Local Government Finance Bill

HL Deb 29 June 1988 vol 498 cc1659-95

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.

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—

1. (a) at any time on the day he is employed to provide care or support (or both) to another person or other persons, and
2. (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—

1. (a) require the person's employer to be a charity or fulfil some other description;
1660
2. (b) relate to the period for which he is employed or other factors concerning his employment;
3. (c) require his income for a prescribed period (which contains the day concerned) not to exceed a prescribed amount;
4. (d) require his capital not to exceed a prescribed amount;
5. (e) require him to be resident in prescribed premises;
6. (f) require him not to exceed a prescribed age;
7. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) throughout the day he has no fixed abode in England and Wales or elsewhere, and
2. (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 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 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", 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 35: Page 7, line 22, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("paragraph").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 8, line 10, at end insert— ("(7) Regulations under subsection (4A) above may—

1. (a) provide that a prescribed charging authority may specify a designated dwelling as a special designated dwelling if prescribed conditions are fulfilled;
2. (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 moved Amendment No. 44: Page 8, line 11, leave out from ("9") to end of line 13 and insert ("above—

1. (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,
2. (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
3. (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". 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 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 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 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.