in the primary legislation; but in a practical world, it has to be left to regulations. Fortunately, however, that need present no difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, there are already existing community mental-handicap teams from which the necessary expertise can be drawn. Therefore I hope that Ministers will accept the principle and make provision for expert assessment leading to more reliable certification. If they do that and they accept the principle, they can be sure—the speeches made today have testified to this—that they will have goodwill and support in the carriage and implementation of those regulations.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, feels about being cast in the role of the great Caesar. However, from these Benches I hope that he will, so to speak, lend his ear to the arguments which have been proffered in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
It seems to me that the implications of the finding are much greater than are confined to the Bill. But looking at the original amendment, and the proposed amendment to it, I suppose ideally that there is something to be said for having a medical practitioner who is well-versed in the expertise required. Indeed I think that there is an overwhelming argument in favour of that. I should have thought that that was an unarguable point. However, what I think is arguable from the Government's point of view—if they accept Lord
1642
Allen's amendment in principle, they might then consider this—is whether the doctor concerned should be drawn from the panel. That depends on the actual implications of the certification. Is it to be wider than the Bill? If one has certification for the purposes of Clause 4(1), its implications are likely to apply in a wider sphere. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, may have had that in mind when he drafted this amendment to the amendment in wider terms than would appear to be necessary from the Government's drafting.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am bothered about this matter. In our attempt to do what all in the House thought was right—to ensure that severely mentally handicapped people do not have to pay the charge—we are having to ask that something be said about someone which we would much prefer did not have to be said. On reflection, I do not think that it would have made any difference if the House had gone the way the noble Lord, Lord Allen, would have preferred which, if I recollect it correctly, would be to have a 100 per cent. rebate rather than exemption. However, there would be a problem defining who was to receive it.
Perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether there is any way of having a form which merely says that a person falls into one of several categories that are exempt. We should not then have the problem of saying to the family that all these matters apply to a person. I do not know whether my noble friend has considered that point. It is unfortunate to have to arrive at a provision which is wholly good by facing up to something which neither the noble Lord, Lord Allen, nor anyone else thinks is right. It may be unavoidable. I do not know whether the noble Lord has thought about that point. Perhaps we could have a simpler statement which covers a number of exemptions and not just the one we are discussing, with someone qualified to sign the form saying that a person is exempt because they meet one of the following categories, or something like that. That would be much more imaginative if it were possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what your Lordships have said about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He raised a subject to which we have given a good deal of thought and upon which I recently wrote to him, as he reminded your Lordships a moment ago. It may be helpful therefore if I explain precisely why we have adopted the approach to the issuing of certificates which is enshrined in the Government's amendment.
One of our principal concerns in devising the procedure for claiming the exemption was that the procedure should be straightforward, involving the minimum of formality and inconvenience to the applicant and his or her relatives.
We believe that an over-formal approach could cause distress and deter some people from applying for the exemption for which they are entitled. We took the view that we could best meet that concern by providing for certificates to be issued by a registered medical practitioner who, in the vast majority of cases, is the applicant's GP. I of course accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, which I should like to look at between

1643
now and another stage of the Bill. He raised the valid point about someone being qualified and putting the word "qualified" in front of "registered medical practitioner" in Clause 4(1)(c). Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to look at that point between now and another stage.
Our approach has the advantage that the applicant will be dealing with a doctor with whom he is familiar and with whom he feels comfortable. It also has the advantage that in most cases the doctor will be familiar with the applicant's condition and case history. He will, for example, have access to any expert opinion on the person's mental condition which has previously been obtained. In the minority of cases where the medical practitioner is not sufficiently familiar with the applicant—for example, where the applicant has recently changed GP—he will be able to make inquiries of professional colleagues who have more detailed knowledge of the applicant's condition and greater expertise in assessing mental conditions.
I also point out that in subsection (2) we have provided that before qualifying for the exemption a person must be in receipt of a severe disability allowance or an invalidity pension if he is below pensionable age. As your Lordships will be aware, the procedures for claiming those benefits already involve, where appropriate, examination by medical experts. We believe that much of the concern felt by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is met by the sieve through which that procedure takes place.
The noble Lord said that the word "certificate" had undesirable connotations. I am not sure that I agree. The word "certified" is unfavourable, which is why the amendment removes that word which is used in the Bill as it stands. I am sure that the noble Lord has read Clause 28 where he will also find the word "certificate" used in relation to students. I cannot agree with him that there is any question of the mentally impaired being singled out or stigmatised by the use of the word.
The noble Lord also said that expertise was needed. He suggested that GPs would be unable to take the necessary decisions. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. Of course I am not the expert. I have naturally consulted the experts on this matter in the DHSS. I can assure your Lordships that they are satisfied with the proposed approach. I must emphasise that in using the individual's GP he is likely to be aware of the history. There may well have been a specialist view involved earlier about which the GP will know.
I can tell my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that there is no existing category of severely mentally impaired people to which we can refer. That is why we have proposed a new definition and procedure which is rather long and perhaps complicated. I can assure her that it is the only suitable way to sort out the problem.
I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said. I am pleased that he realises that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting his concern and that of a number of other people.
On balance, we feel that our approach—certification by a medical practitioner—is fair and satisfactory. We do not believe that the approach
1644
advocated by the noble Lord would be an improvement because it would add an extra layer of formality, bureaucracy and cost. It might even deter some people from applying for an exemption to which they are entitled. I am sure that that is the last thing that the noble Lord or I want.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed by that reply given the support for my suggestion tendered from all sides of the House, including those Members of the House sitting behind the Minister. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I should have preferred to go down the road of rebate, but I regarded that as a dead duck following our discussions in Committee. The Minister has, in effect, confirmed that there has been no consultation with experts outside the government machine, which I find disappointing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, I do not believe that I said that. I think that the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said. I said that we have consulted the DHSS and I am sure that the DHSS, as experts in the matter, have consulted widely outside.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it has not consulted MENCAP, which does know something about these matters. Of course, the reply does not go to the root of the matter. The Minister does not seem to understand, any more than his officials seem to understand, what an important decision this is in the life of the individuals concerned, not only for the individuals but for the family. They will need reassurance when they see their son or daughter subject to a certificate which marks him or her out as someone detached from the whole of the rest of the community.
I am sorry that my eloquence has been inadequate to put over that thought to the Government. What I am not very clear about is whether the Minister is prepared to consider doing anything about the use of the word "certificate". I gather not. Also, there is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and I made about having some qualifying words to make sure that the medical practitioner has some qualifications. If the Minister is not prepared to meet that, I should certainly be prepared to try something on those lines at Third Reading. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain that point before I decide whether to test the feeling of the House.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington: that that was a point which I wanted to discuss with my right honourable friend. It is a point which I certainly wanted to look into—putting "qualified" before "registered medical practitioner".
However, I am concerned about something which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has just said: that MENCAP had not been consulted on our proposals. If that is the case, I should certainly want to look into that as well.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am very reluctant to decide the fate of these poor people by

1645
calling a vote which is settled by people who have not heard the argument. On the basis of the assurances given by the Minister and the possibility of returning to some of these points on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 93, line 9, leave out ("religious").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I understand that it is for the convenience of the House that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
In Schedule 1 we have the treatment of religious communities; that is, the exemption from the financial obligations for members of religious communities. These three amendments are perfectly straightforward. We have no objection on this side of the House to looking at the nexus in which communities decide to operate as a community.
However, we fail to see the special significance of excluding religious communities. We are seeking here the deletion of the word "religious". Of course the exemption is aimed not just at religious communities hut, by further definition, religious communities which have no income or capital of their own and which depend on the communities concerned for their material needs.
The principal occupation of the religious community must be prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education or any prescribed occupation. From the way in which these matters are defined, two of those criteria will be sufficient to warrant exemption. Communities which are not religious will not qualify for the exemption, even though their principal occupation may be contemplation, the relief of suffering or education. Their members may have no income or capital of their own and may be dependent on the community for their material needs. We find it difficult to understand how the Government could be precise and say that there are two kinds of communities, one which is religious and one which is not, which meet all the criteria, yet one would be relieved of financial responsibility and the other would have to pay. That is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has just said and of the comments made in Committee, it may be helpful if I explain in a little detail the Government's thinking in providing the exemption for religious communities in the way that they have.
The exemption is deliberately intended to be narrow and it was introduced following representations from the Churches and representatives of other religions. Many of your Lordships have expressed concern that it might extend further than we intended. In fact, the tests we have established for the exemption are extremely difficult to meet. The purposes of the community are closely defined. The members have to divest themselves of all income and capital. They will not be eligible for any social
1646
security benefits. If they have a job—and there are of course monks and nuns who go into the community and receive a salary—then they will not be exempt, even if they covenant their salary to their order, as is almost universally done. The salary will have to be covenanted net of the community charge.
The Government take the view that it is unrealistic to suppose that large numbers of people will be prepared to give up everything and genuinely to engage in certain narrowly defined activities simply in order to avoid the community charge. The decision whether or not particular communities qualify for the exemption will be for community charge registration officers in the first place. There should be no difficulties for them in deciding that members of well-established monasteries and convents are entitled to the exemption. If they have any doubts about a particular group then it will be open to them to decide that its members are not exempt. Any such decision will be subject to appeal. If it is eventually decided that the group in question is genuinely engaged in the defined activities and that its members meet the income and capital tests then I would submit that it would be quite proper for them to benefit from the exemption.
The noble Lord's amendments, by removing the word "religious", would, however, introduce a good deal of uncertainty about the scope of the exemption. The Government make no apology for the fact that the exemption depends first and foremost on a community being a religious community. Other types of community may well be engaged in similar activities. But it was the particular effects of the community charge on Churches and religious orders, and the social security status of their members, which led the Government to accept that there should be special treatment for them. I believe that this is the right approach and that the noble Lord's amendments would leave considerable doubt about Parliament's intentions. This could lead to a much wider use of the exemption than I believe the majority of your Lordships would consider appropriate.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend in resisting these amendments. However, when I saw what is now paragraph 7 of the schedule at Committee stage, I and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter both found ourselves moved to comment that the whole paragraph is probably too loosely worded already. I submit to my noble friend and to the House that any reasonably conscientious member of an ordinary congregation qualifies personally under paragraph 7(1)(a). His congregation meets the requirements of subparagraph (2)(a). Any congregation engaged in normal evangelistic and missionary activity easily meets that requirement. For those who are bent on abusing this paragraph, it would not be too difficult to find a financial adviser who could arrange for those forming themselves into a bogus community to meet paragraph 7(1)(b).
My anxiety is that in the course of trying to meet the very proper concern of genuine monks and nuns, my noble friend has introduced a paragraph which before very long—maybe a year or two—will be so open to abuse that we shall have another scandal to deal with as bad as that which is already associated with the Moonies, who have managed to get

1647
themselves registered as a charity. I ask my noble friend to look at this again and see whether he can tighten it up a little.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I failed to say in my opening remarks that of course we acknowledge that the Government took on board the anxieties that were expressed in another place and here that one needed to take account of making provisions for religious orders. The nexus of the nuns and the monks was taken into account. The Minister may think I am pursuing a bad abbot here! But I am not. I am trying to understand what is meant in Schedule 1(7)(2)(a), which contains a list of occupations the existence of which establish the existence of a relevant religious community.
The Minister said that the Government always considered that the first and foremost occupation of such a community was prayer. Yet if one looks at Schedule 1(7)(2)(b), one sees that the Government consider that the principal occupation of such a community,
"consists of two or more of the occupations mentioned in paragraph (a),"
one occupation of which is prayer or contemplation or the relief of suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is absolutely right. The more one looks at the drafting here, the more one fears it is possible for abuse to take place. I hope that the Minister will accept that we have not remotely sought to abuse the looseness of this provision in trying to extend the benefits of the schedule. I understand that the Minister and his colleagues have responded to a legitimate query. Having seen the wording, we are saying that we can see some other groups of people who might benefit from it. However, I am satisfied that the Minister will not go any further with this matter this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 93, line 22, at end insert ("where such income falls below a figure set out in regulations issued by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still on the same subject of religious communities, but we are talking about one exemption to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, did not refer when he criticised the looseness of the drafting of this part of the Bill. The criterion laid down for members of a community is that the people concerned have no income or capital of their own. We can all understand and agree on that. Those people sell all they have and give it to the poor or to the community, as the case may be.
But income by way of a pension from a former employment will be ignored. Nobody would wish to deter those who have retired on a pension from joining a community, religious or otherwise, or from devoting their life to good works in all kinds of ways. But it could be argued, and indeed I am arguing—one gets caught in circumlocutions of this kind—that those who have substantial pensions would not feel that their object in joining a religious community was significantly impaired by the fact that out of those
1648
pensions provision should be made for the community charge. None of this implies approval of the community charge as a whole. But exemption from community charges as opposed to the rebate system does progressively, as it extends, detract from the accountability argument which the Government use all the time.
The more exemptions there are, the more those who are left without exemptions have to pay for their personal community charges. Although we have argued for exemptions where they seem to be most appropriate and where the argument for accountability clearly diminishes to the point of nonexistence, we should prefer, generally speaking, the exceptions to the community charge to be in the form of rebates which take account of income. This is a very good case of that. Here we have people who, by regulation set by the Secretary of State, would be deemed to have substantial pension income. Those who do not choose to go into a religious community have to pay the charge. Those who do go into a religious community should, we suggest, have the community charge deducted from that which they are forgoing in order to enter the community.
It is a difficult case to argue. All of these cases are difficult to argue because they are always at the margin of accountability and at the margin of ability to pay. But I think that there is a sufficient case here for the Government to listen to, and for the Government to accept that it accords with the other principles they have of ensuring that as wide a group of people as possible recognise the obligations of the community charge and its effect on accountability. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I respond to the amendment in detail, this gives me an opportunity to say to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who raised a point after I had sat down after replying to the previous amendment, that I looked at the whole of the wording of this part of the Bill between the Committee stage, when concern was raised, and now. But I must say that we could not come up with tighter wording. We went back and discussed it with some of the members of the Churches Main Committee. It is sad that some of the right reverend Prelates involved on that committee are not here today to take part in what would be a helpful debate on this matter. We looked at the matter but found that the wording was sufficiently tight. Therefore my noble friend need not have quite the concerns that I know he has.
Returning to the amendment, as the noble Lord has explained, it would entail my right honourable friend setting a limit on the amount of a pension which is to be ignored for the purposes of determining whether or not a member of a religious community has an income. This would be an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy. Any member of a religious community who has a pension and who keeps that pension for himself or herself will not be exempt from the community charge because of the capital rule. By keeping a pension it becomes part of a person's capital, and anyone with capital will not be exempt. All pension income will therefore have to be given up and this will usually be done by covenanting it to the order.

1649
The Government decided that pension income should be disregarded because many monks and nuns would have a small pension in respect of previous employment which they gave up in order to take up their monastic life. It will often be insufficient to meet the community charge. In this respect pension income differs from earned income, which will usually be sufficient to cover the charge before the member has covenanted it to his or her order.
I accept that there will also be cases where the pension may be somewhat larger and may be sufficient to pay the charge. But a limit would inevitably be arbitrary. It would lead to income trap effects and it would add to the administrative burdens of registration officers. I do not believe that the small numbers of people involved warrant setting up the necessary machinery. In view of this and what I said about the capital rule which prevents members of religious communities from either keeping their pension or spending it on personal possessions, I hope that the House will not accept the amendment that the noble Lord has moved, should he desire to press it.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree with me—perhaps it is more accurate to say that he does agree with me—that this provision is loosely worded? He has looked at it again, but so far he has not found any way of making it any tighter. I do not think that he has convinced himself or me that it is satisfactory as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I see that the noble Earl has resumed his seat definitively, and he is not responding to that. I find some parts of the Minister's argument somewhat difficult to follow. If the argument of an income trap is valid, surely it is valid for a very much larger group of people than those who choose to enter religious communities. If the noble Earl had responded more positively to the amendments we put forward in Committee on the taper, perhaps he would not find himself in the difficulty of an income trap which he now appears to detect. However, I do not think that this is a matter on which it would be appropriate to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 93, line 25, leave out from ("day") to end of line and insert ("one or more of the following paragraphs applies to him—

(a) he is a patient who has his sole or main residence in a hospital;

(b) he is detained under Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a hospital;

(c) he is detained under section 46, 47 or 48 of that Act in a hospital.").

Page 93, line 33, leave out from ("day") to end of line 36 and insert ("one or each of the following paragraphs applies to him—

(a) he has his sole or main residence in a residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home or hostel, and he is receiving care or treatment (or both) in the home or hostel;

(b) he is detained under Part 11 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a mental nursing home.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 93, line 36, at end insert and ("(c) and he is in receipt of income of less than £15,000 per annum.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 relates to the paragraph in Schedule I which is entitled "Patients in homes". In order to set the scene, perhaps it will be helpful if I read a part of that paragraph. Paragraph 9(1) provides that:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on that day—

(a) he has his sole or main residence in a residential care home, nursing home or hostel, and

(b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there".

We seek to add a further head which would read:
"(c) and he is in receipt of income of less than £15,000 per annum".
The reason for the amendment is patently clear. There are individuals whose incomes are miserable compared to the sum of £15,000 per annum. By and large, the Government have not been prepared to make exceptions other than for special groups. The intention is to bring accountability to our local government and local taxation nexus. As a consequence, people may well be pursued for very small sums of money.
In considering the situation we believe that there are a number of people—the Government have not been concerned with numbers up to now—who should be taken into account. At col. 827 of the Official Report of 24th May 1988, during our Committee stage on this Bill, the Minister said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has seized on what he believes is an anomaly in the Bill, which is that a few relatively well-off people who are being cared for in nursing homes and similar institutions will nevertheless not he subject to the personal community charge".
We are not referring to actual numbers. We must confess, as the Minister does from time to time, to an absence of precise information as to numbers. Many people enter such homes for good medical reasons. However, others are there for quiet, comfort, convalescence and a range of other reasons. Nursing homes are not cheap. The Minister is entitled to say that much of the cost of a nursing home may be borne by the state either directly or indirectly. However, there are many private nursing homes where residents are not receiving state assistance and the charges are paid for by the individual.
I shall repeat an illustration which I used at Committee stage. It is possible to find in a place such as Enfield nursing homes where the cost of being looked after is anything from £200 to £300 a week. That is a modest cost for a nursing home these days. I define "private home" as one which is not run by the municipality or the council. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to find a bureaucratic device in order to reach our objective. I believe that his argument will rest on the difficulty of finding, monitoring, recording and administering such a system. However, in equity and justice, I believe that someone who is in receipt of an income in excess of £15,000 should pay the personal community charge.
The Minister may raise the question of whether that sum should be gross or net. However, the principle is that there should be some measuring rod or bar below which a person is legitimately entitled to the protection of Schedule 1 and above which a person will be taken out of the protection of that

1651
schedule. The Government have not been averse to setting limits within which people may be caught. I believe that they should look at this matter as well. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I said at Committee stage, I am sympathetic to the general thrust of what the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord McIntosh, are trying to achieve. It is obviously indefensible that a millionaire, a millionairess, or even someone who can be described simply as rich who is living in a nursing home or a residential care home and who is of sound mind and able to vote in general and local elections and benefit from at least some of the services provided by local government, should be completely exempt from the community charge.
The question is where the dividing line should be drawn. What constitutes being rich? I suggest that everything hinges on whether the noble Lord means £15,000 gross or £15,000 net. For a single person, £15,000 gross nets down to £11,901 per annum after tax. That works out at just under £229 per week. Unfortunately, a great many nursing homes and residential care facilities have charges which work out at more than £230 per week. Indeed, there are many doctors who warn their patients against going into homes costing less than, say, £210 per week on the ground that the standard of care probably will not be very good. I am speaking in this context of private homes.
If the noble Lord, Lord Graham, means £15,000 net of tax, which equates to £19,133 gross for a single person, that is another matter. Even in that case one notices that no provision has been made for indexation in the amendment. That being so, one wonders whether the noble Lord might consider it better to come back at the next stage with an income figure revised to, let us say, £20,000 gross, which represents a capital sum of about £½ million—that is the sum which is required to produce a gross income of £20,000—with, shall we say, built-in protection against inflation: in other words, with a further provision that that should be linked to the retail price index.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will recall the reply that I gave to a precisely similar amendment that he moved at an earlier stage. The position has not changed. The principle behind granting an exemption for patients in a home is that accountability could not reasonably be said to operate for many of those individuals. The ability of people in homes to participate in the process of local accountability would in many cases be severely limited and perhaps more limited than the noble Lord, Lord Monson, believes.
I remind your Lordships that the exemption was granted in acknowledgement of strong representations made during debates on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act in your Lordships' House. The result is that a relatively small number of comparatively well-off individuals will benefit from the exemption. That does not in the Government's view undermine in any way the good reasons for granting the exemption in the first place.
1652
Leaving aside the concerns of principle for a moment, I must draw attention to the practical consequences of the amendment. It would require registration officers to undertake detailed investigations into the incomes of every patient in every nursing home or residential care home simply with the aim of establishing that a small minority should be denied an exemption. That would not be a practical undertaking and as a result it is not one that the Government are prepared to ask registration officers to undertake.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that he must choose between a general exemption for patients in homes or no exemption at all. His proposal at the moment is not acceptable to the Government for reasons of both principle and practicality.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has given the same reply. I take heart from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I shall think very carefully about what he has said and no doubt shall be in touch with him about a better amendment. However, I am disappointed because the Minister is arguing not just on the basis of the practicalities but on the principle.
It is very surprising. Amendments which were moved earlier concerned a community in which all the members have given up their worldly goods. They cannot be exempted from the charge, yet here we are considering the case of individuals who will hang on to their worldly goods—which may perhaps amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds—and will be exempted from the charge. That is not just an anomaly; it makes a nonsense of the application of the charge. I am disappointed with the Minister.
When one considers the impact of the provision, there will be many people who keep relatives at home in order to avoid a range of social disruptions. They will have to pay the poll tax and the individual himself will have to pay the poll tax; yet those who can afford to go into a residential home and are able to satisfy the very flimsy criteria about their status and condition will be able to avoid the charge by virtue of the provisions of the schedule. It is unfair and unjust. That is the epitaph of the whole of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I propose to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 en bloc if the House agrees because those amendments have been discussed with Amendment No. 5.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 93, line 47, leave out from second ("Act") to end of line 48.
Page 94, line 3, at end insert—
("(4A) A mental nursing home is anything which is a mental nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984.").
Page 94, line 5, leave out ("or nursing home") and insert (", nursing home or mental nursing home").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I suggest that this would be a suitable moment to break for dinner and that we return at 8 o'clock. I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Order 1988
7.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with leave, and for the convenience of the House, I shall also speak to the draft Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988.
The purpose of these orders is to restructure Schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986, and extend the powers which that schedule gives societies to offer financial and housing related services. This follows an extensive review of these powers which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced in October.
The Building Societies Act 1986 was intended to allow societies to extend the range of services they offer while remaining mutual institutions, predominantly engaged in their traditional business of mortgage lending financed from retail savings. The Act did not seek to induce societies to abandon their traditional business and structure, but the Government believed that societies should be free to undertake activities which complement their mainstream business, and to provide the wider range of personal financial services which customers now expect.
The Act took effect in January last year, but it was clear by the autumn that societies were having considerable difficulty operating within the powers in Schedule 8 as drafted. The schedule was intended to give a precise list of the new services which societies could undertake, but in practice most societies wanted to use the powers in slightly different ways from that envisaged in the schedule, and they were constantly frustrated by legal technicalities. Market conditions were also changing very rapidly, and societies had begun to make representations for extensions to their powers in a number of areas.
The review was undertaken by the Treasury and the Building Societies Commission, in close consultation with the Building Societies Association. The main policy conclusions were announced in February, and the orders before your Lordships have been the subject of further extensive consultation with the societies.
Two other orders are relevant and will be required to implement the conclusions of the review. These are the Building Societies (Designation of Qualifying Bodies) Order and the Building Societies (Limits on Lending) Order. These are negative orders and cannot be made until the orders we are debating tonight are approved. But provisional drafts were placed in the Library of the House last month, along with a summary note of the provisions of all four orders, so that the package could be seen as a whole.
1654
All four orders will take effect together if they are approved by your Lordships at the end of August.
The orders will do two things. First, they will turn Schedule 8 inside out, so that instead of banning everything except narrowly specified powers, as at present, it will set out several broadly defined powers and list only those activities which are specifically prohibited. That, in itself, will provide societies with a more sensible and flexible regulatory environment in which to operate.
The orders will also, however, provide a substantial widening of societies' powers to provide financial and housing-related services. The Act was intended to provide scope for a gradual extension of the range of powers available to societies. However, it is clear from societies' first year's experience with the Act that this gradual step-by-step process is not appropriate. Although each individual society will probably only want to diversify into a small number of new areas, different societies will want to exercise different powers, and societies need to know the broad scope of their powers for some years ahead in order to make sensible long-term commercial plans.
The Government have concluded, therefore, that the right approach is to provide for a substantial widening of powers now, while at the same time limiting the speed with which any individual society can diversify into new areas. This restraint will be exercised, first, through supervision of business plans by the Building Societies Commission, and, secondly, by only easing gradually, over five years, the overall limits on societies' holdings of non-traditional assets. Societies will only be able to exploit the new powers at a prudent pace. They will, however, have a clear basis for their forward planning.
Turning to the orders, the main one—the draft Commercial Assets and Services Order—will replace Schedule 8 to the Act with a completely new Schedule 8 which will provide the following six broad service powers: banking services; investment services; insurance services; trusteeship; executorship; and land services.
A society will be able to provide any service within those general areas unless it is specifically precluded, or restricted, by other parts of the schedule. The main limitation will be that societies will continue to provide services primarily to the personal sector, and not to companies. Societies with assets of less than £100 million will be prohibited from engaging directly in some of the more risky activities. But subject to that, and to certain other limited restrictions, societies will be able to provide the full range of personal banking services which customers now expect; to undertake fund management, including management of unit trusts generally, rather than just for the provision of pensions as at present; to own or take an equity stake in a life assurance company; to take a limited stake in a general insurance company; and to own or take an equity stake in a stockbroker.
In the course of providing these new services, a society may need to hold new forms of commercial assets or to invest in, or support, new subsidiaries and associated bodies. Provision for the new assets is included in the commercial assets and services order. The order will, among other things, allow societies to acquire mortgage backed securities and similar

1655
instruments and provide temporary bridging finance for house purchase far more easily than at present. The new subsidiaries and associates will be provided for in the proposed negative designation of qualifying bodies order, which will also consolidate several previous orders made by the Building Societies Commission, to ensure conformity with the new powers.
The draft limits on the commercial assets order, which is the first affirmative order before your Lordships tonight, will provide for a gradual relaxation in the limits on non-traditional assets which constrain the rate at which societies can diversify. Although the limits will remain at their present level until January 1990, the order provides for automatic increases thereafter to the full extent permissible within the primary legislation by 1993. Few societies are close to the limits at present. But the order will give societies a clear, firm basis for planning any expansion of their services for the future. Finally, the negative limits on the lending order will raise the limit on a society's unsecured lending to individuals from £5,000 to £10,000.
There is one further point which will be of interest to your Lordships. The orders will considerably widen the scope of building societies' activities, and it is therefore appropriate to review the scope of the building societies ombudsman scheme. The Building Societies Commission will be consulting interested parties on this shortly.
These proposals will create a more sensible framework for societies and provide them with a clear basis for their future planning. They will give societies the freedom to develop and to compete across a wide range of financial services. And, most important, they will enable societies to provide a better, more flexible service to their customers, which is all that most societies wish to be able to do. I therefore commend the orders to the House and beg to move that the first order standing in my name be approved.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord for having, as usual, presented the orders in a concise and extremely clear way. I am a little disappointed because it is necessary, as your Lordships will appreciate, for those who speak from these Benches to go through the orders with some thoroughness. This necessitates those of us who do not have a Civil Service machine behind us going through all the orders that are being amended and making detailed references to the Act itself. I am bound to say that it is a process that I found somewhat tortuous.
I am very glad that the present order has been laid. It finally clears up—at least I hope that it finally clears up—the construction of Schedule 8, because we had four orders in the course of last year dealing with the provision of services. We had one on 5th February, No. 172; we had another one on 19th October, No. 1848; we had a further one on 16th November, No. 1976, and a further one on 19th November, No. 2019. In addition to that, we
1656
had No. 1670 dealing with the banking institutions, and No. 1975 of 18th November dealing with limited credit facilities. All these have had to be traced right the way through to the Act itself. After a somewhat tortuous process, I am sorry to announce to the noble Lord that I cannot find very much to oppose in them, which for me sitting on this side of the House is rather unusual.
However, I have a few remarks to make upon the general purpose of the orders themselves. It is wise to give building societies broad, general parameters within which they can operate, making specific exceptions and prohibitions, rather than the other way round as in the original Act, approaching the matter from a negative standpoint. This, I agree, is a much better way of going about it.
Speaking generally on the extension of the provision of services which this order provides—and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us the assurance that we shall not have another one, at any rate after a short period of time, because we have now had enough and hope we have got it reasonably finalised, with the agreement of the building societies and the Building Societies Commission—we on this side of the House are in agreement with the extension of the provision of financial services. We approve that within the context of the banking situation as a whole.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for reminding the House—and some of your Lordships may themselves remember it—of the time when one went along to a bank for an advance of money and, as long as one could prove conclusively that one did not need it, the bank would, in effect, grant a loan very willingly.
Times changed the moment the explosion of the OPEC countries happened, when masses of funds were made available to the banks, which thereupon found themselves with the embarrassing necessity, having accepted the deposits, of relending them. So we had a new picture where banks, which had hitherto been operating under the kind of restriction which I mentioned and the kind of attitude which I experienced personally, began to fall over themselves in competing to lend. This was a complete revolution in the banking industry. I do not want to stray too far from the orders, but your Lordships will be familiar with the way in which banks fell over themselves and competed with one another in South America and other places in order to lend money under the most dubious excuses so as to make a profit on the money that had already been deposited with them by the OPEC countries.
But I do not wish to open old wounds. Suffice it to say that the banks have taken advantage of this position, and we now have the situation where, for example, if one looks at a television set, one finds that one can get free holidays for a week or a weekend by undertaking to borrow money from a bank. One finds all kinds of television features in which the attractiveness of borrowing from banks is shown.
It is quite right that the banks should be subjected to a degree of competition by the building societies, which traditionally have a much closer contact with the people than some of the bankers operating within their old context. Indeed, on the basis of their reputation and their rather closer assocation

1657
individually with their investors and their borrowers, the building societies ought to be in a position to offer services.
Of course they suffered a minor setback. Your Lordships will be familiar with the privatisation of exremely large undertakings, when people withdrew their money from building societies in order to make investments, largely for stagging purposes, in the newly-privatised industries. I am very happy to observe that after the initial euphoria most ex-building society depositors decided to cash in and returned their deposits to the building societies. This is most agreeable and, as long as the Building Societies Commission fulfils adequately the functions that are given to it in the earlier part of the Building Societies Act 1986, there is an adequate safeguard for both the depositors and the borrowers.
In the existing provisions of service, I think that it is sensible that a power should be taken to provide bridging finance. There can be no doubt that hitherto one of the difficulties that has assailed people in the process of disposing of a house and buying another, or finding themselves as part of a chain of people who have to dispose of their houses before they are able to buy others, is the provision of bridging finance to cover the gap that inevitably takes place between the completion of both sets of contracts. I and my colleagues are all in favour of the building societies operating in that field. There seems to be no valid reason, if only in the sense of enlarging the competitive area, why building societies should not operate within the wider definition of services incorporated in the current order.
I am little troubled, as indeed your Lordships may be, about the provision of unsecured loans of up to £10,000 subject to suitable safeguards. Consumer credit at present is growing at an alarming pace. The extra billions that are being added to the current consumer credit bill sooner or later have to be repaid. I sincerely hope that circumstances will continue so that people are not subjected to undue stress in the repayment of their obligations. However, one remains a little anxious—particularly if one has been brought up in the tradition of neither a borrower nor a lender be—about the explosion of credit that has taken place in the country over the past few years on residential and commercial properties, with prices soaring as they are at present. I do not want to sound unduly pessimistic in this matter, but it seems to me that we have to prepare ourselves for some time when this inflated bubble may be burst. One hopes not; and one hopes that when that time comes, as in my view it will inevitably come, the building societies and indeed the banks will be able to deal adequately with that situation.
The only other anxiety that I have lies in the period that commences after five years when building societies will be able to undertake what is euphemistically termed "conversion", which means that they will be able to become plcs. I am not sure that the interest of the borrowers or the depositors will he served unless the Building Societies Commission, in accordance with its general powers, keeps a very close eye on this under Section 1 of the Building Societies Act to safeguard the interests of both the borrowers and the lenders.
I am well aware that on conversion to a plc it will be forbidden for any outside institution to take more
1658
than a 15 per cent. interest in the converted plc. This does not reassure me very much. With the new powers given to the building societies under the orders, which, if I may say so, are very detailed and have been very well drafted, I cannot see why it should be necessary for there to be conversion into a plc of any building society, which is based very largely historically and indeed at present upon a degree of mutuality and upon the individual interests of building societies. I am well aware that the Government take a completely neutral attitude in the matter: they apparently do not mind whether there is conversion or not.
Experience of flotation, of conversion into a plc, in these circumstances has not always been reassuring. One hopes that the Building Societies Commission will be very vigilant if it gives its consent—if indeed it is empowered to give its consent—to operations of this kind. At present the building societies as such are there for the joint interests of their depositors and their borrowers. The exertion of control by outside shareholders on flotation, comprising perhaps some of the big City institutions making a profit on top of that, may inhibit the operation of the building societies as we know them.
These are misgivings only. I voice them because I think it is proper they should be voiced. However, in general, and in view of the clear and lucid explanation given by the Minister in support of the Motion to adopt the orders, we on this side see no reason to oppose them; indeed, we agree with the purpose and texts in which they are couched.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am sorry that he was disappointed when he came to look through the provisions of the orders. All I can say is that I very much hope that I shall be able to disappoint him again in future. He asked for an assurance that this is the last stab at the matter. We do not expect further legislation on this scale for some long time, but the complexity of the orders is because they will operate within the enabling powers of the Act itself.
The noble Lord mentioned the risks by those involved in competitive lending, particularly in overseas loans that have not performed or that have been found to be virtually too risky and perhaps have not been repaid. The Building Societies Act places clear constraints on societies so that they themselves cannot get involved in such areas. Most of their funds must come from retail sources in the form of traditional share accounts, and at least 75 per cent. of the lending must be in first mortgages on owner occupied houses.
The noble Lord mentioned the dangers of sources of credit rising with particular regard to the increase of the unsecured lending limit to individuals from £5,000 to £10,000. The limit has to cover all unsecured lending to an individual, including loans for minor repairs and improvements, furnishings for a new house, loans for a new car and the limit on any credit card issued by the society to its customer. The present limit is felt to be too tight to make operational sense. The Government have therefore agreed that it should be raised. We do not believe that this will mean that societies will start making large unsecured personal loans. They are prevented from doing so.

1659
The Building Societies Commission will continue to ensure that societies have adequate credit assessment and control procedures firmly in place.
The noble Lord expressed some doubts about the prudence of converting from a building society to a plc. This is an area where the rules relating to the procedures that have to be gone through are very carefully set out, and include the number of members of the building society who have to vote, and the number of those who vote who have to be in favour. The Government have no views as to whether they should or should not convert. However, we believe that after they have converted there is no reason why any social purpose should just disappear. After all, social purposes exist in many businesses, not just in mutual funds. It is hoped of course that that would continue.
After conversion, and after a five-year period, the noble Lord asked: what will happen then? That is a matter for the new company's commercial judgment. But we cannot and should not presume that a company would necessarily enter into high-risk areas. Any society which converts will be subject to prudential control by the Bank of England. That does not disappear after five years; it is an ongoing means of control. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I commend the first order standing in my name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988
7.31 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee]—[Lord Beaverbrook.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
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 7.32 to 8 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 94, line 6, at end insert—
("Care workers
9A.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—

(a) at any time on the day he is employed to provide care or support (or both) to another person or other persons, and

(b) such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State are fulfilled.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above the conditions may—

(a) require the person's employer to be a charity or fulfil some other description;

1660

(b) relate to the period for which he is employed or other factors concerning his employment;

(c) require his income for a prescribed period (which contains the day concerned) not to exceed a prescribed amount;

(d) require his capital not to exceed a prescribed amount;

(e) require him to be resident in prescribed premises;

(f) require him not to exceed a prescribed age;

(g) require the other person or persons to fulfil a prescribed description (whether relating to age, disablement or otherwise).").

The noble Earl said: I am sure, my Lords, that this amendment will be welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House. It has been tabled following discussion at an earlier stage of an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to exempt community service volunteers.
In the light of that discussion, the Government have reconsidered the issue very carefully and have concluded that there is a case for exempting a tightly-defined group of people who provide a valuable service to the community as voluntary carers for the elderly and disabled, in return for a very small reward—typically about £16 a week. The case for exempting this group of people does not, I must stress, rest solely on the undeniable fact that these young people provide an invaluable community service. The same can of course be said of many people whom we do not propose to exempt from the community charge. As I have said before, on many occasions, widespread exemptions would undermine our principal objective of restoring local accountability by spreading much more widely the burden of paying for local services.
Community service volunteers are, however, a special case by virtue of the fact that they are paid at a level considerably below the level of income support. Yet, because they are not available for work, they are not eligible for income support and do not therefore qualify for the extra income support payment which will reflect 20 per cent. of the average community charge. For this reason the Government have concluded that an exemption would he appropriate.
Your Lordships will have noticed that, under the amendment, the precise definition of a voluntary care worker will be set out in regulations. There was some measure of agreement at an earlier stage that it was not easy to define this group of people precisely. I am sure that the House will agree that it is sensible therefore to consult with charitable organisations, such as CSV, and with representatives of local authorities, before finalising the definition. The terms of the amendment do of course point in the direction we intend to follow by setting out the conditions which the Secretary of State may stipulate. These include the condition that the person is employed by a church or charity; conditions relating to the length of employment and the level of income and capital; and conditions relating to age, the residential nature of the job and the kind of person who is receiving care and support.
I believe that this amendment represents, in the clearest possible way, our willingness to listen to and to act upon the views expressed in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on producing this

1661
amendment after the long discussion we had at the Committee stage. It was originally proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. They are evidently so content with the achievement of the noble Earl that they do not consider it necessary to be here. I am delighted with the amendment. Whatever reasons the noble Earl has given for his department convincing itself that the amendment is so necessary for the community service volunteers—whether it is on a moral basis or on a more practical basis, as I argued previously—it is necessary and desirable. The Government ran a grave risk of undermining that voluntary service and therefore making it very difficult for a number of elderly and disabled people to continue their lives comfortably as a result.
I am delighted that the Government have quite definitely exempted all community service volunteers. When we come to the other category of people mentioned when I spoke about this at the Committee stage—the more permanent voluntary workers in the various communities—I believe that the qualifications provided by sub-paragraph (2) in the amendment will cover these matters very well. The great majority, especially those I am thinking about, will be looked after in this respect.
There are two questions that I wish to ask the noble Earl. I do not believe that subparagraph (2)(d), which concerns capital not exceeding a prescribed amount, will affect a large number of people. But at the same time it is possible that before taking up this work they might previously have owned and kept a little cottage or something of that nature. I hope that that kind of asset will not be treated as disqualifying capital, and that it will depend much more on the income they receive from any little savings that they have. I hope that these measures will not be too stringent and I welcome a little clarification from the noble Earl when he replies.
My second point is possibly more confusing, or perhaps only I am confused. It concerns heading (f) which states that the person is not to exceed a prescribed age. I am not quite sure why that is included, because our people who do this excellent voluntary work and who may have devoted their lives to a certain community or organisation, may be pensioners but are still doing this work. I should like clarification on that and to know whether after a certain age they are to be exempted from the community charge, and if so why.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply, but at the same time I am delighted on behalf of these people and congratulate the noble Earl and his department and thank them very much indeed.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend's Amendment No. 19 has been directed mainly to fulfil an undertaking that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her amendment moved in Committee. I am sure that many Members on both sides of the House will be very glad about the amendment in so far as it meets that undertaking. I should like to go a little further because during the Committee stage it may be remembered that I too moved an amendment dealing with care workers, I was hopeful that my noble friend would have been able to do something about that amendment when it came to the Report stage.
1662
The care workers that I had in mind are those who are resident in charitable organisations. They deal with disabled people. These disabled people come for short courses and the whole charity and its institution at the moment carries no rates at all. But the care workers about whom I am concerned are a slightly different class to the care workers dealt with in the amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. In her amendment care workers, as my noble friend has said this evening, have been volunteers. They have received board and lodging and little more except what one might regard as pocket money. Therefore they were eligible to be exempted. It is right in my view that my noble friend has taken that line. But I remind him that in my amendment the care workers were rather different. They also were resident in charitable homes. They also received free board and lodgings. However, in view of the fact that the disabled people who came to the institution on short, energetic courses had to be given special treatment—with the instructors being armed with considerable expertise not least because of the degree of danger in some of the activities undertaken by some of the disabled people—the care workers were paid a salary. The salaries that they are now paid are substantially lower than what might be regarded in relevant terms as being the going rate for their expertise.
If they are not to be exempted then in the particular charity that I have in mind the trustees have decided that they must increase their salaries to meet the extra cost and the income tax that would be relevant in order to make good their loss. That means that the charity will have to find approximately £4,000 a year to meet that burden. Where will that money come from? It can come only from two possible sources. Either it can come out of charitable funds, which means that the excellent activities of the charity must he reduced by that amount, or it can be levied on the disabled visitors. They already pay a small fee and they will have to pay more.
When I saw my noble friend's amendment I was glad to see that he was proceeding by way of regulations. I believe that that will provide a degree of flexibility, subject to the conditions laid down in the amendment, to meet some of the cases that I had in mind. As yet my noble friend has not commented on the point that I made and I hope that in winding up he will do so. I realise that there is always the possibility for these instructors to be able to have a percentage of rebates, but that is an uncertainty and it may not meet the situation entirely, if at all. While I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced the amendment as it stands, and while on first reading the amendment 1 was encouraged to hope that it would meet some of my cases, I am worried by the fact that he has not mentioned that matter. I hope that he will be able to say something helpful in winding up. If nothing is done even if there is a degree of rebate, the disabled will suffer and one cannot escape from that fact.
I am sure that my noble friend is anxious to do all that he can to help the disabled. I am sure that his right honourable friend will be equally as anxious. It would be a great pity if at the end of the day they had the reputation of having done something which will be damaging to the well-being and progress in life of those disabled people.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in shorthand this is "Thank you" number three of today. I say that on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs who has retired to bed after 32 hours for a well-deserved rest. I know that she is grateful for the Government's amendment, which, as the noble Earl stated in a letter to me, is intended to give better effect to her amendment.
She has one qualification which I should like to convey to the House and I seek to draw out the Minister a little on the point. It is the question of the age limit. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has already referred to the matter, but a little bird tells me that the age limit is likely to be 16 to 35 years. I do not know whether there is any truth in that. I should like to suggest to the Minister that it would be undesirable to have any age limit for the reasons suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Taking the example of people in retirement entering a religious community, is there a great deal of difference in principle between that and people in retirement, later in life, over the age of 35, or whatever age—it does not matter—sacrificing all but a small amount of income, merely pocket-money, in order to help in a home or by helping individual people in need? As the noble Earl said in introducing the amendment, they are earning on average £16 per week, which is really pocket-money. Is it desirable to discourage those who may be taking retirement, or early retirement, from undertaking such work by excluding them from the exemption?
I appreciate that that is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide in regulations. At this stage it is not a matter which I wish to table as an amendment to the Government's amendment. I hope that the Minister will take the matter away and recognise that there is nothing significant about young people being community service volunteers. It could be people of all ages, and their case is equally strong because of the conditions in which they choose to work.
I have less expertise in the matters which the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has introduced. I am sure that the Minister has taken serious account of them. It appears to be inequitable that, where permanent staff in residental care homes have in the past been exempt from rates because of their charitable status, they should now become liable to pay the poll tax for the first time, even though they are permanent and paid. That must come either from the pockets of the people in residential care or more probably from the pockets of the charity. That is an arithmetical certainty. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give comfort to his noble friends in addition to giving comfort to me.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to this amendment. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Hastings that we have not yet decided to employ a capital test. We shall consult the organisations concerned before deciding whether to set a test and, if so, where to set it. We shall bear in mind what my noble friend has said. Of course the same point applies to the question of age. We shall bear in mind what your Lordships have said in deciding whether to use age as one of the criteria. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that is a matter to be decided in the future. Your
1664
Lordships' comments are important in the decision taken by my right honourable friend.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Rochdale would have preferred me to have gone further and announced a general exemption for all residential charity workers. However, I am pleased that he has welcomed the substantial concession for community service volunteers. I must say that salaried charity employees are not in our view in the same position as the group we wished to exempt because their financial situation is very different. As I have already said, we could not justify an exemption for them, notwithstanding the very high regard in which we all naturally hold them, without seriously eroding the essential objective of restoring local accountability.
I hasten to remind my noble friend that assistance will be available through the rebate scheme for those whose incomes are low although it may well be that in many cases the incomes of charity workers are sufficiently high to enable them to pay the full charge. I believe that my noble friend was not quite sure whether rebates would be available but perhaps I may assure him that if the criteria are met rebates will be available. I know that he will be pleased to recall that the rebate taper is better now than it was when the Bill was at an earlier stage.
I note what my noble friend said about increased costs to charities but I believe it is essential to bear in mind that the community charge is a personal liability which is completely unrelated to the premises in which a person lives. Like all adults charity workers would have to pay the charge whether they live in their own homes or in tied accommodation. Therefore there is no sense in which the community charge discriminates against charity workers who are required to live on the premises where they are employed rather than in their own houses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 94, line 41, at end insert ("and
(c) the day does not fall within a period in which a person is temporarily residing, as a result of actual or threatened violence, in a refuge established for that purpose, or in such other accommodation as prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lady Lockwood who is unable to be here, as I am sure the House will recognise, as her husband died at the week-end.
In the circumstances I do not believe that I can do much more than ask questions of the noble Earl and convey the answers he gives back to my noble friend. The purpose of the amendment is well known; it was discussed in Committee. The amendment is about women's refuges; those refuges which are provided for battered wives and those who are threatened by violence by their husbands. Indeed, the amendment is quite properly phrased without the gender implications which are implicit in what I have said—it could be a husband battered by a wife.
In an earlier debate this afternoon when we were discussing the release of information from the social services to the community charge registrar, the

1665
Minister indicated that those who are under threat of violence would he exempted from the disclosure requirements. That seemed to indicate, unless I misunderstood him, some degree of understanding of the problems which exist for those who are fleeing from marital violence.
I hope that he will feel able to recognise that the same problem exists not only in terms of disclosure of the address—which is clearly a very sensitive issue—but also in terms of the financial circumstances in which those people who are under threat of violence find themselves. If they have left the marital home under threat of violence it is clear that they have done so under huge provocation and almost certainly without proper financial preplanning. Indeed, I would venture to say that it would certainly be without proper financial pre-planning because, by definition, that is almost ruled out. They will be in very uncomfortable and dangerous circumstances, possibly personally in relation to children and in relation to the threats which exist from the spouse from whom they are fleeing.
It would not be an inhumane gesture on behalf of the Government to agree to the amendment of my noble friend. I am sure it would not cost a great deal and I do not believe that it would do any significant harm to the principle of accountability. However, it would show a recognition which the Government have already shown in relation to the disclosure of information as regards exemption from the community charge. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support this amendment. Women—and it is usually women—who are in those refuges are not there by choice. They do not wish to stay there a moment longer than they have to but very often they are at the lowest ebb in their lives. It would be a humane gesture by the Government to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this amendment is identical to one moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at an earlier stage. I am sure that all your Lordships would like to join me in sending our greatest condolences to the noble Baroness. Our thoughts are with her as indeed they are with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in these difficult times for both of them.
I should like to begin, as I did at an earlier stage, by underlining the Government's high estimation of the work done by women's organisations in providing places of refuge for women who suffer from or face the prospect of domestic violence. I think it is evidence of the high regard in which we hold these organisations, and also of our willingness to listen to their case, that we decided to allow battered wives, and other people who live under threat of violence, to register for the personal community charge without making public their names and addresses. That covers one concern raised by the noble Lord in moving the amendment.
We have also assured women's organisations that, in practice, women's refuges will not be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge—which was one of their original concerns.
We have, therefore, gone some considerable way to meet the difficulties foreseen by women's
1666
organisations. Indeed we have gone as far as we believe we can go without departing from the principles underlying our policies—most notably the objective of restoring local accountability by ensuring that almost every adult has a financial stake in the decisions of his or her local authority.
I can assure the noble Lord that I have listened with great care to everything he has said about the question of an exemption, which is the issue which divides us. But, even after further reflection, the Government remain of the view that it would be unjustifiable to grant an exemption to women in refuges. As I have said before, we believe that exceptions can generally be justified only for those groups for whom local accountability cannot be said to operate. Women in refuges cannot be said to fall into that category.
I must of course re-emphasise the Government's acceptance of the fact that many women in refuges will need help in paying the community charge. That help can and will be provided, where appropriate, by means of rebates of up to 80 per cent. and the uprating of income support to reflect the minimum 20 per cent. liability. Once a married woman leaves the marital home, and ceases to live in the same household as her husband, she will become eligible to apply both for a rebate and for income support on the basis of her own income—not on the basis of her and her husband's joint income. Similarly a person who has been living with a man will become eligible to apply for a rebate and income support in her own right, as soon as she and the man cease to live together as husband and wife.
I do understand that the concern is not just with the entitlement of battered women to benefits, but with the practical arrangements for claiming those benefits. I have done my best to demonstrate to your Lordships and to representatives of women's organisations, that any practical difficulties can be overcome. I explained at some length during an earlier stage how I believed the practical arrangements would operate smoothly and efficiently. I know that I may not have fully convinced the noble Lord of this. But I must say to him that the Government could not justify exempting a group of people on the grounds that those people would prefer not to have to claim a rebate.
I hope that the explanations which I have given will satisfy the noble Lord that most of the fears which he has announced this evening will be met.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the circumstances I do not believe that I can do much more than convey the remarks of the noble Earl to my noble friend. However, I fear that she will be disappointed, as am I, with his response. It is not just a matter of what these people want. The whole argument which is being put is on the basis that they will or may become eligible for income support and for relief on that basis.
However, the point we are trying to make is that their position in these battered wives' refuges is inherently unstable. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, they do not want to be there. They are there because it is the first point to which they can return. They do not intend to stay there and do not feel any particular affinity with or responsibility towards the local authority area in which the refuge

1667
is likely to be located. Therefore, the accountability argument does not apply at all. Presumably they want, as soon as they possibly can, to get out of the refuge and into a place where they can close the front door behind them and feel that they are on their own and are forming a stable household again.
This is very comparable in many ways to the short stay issue which we were debating earlier. I am sure there are very few people who stay in women's refuges of this kind for very long. If the Minister is not able to accede to the exemption argument put forward by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, will he at least consider between now and Third Reading whether there is a case for these refuges being considered comparable to short stay hostels and therefore subject to a 20 per cent. charge rather than the full charge? I invite him to respond to that before I finally make up my mind what to do about the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall consider that in the cold light of day rather than immediately. My first reaction is that I do not think that women's refuges and short stay hostels are comparable. I see quite a major difference between the two systems. However, I should like to look at the matter in a little more detail.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, not all married women who are abused find their way to hostels which are designated to provide special facilities for that type of person. I recall from my experiences in Manchester that there was a large women's hostel near the city centre which catered for a wide variety of ladies who were on their own. I am sure this experience is repeated in other cities, certainly in London. Some of these ladies were working and able to earn a living and support themselves entirely, but, because the hostel was in the city centre, people who had nowhere to go and were in distress, perhaps because of problems of violence at home, used to find their way there to live as a temporary relief. Can the Minister indicate whether such individuals will receive sympathetic consideration on the lines enunciated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey? I think there are a number of hostels throughout the country which have a percentage of that type of person in them, though they are not specifically for that purpose.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is describing is covered by earlier amendments relating to hostel accommodation rather than the women's refuges that we are talking about at the moment. The noble Lord can be assured that on general purpose hostels, where people are not receiving treatment or care, we have already made a major concession to come down to 20 per cent. of the community charge. The situation of battered wives is slightly different.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the situation may be different, but I suggest that in the cold light of day the Minister may feel that the case is even stronger for battered wives' hostels, and I
1668
hope that he will convey that view to his right honourable and honourable friends.
I do not think that my noble friend Lady Lockwood would wish me to do other than to thank the Minister for his response, to indicate my continuing concern on this matter, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 94, line 41, at end insert—
("Persons without fixed abodes
12.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—

(a) throughout the day he has no fixed abode in England and Wales or elsewhere, and

(b) at the end of the day the place of his sole or main residence does not consist of a building, caravan or residential boat.

(2) A residential boat is a boat which is designed or adapted for human habitation.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 129.
During Committee stage, I said that I would consider whether homeless people should explicitly be exempt from the personal community charge. The result of that deliberation is this group of amendments. We have decided that it would be right to ensure that the community charge is not payable by those who sleep rough. These people, who may live in cardboard boxes in central London, or as tramps in country areas, are probably the most unfortunate members of society. This debate is perhaps not the time for discussion of why they are living in those conditions, or what can be done about it. But we have decided that we should not add to their troubles by making them subject to the personal community charge, even in theory. Nor would we wish community charges registration officers and local authorities to be faced—again, even in theory—with the duty to register these people for the community charge and collect it from them.
The amendments seek to add to the exemption schedule a new paragraph setting out the basis for an exemption for people with no fixed abode. The kernel of the proposed definition is based on a proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, at Committee stage. It applies to individuals whose sole or main residence, at the end of the day, does not consist of a building, caravan or residential boat. We have added the requirement that he should have no fixed abode—to prevent, for example, a person becoming exempt simply because he spends a week on holiday in a tent. I hope that this amendment will have the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is "thank you" No. 4. The Minister is right in calling it a major concession. Indeed, I am tempted to call it a victory because of the strength of the argument which was put in favour of the case for not taxing the homeless. The media have already picked it up as being a major victory, and I believe they are right.
At least the Government have saved themselves from further cartoons showing the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment going round with torches and peering into cardboard boxes under Charing Cross arches. I am sorry, that is unnecessary levity for what is clearly a very serious

1669
problem with which, as the noble Earl says, we are not capable of dealing tonight. The causes of homelessness are a major matter which Parliament itself ought to consider with due seriousness on some more suitable occasion.
However, it is proper to say that the Government have recognised that the community charge would have been an unnecessary and extremely damaging extra burden on those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves homeless. We can only express our thanks to the Government for the amendment which has been proposed and indicate that we shall support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment is a splendid concession, but of course a resourceful and determined person could drive a coach and horses through it. Indeed, anyone who had a motor vehicle of any kind might wish to have been included in it. I suppose that there is quite a number of vagrant people with old jalopies as their only residence who would claim that they have as good a case for consideration as other people. Therefore, one wonders whether the words:
"does not consist of a building, caravan or residential boat"
should not be increased by adding "or motor vehicle".
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I always listen with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, but I think that on this occasion he might himself be introducing a little levity. Having spoken at quite some length on this particular problem in the early stages of the Bill, I join with my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in the appreciation he has expressed for this concession which shows recognition of the problems of homeless people. I think it would be extremely difficult to find anybody whom we would term "homeless" who would be in the ownership of even four wheels and chassis let alone a car capable of passing the necessary test to put it on the road.
Along with some of my colleagues, such as my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Stallard, who is unable to be here tonight, I should like to record my appreciation of the way that the Government have looked at this problem. There is no question but that, by every known criterion, homelessness is increasing at a faster rate than has ever been known before. I have listened to the logic of the argument and I have accepted it. As I said before, I welcome what the Government are prepared to do in this case.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to this amendment. However, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton has a point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he is a very busy man, as most of us are. If the Minister could take time off from his very busy life to travel around inner London with those of us who have already been there, to where these people have to live, if he finds anything resembling a motor car that any of them own, I shall be absolutely amazed. There is a possibility that somewhere one might find an odd
1670
one, but when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, used the term "resourceful" as regards someone driving a coach and horses through what the Government are suggesting for homeless people, I believe that to be a flight of fancy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question of the Minister. In the light of what my noble friend Lord Renton said, as the amendment is worded, can I ask what is the status of people such as members of the peace convoy? I believe that these are people who would have the means to pay 20 per cent. or more of the community charge, but they would be living in a battered vehicle, a battered bus or whatever.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch has put her finger right on the pulse of the matter. That is what I intended to say to my noble friend Lord Renton before the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, sprung to the rapid defence of his argument. We are not only talking about people in central London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that to find a coach and horses and jalopies in central London might be a little tricky. However, if he comes with me to the country and dons his wellie boots, I believe that there is a fair chance that he might look at the problem from a slightly different point of view.
My noble friend hits the point because any addition to an exemption inevitably makes interpretation of who is to be subject to the charge much more difficult. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall be watching very carefully to see how the legislation is interpreted. If necessary, we shall make amendments to achieve the correct result. Generally, where people live in structures that are designed or adapted for habitation, whether or not they are mobile, we envisage that they will he subject to the personal charge. Such persons will generally have incomes from earnings or from social security benefits. That is the point of the so-called peace convoy or more likely a hippie convoy, which my noble friend Lady Blatch mentioned.
I cannot fail but take the opportunity to remind the House that if there were to be a local income tax, that would also require people with nomadic lifestyles to be assigned to a particular local authority area. There are some difficulties in that situation. I hate to become involved in matters of interpretation with such an eminent lawyer as my noble friend Lord Renton, but an old jalopy is neither a fixed abode, a building nor a caravan. Therefore a tramp with only an old jalopy would be exempt and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that he should be exempt. If the vehicle is designed or adapted for human habitation, it will be a caravan and in that case we hope that the person will not be exempt.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I ask him whether he is not stretching the words of his amendment a little far. It is only the residential boat which is specifically mentioned as something which is designed or adapted for human habitation. It seems to me that if someone has a motor vehicle of almost any kind and he has no fixed abode and that:
"his sole or main residence does not consist of a building, caravan or residential boat",

1671
but is a motor vehicle, he would claim exemption from the community charge. That is my point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that only confirms how wary I am about taking on the noble Lord on a matter of interpretation. Perhaps I may look at the point between now and another stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Section 3: interpretation]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Persons subject to collective community charge]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 24, 35, 53, 154, 156, 170 and 192 are all simple drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I also speak to Amendments Nos. 26, 37, 38 and 40 which stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and myself. In total the amendments are designed to raise the concept of what we call a family community charge. What we are trying to do in this series of amendments—I shall not weary the House by going into the details—is to ask noble Lords to recognise that, besides raising revenue or making families, homes, individuals and businesses accountable, there is something else that we should be trying to achieve in running our lives—namely, seeking to maintain the unity of the family.
We recognise that this is an additional veneer to the already complicated basis of the community charge. In essence we are saying that there is a group of young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who can be very easily driven away from home because of the fact that they have to pay the community charge or a charge has to be borne by them, the parents or the family. In addition, we have in the nuclear family those who are very old and yet no age is taken into account as regards the burden of payment.
The concept that I am asking the Minister to accept in principle is that, in order to maintain the unity of the family as far as possible, one may be able to devise a means whereby the totality of the payment for the family in a household is not merely four or five times the charge, but that there are allowances built in because of the age of the young or old people who are on the margin. We are not putting forward this concept as being the saviour to the break-up of homes and social disruption. We are arguing that this could be a useful device which will enable families to stay together.
The argument we put forward is that those in the family who are not working or who are elderly should be able, with dignity, to remain as a family unit. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept this suggestion because of other reasons, I hope that he will pay tribute to the basis of the amendment which has been promoted by a number of well-known organisations and individuals. It is not an attempt to evade or thwart what the Government are doing. In practice we believe that for people on the margin, if less money is paid to the community arising out of the community charge, there could be great cost-saving by the community if we have more well-integrated and loving family units living at home. The social cost of the full implementation of the community charge may well be high. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I see the point that the noble Lord is trying to make, but paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 26, which is the main amendment to which he is addressing his mind, leaves itself open to varied interpretations. The expression "wholly or mainly" can be quite easily interpreted by registration officers in different ways. There is also the expression "sole or main residence". "Sole residence" gives rise to no problem at all; but "main residence" can have different interpretations, according to different opinions. While I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is trying to make—in human terms it is worth making—I have some doubt whether the solution he proposes would be administratively workable.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments are revised versions of amendments tabled at an earlier stage. My noble friend Lord Brentford took the trouble to write to me about his proposals and I was therefore able to write back to him with a full explanation of why, even in their revised forms, the amendments do not find favour with the Government. Some of what I say repeats what I have said to him in writing, but I am sure that it will be helpful to all noble Lords if I set out the Government's case in full.
The central feature of the amendments is the collective assessment of families. That is, I am afraid, unacceptable to the Government because, despite what the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, it runs directly counter to our policy of increasing local accountability. One of the great drawbacks of domestic rates, which is in effect a household or family tax, is that rate bills are sent only to householders, of whom there are about 18 million in England, out of an adult population of more than 35 million. The result is that about half the adult population has no direct and immediate stake in the spending decisions of the local councils. This in turn means that councils are not fully accountable to the people who pay for local services. We believe that local accountability can be restored only if almost every adult makes a direct contribution towards the cost of local services. This will be achieved under the community charge, because almost every adult will receive a bill for which he or she will be personally responsible. I think it is clear that any system of collective assessment would undermine these objectives.
It will of course be possible, under our proposals, for a family to opt for a collective method of

1673
payment; they could choose to pay all of their community charge bill together. But that, I believe, is as far as we can go without seriously detracting from what we regard as a vital principle: a separate bill for almost every adult.
The second main feature of the noble Lord's amendment is the proposal that young dependants, spouses and elderly relatives should pay only one-fifth of the full community charge. I can assure the House that on this issue there is really very little between us. The Government share the belief that assistance must be given to those who are unable to pay the full charge and, in particular, the needs of dependent relatives and young people on low incomes must be catered for. We are confident that we will achieve this through our proposed rebate system and through uprating income support. It is important to appreciate that, with the exception of married and unmarried couples, who will be assessed on the basis of their joint incomes, all adults will be separately assessed, both for income support and for rebates. This means, for example, that an elderly person living on the state retirement pension with his or her children will qualify for the maximum 80 per cent rebate, plus an extra amount of income support to reflect the 20 per cent. liability, regardless of the children's income.
Where I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is over his proposal that rebates should be paid to those who do not qualify for a rebate under the Government's scheme. We believe that our proposals—for the joint assessment of spouses and the individual assessment of all other adults, on the basis of their incomes—are fair and adequate and that there is no need for a supplementary rebate scheme. In any case, many if not most of the people about whom the noble Lord is particularly concerned will already benefit under our proposals. For example, any over-80 year-old who is dependent on another person—perhaps a son or daughter—would almost certainly qualify for the maximum rebate.
In conclusion, I should like to remind your Lordships of the major benefits which the community charge will bring to many of the most needy families in our community—the very people about whom all noble Lords are concerned. Eighty-four per cent. of single pensioners living alone will be better off than under the present system, as will 90 per cent. of one-parent families. On average, families with a net weekly income of less than £150 a week will also be better off with the community charge than with rates.
I felt it right to speak at a little length even at this hour of the night because I recognise the noble Lord's concerns. However, I am convinced that they are more than adequately dealt with in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am a little disappointed. However, to be fair to the Minister, he and his colleagues have taken seriously the points that were put to them. He was also fair enough to point out that correspondence has been exchanged with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who I am pleased to see in his place. He may very well wish to say a few words.
What the noble Earl has said will be read with great interest by many outside the House. I do not dispute the fact that various measures are already available to
1674
individuals. The Minister has introduced exceptions for a range of deserving groups—religious communities, the homeless and those unfortunate people who have to stay in refuges. This amendment asked the Government to look at a unique and loving relationship—the family unit. The Minister has indicated that he is satisfied that the Bill as it stands takes account of all the points that were raised. Unless anyone else wishes to intervene, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Clause 6 [Community charges register]:
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 27:
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 request that his name and address shall be omitted from any public version of the charging authority's register, and the charging authority shall have regard to the circumstances of the request.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin with an apology. The amendment resembles one which I moved in Committee and later withdrew after the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had kindly given me certain assurances. In fact, the present amendment differs significantly from the earlier one, as I shall briefly explain in a moment. However, in the meantime the matter has become much more urgent, which is why I feel justified in asking your Lordships to reconsider it even at this late stage.
My objective is to allow foreign persons—your Lordships will understand that I have a special concern for overseas students from countries in political turmoil—to have their names and addresses removed from any public version of the charge authority's register if they believe that they or their families back home are in danger of severe political harassment or physical harm, including terrorist attacks. It is in a sense a companion amendment to Amendment No. 21, in which violence also entered; and so I fear that I already know what the Government's reaction may be, although the question of being excused from taxation does not arise in this case.
Since I last spoke, it has come to my attention that a group of students in one of our universities, who were opposed to the Baha'ist regime in Iraq, were physically attacked by supporters of that regime. Those supporters are also believed to have delivered milk contaminated with a dangerous drug to the victims' homes. It has also come to light that several countries have attempted, through their embassies in this country, to obtain the names and current addresses of students who are their nationals. According to my information, they include: Algeria, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Libya, Morocco, Uganda and Zambia—a fairly formidable list.
Of course, in the universities we have always refused to give such information. However, sometimes it leaks out and someone gets hurt. Since I last spoke on the matter, an Iraqi student has been stabbed in Manchester. The position is becoming most dangerous and very unpleasant indeed. We are especially concerned that the children of any political

1675
leader—not excluding members of the United Kingdom Government—could also be at risk.
In Committee the noble Earl assured me that the charging authority's registration officer would have discretion to exclude from publication the names and addresses where he considered that that was warranted—and I accepted that. However, on reflection, I must say that I no longer consider that to be adequate in the present circumstances, as I have just described them. The registration officer is unlikely to be a person of standing and experience in the politics of terrorism. On the other hand, I may have gone too far when, in the original amendment, I proposed that any foreign national could "elect" to have his name and address removed from the register. Therefore I now propose that he may "request" to have reference to himself removed from the public version of the register and that the request should be made to the charging authority itself—to which the matter would presumably be referred by the registration officer—and that
"the charging authority shall have regard to the circumstances of the request".
I see no reason why the name and address of any person should appear on any public document, if the person concerned explicitly prefers it otherwise. Many of your Lordships will have had personal references removed from the telephone directory for reasons much less serious than fear of terrorism. Of course that does not mean that the telephone authorities are unaware of the missing numbers, or of the corresponding names and addresses—although I must confess that I sometimes wonder about that. However, perhaps that is another matter.
The present amendment tries to deal with a nasty problem affecting persons who are visitors to our country, who have come here for a serious purpose and to whom we have traditionally offered protection and welfare. It tries to deal with the problem in a manner requiring no complex or time-consuming procedures, no loss of taxation income or breach—so far as I can see—of any of the principles enuciated in Committee by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a layman in such matters, but having read the debate which took place in Committee, I wish to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. He has been merciful to the House in that he has been most sparing in his quotations from the long list of evidence of attempts to "get at" students from different countries which has been supplied to him by various universities. In fact the list goes on for three pages and if he had read it out in full, I think that noble Lords would have felt—even more strongly than they ought to feel now—that he had made a valid case for this modest element of further confidentiality and privacy.
I wish to emphasise that there is no attack in the amendment on the principle of the community charge and there is no question of anyone being exempt or rebated from the community charge. What is required is that those who come from countries which are unfortunately less liberal in their political approach than we are and which seek to pursue their vindictive attacks on opponents of their regimes—even on students who are studying in this
1676
country—should not be able in any way to do so by the requirements which might be placed on the certification officers in our universities and colleges.
I hope that the Government will see the force of this case, which is a humanitarian one, and will feel able to support the amendment or, at least, something like it.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I should like to express my support for this amendment. It is of course a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on this occasion rather than to disagree with him—even if mildly—as has happened previously. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that the number of overseas students, of all varieties, is steadily rising. The regimes from which they come, even if they are apparently fairly mild at the time when the students come here, can change quite dramatically while they are here. Therefore it seems to be that what is proposed is not unreasonable.
However, I am not 100 per cent. certain that this is the right drafting of the amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said that he felt that this amendment was better than the previous draft, and it certainly would appear to be so. I do not, however, wish to detain the House but I should like to say that from my own experience, and my own knowledge of such matters from the same kind of sources, I too hope that my noble friend will give the amendment all due consideration.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. This is a most modest little amendment. As has been said, it does not attempt to exempt anyone from any charge. It does not, so far as I can see, challenge the principle of accountability. However, the amendment is concerned with what I think your Lordships may occasionally have observed—that is, if any of you are capable of deciphering the graffiti on the London underground—namely; the tendency of quarrels of other countries to overflow into our own. It is something which is not peculiar to our country. It has happened in Paris, and it has happened in the United States where not so many years ago there was a quite alarming murder of the leading Baha'i in Stamford, Connecticut, which caused intense fear in the Baha'i community in that city—and for good reasons.
There have been murders in this country conducted by nationals of a foreign country against their fellow nationals for the sake of political disputes which had been imported. Apart from the evidence put before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, there is reason to suppose that the danger here is a real one. We know about the gathering of names, the threats and the fear of physical injury. I am not exaggerating when I say that in passing the amendment the House could just possibly be responsible for the saving of life. That is not something that legislation can often do. It is a point which I hope the Minister will feel able to think about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is nothing between the Government and your Lordships—those who have spoken and those who have not—who are concerned about the matter. We agree entirely about

1677
the importance of ensuring that those at risk of violence are not put under any greater risk as a result of the community charge system. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, admitted as much when withdrawing a similar amendment after debate in Committee. I hope that I can reconvince him of our good intentions.
The community charge register under Clause 6 will not be publicly available. It is only the extract, dealt with in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, which will be available for public inspection.
We decided several months ago to provide the right for an individual who was under threat of violence to secure that his name should not appear on that extract it, by being included, he would be under an increased risk of being traced. As I understand it, the amendment is limited to overseas students. That is obviously but one category of individual we have much in mind. There may equally be others.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, the amendment refers to persons, not to students. I spoke about students, but the amendment relates to overseas persons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misread his amendment. That confirms the point I was about to make—that students form only one category of individual we have in mind. There will be others, besides overseas nationals, who should have the same protection. They will be people, from overseas or not, who are at risk or individuals who fear domestic violence. We have already debated the position of battered wives.
We intend, in regulations made under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, to provide a right for all those people to have their names omitted from the published extract of the register if they are under threat of violence. We shall consult on the drafting of the relevant regulation. I appreciate that universities and other bodies have a legitimate interest in the matter.
I shall return quickly to the point about students. The amendment refers forward to Clause 13(1), which is only about students. I was right in my initial interpretation, but even so, I think that we have covered the point that we are concerned not only about students. Overseas nationals come here. Some of them will need and will rightly obtain protection and some will not.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, asked who would take the decision. We can look in detail at the guidance to registration officers with regard to taking decisions on this point. However, I am not sure that giving responsibility to the charging authority, as the amendment proposes, is the obvious answer. We should not want the matter debated publicly in the local authority committee. That might increase some of the hazards. The proper guidance to the registration officer keeps the net much tighter, because the fewer people who know about unfortunate people in these circumstances the better.
I emphasise that our aim is exactly the same as that of noble Lords: to protect those individuals. The regulation-making power gives flexibility in achieving that. I reaffirm to the noble Lord that we will consult closely on the details of the regulations.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I must apologise for unwittingly attempting to mislead the House. The Minister has put us right on that point. It is clear that the Government's intentions, which have been even more clearly spelt out this time than in Committee, are entirely at one with what I and my noble colleagues have been suggesting. Everything will of course depend on the regulations and the instructions given to registration officers. I for one shall watch with great care what goes on in that respect. However, with the assurances that have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The registration officer shall at all times have regard to the provisions of the Data Protection Code of Practice which shall be issued by the Secretary of State in Regulations, in terms of the powers contained in Schedule 2.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 have been grouped together, and I shall therefore speak to them together although my view is that they deserve to be considered separately on their individual merits, as they differ. I hope that in replying to these amendments the noble Earl will feel able to deal in some way with the amendments individually.
Amendment No. 28 takes us back to the Committee stage where the Minister indicated that a data protection code of practice would be drawn up. The indication was that although such a code of practice would be drawn up, it would not be specifically referred to in the Bill itself. We thereupon had the very familiar discussion, which seems to arise in every Bill in which a code of practice is mentioned, as to whether it would be an advisory or a mandatory code of practice.
Amendment No. 28 tries to resolve that uncertainty. It requires the registration officer at all times to have regard to the code of practice as he carries out his functions and exercises his discretion. Therefore the status and enforceability of the code would be clear. It would still be the position that even then the code of practice would not be binding; the obligation on the registration officer would simply be to have regard to the code.
I think that the best argument in favour of this amendment is that if a code of practice properly drawn is to be of value, it should be referred to on the face of the Bill and should not be relegated to some form of guidance note for the registration officers. So much for Amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 29, on the face of it, is self-evident in that it proposes that:
"The registration officer shall obtain the information which he requires, and process the data, fairly and lawfully".
What is not apparent from those words is that it introduces into the Bill the data protection Principle 1 taken from the Data Protection Act of 1984. In practical terms it removes registration officers from the exemption which otherwise exists under the 1984 Act which is applicable to information gathered under some enactment. In requiring registration officers to act fairly, the amendment will ensure that those who provide information for the register are made aware of the uses to which that information is to be put. It will also restrain the overzealous

1679
registration officers as they go about their task of seeking information. It will require those who may otherwise be tempted to use deceit or practise nondisclosure to state the reason behind the inquiries they are making, whether they be inquiries of neighbours, employers or any other third parties. That is Amendment No. 29.
Last but not least is Amendment No. 30. I regard this as the long stop, and it is an important long stop because it provides that there shall be some limit on the powers of registration officers. I suggest that the fewer specific limits there are in the Bill, the greater the need for a general limit in these terms.
At Committee stage an amendment along these lines was met by the argument from the Government that they felt that what is known as the Wednesbury principle would be a sufficient restraint. The Government indicated to the Minister that they had taken advice. Clearly I wished to consider the position and take a little learned advice for myself. My own researches, and perhaps more importantly, the advice which has been taken suggests that the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness upon which the Government say we should rely is too limited. The Wednesbury principle enables a court to control executive acts and decisions, but the courts will only interfere if an executive body acts preposterously or in a way which verges on bad faith. The amendment will give some protection and guidance to cover the less extreme cases. If I am right and the two concepts of reasonableness are not the same, I suggest that what I propose in the amendment is to be preferred; that is, a broader, all-embracing requirement that the registration officer,
"shall seek only such information as he may reasonably require".
If I am wrong and the two concepts are the same, there is clearly no harm in having an expressed statement on the face of the Bill that the registration officer should act reasonably. That would still do some good. It would be a clear statement in the Bill that Parliament intends, for the benefit of registration officers and the courts, that there should be a general reasonableness limit on registration officers in the way they go about their job of obtaining information. It would still allow a discretion to the registration officer which the courts will, generally speaking, respect provided it is within the concept of reasonableness.
Amendment No. 30 is particularly important. The Government surely must realise that the success of the community charge depends upon public confidence, and the success in setting up the administration of the community charge will also depend on public confidence. But perhaps more important than those practical considerations are the considerations which underlie all these amendments—that the community charge and those who administer it should not intrude in people's lives any more than is absolutely necessary as a bare minimum. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Data Protection Act came before us some years ago my recollection is that the kind of protection that it was intended to give was not the kind of protection which the noble Lord seeks in this case. When the Data Protection Act was
1680
before us nobody envisaged that this Bill, or indeed anything like it, would ever come before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is quite right to have tabled this amendment in order to draw the Government on the way in which the registration officer, those who will give him information and those who will be able to see the lists should behave in relation to these matters. That is perfectly fair. But my own feeling is that the provisions to which my noble friend Lord Caithness drew our attention on the previous amendment should provide the kind of protection which is needed. I do not think much more is needed. I am thinking particularly of the provisions of Schedule 2(2) which go into some detail as regards exactly how much is revealed.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, may be much more concerned about the way in which the registration officer obtains his information. Again, without specifying the exact provisions, we know from the discussions we have already had on this Bill that there are limits to which he can go. Members on both sides of the House have very properly drawn attention to the fact that he should not have a roving commission which acts as a kind of detective finding out information from wherever the registration officer likes. However, I do not think that we need to go into the further restrictive provision or protective provision which the noble Lord envisages in his amendments. I doubt whether my noble friend would feel justified in accepting those amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the House will permit me to be pedantic for a moment. Amendment No. 29 requires the registration officer to act lawfully. It seems inappropriate to put that on the face, of any Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because, like him, I recall the debates in your Lordships' House concerning the Data Protection Act 1984. He is right in saying that at that time we did not envisage that there would ever be legislation of this kind before the House. It must have been for that reason that we allowed the provision in Clause 1 of the Data Protection Act—principle 1 of the data protection principles—that none of the principles apply to any data the disclosure of which is authorised or required by any enactment. The Data Protection Act says that if data were authorised by or required by an enactment, it is assumed that they have been obtained fairly if they have been obtained by a person who is authorised or required by law to provide them. I believe that it is clear from the debates which we have had on this Bill that that is not the case here.
In Scotland the community charge registrar for Strathclyde has been in dispute with his local authority about the lengths to which he was prepared to go in carrying on what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has called detective work in order to complete the register. There has been a state of what might be called undeclared war between the registrar and the Strathclyde regional council which cannot be good for the name of local government or for the reputation and job of the community charge registrar. To that extent something more is required than the simple assumption that the registrars will behave reasonably and properly.

1681
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, questions whether it is right to speak on the face of the Bill of information being acquired fairly and lawfully. That is the phrase which is used in the first of the data protection principles. It applies to information which could be required by law or could be obtained for any other purpose. There is a perfectly good precedent for using the phrase "fairly and lawfully" and it has a specific meaning to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has referred. It means that a person who is required to give information should be told why the information is being collected and all the ways in which it will be used.
Those are not principles which the Government will resist. I am sure that they will argue that information collected for the community charge register is being collected from those who are being told why it is being collected and how it will be used. Perhaps we shall pursue that matter further when we consider Amendments Nos. 30A, 75 and 76. However, the principle has been raised with the Government. I believe that the issue is well understood and that it would not be out of keeping for that phrase to be used in the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has told the House, the second condition in collecting data fairly and lawfully is that they should not be collected by deceit. Deceit is a very strong word. However, I suggest to the House that some of the indirect methods which some community charge registrars might be tempted to use—by that I mean using information collected for some other purpose for the purposes of the community charge register—could well border on deceit and would certainly border on a breach of the condition of being told why the information is being collected and how it will be used.
It is not only right that the words "fairly and lawfully" should be on the face of the Bill; it is also a precaution which is necessitated by the experience we have had in Scotland and by the powers which the community charge registrar is being given in other parts of the Bill. For those reasons I support Amendment No. 29 in particular but also the other two amendments.
I think that the amendment concerning data protection principles is particularly necessary because of the exchange that we had in Committee on 6th June. That was an occasion on which the Minister was less clear than he usually is or would honourably wish to be on the question of the legal status of the code of practice. I think that I am right in saying that at one stage he suggested that the code of practice would have legal status because that is what the law says. I am not sure that that is the case.
Without in any way imputing mischievous motives to the Minister, I should be grateful if he would spell out now, after due consideration, how he sees the legal status of the code of practice which will be adopted by the community charge registrar and how it will relate to the status of codes of practice under the Data Protection Act. That information would be very helpful to the House in considering how to proceed with these amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the amendments are not all the same. They cover related points but not the same point. They all have considerable value and very great importance for civil liberties. I believe that the House ought to take
1682
them seriously and that the Government ought to treat them sympathetically.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at an earlier stage we considered amendments similar to those we are debating now. It is appropriate therefore that I should repeat at least some of the remarks I made during discussions at that stage.
The first point that I must repeat is that the Government take concerns about civil liberties and about data protection very seriously indeed. It is evidence of our 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 guidance for registration officers and for charging authorities on operating the community charge system against the background of the Data Protection Act.
The first of these amendments, Amendment No. 28, seeks to give this guidance the status of a statutory code of practice and to require registration officers to have regard to it. Although I understand the motives underlying this approach, I do not believe it would be appropriate in this context.
We are introducing an entirely new system of local government finance, and the Government have therefore decided to issue a series of practice notes to local authorities and registration officers to explain the legislation and to suggest how practices and procedures might develop. I must stress, however, that these will not be statutory codes. On the one hand, it is not the Government's wish to offer an authoritative interpetation of the law and, on the other hand, we wish to be able to offer guidance of a far more mundane, practical nature than would be appropriate in a statutory document.
For these reasons we intend that the many practice notes we shall issue in due course should be non-statutory notes by which registration officers and charging authorities may wish to be guided. They will not, however, be bound by any duty to have regard to them. Their duty will be to be bound by the terms of the statute as enacted by Parliament.
I would remind your Lordships that the Bill which became the Local Government Act 1986 originally contained a provision that local authorities should have regard to a code of practice on local authority publicity. In your Lordships' House the requirement for authorities to have regard to the code was deleted as inappropriate. Subsequently the Government produced guidance on codes of practice which underlined the fact that guidance may often be issued which is of considerable practical importance but where statutory provision is unnecessary.
It is our view that statutory provision is not necessary in this case. The guidance that we issue on data protection and the community charge will go beyond legal matters to which registration officers and local authorities must adhere. It will also contain advice on what I may refer to as "good data protection practice" and practical advice which the registration officer might wish to take on board but would not necessarily wish to be bound by.
I turn next to Amendment No. 29 which duplicates an amendment tabled at an earlier stage and which would require registration officers to obtain and

1683
process information "fairly and lawfully". Such a provision would simply be otiose. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that registration officers will in any case be bound, in the same way as all other individuals, to process information fairly and lawfully in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
Finally, I come to Amendment No. 30 which also duplicates an amendment at an earlier stage which would require the registration officer to seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions. I think that I can do no better than to repeat what I said at an earlier stage. It is the Government's intention that registration officers should be subject at all times to a duty to act reasonably. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has taken advice on this point. So, my Lords, have I. Doubtless your Lordships will have already realised that it has been confirmed to me that the registration officer's powers will—because of the Wednesbury principles—be read in precisely this way. We all realise that it is not unusual for legal advice to differ, but my advice is that the amendment is unnecessary because its effect is already achieved.
On a point of detail to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I cannot accept that his Amendment No. 30 would not cast doubt on the drafting of the Bill. It is not clear what the addition of this amendment would do, given the clear principle of administrative law that an officer of a public authority must act reasonably in the discharge of his functions and duties. A lack of clarity means that there must be an element of doubt, which surely we all wish to avoid.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he recall during the earlier stages of this Bill that we had an extensive discussion on even-handed treatment across the different local authority areas concerned with this Bill? Is it not a fact—I believe it to be a fact—that, if the Bill goes through as the Minister suggests, there may be different behaviour and different applications by various registration officers in their interpretation?
It is only recently that there has been concern about different codes of practice by various magistrates' benches in various parts of the country and about how they deal with different types of crime. Because there is no strict code covering what ought to be done, there are variations even between communities alongside one another. In one area, magistrates may impose a custodial sentence, while in the next area they may see a crime completely differently and impose a fine.
I am not convinced that we may not end up with variations in the behaviour of different registration officers. Legislation is surely supposed to be evenhanded across the community. If it is not, there will be some very undesirable consequences and very aggrieved people if they are being dealt with differently from their neighbours in the next authority's area, because they have different registration officers. I do not think that what the Minister said removes that doubt in any way at all.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister answers, can he confirm that I am right in
1684
saying that, except where subsequent legislation has exempted certain aspects, local government is subject to the Data Protection Act, so that when we are thinking about how information is obtained from local government, they will all be operating under that Act and there will be uniformity in that area?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Does the noble Baroness not understand that very often even Ministers of the Crown misinterpret what an Act means and are taken to court? I am not specifically referring to Ministers of any political party, but they have sometimes misread and misunderstood legislation and have been taken to court and told that they have been out of order. This type of legislation will create a minefield in that regard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl has yet resumed his seat. I wonder whether, when he replies to the interventions that have been made in his speech, he will consider the position of his own Government and the officials in his box. I quite understand that he and his colleagues in the Government need to consult officials in the box, but I observe that his noble friend Lady Blatch has been consulting officials in the box. Does that mean that that freedom is available to those of us who are on the Opposition Benches as well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, however tightly one draws a statute, with the very best will in the world human interpretation of it can be different. We obviously want to minimise that in respect of any part of this Bill when it becomes an Act, and I hope that your Lordships will wing it on its way with due speed. So the guidance notes will be sent to the registration officers and local authorities in order to minimise that. I understand the noble Lord's concern. It covers many points that occur in life. I assure him that on this occasion, as throughout the Bill, our guidance will be as clear as possible to avoid the very matters about which he is concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise unreservedly for approaching the officials' box. I was asking for some information that had nothing to do with what we are currently discussing. If that was out of order, I apologise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that it is not a question of order. The noble Baroness has the same freedom as we have to question Ministers, not officials.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I wish to deal with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If a code of practice was not needed in some form or other, I doubt that the Government would have indicated in Committee that they were in the process of cooperating with the data protection registrar in preparing a code of practice for the purposes of registration officers. I understood the Government to be saying that in Committee.
The purpose of the amendments, particularly of Amendment No. 28, is to give some proper status to the code of practice and, as the noble Lord, Lord

1685
Dean of Beswick, indicated, to help give a measure of uniformity throughout the country. The greater the status of the code of practice, the greater respect it will have, the greater prominence it will have and the greater the uniformity that will be ensured. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there are limits, we like to think, to what registration officers will do. If there are limits, they should be stated in the Bill which gives registration officers their powers. What the amendment proposes is not restrictive and it gives the Government and the registration officer nothing to be afraid of. However, I am conscious of the lateness of the hour. I take some consolation from what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The register shall remain the property of the charging authority and no part of it shall he copied and supplied to any person for any purpose other than for the purpose of administering the collection of the community charge and related purposes specified in this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe the House an apology for having submitted a manuscript amendment this morning. It is available, and has been available since this morning, at Brass Gates and in Princes Chamber. That does not excuse the discourtesy to the House in submitting a manuscript amendment, particularly on the first day of Report. In my defence I can only say that it was prepared with other amendments, it was intended that it should be submitted earlier and it slipped through the net.
In view of the grouping agreed, it will be best if I treat Amendment No. 30A as a paving amendment to Amendments Nos. 73 to 80. Although they are very different from each other, some are not too different from Amendment No. 30A.
The purpose of the amendment is to pursue the issue of the onward sale of the community charge register. The amendment says on the face of the Bill:
"The register shall remain the property of the charging authority and no part of it shall be copied and supplied to any person for any purpose other than for the purpose of administering the collection of the community charge and related purposes specified in this Act".
That refers hack in a sense to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If we had been able to agree that information for the community charge register should be collected fairly and lawfully, the question would already have been resolved because those who are giving information would have been told why it was being collected and the ways in which it was to be used. Clearly if the register were going to be sold on for purposes unknown, it would not be possible to give that assurance to those from whom the information was being collected.
This amendment links backwards to the amendments that we have just debated, and forwards to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which come later in the Bill. My understanding is that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, to which I have added my name, achieve the same effect as my Amendment No.
1686
30A but do so by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill.
My amendment requires the provision to be on the face of the Bill. Although I would prefer that position, I shall be seeking leave to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I believe that if we can all agree on the principle that there should be no onward sale of the community charge register, we must have faith in the Government to introduce such provision in the legislation. We shall be content that the intention of those noble Lords who spoke in Committee on this matter will be achieved by those amendments.
However, although there may well he agreement on those later amendments, I felt that it was desirable to put the case for the matter to be on the face of the Bill openly in your Lordships' Chamber rather than let it rest by default. There is a peculiarity about this series of amendments. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on the whole tend to extend the ability of local authorities to sell the register onward—and my noble friend will speak on that matter in a moment. Although some appear to go in the opposite direction, they do not all do so.
Amendment No. 75 which inserts "shall" instead of "may" in page 101, line 7, strengthens the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It leaves that subsection stating that the regulations shall include provision that the registration officer may not supply a copy of the extract and list to any person. That is the intention which many of us wished to achieve in Committee. It would be very desirable if the noble Earl, in responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could also respond specifically to Amendment No. 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. If he agrees that Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 have merit, he might also feel that Amendment No. 75 has merit.
This has been a matter of great concern to those interested in issues of civil liberties. They have been concerned about the general principle of information collected by statute and required for one purpose—the community charge—being available for other purposes. I quite see the point of my noble friend Lord Graham that if it is sold on in any way, it might as well be sold on on a fair and undiscriminating basis—but he can argue that point himself.
We prefer the information to be used only for the purpose for which it is collected, and the statutory powers which the community charge registrar must have in order to produce and maintain the register should be used only for that purpose. The Government indicated in Committee that they were willing to move in that direction. I hope that that is so. I hope that we shall reach a satisfactory and mutually agreed conclusion on this series of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, because of the grouping I take this opportunity to speak to those amendments in my name: Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 78 and 79. The Minister, who follows these things closely, will be well aware that on Second Reading I raised the concern of the credit granting

1687
organisations about the impact, not only on their business but on consumer credit, of accessibility to the register. The noble Lord may recall that his noble friend the Leader of the House, in reply to the debate on Second Reading, said that these were matters that had not been resolved. At Committee stage there was an exchange and the Minister said fairly that matters still had not been resolved but that by Report stage, which is now, he might be able to say something.
The background to my amendments is an appreciation of the real dilemma that exists not only for Ministers but also for a great many other people. We are all sensitive about the way in which individuals can have their lives made more miserable if their private and personal details are made open to anyone. The Minister and the House will reflect that my purpose is not remotely what I would have called cowboy accessibility to the registers (whereby the mere possession of the information could be sold for commercial gain) but I am very much concerned about the impact of credit.
Your Lordships will be aware that there has been a great growth of credit in the 1980s. Properly used and in the right hands, credit plays a valuable role in the modern economy. The Co-operative Bank, with which I bank (and thus I must declare an interest) has made many innovations with its Co-op Visa which is available to millions of Co-op shoppers as well as to customers of the bank and several building societies. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the Retail Consortium and the Building Societies Association—again by association I declare an interest in those two organisations—are also very concerned.
Credit enables people to spread their expenditure over time in such a way as to match their incomes, but at the same time the growth of credit poses problems. The vast majority of people have no difficulty whatsoever in exercising common sense and not taking on more credit than they can really strictly hope to repay. But there are others, well known to your Lordships and in general, who fall into difficulties, some deliberately and some through no fault of their own.
To date, the rapid growth of credit has not been matched by a corresponding increase of people getting into trouble. The reason for that is that the providers of credit, the banks, the retailers and their subsidiaries have become increasingly sophisticated in their system of vetting. In the high street shops, behind the customary signs encouraging one to apply for credit, lies a complex system of evaluation based on modern technology. One of two key inputs to any method of credit vetting is a method of checking that people are who they say they are. This is particularly significant in Britain, where we strongly resist any suggestion that we have identity cards.
Currently the major credit bureaux, which supply technological support to credit providers, have the electoral roll on their computers. If they were able to work on the basis of name and address information from the community charge register they could produce a 25 per cent. improvement in the quality of their information. That is because more people will appear on the register than on the roll. The register will be more frequently and assiduously updated.
1688
I ask your Lordships to reflect upon this fact: currently there are over 2 million judgments in the county courts, each on money plaints. If the community charge register were to be made commercially available the industry suggests that it would provide a much more satisfactory base for credit assessment in the 1990s. There would be a double benefit. First, it would save some people from themselves, and, secondly, it would benefit the majority who would save from the reduction in bad debt and write-off costs.
I raise these matters on behalf of those people outside who have asked me to draw them to the Minister's attention. I am well aware of the fine balance that needs to be taken. It is a matter of judgment as to the best interests. I do not want to lay open the personal and private details that may appear on the register in order that they can be hawked around.
The issue that I should like to put before the House is that, in the absence of accessibility to the registers in the way that I have suggested, there could be a great deal of distress, heartache and also social dissention. That is because more people will have access to more credit than they are able to handle and will consequently end up in the courts. I raise the points, I move the amendments and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to speak to my Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 80 and join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in suggesting that Amendment No. 76 would make better sense if it incorporated Amendment No. 75. Therefore it would read in the way that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described; namely, that the regulations should provide that the registration officer may not supply a copy of the register to any person.
The arguments were well ventilated in Committee. I shall not repeat them or the examples that I gave. The point is a matter of balance as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. The arguments that he put forward are entitled to respectful consideration. However, at the end of the day I suggest that people will be prepared to comply with the law and to provide their names and addresses for the purposes of the register. However, they will not expect the registration officer to use the register for any other extraneous purpose and they will not expect the registration officer to allow the register to be used for any other purpose. That may have nothing to do with the administration of the community charge.
I suggest that we have no business to expose members of the public to the risks which can arise if the register is made available to outside organisations. Some may be entirely respectable. The credit agencies can make sophisticated and possibly valuable use of the information provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, by protecting people from entering into too much debt. The risks from less benevolent third-parties still exist and cannot be avoided if the register is made available to potential misuse by other people.
We have no business to allow that to happen. In the amendments I propose that we should remove from the Bill the power to sell the register in any way. Although I support the paving amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I venture to suggest

1689
that my amendments, coupled with Amendment No. 75, may be preferable.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what has been said in the debate. In the light of a debate at an earlier stage we have given the issue the closest consideration. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are arguments on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, there are arguments which can be broadly described as deriving from concerns about privacy, civil liberties and data protection. Those arguments were put most forcefully this evening and at an earlier stage by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord McIntosh.
On the other side, there are the arguments that the extract from the register would be an important public document in which there would be considerable public interest and which would have considerable value to various groups of people, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has pointed out, the credit industry. It has also been pointed out that there are parallels between the sale of the community charge extract and the sale of the electoral register. That was a point made at an earlier stage. I would not claim that it is easy to balance these competing arguments and to make a judgment between them. Therefore, before giving the Government's decision I should like to make one or two points by way of background.
First, I should stress that the parallels with the sale of the electoral register are not exact. The electoral register is different from the extract from the community charges register in that copies of the former must be made available to the political parties for electoral purposes and are therefore already in the public domain. Therefore, it would be pointless not to provide for the sale of the electoral register. I must make clear that the provisions governing the sale of the electoral register will remain in force whatever the decision on the sale of the extract from the community charges register.
Secondly, I accept that the extract would be of value to interested groups including the credit industry. I accept the importance of ensuring that reliable credit information is available to the providers of credit. However, I do not believe that the value of the extract to outside groups and interests is the crucial factor. What is of overriding importance is whether the sale of the extract is justified within the terms of the community charge policy itself.
Thirdly, I should point out that there is value in the Government's view in making the extract from the register and the list of designated dwellings available for public inspection. There is a legitimate public interest in the accuracy of the register, which is fulfilled by inspection of the extract list if not necessarily by its sale. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that although the word "may" is used in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 16, the Government intend that the extract should be compiled and should be available for inspection for members of the public.
Finally, I come to the Government's decision on the sale of the extract and list. The crucial factor in making this decision is whether the sale of the extract
1690
and the sale of the list serve a particularly useful purpose within the context of the community charge system.
The Government have come to the conclusion that the new system will function satisfactorily without the extract and list being sold. Therefore, we have concluded that it would be right to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will use the power conferred by that amendment to provide that copies of the extract and list may not be supplied by any person.
I have indicated that this has not been an easy decision and that copies of' the extract and list may not be supplied by any person. I hope that this will find favour with your Lordships. Therefore, I commend to your Lordships the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I should add that if the amendment is carried, my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden will bring forward a similar amendment to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he confirm that the list which will be available to the public will have on it only the names and addresses? Is that right?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that to my noble friend. The extract is very different from the register.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that this is an opportunity to add to the tally of "Thank yous", which now numbers five. This is an important principle which the Government have conceded and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and others who argued the case in Committee have a right to congratulate themselves on a very major change.
It is also important to recognise, as has been confirmed to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the extracts which will be available for inspection, although not for sale, will consist only of the names and addresses and no further information. In view of the uncertainty that there has been in Scotland, it is important that the Minister has been able to confirm that that will also apply in Scotland.
We believe that something major has been achieved in preventing the onward sale of the register. We do not believe that it replaces the need for the other data protection amendments which were moved earlier, but it removes one clear obstacle to the ability of the community charge registrar to act in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act. The fact that it is being done by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill is in the circumstances a minor consideration, but it is a consideration which enables me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30A.
Lord Meston: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, withdraws the amendment, and since I shall probably not be here tomorrow formally to move the crucial amendments, Nos. 76, 77 and 80, perhaps I may add my thanks to the Minister and the Government.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, sits down, perhaps I may say that I appreciate very much the care and attention that the Minister and the Government have given to this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before we reach Amendment No. 76, will the Minister consider whether it would not be appropriate to agree also to Amendment No. 75? I am not suggesting that he should answer now, but I think he would agree that the subsection would be stronger with Amendment No. 75 and that it would not be out of keeping with what he has already said. In that hope, and in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Registers: miscellaneous]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 33.
Page 6, line 16, after ("after,") insert ("the occurrence of an event (such as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are uncontroversial drafting amendments which I hope are self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("a") and insert ("the same").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Liability to contribute]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("The") and insert ("Subject to subsection (4A) below, the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("formula") and insert ("following formulae").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with this group of amendments in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I apologise for not having been here earlier, but that would not have changed anything. I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert—
("(4A) Where subsection (4B) below applies the amount to be paid by way of contribution for a day in the contribution period shall be calculated in accordance with the formula—
A/Bx1/5
(4B) This subsection applies where on the day concerned the designated dwelling is a special designated dwelling.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
("(5A) The Secretary of State may by order substitute such proportion as he sees fit for the proportion of one fifth mentioned in subsection (4A) above or for the proportion for the time being mentioned there by virtue of an order under this subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Contributions: interpretation of formula]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 45, at end insert—
("(4A) A designated dwelling is a special designated dwelling on a particular day if on the day concerned it is specified as a special designated dwelling under regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 10, at end insert—
("(7) Regulations under subsection (4A) above may—

(a) provide that a prescribed charging authority may specify a designated dwelling as a special designated dwelling if prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(b) include provision allowing or requiring a charging authority which has made a specification to revoke it.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Contributions: further provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 11, leave out from ("9") to end of line 13 and insert ("above—

(a) a day on which an individual becomes resident in a dwelling shall be treated as a day on which he is resident in it,

(b) a day on which an individual ceases to be resident in a dwelling shall not be treated as a day on which he is resident in it, and

(c) as regards a day on which an individual both becomes and ceases to be resident in the same dwelling, paragraph (b) above shall apply and paragraph (a) shall not.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also speak to Amendment No. 239. Amendment No. 44 is an amendment to Clause 11 and a clarifying amendment which my noble friend undertook to bring forward at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in moving this amendment I believe that the Minister referred to it as being a clarifying amendment. Perhaps I am trying to over-simplify it. Paragraph (a) reads:
"a day on which an individual becomes resident in a dwelling shall be treated as a day on which which he is resident in it".

1693
Does that mean on the day of arrival? Paragraph (b) states:
"a day on which an individual ceases to be a resident in a dwelling shall not be treated as a day on which he is resident in it".
Does that mean on the day he departs? While this is an acceptable amendment, this is an unnecessary piece of gobbledygook. Paragraph (c) states:
"as regards a day on which an individual both becomes and ceases to be resident in the same dwelling, paragraph (b) above shall apply and paragraph (a) shall not."
The amendment could be simplified by the parliamentary draftsmen saying: "A day on which a person both arrives and leaves, the Act does not apply". I believe this to be unnecessary gobbledygook. Nevertheless, the provisions in it are welcomed by the organisations that were deeply concerned about this issue. In the main I am speaking about the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The Government have seen sense and realised that a charge on accommodation overnight is not acceptable. This amendment removes an anomaly which would have meant that people entering a hostel for lunch would have been charged a collective community charge. The amendment shows that people entering day centres for the social services are not charged a collective charge.
As I said, the amendment as tabled in the Marshalled List is a little too flamboyant. I believe it could have been simplified so that it would have been more easily understood by the people who will benefit from it. Even though the spirit of the amendment is welcome and accepted, the amendment should say that if the person arrives and leaves on the same day the Act shall not apply. I should like to hear the comments of the Minister on that point. I believe this is another plus mark that we have achieved and it is a substantial concession for which we are grateful to the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for so kindly having listed his questions. The answer to all three questions is: Yes, a person will be liable on the day of arrival; yes, he will not be liable on the day of departure, and yes, he will not be liable if he arrives and leaves on the same day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are being taken together. The intention behind the amendments is to clear us—what seems to us we may be wrong about the drafting—to be a possible confusion. At the moment it seems that individuals could be required to contribute to a collective community charge in one area even though they are subject to a personal community charge in another area. For example, if somebody followed the advice of the right honourable Norman Tebbit, got on his bike, came to find work in London and lived in a hostel, he could be susceptible to a collective community charge in
1694
that hostel (as the Government did not make the concessions for which we asked on general purpose hostels) but he could still be liable at his main place of residence to a personal community charge in the area from which he came. We appreciate that in certain kinds of hostels the Government will be charging only 20 per cent. of the community charge and that may make the double charging position perhaps less serious than we might otherwise anticipate. However, we cannot see why anybody should be put at risk of paying both the personal community charge and the collective community charge. If I have it wrong, I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the position. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just said, the amendments would provide that an individual staying in a collective charge property should not have to pay a collective community charge contribution if he is paying the personal community charge somewhere else. There are three reasons why I do not believe that it would be sensible or practical to accept the amendments. I shall outline each of the reasons in turn.
The first is that no injustice will be done if a person who is paying the personal community charge at his home address stays for a day or two in a collective charge property and has to pay a collective charge contribution. This is no different from the position of a person who pays the personal community charge at his home address and stays for a few days in a hotel. The hotel proprietor will have to pay rates on the property and will pass the cost on to the guest. I am sure that the noble Lord would not argue that hotels should be exempt from rating.
The second reason is that in practice we do not expect people who are paying the personal community charge to spend much, if any, time in collective charge properties. This is because dwellings can be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge only if they are used wholly or mainly to accommodate people who have their sole or main residence on the premises. By definition, such people cannot be subject to the personal community charge elsewhere.
The third reason is that this amendment would require the landlord of a collective charge property to ascertain whether each person staying at his property was paying the personal community charge elsewhere. In practice it would be difficult for a landlord to make this judgment, particularly in the case, for example, of a night shelter where the people who stay in the shelter may turn up in the evening and may be unknown to the landlord until then. In those circumstances, the landlord would have no option but to insist on collecting a contribution because if the person turned out not to be paying the personal community charge elsewhere, the landlord would be responsible for paying over a contribution to the charging authority.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will recall that we touched on that point, which perhaps led to a little confusion earlier with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. For all the reasons I have just

1695
announced I am confident that the approach embodied in Clause 5 is fair and sensible. I hope that I have now convinced the noble Lord that that is so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am far from convinced by the noble Earl's first argument about the hotels. All that he has shown is that the elaborate system which is being constructed by the Bill—with the three types of community charge and the national business tax—does not stand up to detailed examination. If we were dealing only with a business rate and a single community charge, there might be a better case. The analogy between hotels and hostels subject to collective community charge might be better than it really is, and it might be as the noble Earl has claimed. However, his other two arguments appear to have some force. Certainly the argument that there would be great administrative difficulties in hostels if they had to determine whether someone was subject to a personal community charge elsewhere has been sufficient to convince me that the right course would be to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.