Lords Sitting of 24 May 1988

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

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial savings have resulted from the 10 per cent. reduction in workload ordered by the Central Birmingham District Health Authority in September 1987.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the 10 per cent. reduction in workload related solely to the in-patients at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and not to the Central Birmingham District Health Authority as a whole. I understand that the savings from the temporary bed closures at the hospital, effected in September last year, are approximately £10,000 per month.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this amount is about one-half of 1 per cent. in savings at that hospital and that the cancer ward at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital suffered a 39 per cent. reduction? Does he think that it is cost-effective and efficient for patients from Kidderminster, for example, to have to self-administer their drugs before they have treatment and for them to have to get a taxi to go to and from the hospital because they are too ill to travel by public transport? Is it right that patients should be transferred to Stoke-on-Trent, which is a 90-mile round trip from Birmingham, every day for four to five weeks for treatment and that the waiting list has increased from four weeks to eight weeks for cancer treatment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the ordered reductions were across the whole range of specialties. I can advise the noble Countess that the reduction in workload across the hospital as a whole was 7·1 per cent. The 10 per cent. has not been reached. As regards cost-effectiveness, this is a matter jointly for the hospital authorities and for the clinicians themselves.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it conceivable that the Secretary of State or indeed the Minister could have given his approval to a decision by a district health authority simply to make a ruthless overall cut in the work of one of its hospitals? Is he aware that this cut is due to continue for a total of 12 months regardless of the consequences for patients? Does he agree with that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is the most extraordinary definition of a cut that I have ever encountered. Central Birmingham is most certainly getting more money. This year central Birmingham's budget is £92·2 million. That is a 5·6 per cent. cash increase over last year and a real terms increase of 13 per cent. since 1982–83.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the health authority requires a 10 per cent. cut in its workload, is not that a cut in its workload?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in 1986–87 activity in central Birmingham reached levels that were not planned until the early 1990s. In other words, the authority was in danger of breaking the law by not making ends meet. This was made worse by the fact that the district treats an unusually high proportion of difficult and therefore expensive cases. I would point out that over the district as a whole there has been a 9 per cent. increase in patient treatments between 1982 and 1987. I regard that as a success story.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider looking again at the actuarial basis of these figures, because outside government circles they carry very limited conviction?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they do not for anybody who has been treated in central Birmingham in the years that I have mentioned.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House whether the Government still have every confidence in the management of the West Midlands health authority and in the central district authority?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The Government have every confidence in the management. The management themselves realise that there is a slightly imperfect world as regards health in that part of the country. That is why they are reviewing the situation. The Government look forward to the results of that review.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister what he would do in the circumstances in which the regional health authority finds itself in Birmingham. I am quoting from the Birmingham Post of May 12th when the general manager, Mr. Ken Bailes, admitted that the authority had firm requests for projects totalling more than £15 million. It has £3·6 million to spend on those projects. Would the Minister like to tell us what his priorities would be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they would certainly not be increasing patient treatments at a greater rate than there is money available to do so. As regards the West Midlands Regional Health Authority as a whole, substantial increases in funding have enabled the region to treat 24 per cent. more in-patients, 17 per cent. more out-patients and 79 per cent. more day cases than in 1978.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how can the noble Lord justify that statement when he said on 23rd March in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it was patients who mattered to Her Majesty's Government, and not beds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, none of the answers that I have given this afternoon would, I believe, lead me to contradict that statement or those thoughts. I have been talking about patient treatments throughout. It is the noble Countess who has been talking about beds.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the money released to reduce the waiting list for urology in central Birmingham was used as effectively as it should have been, in view of the bed closures and the reduced number of theatre sessions which had already been arranged?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know that waiting lists for urology cases in central Birmingham have been reduced substantially. I do not have the details at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lady.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that Birmingham is a nice city which has produced some very distinguished people.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; and they are particularly well treated.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, will the noble Lord remember that Birmingham is perhaps the best governed city in England?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is an interesting point of view.

British Passport: New Format
2.45 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the phasing out of the present style British passport.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a new form of United Kingdom passport, which is machine readable and which is in a common format with those of other EC countries, is being introduced from July of this year. By the end of 1989, all new standard passports which will be issued in the United Kingdom will be in the new format. Passports in the present format may continue to be used until they expire.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, irrespective of any views which may be held on the EC, there is widespread dismay at the prospect of losing the traditional blue format of British passports in favour of a limp vermilion mini-version? Since the Home Office maintains that there is no such thing as a European passport and since
770
there is no legal obligation to impose one, will the Government think again and allow us to retain a symbol of which every British citizen is proud?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the adherence of my noble friend to the traditional British passport. However, I do not think that his description of the new one as limp, vermilion and mini does it true justice. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates the wording which is inside the passport and the coat of arms on the outside. Those will be precisely the same. The passport is being computerised in order to meet the increased public demand. That move was recommended by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and by a Rayner study in 1982. The manual form of passport was not compatible with computerisation. Therefore, we are modernising the system.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware of the very long delays in passport offices and the inconvenience which is caused to the public in seeking new passports? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, oddly enough the Government are aware of the delays, which are unacceptable. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in applicants on the corresponding period in 1987. We are trying to expedite matters by the recruitment of additional staff at all offices. Some 250 staff have been recruited. Overtime working at weekends has gone up by 65 per cent. The immediate grant of free short-term extensions to expired passports for personal callers and the issuing of emergency travel documents to personal callers whose applications cannot be readily traced have also helped.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, whether the description of the new passport by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is an overstatement or an understatement, can the Minister explain to the House why tradition should be sacrificed to the computer? Would it not be more acceptable to ask the computer to produce something like the old British passport?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is producing something like the old British passport. However, it is not producing the old British passport. The changes are being made so that the passport will have a common format with the passports of other Community countries. It is also being done in order to make the passport machine readable—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will understand exactly what that means—and to prevent the very troubles to which the noble Lord referred earlier.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, am I right in suspecting that the noble Earl has a sample of the new passport with him? Will he show that to the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has peculiarly penetrating eyes. I have a sample. However, I think that it would not be a suitable precedent to start flourishing things in the Chamber. It might encourage other noble Lords of less agreeable disposition, if there are any, to do the same.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the passport will contain the traditional wording:
"We, Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs", etc., etc.?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl has not got the wording right. It begins:
"We, Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State"
and it does not say "etc., etc.". Perhaps I may tell the noble Earl exactly what the wording is:
"We, Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary".
If the noble Earl is as diligent as I have been and compares that with his present passport, I think he will find that the words are the same.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, now that the Minister has shown us the passport—which he had not intended to do—will he accept that on these Benches we are delighted with the Government's enthusiasm for high tech and even more delighted with the unusually communautaire spirit in which they are backing the passport?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I particularly appreciate the communautaire spirit of the noble Baroness in congratulating the Government. I did not think that I had many friends around the Chamber and I am grateful to those I do have.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House and future brides that when brides take their husband's name their maiden name will, as it used to, appear in brackets in their passports after their marriage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be reticent about giving any assurance to brides on any matters—including the format of their names on the British passport.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with regard to the communautaire spirit, can the noble Earl give an absolute assurance that the French Government will comply with the new rules and the new passport, skilled as they are in adapting the Community rules to their own purposes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I were to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot answer for the French Government I think he would understand. I have no reason to believe that they will not.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Earl has made a very serious statement.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do my eyes deceive me or is the new passport smaller and less bulky than the present one?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is smaller in dimension. I have not counted the number of pages. It has a less flexible cover than the original and therefore may fit into ladies' handbags more easily.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether Parliament will have anything to say in the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the common format was agreed by the heads of Government within the European Community, and that is the reason why it is going forward.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree with regard to the communautaire spirit that that spirit has nothing to do with uniformity but with unity, and within unity there can be diversity? Since we have had a glimpse of the dreaded new passport will my noble friend kindly place it in the Library where it will clearly take up very little room?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend draws a semantic distinction between uniformity and unity. I would not wish to follow him on that. Even he will know that in this modern day and age there is a certain advantage in uniformity and that is one of the reasons why this is being done. With regard to placing a copy of the new passport in the Library, I shall certainly see whether that can be done.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the computer at the Passport Office will be better trained than the one at the DVLC which refused to understand that we were not all Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that those two computers will talk to each other. I have no reason to believe that the Passport Office computer will not be fully capable of dealing with the problem which the noble Countess has described.

Uniform Business Rate: Policy
2.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to delay the proposed introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990–91, and if so, what steps they will take during the interval to remove the anomalies which at present disadvantage the Scottish business community.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the Local Government Finance Bill provides for the introduction of uniform business rates in England and in Wales from 1990–91 but we have always made clear that the extension of a uniform business rate to Scotland cannot be contemplated until non-domestic property north and south of the Border is valued for rating purposes on a comparable basis. In the

773
meantime all Scottish business will benefit because from next year non-domestic rate poundages will be subject to index-linked ceilings.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while I welcome the statement about an index-linked ceiling, will the Minister agree that it makes no contribution whatsoever to removing the glaring anomaly in which an industrial plant based in Scotland pays £9 million in rates but if it were situated south of the Border in Carlisle or Newcastle its bill would be £1.5 million in rates? Can the Minister give Scottish industry any hope that there will he a degree of harmonisation in valuation which will take care of such anomalies?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, knows because he was present at the passing of the Scottish Act, discussions had to take place as a first stage between the Inland Revenue valuation office and the Scottish Assessors' Association. Progress in those discussions has been significant. Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the simultaneous revaluations in 1990, which will be a major step not least because they will help to clarify the extent to which differences north and south of the Border arise from different valuation practices.
I am very well aware of this particular issue, which is germane to the fortunes of Scottish industry. I think that the noble Lord will understand from my reply that the first steps have been taken. I shall be happy to elaborate on those further should the noble Lord wish.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is treading on dangerous ground in calling for harmonisation between England and Wales and Scotland? Is it not the case that the amount of government support per head of population in Scotland is some 27 per cent. higher than in England and Wales? When my noble friend is considering harmonisation in the interests of some of the hard-pressed areas of the North of England will he bear that fact in mind?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not think that this is the time or the place to go into a Scotland versus England and Wales debate. However I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I have to say to him and to others that the one thing that has to happen before we can have a unified business rate which will be effective north and south of the Border is for harmonisation to take place. That could well lead to legislation but I am very happy to report that so far the discussions between the two bodies have gone extremely well.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during the discussion of the Scottish Bill on the community charge great concern was expressed because the last revaluation in England had taken place about 15 years ago and because of the passage of time the necessary skills had been lost. Therefore, although Inland Revenue staff and Scottish assessment people are getting together
774
now, a very large body of others will need to be trained for the mammoth task of harmonisation. Is the Minister sure that they will be available in the year 1990, when the harmonisation becomes imperative?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that remark, I am very well aware of the amount of work that has to be done. Perhaps I may elaborate on the steps already taken, which will indicate the direction in which we are going. First, those bodies have looked at the handling and interpretation of rental evidence to ensure that it is in line north and south of the Border. Secondly, they have identified certain classes of subject where there have been differences of practice—namely, racecourses and petrol stations—with a view to developing a more common approach.
Thirdly, they have studied in detail the operation of the contractor's principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be aware that is one of the biggest problem areas to be faced and could perhaps lead to legislation. They have identified the major underlying causes of the differences. One of the differences is decapitalisation rates and the Government are considering whether the rates should in future be prescribed on a Great Britain basis.
Finally, there is the whole question of plant and machinery and the valuation thereof and the differences north and south of the Border. That is a very complex area. While I thank the noble Lord for indicating that it will mean a lot of work, I think that the principles of achieving a unified business rate north and south of the Border are well understood and we are well on the way to removing some of the difficulties.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the same injustices will occur with the uniform business rate in Scotland in large cities with commuter populations? Or will the problem arise only in London and the South, where inner cities will be adversely affected by low resident population and high commuter population and the full business rate will go into a central pool?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. I think that that is a matter which ought to be addressed during the debate of the Bill presently before your Lordships' House. So far as concerns Scotland, as noble Lords will know, at the moment the basis of business rates—which will have ceilings applied to them—is regional.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, harking back to the last question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is advocating unity or uniformity?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am advocating a sensible arrangement north and south of the Border so that business both north and south of the Border will be able to prosper. The rates will be those which can be paid by business and not those that some people think that business should pay.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as regards the issue of comparative funding raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will the noble Lord accept that that is something which, even though it is accidental, we appreciate very much when there is some benefit to Wales and Scotland as distinct from the English regions? Does he appreciate that there is a very serious reason behind this: that the fundamental basis of the economies in those countries of Wales and Scotland has been so badly eroded that some difference in funding is only to be expected?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I hope that he will be in his place tomorrow when I shall have something to say to the House about the Scottish economy.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I can assure the Minister that I shall be in my place.

Education: Prime Minister's Statement
3 P.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statement by the Prime Minister (Sunday Times, 8th May 1988) that, "the Department of Education and Science could not make all the decisions with regard to schools; it would just not be possible. They would not know the circumstances", represents their policy.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government's policy is that the duty to secure that sufficient schools are available in each area should continue to rest with the local education authorities. The day-to-day running of the schools should rest with the schools themselves.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome that reply. The Prime Minister states a general principle, in the words on the Order Paper:
"the Department of Education and Science could not make all the decisions with regard to schools; it would just not be possible".
Those noble Lords who sat through the marathon of the Education Reform Bill may feel that they have heard those words before. May I therefore ask whether we are to welcome the Prime Minister to the ranks of the critics of the Bill? Are we to welcome her conversion to the view that has been so brutally expressed by Digby Anderson that Kenneth Baker is a socialist? May we look forward to the amendment of the Education Reform Bill in order to loosen the straitjacket of the DES? Or must I give notice of a Question to ask whether that Bill represents government policy; and, if so, would the Secretary of State know the answer to it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that was a plethora of questions from the noble Earl. I should point out that the main thrust of the Education Reform Bill is to involve more people in the running of schools by giving more power to parents and governors. Local authorities will continue to play a very important role, not least in setting the framework for the education service for their areas and in monitoring its delivery.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Bill will allow more choice to parents and to pupils?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend asked a most apposite question because the Government's purpose is to provide a much wider range of choice for parents and their children. The Bill will widen choice by allowing more open enrolment to maintained schools and by providing new kinds of schools. The legislation is concerned with introducing a greater variety of provision so as to give parents a real choice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how pupils can be given a wider range of choice when there is a fixed curriculum that every child will have to take and which will occupy 70 per cent. of the time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that may be the noble Baroness's comment on the national curriculum, but I remind your Lordships that the Bill passed through this House in its present form. Everything else that pertains to it is quite correct.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the words of the Prime Minister quoted in the Question refer to the DES, which, it says,
"would not know the circumstances".
Can the noble Earl tell the House whether there is any one thing that the DES knows at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the DES knows a considerable amount about how to run things. Furthermore, I should point out that in this country we have a great tradition of a career Civil Service. Its primary strength lies in the capacity of its senior civil servants through their ability, experience and training—
Noble Lords: Yes, Minister!
The Earl of Arran: —to offer impartial and objective advice to Ministers on a wide range of policy issues. It is their job to review and synthesise—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Arran: Thank you, my Lords—the often conflicting advice of specialists in the field.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked a Question on this matter at least twice in written form and that I put an oral question to him last month? From among the ranks of its very famous civil servants with general qualifications does the DES have people with the necessary experience? Do they have teaching experience—the professional experience of teaching in schools or further education establishments—or even experience in administration in local authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a well worn track of questioning pursued by the noble Baroness. My reply is that the DES draws on advice from a wide

777
range of sources, which include HMI, a variety of expert non-departmental public bodies and also expert working groups set up to consider particular issues.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that HMI is independent of the DES, and that the two are quite separate?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am only too well aware of it. Nevertheless, the DES continues to draw advice and experience from HMI.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it not the whole point of financial delegation to schools and setting up the new governing bodies that decision-making in future will devolve to schools and not be done in the DES or in the local authorities? That is where the people are who know what teaching and children are all about. That is the whole ethos of the Bill. Is it not very important that the House should accept that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Our proposals are designed to achieve maximum delegation of decision-making to the school level while retaining an overall framework to protect standards of provision. Local authorities will remain responsible for setting the framework within their areas while national government set standards across the country. The Bill is concerned with securing the maximum delegation of power consistent with maintaining standards.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, as quoted in the Question, the Prime Minister has stated a general principle that is in fundamental conflict with the purpose of a Government Bill; and if not, why not?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Scotch Whisky Bill will be taken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while we are on the question of business, in the absence of the Government Chief Whip may I ask a business question of the noble Lord the Leader of the House? Knowing how solicitous he is for the attendants who serve us so excellently in this House, perhaps I may ask him to arrange that the next time this House is filled with unknown Peers—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: —somebody from the Whip's Office or from his own office is on hand to
778
help the attendants to identify people whom they have never seen before, provided that either the Whip's Office or his own office knows them.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, of course I understand the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. Perhaps I may assure him that his face is familiar and always welcome.

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I should like to make a short statement about yesterday's Division. The number of noble Lords voting Content was announced as 183. However, the Tellers concerned have since agreed that the number should be 184. The mistake arose because the name of one noble Lord who voted was not recorded. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind Members of the Committee of the importance of giving your name distinctly to the Clerk and making sure that it is marked on the Clerk's list.
Schedule 1 [Personal community charge: exemption]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 80, line 27, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 25 standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hayter and Lord Banks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. I also speak to Amendments Nos. 188 and 189. Amendment No. 189 is the important one.
These amendments could not possibly be described as wrecking amendments, but they are of great importance to some of the less fortunate members of society. When we were discussing the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill on Report on 30th April of last year, three issues arose that are directly relevant to today's discussion. First, the Government introduced an amendment exempting the severely mentally handicapped on the ground that they did not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process. The amendment did not say how severe mental handicap was to be determined. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, accepted that guidance to the registration officer would have to be worked out in consultation with the professional bodies.
Secondly, in response to the questions about the physically disabled, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said (at col. 1655 of the Official Report) that the Government recognised that there was a category of severely disabled people who at present enjoyed full rates relief, and that the Government proposed that additional help which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge should be available for a group of disabled persons to be defined in the regulation. Although that undertaking has in the event not been honoured, we start today with the fact that the Government are on record as having contemplated 100 per cent. rebates for certain disabled people.
Thirdly, some of us urged on the Government that it was illogical to go down the road of exemption for the mentally handicapped, and down the road of rebates for the physically disabled. Perhaps there is a fourth point that no scintilla of doubt was raised about the competence of this Chamber to amend the legislation.
Despite the representations made then, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the present Bill follows the Scottish precedent of exempting the severely mentally handicapped but, unlike the Scottish Bill, states how it is to be decided that an individual is to be defined as severely mentally handicapped. There are two tests: entitlement to the severe disablement allowance; and certification by a doctor. However, in the nature of things, most ordinary GPs can have very little experience and knowledge of mental handicaps and correlating it with levels of understanding. It is a very difficult matter, and the formula in the Bill is a recipe for inconsistent decisions up and down the country. Nor do I see anything about any right of appeal. I should have thought it very much better to have a test which avoids altogether going through a second and rather obtrusive process of judgment.
This is apart from the objection in principle to categorising a group of mentally handicapped people as set aside from the rest of the community—and the feelings on this point are very much more strongly felt than I had realised at the time that the Scottish legislation was going through. As we therefore argued on the Scottish Bill, I am now suggesting that the preferable route is one of rebates, and (again as was contemplated at one stage in Scotland) of rebates of up to 100 per cent. in appropriate cases. This
780
amendment tries to define the appropriate cases. It extends the 80 per cent. community charge benefit to 100 per cent. where a claimant's income is low enough to warrant it, with the consequence too that the scope of the tapered element of the rebate would be enlarged, starting, as it were, at 100 per cent. instead of 80 per cent. It seems to me that the proposal would fit into the government's rebate scheme and conform to the same means-tested rules.
To qualify, the individual must not only be poor, he or she must also be in receipt of one of the special benefits listed in the later amendment to which I have referred, or be registered as blind or partially sighted. I expect the Government will argue that those in receipt of income support will be entitled to the reduction of 80 per cent., and that income support levels will include an amount to help with the remaining 20 per cent. I understand that the formula currently in use refers to the extra as being intended to help with the 20 per cent. rather than to claim that it will necessarily cover the 20 per cent.
The Government may also point out that the threshold at which a disabled person remains entitled to the maximum 80 per cent. reduction is higher than for the non-disabled. But it is central to the Government's case that since in high spending areas the uprated amount will not cover the 20 per cent., those living there who are in receipt of the maximum rebate will still have to find money themselves and will therefore have an interest in the spending policies of their local council.
However, it seems to me that this is an approach which simply treats those concerned as voting units. It may look very well on paper; but when one considers who the people are, the picture changes. We are talking about the poor who are blind, mentally handicapped, so disabled as to need attendance, or those who are immobile without special help. Many of them already have the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. Is it really the mark of a compassionate society to look to people like this to struggle, or to be wheeled to the polling booths, or to wrestle with the forms which they might receive, all in the name of local accountability? Those of us who have dealings with these fellow human beings with all their handicaps find it quite difficult to accept that that is right.
I should like to make one other important point. The Bill exempts those living in a residential care home, but not those who try to live an independent life in the community, although until this Bill appeared one rather thought that it was government policy to encourage just that. It is no good anyone arguing that there are differences between them now, since there is no getting away from the fact that the Bill's provisions would in future tend to act as a disincentive for disabled people to live in or to go back to the community and thereby incur expense which, by staying in residential care, they could avoid. After all, when a family now takes in a disabled relative, under the present rating system there is no increase in the contribution which that family makes towards the costs of local services.
I fear that the provisions in the Bill, as they affect the physically and mentally disabled poor, have

781
rather too many elements of illogicality for comfort. I am not naive enough to think that we necessarily have the drafting right with our amendments, but the principle involved is clear enough and I invite the Committee to give the other place the possibility of thinking again. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have often argued the case for the disabled in this Chamber, but now—if I may say so very briefly and give my reasons—I find myself in some difficulty with this amendment. On the Scottish Bill I argued for the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped on the basis that it was totally absurd to apply the principles of accountability to severely mentally handicapped people. The Government accepted the argument—I see my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in his place. The amendment was carried into the Bill. It was agreed in another place and it is now in the Scottish Act.
There is no question whatever of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the amendments linked with it, being wrecking amendments, but surely it is of cardinal importance that there should be parity of principle both north and south of the Border. To carry the mentally handicapped from exemption to rebate would be to import a disparity of principle as regards treatment either side of the Border. Amendment No. 25 is the paving amendment to Amendment No. 189, the important amendment. I suggest that the amendments are open to objection on that ground.
However, there is another aspect. The fourth paragraph of Schedule 1, which Amendment No. 25 seeks to excise in favour of Amendment No. 189, may well require considering again. There I agree with the noble Lord. There are difficulties about it. I do not see an amendment down to that effect, but the Committee may agree that we should have more than one medical practitioner to certify. The Committee may think that there should be some form of appeal procedure. There are all sorts of other issues which the Committee may wish to consider, such as the suggestion that in its present form paragraph 4 is not quite right, but that is a totally different matter.
The other problem of principle that arises which worries me is that the complex structure of rebate, as proposed in Amendment No. 189 related to income support plus various premiums and various allowances to secure the 100 per cent. rebate—which, as I understand it, would include this category of exemption of the severely mentally handicapped—is another departure in principle from the rebate system, complex as that is, which is incorporated in the Scottish Act.
Although I hope that noble Lords or my noble friend the Minister may improve on paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, it is for those reasons that as a matter of principle, I have difficulty in importing a disparate regime north and south of the Border.
Lord Irlayter: Having congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on his birthday—I shall forbear from saying which one it is—I want to make the point that this corner of the Committee has no monopoly on charitable organisations and charitable amendments. What happens is that
782
governments come and go, although they often forget that they do go, but charitable organisations on the whole go on forever. Therefore it ill behoves a charitable organisation to become too political. That is why more often than not they come to independent Peers for support for their problems.
This amendment and the accompanying amendments raise some complicated issues. The difficulty is one of definition, particularly that of the severely disabled. I shall point out some of the main problems and I have no doubt that some will emerge in the discussion on the amendment. Dealing with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made, I thought it had been understood—maybe I heard it wrongly—that if there were any major principles in the Bill which altered the Bill as it came to this House, efforts would be made to alter the position in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Earl will correct me on that, but I believe that that was said by someone.
The main point behind our amendments is that we want to see whether it is possible for the severely disabled and severely handicapped to live in the community. That is not only a question for this Bill, but it is also for the Government to make up their minds about the level that the social services should reach to enable that to be carried out. It is vital—and this is what we are trying to do in the Bill—to straighten out the money aspect.
I cannot forbear from saying that I am as conscious as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, of the Glenarthur promise, if I may put it that way. I understand that that has not materialised and that even if it does, it will be compensation on the average going right across the country. Although it is true that some will gain and some will lose, the people who lose will never be able to forget that they should be able to stand by that original promise and be given compensation, which would make their life bearable.
As I said, the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, also pointed out is this problem of trying to define the severely disabled, particularly as the severely disabled, as I understand from their organisations, do not feel that they are asking for any special favours. As much as possible they want to be put in the same position as the average citizen, but disablement brings extra costs. Nobody can argue about that. So we hope that we shall be given from the other side of the Committee today the same charitable thoughts as were exemplified so well yesterday.
We were delighted by the concessions that were made by the Government yesterday. We hope that they will think seriously about the propositions that we have put in front of them. If we have this or that wrong, for heaven's sake let us get it right. We are not too proud to be told that we have made a mistake. I believe that it was Emerson who said that to say that one has made a mistake is to say to the world one is a wiser man today than one was yesterday. It is with that thought that I commend the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I remember being very much involved in the amendment on the Scottish Bill

783
which exempted the severely mentally handicapped, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and referred to in the Glenarthur promise. It is important that the Committee should first think what is right about this issue. We should consider how different people are treated in relation to the community charge. Secondly, the Committee should consider how the mechanics and money can best be organised.
I believe that a thread should run through all our considerations on this issue. It is the way to bring into society those who are disadvantaged, handicapped and difficult to trace, such as the people of whom we spoke last night, and make them feel that they are a part. It is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said. People want to be made to feel the same as others. I believe that there should be an absolute minimum number of exemptions. They should apply to people who cannot be made to feel that they can play a part in the democratic process. Last night the Committee discussed prisoners on remand who are not able to take part in the system because, although they are not convicted, they are in prison on remand. That also applies to the severely mentally handicapped.
However, when dealing with severely handicapped people, is it not much better that they and their families know that they can contribute to the services which we have, as does everyone else? It can be explained in a simple way so that they can understand. If we then make the conditions, we must make quite sure that they have the money to fulfil them. That is the point. I believe that the same proposition will apply when we debate the amendment about volunteers. That is how I see the matter.
The question that the Government must address is: how can we be sure that such people have the money and ability to fulfil the conditions? It must be arranged in a way which would enable them to do so and if they cannot read and understand, it must be explained to them. I hope that that does not sound condescending because it is meant to be the opposite. Last night I thought that we were on the verge of treating certain people in our society as being incapable of playing their part. I believe that to be quite wrong and I believe it from the depths of my being.
Very few people cannot play their part and it is they who should be exempted; the others should be rebated. I do not believe that a 100 per cent. rebate will give the feeling of taking part. I believe that their contribution should be at the level of 20 per cent., and we must make sure that they have the money to pay. That is how I see the issue. It is the moral basis of the benefit system. One produces money to help people to meet the difference between the needs that they must meet and the income that they have. I believe that we should do that in this case. I still draw a distinction between the severely mentally handicapped and those who can understand and would like to contribute. We must make sure that they can.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like to deal with the Scottish Act in short measure. I agree with the
784
noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Scottish definition is different. I understand that the Government have given an undertaking that if this Bill produces a different situation from that in the Scottish Act, the Scottish Act will be amended in this Bill in order to bring the two together.
The Scottish definition of excluding people who are severely mentally handicapped puts an impossible burden on the relatives with whom the mentally handicapped person lives, whether they are children or parents. The carer must decide whether the person's mental handicap is severe. In Edinburgh it is estimated that the community charge will be between £400 and £500, which is a lot of money. One may have a child whom one is trying to educate to be as self-sufficient as possible considering his mental handicap. If the parents say, "I am sorry, we must go to the registrar and say that you are severely mentally handicapped because we will save £500 a year", what will that do to the relationship between the child and the parents? How does one do that if one's mother or father is living at home and is beginning to show signs of mental frailty? At what stage does one say to one's parents, "I shall now apply to have you registered as being severely mentally handicapped"? It does not work and it is not an example of a caring society. The Scottish Act is wrong and we should again try to achieve the correct result.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the two amendments associated with it, to all of which my name is added. As the noble Lord has clearly explained, the amendments would eliminate the exemption from community charge for those people with severe mental handicap. It would replace the exemption with a maximum 100 per cent. rebate for certain categories of very old and disabled people receiving certain benefits, and for those registered blind or partially sighted.
Members of the Committee who support the amendments consider the exemption of those with a severe mental handicap to be very unsatisfactory. First, there is the problem of definition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, referred most tellingly. Secondly, the proccess of certification is likely to be very distasteful for both patients and carers. Thirdly, there is the problem of those who have acquired a mental handicap during their lifetime, because it appears that they are not covered by the Bill. I believe that the condition must be congenital. However, there are over 1,000 people with functional limitations as a result of strokes and over 1 million people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It appears that those people are not included.
The Minister, the right honourable Michael Howard, said at the Report stage in another place that he would look again at the definition. That statement appeared in the House of Commons Hansard, at col. 702, on 19th April 1988. I am wondering what has happened about that undertaking and whether the Minister is contemplating introducing an amendment at a later stage.
All the major disability organisations agree that it is undesirable to hand out exemptions from the poll

785
tax to certain categories of disabled people on the grounds that they cannot fully understand what is going on. People should be treated according to their ability to pay and not according to the degree of comprehension which they may be thought to have. Hence, the provision in Amendment No. 189 for certain categories of the very old and disabled who are in receipt of certain benefits indicating their condition and not requiring any additional certification to receive a maximum 100 per cent. rebate.
In other words, instead of beginning at 80 per cent., the table would begin at 100 per cent. The poorest in those categories would be relieved altogether of the poll tax while those not so poor would have greater help than they have at the moment. The 20 per cent. which they would have to pay as a minimum, as things stand, is not, in my view, adequately compensated for in income support. In addition, the amendment would make sure that some extra contribution was made towards offsetting the additional cost of disability for the low-income disabled.
Amendment No. 189 also provides for the registered blind and partially sighted to receive the maximum 100 per cent. rebate. The majority of blind people are in the poorest sector of society. Some 75 per cent. of them are pensioners, and yet they receive virtually nothing to compensate them for the added cost of their disability. They find it very hard to qualify for attendance or mobility allowance. The amendment would make them eligible for a 100 per cent. rebate if their income was such as to warrant this. I repeat that: if their income was such as to warrant this.
The amendment would prevent the tendency referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for people to be taken out of the care in the community and put in residential care in order to secure exemption, which is the opposite of the Government's proclaimed policy.
Some time ago in relation to this matter, I asked in this Chamber why the Government were so keen to take people on low incomes out of taxation and equally keen to ensure that they are all brought into paying towards local government. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reminded me that the people who would be taken out of income tax would be paying indirect tax, and that indirect tax helps, as does income tax, to meet the national expenditure. However, it is equally true that through the support grant indirect taxation helps towards paying for local government. The only argument against what seems to me a very sensible arrangement set out in the amendments can be that everyone must contribute something to the costs of local government by means of direct payment, except for certain categories of the mentally handicapped. They must do that however old, disabled or poor they may be. It seems to me that the Government are in danger of making a fetish of this diktat, and I hope that they will not allow it to prevent their acceptance of this amendment.
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to support this amendment and I shall confine my remarks to the
786
physically disabled. I should like to ask the Minister what is the justification for adding an extra burden to those whose handicap already makes life much more difficult and expensive bearing in mind that the Government will be saving £61 million in the form of rebates? The Government say that the income support will be increased to compensate for the 20 per cent. community charge, but if that is only at the national average, that will mean that certain severely disabled people in places such as Camden will be paying an extra £2 a week.
Perhaps I may also ask whether the extra support will be geared to inflation because otherwise it will simply slip away as the years go by. Also, will it not save a lot of work to grant 100 per cent. exemptions in this case? Otherwise, severely disabled people may be paying only £1 a week and someone will have to keep records of that. That seems to me a very time consuming exercise. Will it be worthwhile to collect these very small amounts of money?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I was one of those who joined with other Members of this Chamber in persuading the Government in the last Session to do something about the mentally handicapped. Although I was glad that they dealt with those who were described as severely mentally handicapped, and that the definition was inserted, I did not think it went quite far enough at the time. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the motives of those moving these amendments. However, I am puzzled by the method of doing so. Speaking for myself, I would not leave out paragraph 4 of the first schedule and would not replace it with something more specifically related to that at which the paragraph is aimed.
However, having said that, I believe that the principle has been well aired and I have great confidence that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give some kind of positive response although I do not see how they could easily accept the amendments as they stand.
On the broad principle of the Bill, it is true that there are some mentally handicapped people who are able to work and can contribute to and take part in the life of society. That is especially so in the spheres of horticulture and farming. At MENCAP we have special facilities for training such people and many obtain good jobs on farms. Therefore, there is a real difficulty about definition. We do not want that definition to go too far in either direction.
The same applies regarding the physically disabled. There are some physically disabled people who are quite incapable of doing any kind of work and they require special consideration. However, this country can be proud of the fact that the vast majority of disabled people are able to do some work according to their capacities, and that also needs to be acknowledged in the wording of this Bill.
Lord Carter: I am glad to support the amendments from these Benches. They seem to have a number of advantages. First, they have identified disabled people on low incomes. The 100 per cent. rebate is both targeted and tapered and I should have thought that that would appeal to the Government. It relates

787
the rebate to the actual community charge in each area and not a national average figure. I hope when the Minister replies he does not refer to gainers or losers because if one is a disabled loser it is of no consolation to be told that there are some disabled gainers.
Disabled people have a complicated life pattern. They have stays in hospital, in respite care, in residential and short stay homes, and live at home with assistance and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was arguing for a comprehensive disability income. We all agree with that, but we do not have it. We are talking about very poor people. It is estimated that 40 per cent. of disabled people are in the low income group compared with 23 per cent. in the population as a whole in the non-disabled group, and that 2 million of the 3 million disabled in this country are living on or near the margins of poverty. The level of allowance for disabled people, especially under the new Social Security Act, goes nowhere near meeting the extra cost of the disability.
The advantages of these amendments are that the means of defining disability are automatic and unobtrusive. As I said, they identify and target those who are on low incomes, thus reflecting the fact that disabled people have a financial disadvantage. To that extent the phrase of which we heard a lot yesterday—namely, "the ability to pay"—is the central criterion rather than the disability as an inherent characteristic. The measure marches with the principles of good community care and it seeks to ensure that there are no financial penalties for people who seek to move into the community nor a financial disincentive for staying in the community. Eligibility for the rebate proposed is defined by a particular person's entitlement to certain income-related and other benefits. The intention is to ensure that the ability to pay and the particular needs of disabled people are taken fully into account.
As I said, yesterday we heard a great deal about the ability to pay. The Government have argued throughout the passage of this Bill that the ability to pay is enshrined in the legislation either directly or indirectly. These amendments make that factor crystal clear in the case of people with disabilities. I support the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put the plight of the disabled very well indeed. I know that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and I agree that disabled people want to be the same as other people as far as possible, and they also want to pay their taxes if they can. However, there are some who cannot and it is those people I hope my noble kinsman will consider.
Disability is so complicated. I believe that the Government should now look very seriously at the whole problem of severe disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said. The Disablement Income Group (DIG) tried to sort out this problem with Parliament over many years but nothing has been achieved. Perhaps now is the time to look at this problem and to do something concrete in order to compensate and then to allow disabled
788
people to pay their taxes in the same way as everyone else.
Lady Kinloss: I too wish to support these amendments. Many disabled people want to take their full place in the community with everyone else. However, for a disabled person on a low income it becomes more and more difficult to play a full role if one is struggling to make ends meet. Surely it is far better to ensure that a disabled person has sufficient resources to play a full and active role in the community; otherwise we may see some disabled people applying for residential care or returning to it as they feel that they no longer have the resources to stay in the community. Surely that is a situation that the Government would not wish to see happen.
Lord Parry: Until fairly recently, for 10 years I was chairman of the Spastics Society in Wales. For much longer my wife was in charge of a unit for the mentally and physically handicapped. Our daughter has just now left the school in which she teaches, which is dedicated to the severely mentally and physically handicapped. It is therefore a pleasure for me to support this amendment and to appeal to the Government in an area where I know they care. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is known to me as a caring family man and I am sure that he is as moved as the rest of us by the plight of the people who, whatever the niceties of judgment, will never make any contribution to the economy of this country because they are prevented from doing so by the bodies in which they live and the minds that motivate them.
If we all begin from that position—I am sure we do—then we can perhaps approach this amendment not in the mechanistic sense (though we have to get the wording right) but in the caring sense in which it has been put by all noble Lords who have spoken to it. The Spastics Society is extremely concerned that the poll tax will adversely affect disabled people in the low income groups, about whom my noble friend Lord Carter spoke. It applies especially, as he said, to those on income support levels and those whose incomes, when even small losses occur, are devastated.
Given those factors, it is important that any rebate system aiming to protect the people of whom we speak should really do so. The Spastics Society and I feel that the present government proposals fall short of giving the protection that was promised and intended. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, though this has already been referred to twice. However, the passage is worth reading back into the record:
"There will be a category of severely disabled people living in the community who at present enjoy full rates relief and should maintain that position under the community charge system. We therefore propose that extra help should be made available for a clearly defined group of severely disabled people which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge".
Unfortunately that is not what the Government have so far achieved, whatever their intentions may be. At the moment we are faced with a system where many disabled people on low incomes will not receive adequate rebates. The Government's system is the most complicated and, in our opinion, the most

789
discriminatory way of constructing a rebate system. Compensation will come from community charge benefits and through the income support system; yet because that compensation was set at an average of the community charge many disabled people will pay more, not less. It is true that some may gain—at least in theory—but surely we want a system where everyone receives a rebate for the actual obligation rather than a system of winners and losers, as my noble friend said.
Further, those with a mental handicap have to submit themselves to a humiliating certification procedure, and that hurts most where the level of mental ability is highest even though impaired. Many more who have acquired a mental handicap will not be entitled to exemptions at all—the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made that point—even though they are in the same situation. Other disabled people on very low incomes but not actually claiming income support will also miss out. Such consequences of a rebate system designed by the Government and by those who have effected the legislation to protect disabled people cannot be acceptable.
The amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will on the contrary be more consistent than the Government's system by ensuring that disabled people receive proper rebates and in encouraging good community care by ensuring that there are no financial disincentives to stay in the community. The amendment identifies disabled people on low incomes and it stipulates that they are rebated properly for the actual community charge that they have to pay in their area. That is consistent with the best principles of community care. The Government are already committed to those best principles.
The amendment ensures that there is no disincentive for disabled people in moving into the community. If the Bill remains unamended there will be another incentive added to the powerful ones already identified by the Audit Commission in its report on community care for disabled people to stay in residential care. That is even more true if one considers that the Government rightly exempted people living in residential homes from the community charge as they would not have the income to pay the charge.
I ask Members of the Committee to put out of their minds any suggestion that the majority of the people who are mentally and physically handicapped can make a positive earning contribution to their own care. Those who can will do so, and they have been rightly identified in low-level earning jobs. However, more and more mentally handicapped people, because of all kinds of circumstances, are taking their places in society unable to contribute to its earnings. It is those people—a great body of them—whom this amendment seeks to support.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I have listened carefully to his last remarks. Frankly, I believe that he does an injustice to those people all over the country who, for many years, have been striving to train both the physically and the mentally handicapped so that they can work according to their capacities.
Lord Parry: Surely the noble Lord does me an injustice. I carefully explained my association and my own experience. There is no way in which I would detract from the massive effort that is being made at every level; nor indeed would I detract from the efforts that those people are making themselves to take their place in the community. Please do not attribute to me any suggestion that I am criticising them. I am asking the Government to follow their own best intentions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies, I should like to clarify what I said. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, thought that I was arguing for a general disability allowance. I was not doing that at all. I was suggesting that everybody, except the very few who are exempt, should pay something and that we should ensure that they have the money to do it, which is precisely what will happen in respect of people who are on the highest amount of benefit. It is the same argument.
Lord Carter: I understood the noble Baroness to say that the disabled and handicapped should have enough income to meet the requirements of society. The case for comprehensive income support for all disabled people irrespective of their income has been discussed for many years and rejected by the present Government and by previous Labour governments. If it were accepted, the disabled and handicapped would pay their rates and taxes in the same way as everybody else. That is all.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Virtually every speaker who has taken part in the debate has better experience than I of the problems of disablement. There are those who are involved with voluntary organisations for the disabled and the mentally handicapped, those who are concerned themselves and within their families and those who have professional responsibility in this area. I venture to make only three points about public policy which I hope will be taken into account by the Minister when he replies to the debate.
My noble friends and I support the amendments. We are not certain about the drafting but I do not think anybody is entirely happy with that. However, the principles behind them seem to us to be humane and sound. My first point relates to care in the community. It has been the intention of governments over a number of years, not only for motives of economy but for motives of equality of care and quality of life, that those suffering from physical and mental handicaps should be cared for in the community rather than in institutions. This Bill already provides exemption from the personal community charge for those staying in hospitals and yet it proposes an extraordinarily complex series of hoops through which those with the same mental or physical handicaps will have to jump if they are to avoid the personal community charge when they are being cared for in the community. Surely the principle must be that the community charge is neutral as between hospital care and community care and that the decision must be made on clinical,

791
medical, mental or social grounds rather than on grounds of taxation. Taxation should seek to be neutral in this respect.
The second matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It concerns the incapacity to take part in public affairs as the criterion for exemption. She said this with deep sincerity and I know she believes that the freedom to pay 20 per cent. of the personal community charge is a meaningful step towards social responsibility. Candidly, I cannot see how that can be the case, especially when the people concerned do not have the money to pay the 20 per cent. One has to jump through all these hoops afterwards in order to make up the money to them so that they are not financially worse off. Surely in this respect the criterion should be recognition of need rather than some theoretical idea of participation in the community as exemplified by the requirement to pay tax. If we want to involve people in the community there are many positive ways of doing that. However, making them pay a tax and then subjecting them to a means test as to whether it is made up to them is not the way.
The third issue, which has been raised by a number of Members of the Committee, is the identification and definition of those who qualify for rebates. The system that is proposed—and attempts are being made to operate it in Scotland—requires that there shall be separate application for registration as severely mentally handicapped. If that is changed, the situation will probably become worse. There will be more definitions which doctors will find difficult to apply.
My noble friend Lord Morton asked about the position of those who have elderly parents living with them. They will have to say, "I shall make application to the authorities"—who knows how it will be done—"to exempt you from the personal community charge on the grounds of severe mental handicap". That is an impossible position. The only humane way of identifying those who should qualify for rebates must be that they are identified already by the fact that they are receiving income support.
That is what Amendment No. 189 does. It uses the existing mechanism for identifying those in receipt of income support with disablement premium, income support with higher pensioners' premium, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, or the severe disablement allowance and those registered as blind or partially sighted. No new criterion is required. There is no imposition on hospital authorities, general practitioners or families. It is something which follows from the existing system of identifying those who are disabled and who are in need.
I suggest to the Government that that is far more humane and is a more economic and efficient way of dealing with this problem. Whatever defects there may be in drafting, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, deals with those three points in a way that the Government's present proposals do not. I hope that the Government will move a considerable way to agreeing with it.
The Earl of Caithness: This has been a most useful debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating it and to noble Lords who have taken part in it. I should like to differ from the noble Lord and divide my answer into two parts. I shall deal first with the position of the severely mentally handicapped.
Their position in respect of the personal community charge was, as I am sure the Committee will recall, discussed at some length during the passage of the Scottish legislation through this Chamber. It was argued then, in particular by my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lady Carnegy of Lour—and they have all spoken today—that people suffering from a severe mental handicap should be exempt from the community charge on the grounds that such persons do not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process. In other words, accountability, which is at the centre of our proposals, cannot reasonably be expected to operate properly for people in this unfortunate position. The Government found these arguments persuasive and accordingly brought forward a suitable amendment to the Scottish Bill which was subsequently accepted by this Chamber. The current exemption in the Local Government Finance Bill mirrors the one in the Scottish legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has argued that the best way of protecting those at the lower end of the income scale is through rebate rather than exemption. I entirely agree with him. However, with respect, the argument here is not about income but about mental competence. It is true that the great majority of those with a severe mental handicap are not able to work and are therefore dependent on income support and social security benefits, but the exemption is in recognition of the fact that severely mentally handicapped people cannot be expected to understand the link between the provision of local services and changes in the community charge level. That argument applies equally whether the severely mentally handicapped person is rich or poor. Exemption, not rebate, is therefore the most appropriate remedy.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Banks, by taking this opportunity to inform the Committee of the decision we have reached in respect of the undertaking given in another place to consider, in consultation with the other departments concerned, widening the definition of severely mentally handicapped. I am sure that the Committee will welcome what I have to say. Our current proposals already exempt those who are severely mentally handicapped from birth or in childhood. We have now agreed that the exemption should be extended to those who suffer severe intellectual impairment as a result of an accident in adulthood. This will include individuals who suffer from accidental injury, medical accident, criminal injury, brain surgery, infection affecting brain tissue and the effect of toxic or nutritional conditions.
We consider this further exemption justified because of the concept of accountability that is at the heart of the Bill. Those who are severely mentally handicapped through injury would be unable to

793
participate in local democracy and councils would not be accountable to them. It therefore seems right that they should not have to pay the charge and we shall bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl leaves the topic, perhaps I may say that he did not mention senility or Alzheimer's disease. That is something of which we are all now aware. Is it included in his opinion? If not, I think it should be.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, raises an important point. We have indeed considered the possibility that he has raised concerning extending the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped to those suffering from degenerative conditions. We believe that there are two main difficulties. The main consideration must be that of the patient. There is, regrettably, still a stigma attached to mental handicap. Many of those suffering from a degenerative disease may not consider themselves as having reached the stage where they should be classified as severely mentally handicapped. They may not want to incur the stigma that is attached to that, and many of them will have periods of remission when such a classification would be inappropriate. But classification is what will have to happen. The Bill specifies that a doctor has to certify someone as severely mentally handicapped if that person is to be exempt.
The second point is linked to the first. It concerns the role of the doctor and the medical and professional difficulties that he would face. I suggest that doctors would be concerned to have a definition that would be capable of consistent application of what constitutes a severe mental handicap. If we were to extend the exemption to those suffering from degenerative diseases, such a definition would be almost impossible to arrive at. Degenerative diseases are by their very nature gradual. Their progress is often most imperceptible in the short term. In many cases it would be unreasonable to expect a doctor to certify that at a particular moment his or her patient had passed from being mentally capable to being mentally incapable. The diseases we are talking about do not work with such precision.
Perhaps I may say a word on the definition of "severely mentally handicapped" because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord suggested that it would be very difficult for registration officers to judge whether a person was severely mentally handicapped. I agree with the noble Lord. It is precisely for that reason that we have proposed that, in order to qualify for the exemption, the mentally handicapped should have a certificate from a medical practitioner. In this way we would ensure that registration officers do not have to make judgments about people's mental condition without having a clear medical opinion in front of them.
A number of noble Lords said that it would be difficult—in some sense degrading—for the relatives of handicapped people to claim exemption on their behalf. I think that this concern rests on a misapprehension, since relatives already have to
794
claim benefits on behalf of handicapped people, including the severe disablement allowance. The community charge exemption process will be little different—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend whether it is possible that two doctors would be taken on board?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand, it is one. However, I will look at the point which my noble friend has raised.
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned the fact that a great many doctors do not have much experience in mental handicap, and the judgment must be a subjective one. There is no objective judgment of mental handicap. Would it be possible to put into the Bill something to the effect that the doctors who will provide the certificate must be specifically trained in dealing with mental handicap?
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Countess raises an important point that I should like to look at. It seems to confirm what I was saying earlier about degenerative diseases, and how it would be more difficult for even a qualified doctor to assess at what point a person moves into severe mental handicap. But perhaps I may look at that point which the noble Countess has raised.
Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 seek to provide 100 per cent. rebates for elderly and disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, the Government accept that disabled and elderly people have special needs, and that many of them will require assistance in paying the community charge. However, I do not accept that it would be right to provide that they should not pay anything towards the community charge. Physically handicapped and elderly people—unlike severely mentally handicapped people—can play a part in the local democratic process. It would not be right to isolate them as a group from able-bodied members of the community. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in that I do not believe that the majority of disabled and elderly people would welcome being categorised in that way.
We must all be glad that the physically handicapped and the elderly have much better opportunities than of late to take part in everyday life and play as full a part as possible. Is it not right that every adult, whether able-bodied or disabled, should have a direct financial stake in the decisions of his or her local authority, for indeed not all—I admit a great many—physically disabled are poor. Would it be right to exempt those, or give 100 per cent. rebate to those, who could afford to pay the community charge?
I agree with my noble kinswoman. I warned her that I might raise this point of her concern. I wonder whether she would be happy to be exempt from the charge. But I come back to the point that was raised by your Lordships: that many physically disabled

795
and elderly people have low incomes—I agree on that point with my noble kinswoman—and the Government accept without reservation that they should have help in paying their community charge. Disabled and elderly people will benefit, along with others on low income, from reductions in their community charge up to a maximum of 80 per cent. for people receiving income support—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before my noble kinsman carries on with another point, I should like to make it clear to him that I am not receiving income support.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble kinswoman does not surprise me. The system of community charge reduction provided for in this Bill will in fact direct help particularly towards the elderly and disabled people, since they benefit from special premiums in addition to their personal allowances. In addition to the 80 per cent. maximum reduction, income support will contain an amount reflecting the average 20 per cent. minimum contribution which everyone will have to make to the community charge. Whether this amount is sufficient to cover the actual 20 per cent. contribution is in the hands of local authorities. People in low-spending authorities will be better off, while those in areas with high spending authorities will be a little worse off. Local authority spending decisions will make them directly accountable to all charge payers, and I do not believe it is right to exclude elderly and disabled people from this process of accountability.
Perhaps I may turn—and I apologise for going on at length but I think it is important—to answer some of the points raised by your Lordships during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, said that the rebates should relate to the actual community charge and not to the average. I can assure him that rebates will in all cases relate to the actual charge in each area up to the maximum of 80 per cent. It is only the increase in income support to cover the 20 per cent. contribution which will be set on the basis of the average charge. It is this 20 per cent. element which will ensure that local accountability continues to operate even for those on the lowest incomes because even they will have an interest in the costs as well as the benefits of above-average spending by their local councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to proceedings at Report stage of the Scottish legislation, and to a statement by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that rebates for the severely physically handicapped could extend up to 100 per cent. The noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Parry, suggested that the commitment had not been fulfilled. I have to say to the noble Lords that their assertion is not correct.
The reason is that the Government's undertaking to increase the income support entitlement of all income support recipients by 20 per cent. of the average charge post-dated that commitment by my noble friend. Therefore the undertaking given by my noble friend was carried out, not just for the physically handicapped but for all income support
796
recipients. Surely 80 per cent. rebate plus 20 per cent. uprating is, in any language, a scheme that extends up to 100 per cent.—as my noble friend provided.
Mention was made in regard to disabled people and the existing rates system. Disabled people living in their own homes pay domestic rates like everyone else. The maximum rebate they can receive, as from April this year, is 80 per cent. The existing rates system allows for reductions in rateable value for disabled households, but only to the extent that their rate bill would otherwise be higher as a result of their disability; for example, as a result of having to have a downstairs bathroom. Therefore in asking for 100 per cent. community charge rebates the noble Lord was effectively asking for a more favourable treatment than disabled people receive at present.
Finally, I turn to a most important point raised by many Members of the Committee: the disincentive to care in the community. I cannot agree with those who raised the point that there will be any significant disincentive to care in the community. If a person has a low income he or she will be entitled to a rebate of up to 80 per cent.; if that person is living in the community the income support will be uprated by 20 per cent. of the average charge. Elderly or disabled people living with their grown-up children will be entitled to rebates and income support in their own right, regardless of the income of their adult children. Therefore it will make little difference whether a person is in a home and exempt, or living in the community and receiving an 80 per cent. rebate plus increased income support.
An elderly or disabled person with a high income might, in theory, notice a bigger difference between living in a nursing home and living in the community. However, in practice, living in a nursing home would be the more expensive operation because a reasonably well-off person has to contribute a large part of his or her income towards the cost of care in a home. Therefore it is wrong to believe that there will be any significant disincentive to care in the community.
As I said at the beginning, this has been a most useful debate and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will welcome the commitment that I have given to bring forward an amendment in relation to severely mentally handicapped people at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, I think that this unfortunate group of people can be distinguished from the equally unfortunate group of people who are the physically handicapped.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment was tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his friends; therefore it must be his decision as to whether it should be pursued. I am sure that he will welcome the extension which the Government have made to the definition of "severely mentally handicapped", as I do. It is clearly right that handicaps acquired in adulthood should be treated in the same way as those which existed from birth or which have been suffered during childhood. However, I do not think that the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was adequate in dealing with Alzheimer's disease and other related disabilities.

797
When the noble Lord, Lord Allen, considers what to do I hope that he will consider the three issues of public policy which I raised. It does not seem to me that the Government's concession goes any way towards meeting them. The first one is care in the community. The noble Earl simply repeated the same tired old formulae about there being no significant difference. If you have those disabilities and you are in hospital there is no question: you do not pay the community charge. On the other hand, if you have such disabilities and wish to come out of hospital and be cared for in the community, or your family or neighbours or the charitable organisations will look after you, then you must go through the whole rigmarole of obtaining an 80 per cent. rebate, getting your income benefit uprated, and then dealing with the problem of whether it is enough or too much to meet the charge that exists in a local authority. If that is not a significant burden on the disabled person and on the carers for such people, I do not know what is. It is a nonsense and it should not be repeated in this automatic way on every occasion.
The second issue concerns making a separate application. The noble Earl made no progress at all in understanding the issue that income support, attendance allowances, and so on are recognisable and are used. The recent exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Earl revealed that he did not understand the issue, because the noble Baroness does not receive income support, does not expect to receive income support, and does not expect to be exempt from the community charge. We are talking about people in need and they will not be helped in the way that the noble Earl suggested.
The final issue is that there has been no answer to the charge that this incapacity to take part by those in need and disabled is a meaningless nonsense. What should be the criterion for income support?—because in relation to expenditure, it is all part of income support. The criterion should be a recognition of need, and not this pseudo-political mumbo-jumbo which the noble Earl has repeated.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Allen, makes up his mind on how to advise the Committee, I should like to say something which I hope will assist. I greatly welcome the undertakings given by my noble friend to bring forward amendments which refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. If Amendment No. 25 were carried, we should be moving that paragraph out of the schedule altogether and that would frustrate the Government's intentions which are to assist in the matter. Therefore, whatever other amendment the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, feels should be moved, I hope that he will not move to leave out that paragraph.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I agree with the noble Earl that we have had a most useful debate and I learnt with interest of the amendments that it is proposed to introduce to the definition of "severely mentally handicapped", especially no longer limiting it to congenital mental handicap. However, I am afraid that I must have been even more muddled than I usually am when the noble Earl referred to my reference to the registration officer. I was merely
798
quoting what we said in the Scottish debate. When we came to England I was saying that it was nearly beyond the capacity and the experience of the ordinary GP to perform what is a most difficult function—that of defining severe mental handicap. I think that the provision of two doctors would be an improvement, but it is not a solution to the problem—
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Lord for mishearing what he said.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I also did not hear anything about a possible right of appeal.
Regarding a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I have been most impressed by the degree of feeling that there is in many circles in the societies, and among the individuals concerned, about the stigmatisation involved in defining one category of disabled people as set aside from the rest of the community. Paragraph 4, as it stands, gives rise to a great deal of disquiet.
Having said that, I must test the feeling of the Committee; and, in the unlikely event of our amendment failing, I hope that the Government will not be discouraged from pursuing improvements to paragraph 4 for us to consider at a later stage.
However, on the main issues I am extremely puzzled by the reply which I received. The sole reason for discussing the matter is that in certain circumstances, in the high-spending areas, the 80 per cent. plus the average 20 per cent. will not add up to 100 per cent. That is what we are talking about. How can the noble Earl say that that honours the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur? And, further, how can he argue that there is no discouragement for people to go and live in the community, thereby incurring this extra charge in the expensive areas? That is something that I find most difficult to follow.
I return to the basic principle. Here we have very poor people who, in addition to being poor, have qualified for some special form of assistance—attendance allowance, special disablement allowance or mobility allowance—and they have passed the tests for those special allowances. This is a method of ensuring that they are able to meet their commitments without putting them through some further bureaucratic process.
I think that the amendment stands and the arguments that I have heard used against it do not prevail. If Members of the Committee think that these elderly, disabled and mentally handicapped people will have an effective voice in dictating who shall represent the council and what their activities are to be, I do not think that we are living in the real world. I must end, I think, by asking the Committee to decide.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Annan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Attlee, E.

Lytton, E.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Basnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mar, C.

Blyth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Cromartie, E.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Rugby, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gifford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Grey, E.

Southwark, Bp.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ingleby, V.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Leicester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Balfour, E.

Ailsa, M.

Bathurst, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Arran, E.

Belstead, L.

Astor, V.

Bessborough, E.

Atholl, D.

Birdwood, L.

800

Blatch, B.

McFadzean, L.

Bolton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mansfield, E.

Burton, L.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norrie. L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northesk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cowley, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Daventry, V.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Deedes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegall, M.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Portman, V.

Elibank, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prior, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrier, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Romney, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goold, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Haig, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Southborough, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange, B.

Havers, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hertford, M.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Torphichen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tranmire, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Yarborough, E.

Layton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 80, line 38, at end insert—
("Residential community volunteers.
.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day he is a residential community volunteer.
(2) A residential community volunteer is a person—

(a) who is performing full-time duties on a volunteer basis.

(b) who is required as a condition of their duties to reside away from their normal home during that period.

(c) who receives board, lodging and pocket money only.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, standing in my name and the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The purpose of this amendment is to exempt residential community volunteers from paying the community charge.
The organisation called Community Services Volunteers was founded in 1962. It involves young people working alongside professionals as full-time residential volunteers with people in need. In return, these young people receive board and lodging and £16 pocket money per week.
Each year approximately 2,000 young people become community service volunteers. They work with handicapped children, children in care, young offenders, homeless people in the inner cities, and the elderly. The most demanding work is carried out by about one-third of them through the independent living scheme. Here they literally act as arms, legs and eyes for people with severe disabilities. In this way they enable those people to lead full lives in their own homes or in educational establishments or in hostels. This scheme was initially funded by central government and is a model of the care in the community strategy which the Government so keenly advocate.
I have been lucky enough to have a personal insight into the work of these young people as last year my own son worked for the Carr-Gomm residential homes scheme, where people who for one reason or another cannot care for themselves and cannot cope are cared for. There are people there with mental illnesses, including many schizophrenics. Through living with these unfortunate people and helping them in their everyday lives and trying to bring some light, happiness and laughter into their lives, the young volunteers really do give them the opportunity to approach a real life in the community and they give them something to live for.
As the Bill stands at present, full-time residential volunteers will be subject to the community charge. Under the rebate scheme they will first have to pay in full and probably be eligible for rebate up to 80 per cent. So one wonders what the effect of this provision will be. Financially it will mean that these young volunteers will have to find perhaps £1 or £2 out of their tiny subsistence allowance of £16. Clearly there is very little doubt that this will prevent many young people coming forward to perform this work because, as I say, their budget is already so intolerably tight that it could not possibly stand up to even the smallest additional strain. So in the first place the community at large in many cases may easily be denied the important contribution that many selfless young people give. As regards the young people themselves, they will be denied the opportunity to help others and to benefit from this very enrichening experience.
From the point of view of those who benefit—I mean the handicapped, the elderly, the homeless and others—the consequences could be very serious indeed. If the CSV no longer succeeds in attracting so many of these young volunteers to its ranks, many of those handicapped will have no choice but to return to institutional life. So the tragedy will be twofold:
802
first, for the handicapped and elderly who have temporarily seen their lives transformed; and, secondly, for the public purse, which will have to foot the bill for their return to residential homes. That may be very large indeed in some cases.
At this point I should like as an example to describe the case of the volunteers working within charitable organisations such as the Sue Ryder Homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, is so very sad that she is unable to be here today to give the example herself, but she told me that there are as many as 230 residential volunteers working each year at her headquarters and principal home in Suffolk. If these young people are subjected to the tax or even a proportion of it and decide they cannot afford to continue with the work, what will happen to that remarkable and world-famed home for the sick and the incurable?
I have a letter from the chairman of the Harrogate health authority, who describes how in the department of computer studies at Leeds University a number of volunteers are used to help severely handicapped undergraduates taking a data processing scheme of study. He says that one particular undergraduate is now in her final year and preparing for her final examinations. As a consequence of Stills' disease the girl in question is blind, confined to a wheelchair and requires 24-hour support. Without the CSV support, the chairman of the health authority says, it would not be possible for her to undertake a degree scheme at all. There is already considerable difficulty in locating suitable volunteers and it is believed that the imposition of a community charge, even at a reduced rate, on these volunteers would make it increasingly difficult to recruit them and would mean that students as heavily disabled as this student would be unable to go in for higher education.
It seems inconceivable that the Government really could wish to bring about this very serious result that I have described, for after all they have upheld the concept of care in the community. I know that that has been mentioned many times already in this debate but I think that this is an example of how care in the community has been seen to work. There is general agreement on the need for handicapped people to leave institutional care and to be looked after in the community. The only problem has been that sometimes there has not been the support mechanism available. So the handicapped end up either back in the institutions or in the case of the mentally handicapped sometimes in police cells or indeed prison.
However, in the cases where help has been enlisted from these very altruistic young people care in the community has become a reality. There is little doubt that the argument used by the Minister and indeed on many occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who I see is no longer in her place, that the payment of the community charge in exchange for local services is a means of drawing people into the community to make them fully part of it and to make them feel as if they are more a part of it would fall on pretty stony ground with these young volunteers. They might feel, and rightly so, that they are themselves providing a very important local service.
After all, every day they give unequivocal proof that they are totally involved in the community and are contributing to the well-being of the local community in a greater way than are, say, those who collect dustbins or who provide some other kind of service. There can be no doubt at all that these young volunteers might well feel that the boot was on the other foot and that the community which they are so selflessly and loyally serving is in their debt.
There is no point in the Minister arguing that the sum of money at issue may be very negligible, because everything is relative. Whatever one sets beside £16 a week will take on enormous proportions. Besides the money aspect, I feel very strongly about the principle of this particular case; namely, that those performing this all-important task of enabling the weaker members of a community to lead fuller and more constructive lives are doing more than their duty to the community and any attempt to extract a financial payment for them is inappropriate and absolutely wrong.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I think that there is a very strong case to be made for volunteers. They are a growing category of people and some thinking must be done on how to encourage them and how to fill the gap which exists in helping people within the community who are disabled, disadvantaged and badly in need of help. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I support the amendment. I know the CSV organisation very well. I have been concerned in one way and another for the past 60 years with people who work full-time for very little money to help others. One of the few things that I have ever liked about the Conservative Party is that it has always favoured such activities. I hope that it will go on doing so. It is extremely important to encourage that sort of work, quite apart from the importance of getting the work done. Without the volunteers, that would not happen. I support the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I also support the amendment. I was glad to be able to meet yesterday with some of the youngsters we are discussing. I was interested to learn that one of the disabled people needed two volunteers to look after her at all times. The youngsters are dedicated and have service to the community at heart.
As has been explained, they receive £16 a week as pocket money. That will be insufficient to fund the community charge for the period before they receive a rebate. They are extremely cheap labour and the cost of the alternative—a professional person either in the home or in hospital—will be much higher. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously, consult with the CSV and perhaps come back with another suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have had many letters from concerned disabled people who survive in the community only because they have the help of community volunteers. They say that they will be unable to pay the community charge of volunteers.
804
As the volunteers only receive pocket money, they will not be able to afford the charge either. The volunteers will be forced to take up another employment.
That sad situation may mean that a disabled person is forced into a dreaded institution. We heard yesterday from the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, that many places, such as her homes, will be in financial difficulty over the collective community charge.
I have also received letters from York University, which takes some severely disabled students. They are looked after by community volunteers. Again, the community charge may be the deciding factor which stops a disabled student from being able to attend university. At the moment, one of the brightest students at Cambridge University is a young man who broke his neck and who has no use of his body. However, he has a brilliant brain and he manages his university life with the help of community service volunteers.
I hope that my noble kinsman the Minister will look seriously at the amendment. At the time of the French Revolution, on being told that the people had no bread, Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake". Are the Government going to tell community volunteers and hard-pressed disabled people to do likewise? The Government are high on the crest of the wave following their big win yesterday. Does not the amendment prick the conscience of the Government? I shall be very surprised if my noble kinsman is unable to help with this very important amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and in my own name. I wish to look carefully at one or two of the more general arguments which I think may be used to defend the proposed arrangements in the Bill for application to this category of people.
We heard quite a lot both yesterday and today about the belief that in some way the payment of the community charge will ensure that people feel they are really contributing to the community. Looked at carefully, the implication of the argument is that you are not fully contributing to the community unless you are paying money by that means. If it is put like that, I suspect that many people will back away and say, "No, that isn't what we mean". However, that is how it comes across. That seems to be a very strange argument, especially in relation to a group such as community service volunteers. It can hardly be said that those people are not contributing fully to the community when in fact they are contributing a great deal more than most of us.
There are many different ways in which we contribute to the life of our communities. It is easy to fall into the trap of supposing that people with money contribute more or are in some way better placed to contribute than those without money. I have spent much of my professional life resisting that kind of insidious claim. If we accept that argument, we shall find ourselves wrestling with all sorts of complicated arrangements to enable people to pay what they need to pay in order to feel that they are contributing to the

805
community. I do not believe that we should go as far down that road as we are sometimes encouraged to. It is not a good general argument.
Within that argument, there is another argument which I have heard many times in the past few hours. That argument is that it is not so much that you are contributing to the community but rather that you are going to ensure that you have stable and responsible local government. The belief is that by contributing to a community charge you will exercise some sort of influence over local government, and if you have the misfortune to find yourself in an area with a high community charge you will do something to ensure that it comes down.
As regards the group of people with which the amendment is concerned, that cannot be a strong argument. By the very nature of the way they are working, they are temporary residents. They are not part of a community. It is even on the cards that they may not vote in local elections if those elections take place only every three, four or five years. It cannot be argued that they have a significant impact or that that will be a matter of great importance to them or anyone else in the community.
Furthermore, the actual cost of collection which will be involved is great and out of proportion to the amount we are discussing. That applies in the present case as well as in other cases. I believe that the cost of collection will be greater than the amount recovered. We are discussing a group of people who are not receiving income support and are giving an enormous amount to the community. We shall be saying to them, "You have to pay the full amount and we shall then set in train a cumbersome process by which you will eventually get a rebate of 80 per cent.". That may take a long time. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, admitted as much in one of his replies last night. Many of us who have experienced how such systems are working presently will have little confidence that they will work faster in the future.
We are either asking people who are mainly students or ex-students to find the full amount of the community charge out of £16 a week or asking the charity concerned to find that amount. They will then have to wait for goodness knows how long until somebody in some office eventually decides that they can have an 80 per cent. rebate. That will almost certainly cost as much as or more than the tiny amount that will come from a relatively small number of people who are making a tremendous contribution to disabled people. The disabled are benefiting from their wonderful service, and they are the first to say that they are benefiting from it.
I plead with the Committee to look rather carefully at the arguments which may be deployed in this particular case because I think that they are irrelevant and would do a very great disservice to a wonderful cause.
5 p.m.
Lord Parry: The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is not in his place because he has to be in Wales. It may be appropriate if I contribute one word or two. As a Welshman, it will probably be more than one. I rise to support the amendment. What is not often
806
mentioned is the fact that volunteers who work in this field of help for the mentally and physically handicapped grow themselves. It is one of the great surprises of working with the handicapped and underprivileged that the individual who seeks to help is himself or herself helped by the process. I should like to add the typical Tonypandy suggestion that in terms of this amendment we should be as concerned with the growth of the personalities of those who help the handicapped as with the help that they give to the handicapped, which is so greatly appreciated. Yesterday morning in the Lobby, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and I talked with both the handicapped and their volunteer helpers and the message that they gave was one of support for the amendment.
Lord Hastings: I think it is time that more support came from this side of the Chamber for the amendment. I have had letters from young people telling me about their work. It is quite clear that it is invaluable to the elderly or disabled people with whom they are working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, and as has been repeated in the letters, in many cases those young people are a lifeline. Withdraw them and the disabled and elderly will suffer direly, if indeed they can remain in their own homes at all.
It seems to me that the Government are proving quite inflexible about the principle of accountability. I should like to put the case to them in a rather different manner. Those young people will probably be living at home before taking up their voluntary work and they will be assessable and paying the community charge. After they leave their voluntary work they will be in the same position, perhaps in a job and paying the community charge. We are therefore talking about one year in the lives of a shifting volunteer population. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has pointed out, the trouble and cost of tracing those young people will be considerable. The burden will presumably be placed on the residences where they live. That will make for an unpleasant and difficult atmosphere between the young and the people who run the places.
I think that that is impractical. Apart from being impractical I do not think it is worth it. I understand that there are usually about 1,000 and never more than 2,000 of the CSV volunteers at any one time. It is peanuts and I do not think that it is worth the candle, apart from the fact that I think that it is probably morally wrong in this particular case.
That is only one category of temporary volunteer worker. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to volunteers in the Sue Ryder Homes. I happen to be concerned with and participate in the Camphill Villages for the adult mentally handicapped. In those villages, which range from quite small hostels to large villages of over 300 people, there will be several hundred co-workers, all of them volunteers—not temporary but permanent workers. Some of those people are young, some are middle-aged and some are old. They have been in the movement all their lives. They have no money because they are not paid. They are volunteers who

807
live from the communal purse of DHSS and MSC grants and donations. They have no money to pay, so the charity will have to pay.
I am not sure whether that situation is covered in the Bill. I cannot find it because it is a very long and complicated Bill. Are charities of that nature to be exempted or will they have to pay a collective community charge? The individuals certainly cannot pay. If they have to pay as a community the total will run to many thousands of pounds.
I think that that also is something which needs to be looked at very carefully. We are not talking about vast sums of money or thousands of people. They are probably numbered in hundreds or a few thousand at most. They are all doing absolutely vital work serving their fellow human beings in a Christian manner. I think that we need to approach the matter with a thoroughly Christian attitude and to treat those people with the greatest respect and gratitude.
I hope that in this case the Government will be able to move a little away from the argument of accountability. I hope that they will do as I think they ought for these very humane people who are serving their fellow men in a way which I can only describe as following the second great Commandment: Love they neighbour as thyself. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and to which my name is attached. It seems to me that the issue is very simple. People who give their services to help the disadvantaged in return for pocket money should not have to pay the community charge. As we have heard, residential community service volunteers work away from home. They work full-time, they receive board and lodging and a small subsistence allowance, which may amount to £15 or £16 per week. They are not eligible for benefit. It is true that they will be eligible for the 80 per cent. rebate of the poll tax but in certain areas—for example, inner London—even after receiving the rebate they will still be paying some £2 to £3 per week of their community charge.
There has in the past been some doubt as to whether Ministers fully appreciate the value which those volunteers offer in helping people to live independently in the community. There is also doubt as to whether Ministers appreciate the disincentive to recruitment which the community charge may well create. Therefore one hopes very much that Ministers will consider this matter very carefully and feel that they can withdraw the opposition which they have expressed to the exemption of residential voluntary workers. If they do so they will help to prevent people being sent back into residential care, which would in the long run cost the Government much more money.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that I did not hear the noble Baroness introduce the amendment because I was called out of the Chamber. I should like to make one point and I should particularly like to make it in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, who spoke so well on the subject and issued a note of
808
warning about going too far in the direction which he sees the Government following on this point.
There are many volunteers other than CSVs, which is a marvellous organisation for marshalling volunteers. But there are also many others. What we must remember when discussing how this matter should be dealt with is that we shall be living in a country in which everybody, but everybody, is involved in the community charge except for the very few people whom we have been discussing. The community charge will be part of life and part of the basic expenditure of virtually everybody. I believe that it would be most natural for a volunteer to get the amount needed through pocket money.
How that situation is to be reached is another matter. Some people have spoken about benefit coming in the direction of such people, or money from MSC schemes, and so on. My view is that our discussions have not yet moved into the sphere where the community charge will be part of everybody's cost of living on the same basis as buying one's food and so on. Everyone will be paying that little bit of community charge.
The estimate of what is needed for pocket-money is based on what young people are likely to require for basic necessities. The volunteers freely accept that. They enjoy their work tremendously; it is wonderful work, but this charge should be part of it. To speak otherwise would simply confuse them and other people about the whole issue. It is a great way to oppose the community charge, although that is not what the right reverend Prelate was doing when he talked about whether this was the right way to treat volunteers. I respect his views enormously and always listen carefully to him, but I wonder whether he has pictured to himself the scene that will exist when the whole scheme has become accepted and part of everyone's life. We must project our minds forward to that time.
I do not know what the Government will say about this matter. They may have some ingenious proposals about which neither I nor anybody else has heard anything. I hope that it will be possible for them to do something along the lines that I have suggested should be done in respect of disabled people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to say one thing to her. The Government have thought again about student nurses paying the community charge. Student nurses now receive quite a large wage compared with the £16 of a community volunteer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is why I look forward to hearing how these groups are to be related. I do not know. There are various categories of people who are paid allowances to cover costs, and pocket-money is meant to cover costs. I meant to say so. It is a related point. However, I still believe that we should not say that, because their work is so marvellous and they do not receive a salary, they should be exempt from paying the community charge. That is my argument.
Lord Hastings: I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is suggesting that if they pay the charge out of their pocket-money the Government should increase that pocket-money.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Government do not pay the pocket-money.
Lord Hastings: Who does pay the pocket-money?
Noble Lords: The charities.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for giving the Committee a full and rounded picture of the work of the community service volunteers. She explained their work quite clearly. I emphasise that I am well aware of the work of the CSVs at the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. A number of the volunteers help not only in the college but also in the residential block where blind and mentally handicapped people live.
I see the work of those young people on the ground. They are very keen. They enter into the work with gusto and enthusiasm. It is not simply a chore for them; it is part of the enjoyment of life. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, they possess an enthusiasm which they radiate towards the people they are trying to help. And they do this on a mere pittance.
I should like to follow up what I thought were the most commendable comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who likened their involvement to a Christian approach. I believe that the noble Lord was not present during our debates on the Education Reform Bill—and if I am wrong I beg his pardon—when we had three long debates about Christian ethics and Christian teaching in schools. That was given great support by the noble Baroness who raised the issue and other noble Lords. They should be here today to support the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings; that is to say a Christian approach. I appeal to noble Lords on the Benches opposite to think seriously about that suggestion should my noble friend decide to take this amendment to a vote.
It should also be remembered that if such volunteers are not given exemption, they will become a cost to the charities. The charities will have to find more money to pay the community charge of the volunteers. That also takes away accountability, because the charity will be paying the charge and there will be no impact or sense of accountability for the person on whose behalf it is paid. Moreover, if such people do not have to pay, perhaps the way that they use their votes will not be taken into consideration.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to say that it is not just the charities that are concerned; in some cases it is the local authorities themselves. I have a letter from a community service volunteer who is working in a home for the mentally retarded located in my former
810
constituency. That home is run by the county council. So this matter also concerns the local councils and it is a ridiculous situation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord. The Government are becoming terribly muddled with the various pieces of legislation that they are bringing forward. They are not considering the overlap between one department and another. The noble Lord's intervention bears that out. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us some good news on this important matter so that at last these Benches will obtain some concession on this Bill.
Lord Hunt: I should like to say a few brief words because I believe that this issue goes rather further than the community service volunteers themselves. I had very close contacts with Alec Dickson when he started the movement over 30 years ago. One must remember to what extent the community service volunteers from the beginning have been and still are the supreme example of service by young people. They are the exemplars and the standard bearers. We badly need people who are prepared to do the ultimate in volunteering. They encourage untold numbers of other young people to serve in some lesser way.
I am concerned lest there is a shrinkage in the numbers coming forward and working in the splendid way that has been described in such difficult situations. I fear that those numbers may be diminished by the legislation as it stands at the moment, and if the numbers are reduced it will have an impoverishing effect on young people who wish to follow the shining example given by the community service volunteers.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to speak from the point of view of local authorities, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act local authorities have a statutory duty toward the disabled. At the moment it is very difficult to carry out those statutory duties because of the cutback in resources to local authorities. A number of local authority social services departments are trying to carry out their statutory duties by way of volunteers. The CSVs are helping local authorities to carry out their statutory duties without extra cost to the local authorities. If the charities think that they will have to subsidise the volunteers, the local authorities will feel the same, and the resources will not allow for that. The noble Lord may agree. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this into account.
The Countess of Mar: On the same theme that has been taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, perhaps I may give some examples of what is happening in Hereford and Worcester, which is an area that I know quite well. At the moment it has 11 independent living schemes. Nine of them are financed by the county council and two by the disabled persons, having special transitional protection under income support because they had a higher rate of domestic assistance allowance. On a

811
number of occasions the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have raised the question of special transitional protection. As this charge will probably mean an increased cost to the disabled persons themselves—and Ministers for the Government have said on a number of occasions that there will be no provision for increasing the transitional protection because of increased costs—this will mean either that the disabled persons will be more impoverished than they already are, or that they will have to go into an institution. At the moment, nine of the volunteers' expenses are met by the county council through the social services department. They will probably meet the increased charge and perhaps they would top up the other two. If the alternative were to take them into local authority care, at the moment in Hereford and Worcester there is no provision. There are no beds. It would be extremely costly. I believe that it costs about £30,000 a year to keep someone in a hospital or an institution, whereas when they are in the community it is very much cheaper.
What about the independence of these people? For a long time we have said they must be allowed their independence. They would lose it completely if they had to move back into an institution. The only thing that enables them to live in the community is the assistance that they receive from the community service volunteers.
Lord Jay: I should like briefly to emphasise one point. As I understand the law, until now the charities which organise these services have been charities exempt from tax. If they own property, by dint of that exemption they are not liable to make any payment by way of rates to local authorities. The volunteers giving these services will in many cases be unable to pay. They will either have to abandon the service altogether, which will be a great loss, or, alternatively, the charity will have to provide them with the money in order to pay the community charge. In that case, the Government will, in effect, be taxing charities, which has been contrary to all practice and law, and to the policy of all governments until now. We shall reach the point when, as a result of this community charge, the Government will be introducing the principle of taxing charities by the back door. Surely they do not wish to do that.
Lord Gisborough: It is not a question of the charity now paying rates when it had not done so before, but more a matter of timing. These community charges will be recoverable. It is more a question of timing than whether they are out of pocket at the end of the day.
Lord Torphichen: In view of the obvious good intentions of this amendment, I do not like to be the one Member of the Committee to express an opposite view. However, there is one point that worries me. I cannot see that there is here a definition of a volunteer which will stand the test of time. Can one of the movers of the amendment, or perhaps the Government spokesman afterwards, attempt to tell us whether some organisation which would not fit the popular view of a charity or a voluntary organisation—such as Scientologists—could simply claim that
812
they were volunteers under this form of words and misuse the effect of the amendment as it stands?
Lord Craigmyle: The definition is extremely important. I am entirely behind the principle of the amendment but I cannot pretend to like the wording. The definition is at once both too narrow and too loose. It does not describe sufficiently clearly the people who are to be covered by it. It seems based on the assumption that community service volunteers are the only such people. In practice I do not think that that will be found to be so. In a few minutes, when we consider Amendment No. 28, we shall be considering religious communities, many of whom will have working with them just such volunteers who are not members of the religious community and will therefore not come within the definition in Amendment No. 28, but who are very definitely the kind of people whom the noble Baroness and her co-signatories to this amendment have in mind.
On the financial matter, surely it is quite clear that if someone who could earn in almost any job £8,000 or more a year is working for pocket money amounting to £800 or so, he is giving 90 per cent. of his earning capacity to the community. It is quite monstrous to expect him to pay a community charge as well.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: One of the problems when one changes one set of taxes for another is that one changes one set of anomalies for another. It seems to me that that is precisely what we are doing in changing from rates to the community charge. We can see by the amendments that the system will be riddled with anomalies. This amendment seeks to correct only one of them. It is almost inconceivable that the Minister will not go to that Dispatch Box and say that he accepts this amendment. If he does not accept it, then he will look very mean indeed.
Furthermore, when we come to Amendment No. 28 he will ask the Committee to support an amendment which asks for the relief of people in a closed religious community who work for the relief of suffering. This is precisely what the volunteers about whom we are talking this afternoon are doing. Why is the Minister asking us to exempt those who live in a closed community, and therefore need no money to deal with worldly things, but not to exempt those people who need their £16 a week because they are out in the world? They need that £16 merely to deal with the day-to-day matters of life. The Minister needs to answer that question.
We know that the Minister is a compassionate man. How on earth a man of his calibre, who thinks so much of his fellow people, can contemplate refusing acceptance of this amendment I do not know. I hope that he will not disappoint us.
Lord Carter: I shall be extremely brief, but we have heard from noble Lords that yesterday we had a visit from a number of severely disabled and wheelchair-bound young people accompanied by the young volunteers who do this magnificent job of looking after them. I was given one example of a young man who is severely disabled. He has been told that he needs a spinal operation. He depends for his income

813
on benefit. He will not go into hospital to have the operation because if he is in hospital for more than six weeks—it is a change of circumstances under the new Act—the level of his transitionally protected benefit will go down severely. One can multiply examples of people in these situations. Surely it is essential that people with these problems, with the agony of the day-to-day living that they have, should not have the added concern of the possibility of some proportion of the poll tax being levied on the volunteers who enable them to live at home.
As has already been pointed out, in many cases the need is for two volunteers who are required to give assistance. It would be an insupportable burden if the poll tax were levied on these volunteers. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, we cannot believe that this is the Government's intention. From what the Minister has heard from all the speeches on the amendment, he will realise that we all have this view. We urge him to accept the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, gave the Committee a graphic account of the work of residential voluntary workers. As so often, direct personal experience of a situation enhances our debate. Indeed it has enhanced our debate, as many noble Lords have had experience with these workers in various fields.
I take the Committee back and remind it that our aim in introducing the community charge is to improve accountability in local government by spreading far more fairly the burden of paying for local services. To achieve this aim we wish to ensure that as many people as possible pay the community charge so that a far greater number of local electors have an incentive to consider the costs as well as the benefits of extra local spending. Residential voluntary workers, like other adults, use and benefit from local services; it is only fair therefore that they should also contribute towards the cost of those services.
I accept that voluntary workers who have no means other than their subsistence would have difficulty in paying the full community charge. However, they will not have to pay the full charge. All those on low incomes, including voluntary workers, will be able to apply for reductions of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge. Voluntary workers relying solely on pocket-money would qualify for the maximum reductions. This means on average that they would have to find about 85p a week as a contribution towards the community charge.
I must also point out that residential voluntary workers receive free accommodation and food. So I understand that the £16 a week they receive is effectively pocket-money. I certainly do not claim that £16 a week, over and above accommodation costs, represents affluence. The question is whether it is right to ask volunteers to pay on average 12p a day out of their £16 a week towards the cost of the local services they can use and vote for. Some Members of the Committee have said that it is wrong because it would be asking too much and, perhaps more importantly, it would be a disincentive to recruitment.
814
I turn now to a point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about the complications of the collection of a charge. Like other individuals who are eligible for 80 per cent. rebates, we want community volunteers wherever possible to receive net bills of only 20 per cent. of the charge. We accept that hardship would be caused if they had to pay 100 per cent. and then reclaim the balance. Because volunteers will generally spend a considerable time at an address, they will be subject to the personal charge. That means that it would be relatively straightforward to send them a net bill.
It is not simply that we think it is fairer that more of those who use and benefit from local services should contribute something towards the cost of paying for them. But it is important for all adults, including voluntary workers, to be aware, through changes in the level of their community charge bill, of the spending decisions taken by their local authority; and to share financial responsibility for those decisions. That in our view is the best way to improve accountability, give value for money and revitalise local democracy. The more people are excluded from this process, the less chance there is of bringing about the lasting improvements to the operation of local government which the community charge aims to bring.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: Does the Minister not agree that in this kind of case most of the people will never actually vote because they are only resident for a year in a place which is not their home, so that argument hardly applies?
The Earl of Caithness: I certainly would hope that they would take the opportunity to vote if an election occurred during the period that they were there.
My noble kinswoman said that we were on a high and hoped that as a result we had not lost our compassion. I remind her that within hours of the vote yesterday not only my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, but I too, took away issues for further reflection as the Committee suggested. I assure her that our concern to get the details right has not diminished overnight. If anything it has probably increased. I have listened with great care and I should like to take away and consider with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government—who has listened to your Lordships' Committee today as he did yesterday—to see whether we can bring forward an amendment to target the benefit carefully on those who deserve it most, those to whom Members of the Committee have referred.
My noble friend Lord Torphichen raised an important point when he said that the definition must be looked at. Indeed that is one of the many matters that together with my right honourable friend I should like to consider.
Lord Parry: Will the Minister accept that his statement about docking 85p from the volunteer worker to give him a lesson in democracy sits very ill with the lesson that we are seeking to teach that we should encourage the people who are volunteers? They give of their lives in the service of others.
The Earl of Caithness: It is because they are to be encouraged that I referred specifically to some of the points that Members of the Committee made about the fact that it would be harder to recruit volunteers. That is one of the reasons why I wish to consider this amendment again.
Lord Hastings: Will the Minister apply his mind to the very important point that where volunteer workers are unable to pay, the charities will have to pay, and hitherto they have been exempted from the rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is absolutely right. He tells us that charities could have been exempted from rates at the moment. They have a 50 per cent. rebate from central government and there can be a discretionary rebate from local government. Of course that will be transferred to the community charge.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Earl quoted averages, such as 12p a day and 85p a week. What is the maximum cost likely to be in a very highly rated area?
The Earl of Caithness: Without notice I cannot give the noble Countess either the maximum or the minimum; but if there is an average, there will be some who lose but there will be others who end up with cash in their pockets.
Baroness Faithfull: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will take this back.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am a little confused because the Minister opened his remarks with all the same arguments that we have heard until now against the exemptions. He did not answer the point that was made by the right reverend Prelate and myself that volunteers were making a contribution to local services, even though it may not be in monetary terms. He did not answer the points that we made, but at the end, just when we had all given up hope, the Minister changed his tune altogether and said that he would look at it. I should be grateful if he would clarify this because it puts me in rather a difficult position.
The Earl of Caithness: I thought it was right, as I have done before to the Committee, to spell out what I thought the arguments were. I have heard exactly what the Committee has said. That is what I should like to consider. But I thought it would be wrong not to spell out the situation as I had seen it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My co-sponsors are a long way away and therefore I am unable to consult them. Obviously I thank the noble Earl very much indeed for saying that he will take this amendment back and look at it. We reserve our position to put down our amendment again, perhaps in better terms. We have been asked for a definition of "volunteer" and that we can easily produce; if there is nothing satisfactory down at Report from the Minister that is what we shall do. I thank him for what he said and in the light of it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 81, line 5, at end insert—
("Members of religious communities.
6A.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

(a) he is a member of a relevant religious community, and

(b) he has no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs.

(2) A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principle occupation—

(a) is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation, or

(b) consists of two or more of the occupations mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(3) A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28. This amendment follows a commitment given earlier in the Bill's progress that we would exempt from the personal community charge members of religious communities (those devoted to prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering or education) who have no income or capital of their own and are dependent on the community.
I hope that the amendment will be welcomed by the Committee. I should say that it has been drafted so as to ensure that any member of a religious community, where the relevant criteria were met, will secure an exemption. There has been consultation with representatives of a number of religious groups—including Buddhist communities—in the preparation of the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is right. Anything which, on careful analysis and reflection, has caused him and his fellow Ministers to exempt such groups is welcome. Those Members who follow the proceedings in another place will recognise that this kind of matter is raised and it corrects an anomaly. Will the Minister justify and explain the terms of the amendment? Will he also spell out exactly who is likely to benefit? For instance, the yardstick or measuring rod for the exemption of an individual is that he is a member of a relevant religious community. If I mention some religious communities, will the Minister say whether they fall within that definition? For instance, there is the Church of Scientology which would argue that it is a religious community. There are also the Moonies, Hare Krishna and the Rastafarians. I appreciate that the Minister may not have been involved directly, but will he say how wide were the discussions and who will benefit from the amendment?
As regards subsection 6A(2) we have the hoops through which the individual must jump. It states:
"A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principal occupation … is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation,".
Will the Minister say what he considers to be prescribed occupations? Those words are not idly put

817
into a statute and I appreciate that not everything can be spelled out in a statute. However, Parliament is entitled to understand what will be spelled out when the question of a prescribed occupation arises.
If the yardstick is membership of a religious community the exemption is inconsistent with the Government's desire not to exclude ministers and vicars. Am I right in that belief? If that is right, how is it reconciled with the amendment now before the Committee? Paragraph (4) states:
"In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored".
Can the Minister give the Committee the rationale behind that provision? Such a disregard might be justified if the pension were being paid into the religious community. However, if the member of the religious community had not taken vows of proverty and was still in receipt of a pension, he or she should pay the poll tax.
I draw to the Minister's attention inconsistencies and requests for clarity. The Minister must understand that my questions are benign and not malignant in the sense that I am trying to be helpful to those outside. If I do not ask the questions here and receive acceptable answers, if the Bill is not clarified, and if Hansard does not record it, those people will be asking the questions and the Minister can be helpful in answering them here.
I am intrigued with subsection 6A(3) which states:
"A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph … ".
That is the answer to the first question that I asked, and we now come to the second question. The Minister must have ideas of the type of people, occupation and work or calling capable of being defined in that way. I am asking the Minister to be helpful.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: Is this not another case where the whole problem would be solved by the insertion of the word "Christian" of which we appear to fight so shy nowadays?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Following on from the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite, I should like to ask what is in my noble friend's mind in respect of paragraph (4) of the amendment. It appears to say that however large a pension is now being paid to a member of a religious community, he shall still receive exemption from the community charge. It is not unknown for people who have had a successful career in the world, as a result of which they have retired with a substantial pension, to spend their declining years in a religious community. That is not an unusual phenomenon. However, it seems ridiculous that if a large pension were being paid to such a person he should be exempted from the charge. Will my noble friend consider putting a limit on this and excluding it only where the pension is of fairly modest dimension?
Baroness Faithfull: Members of the Committee will remember that a Question was asked about the position of Scientologists and Moonies. It was
818
decided by the Charity Commission that they were registered charities. Would the term "relevant religious community" apply to organisations such as the Scientologists and the Moonies which are charitable institutions?
Lord Stallard: I am concerned with the Simon Community which is a mission for the caring of those on Skid Row. They are probably the most unfortunate people within the community. Those who no one else wants to help are helped by the Simon Community. I suppose that it is a quasi-religious organisation; it has the backing of many religious leaders and bodies. It practices voluntary poverty in the same way as do many religious organisations. Its workers receive £10 a week pocket-money. It is dependent on no public funds but relies wholly on charitable organisations and on collections to provide funds. Does the community come into that category?
It operates in four boroughs and moves from one to the other offering different levels of assistance in different places. Most of its clients do not qualify for DHSS benefits. One can see them in any main-line railway station, underneath many of the arches and in all kinds of places. They do not understand the DHSS let alone qualify for it. However, under the Bill they will all be liable to pay the community charge. Obviously the Simon Community are most concerned that the charge would cripple it in a borough such as Camden. I was surprised that in the previous debate the Minister could not give examples because I thought that everyone knew about Camden. He should have been able to say that, for whatever reason, its poll tax will be in the region of £760, £780, £800 or £880. One can take one's pick according to the paper one reads.
However, it will certainly be up to £3-plus a week, so that the community operating in those circumstances will be absolutely crippled unless it receives an exemption. I should like the Minister to consider whether, within the orbit of his amendment, he can grant the exemption that will be so necessary if the community can carry on the task which no one else wants to do but is nonetheless very important.
Lord Carter: There is an area which I believe is unclear and perhaps the noble Earl can help. In the Catholic Church there are examples of members of a religious community who are running a parish. They are not living in a community but are members of a community. I understand that the intention is not to exclude the minister or vicar who has an income and who has not taken a vow of poverty. Therefore one could have a situation where there are two parishes alongside each other; one is run by a member of the secular clergy who will be liable to the poll tax; and the one next door will be run by a member of a religious community who is not in his community but is detached to run the parish, who will be exempt from the poll tax. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether or not that is the case.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has appeared because yesterday we were discussing various communities,

819
which may not have been religious communities, which were perhaps working with more difficult people, performing a more demanding job than some of the religious communities. I am a Catholic and a Christian, but why should a religious community which may be living in more comfort and with more money than some of the communities about which we were speaking last night which are dealing with AIDS and drug abuse and other problems, be exempt when the others are not? If the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, was here he would be quite horrified to hear that the Moonies might be exempt. I suggest that the two Ministers should get together and take away this amendment and look at it along with last night's amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. I speak with particular interest as chairman of the Church of England's Advisory Council for Relations between Bishops and Religious Communities. Therefore, I was expecting some of the questions which have been posed about definitions and perhaps I may be able to offer some guidance on a few of those points, although further definition will be required.
I believe that to insert the word "Christian" would be rather offensive to most Christians. The Minister said that there had been consultations with Buddhists. Christians are now very much aware that we are living in a multi-faith Britain and do not seek any privilege to be apportioned to them simply because they are Christians. In a related way, we do not see this as anything comparable to the community charge being paid by ministers of religion. Ministers of religion are supported and have money at their disposal in a way in which members of a religious community living under a vow of poverty do not.
The way in which a parish priest who is a member of a community is supported varies from community to diocese and to some extent between the Anglican and Roman communities. However, in justice, it should not be too difficult to find a solution whereby a man or woman who is in a job which has a stipend or source of payment attached to it should be liable for a charge.
There is the question of the sects. The fear that people who are much distrusted by the public at large might, by calling themselves religious, become exempt would not be solved by using the word "Christian", because the majority of them also call themselves Christians, and rather than defining the word "religion" one would have to define the word "Christian" which, in the end, might be more embarrassing. Therefore perhaps I may thank the Minister for the work which he has already put into this and encourage him to take a positive view of all the pertinent comments which have been made about the difficulties of definition.
Baroness Blatch: I want to support the amendment brought forward by the Minister but I am concerned about the possibility of a technical loophole, for
820
example, for the Moonies. I believe that the word "and" at the end of paragraph 6A(1)(a) which states:
"he is a member of a relevant religious community, and (b) he has no income or capital",
probably covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Technically, many of the Moonies and members of such sects operate as a communal entity and therefore, individually, may claim to have no money, but as a collective organisation it is possible that they have a great deal of money. Therefore, under these rules all the individual members may be exempt but the sect itself is very wealthy. I believe that we all want to support this amendment but we are really talking about monks and nuns, and would like to see a form of words in which they are included but which positively excludes sects such as the Moonies.
Lord Craigmyle: My noble friend has been bombarded with all sorts of questions about this, but they are all questions around the periphery of the matter. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish him to receive the impression that we are all carping at him. We are all grateful, as I am sure are all religious communities throughout the land, for the introduction of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the opportunity to explain a little further the amendment which has been the subject of much discussion. As the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee, the discussions were with the Church's main committee, which not only represents the Christian and Jewish religions but also Buddhist organisations.
The requirements of the amendment have deliberately been drawn tight because we believe that it is sufficient to exempt all those who are members of genuine religious communities. I am glad to say that the Churches believe that that is right and, indeed, agree with the definition in this amendment.
It may be helpful if I sum up the amendment as being one to cater for the situation of monks and nuns. That is why it has deliberately been drawn tight. There has been some talk of Moonies and the Church of Scientology. Simply because the Church of Scientology is a charity does not necessarily mean that it will qualify for this exemption, because the exemption is tightly drawn. For example, if a Moonie were to take a vow of poverty and devote himself to prayer or education and renounce all worldly goods—and I stress the word "all"—he would qualify for this exemption. I very much doubt whether many or indeed any Moonies would be prepared to go that far to claim exemption from the community charge. Indeed, if Moonies were to go that far, the Government could take credit for singlehandedly reforming that sect!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear the Minister's intentions, but the amendment does not say, "renouncing all worldly goods". It says:
"no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs".
Those parents who complain about their sons and daughters being taken away by the Church of Scientology, among other things, complain that they

821
devote all their financial resources to that Church. I am not at all convinced that the Minister has shown how he can avoid them qualifying under this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said and it is a point at which I should like to look. We believed that we had covered the situation, as did the Church's main committee. However, the noble Lord has cast doubts. I cast doubts on one of his definitions yesterday and I believe he realised that there was another way to look at it. Perhaps he would allow me to look again at this point.
I should like to cover the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on pensions when he spoke of the possibility of those very few monks or nuns who might have substantial pensions. Our proposed exemption assumes that all those monks or nuns in employment or with pensions will have taken vows of poverty and will therefore pass over the income they receive. That was the point that my noble friend Lady Blatch raised.
6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If that be so, why is it necessary to have sub-paragraph (4) disregarding the pension? Either there will be a pension, and in those circumstances I suggest that the exemption should be limited in respect of the amount of the pension, or, as my noble friend says, if it is not going to apply to anyone who has a pension why on earth is it necessary to put in sub-paragraph (4)?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend answers, it would appear that the Government are legislating on the basis of an assumption which may not be universal.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may also add my voice to the misgivings of my noble friend. My noble friend intends to be generous, and his move is obviously welcome for genuine religious communities. However, it seems to me that, as worded at the moment, the amendment makes it quite possible now for me to wait until one retires on a good pension, finds a number of colleagues with whom one is ready to pool one's resources, devote oneself to prayer and contemplation and one is then exempt from the community charge. Is that really what is intended?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is ingenious. That is certainly not what is intended. Indeed, I shall make sure that that intention is not fulfilled. I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the reason we have sub-paragraph (4) is this. It is to prevent a situation where, for a period in his life, someone may have worked and received a pension before entering a proper and relevant religious community and then being told that because he had worked and received a pension, he was liable to the community charge even though he had taken the vow of poverty and said that he would not receive his pension or would pass it on to the religious organisation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not follow my noble friend's argument. Either the person concerned has
822
no pension (in which case the sub-paragraph is irrelevant) or the sub-paragraph must be taken as a modification—the point which my noble friend Lady Blatch did not understand—of sub-paragraph (1)(b). The noble Lord cannot have it both ways.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: There is one point which seems relevant in relation to any attempt to define what is a religious community of which people approve, and one of which they do not. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated that the Government have no intention of trying to redefine what is a religion or a charity as regards this schedule.
The Earl of Caithness: Having dealt a little with charities while I was at the Home Office, I know full well the difficulties that that would entail. That is a subject which is being looked at in the reports on charities which have been recently undertaken. Far be it for me today to interfere with that good work.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not believe that I am trying to have it both ways, but I shall read with care what my noble friend said. I understand the concern of the Committee that we get this matter absolutely right. I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment because it has been agreed with the main committee of the Churches and between now and another stage we shall have further discussions with the right reverend Prelate and his committee to make sure that we cover the points of concern that the Committee has raised.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The final words of the Minister are very welcome because it is clear that with the very best of intentions he and his colleagues, and those whom he has consulted, genuinely thought that they had anticipated possible escape holes and routes. Despite that, from all sides of the Committee—genuinely from a non-partisan point of view and on a basis of curiosity—a number of points have emerged. It would have been a great pity if the Minister had stood by those words as being the definitive ones.
The Minister is without commitment inviting us to accept this amendment on the basis that at the next stage there will be some modifications to the amendment which will take into account the genuine points which have been raised. That is a very helpful attitude.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 81, line 19, at end insert ("and
(c) he is in receipt of income less than £15,000 per annum").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I speak also to Amendment No. 30. Again, we require understanding and clarification from the Minister. The Committee is well aware that there are great disparities between those who either pay the poll tax or part of it and those who, in our view, ought to pay considerably more towards the financing of local government.
The amendment has two aims. Schedule 1 relates to exemptions from the personal community charge.
On page 81, under the sub-heading, "Patients in homes", we find:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

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

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

We are puzzled that despite the financial wherewithal of that individual, in that place, he or she will be exempt from paying the poll tax, but that there will be others in different circumstances, perhaps in the same condition, who have to pay the poll tax.
For example, there may be a person who has the same malady, the same condition, the same need for treatment, but who is receiving it at home and in that case the poll tax would have to be paid. Someone has to minister to that person's needs. Therefore, the worker in the home will have to pay the poll tax. I use the phrase—it is not clumsy—that the rich person or the person with good means will not be paying but the ordinary worker will.
If, for a variety of reasons, a person declines to go into a residential home—perhaps he cannot afford it—and he is being treated at home, not only will he have to pay the poll tax but his relatives will have to pay the tax, too. We believe that there is an anomaly here. I am not arguing one way or the other, but for equity. In response to the amendment, the Minister may tell us that we have it right, that a person, whatever his means, provided he conforms with the words in the Bill (namely, that he is receiving treatment in one of the homes) will not pay the poll tax, but that another person in the same condition, receiving treatment at home, will have to pay the poll tax. In those circumstances, I believe that, in equity, the Minister must agree that there is an injustice.
The first part of our amendment says that there should be some limit, some level of income, below which the current part of the Bill will stand—an exemption—but above which there will not be an exemption. We suggest that the figure should be £15,000. Subparagraph (c) says:
"he is in receipt of income less than £15,000 per annum".
It may be argued that £15,000 is the wrong figure but we believe that it takes into account a number of considerations. For example, besides making normal payments someone may have to keep up a home outside the residential home. We believe that such factors should be taken into account.
The Minister is an assiduous reader of what happens in another place. He will certainly have had his attention drawn to the words of his honourable friend Mr. John Butterfill, the Member for Bournemouth West. During the Committee stage on 28th January he said at col. 175 of the Official Report:
"There is considerable anxiety in my constituency about residential homes. The number of residential homes has increased, especially in south-coast resorts, and it is a matter of contention in my constituency that under the law as it stands they have been excluded from rates. That has had adverse effects. First, it has resulted in the diminution of the amount produced by rates for the local authority. Secondly, and more importantly for a resort, it has meant that properties that formerly were boarding houses or small hotels have become rest homes because they are not liable for rates and thus are more profitable".
824
These are complex problems to resolve, but the Bill is not of our making. This aspect of the Bill does not have our approval. We are trying to make it more sensible and a little less inequitable, particularly in comparison with those who live outside. I hope that the Minister will say something helpful along those lines.
Our second amendment seeks to insert the words:
"The Secretary of State shall reimburse the owner of any residential care home, nursing home or hostel for all costs incurred by them in collecting any charges due under (c) above".
That refers to administration, keeping books and so on in respect of the £15,000. We do not see why a business should bear the costs of administering this aspect of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Paragraph 8 is fairly widely drawn. There is no doubt that it would cover residential care homes or nursing homes where the fees are fairly high. Presumably it is intended not to cover those places so much as places where people of slender means are cared for, especially in old age. That could happen to any of us one of these days. The amendment has at least served the purpose of enabling us to consider what is to apply to people of substantial means who are cared for in—I use two of the expressions—residential care homes and nursing homes.
The amendment refers to income of less than £15,000. We heard yesterday that the average industrial wage is £220 a week. My arithmetic shows me that that adds up to £11,440 a year. Whatever his intentions—and I appreciate the view that he has expressed—the noble Lord has inserted in his amendment a relatively high limit in terms of present money values. Therefore I do not think that I could expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the amendment. On the other hand it gives an opportunity for the Government to declare their hand with regard to those people of substantial means who pay quite high fees to be cared for in these homes and still have some income left over. Within the philosophy of the Bill one would expect them to make some contribution to local government services even though they are not in the position of enjoying them quite to the full.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lord Renton has explained the very wide nature of paragraph 8. As I understand this provision—and no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to enlighten me—this is one of the points where a different method of meeting the charge is being adopted. The building will be rated. The charges to the patient, where there are charges, will include an amount towards running the building, including the non-domestic rate. This is a sensible arrangement whereby in some respects a collective charge will be paid through the non-domestic rate machinery.
In the case of a charitable home there will be an exemption. However, I would not expect to find people with incomes of £15,000 or more being taken into charitable homes. Therefore there is a perfectly clear and logical reason for what is in the Bill. Wealthy patients in nursing homes which are not

825
charities but are run as businesses will be paying the national non-domestic rate and the amount will be reflected in the charges that patients have to pay to the home. It would be quite inappropriate if long-stay patients in these establishments find themselves paying the individual community charge.
In the case of a charitable home, if the exemption applies, there will be no non-domestic rate. The same applies to the patients. They will not be paying the community charge. The contribution will be from individuals in the appropriate form. I recognise that in those circumstances there will not be the direct payment which, as it were, closes the loop of accountability, but in terms of sheer practicality this is a sensible way of doing it. The noble Lord's point is misconceived. What is proposed is a sensible way of dealing with the matter. In a sense it is a derogation from the precise principle of the Bill, but it shows the flexibility of the Government in having regard to the practicalities of collecting the tax. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it right to accept the amendment.
As to the question of cost, people have always had to pay their rates. Homes and hostels, unless they are charities, have had to reflect that in their management costs. That has been part of the cost of running a home. It does not seem to me appropriate that there should be a special case. This is an example of a sensible and pragmatic way of trying to make the Bill work.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, meant an income of less than £15,000 gross or net. If he meant £15,000 gross, that is not a very high income, especially as it is not unusual for the cost of living in one of the homes to be in the region of £250 a week. I have just done a little arithmetic and £250 multiplied by 52 comes to £13,000. So if it were gross, that person would not even have enough left to pay the cost of the home.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I moved the amendment and we had it in mind as a gross figure. We had experience of the £250. In Enfield where I live amounts in excess of £300 a week are being charged, which are not borne wholly by the social security department. Those are the charges being made. The figure of £15,000 is appropriate. I should be interested if the Minister could explain precisely the relativity of an individual who is exempt from paying the community charge and yet, according to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will be paying the community charge—that is, a portion of the global sum paid on the business. I should like the Minister to deal with that point.
Baroness Blatch: I am interested in the interpretation put on Clause 5 by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, because if that interpretation is right I should certainly wish to support it. However, I am minded to agree with at least the question mark raised by my noble friend Lord Renton because, as I understand it, an individual who has sole residence on a particular day and who is receiving care or treatment is exempt and the means
826
of an individual are not at all taken into account. I believe that the whole thrust of this Bill is that if someone is able to meet the community charge, he should do so, and the cost should be ameliorated only if his means are such that they require to be ameliorated by the rules set down. So, having heard my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I am not clear about the precise meaning of this clause and I welcome elucidation by the Minister.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: On the general point of Clause 8, many people who are being cared for in the community are getting respite care. Two people whom I visit spend six weeks at home and then three weeks in respite care. I do not think the places where they go come under the definition of a nursing home, a hostel or a residential care home. Originally they were small hospitals in Birmingham which were closed down and then came under the social services department, so they are not the normal type of nursing home or residential home.
These people are spending a considerable time each year in a caring position, and not in a nursing home as defined in the Bill, and the rest of the time at their own home. The difficulties arise when they claim social security benefits, because as soon as they go into respite care their social security is stopped as they are not being looked after at home. Will the same apply in the case of the poll tax? They will have to pay it at home, whatever the amount, but can they have it stopped when they go in for respite care, because their social security money will have stopped in the process?
Lord Ross of Newport: I put my name to this amendment because in my part of the world there are over 90 homes and goodness knows how many nursing homes and we have planning restrictions on any further developments. It seems to me that there is a loophole here, where people with extreme wealth can dodge paying poll tax, and I do not think that they should be allowed to get away with it. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there will be an extra charge on them through the rates being paid by the home in which they are resident, but what is their main residence? We know that they 'can go in for a considerable amount of time, can then be looked after by the family and then go back in again.
I do not know whether the figure should be £15,000. I think that this amendment should be read with Amendment No. 34, where we put a figure below which people should not pay anything at all, which coincides with the Government's recent decision on social security benefits. But there is a loophole. We have been discussing community service volunteers receiving £16 a week paying poll tax, so let us look at the other side of the scale and make sure that these people who are able to pay, and should be paying, do not escape paying by going into a nursing home or a residential care home, for I know very well that many people are in those places at the present time.
Lord Monson: I understand the purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and have qualified sympathy with it. But is it not

827
dangerous to insert into an Act of Parliament a fixed monetary amount of annual income in an era when the long-term rate of inflation is still ranging between 4 and 5 per cent., even under this Government? Heaven knows what it might be under any other government. Would it not be preferable to refer instead to 1·5 times average annual earnings or possibly, as my noble friend Lady Saltoun has pointed out, 1·75 times average annual earnings?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that this is a probing amendment. This is an illustration. The alternative formula which has been proposed would certainly be acceptable to us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There is just one small point that I want to make in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He said that, because people in residential care homes are being charged the business rate in their fees, then this amendment should not apply. However I point out that there are also people who have a long-term stay in hotels. They wish to stay in a hotel and they pay high fees for staying in a hotel. Those high fees are reflected in the amount that they pay to the hotel for staying there, but they will still have to pay the community charge. It seems to me that on those grounds and under those circumstances the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used falls to the ground. Therefore there is merit in what my noble friend is suggesting.
I must confess that the more I look at this Bill, and the more I see the amendments that are made to it, the more my mind boggles and the more convinced I am that my original view and my original instincts about the Bill were right. As I have said previously this afternoon, this community charge will cause more anomalies than were ever evident in the rating system.
It occurs to me that if I went into a nursing home and left my wife at home, as presumably under this Bill I am responsible for paying her poll tax, by going into a nursing home and having less than £15,000 a year, I should not only not have to pay my own poll tax but should not have to pay my wife's poll tax either. I do not know whether I am right about that, but that is what has occurred to me during this debate. Therefore that is another anomaly to which we may need to come back at some later stage. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has seized on what he believes is an anomaly in the Bill, which is that a few relatively well-off people who are being cared for in nursing homes and similar institutions will nevertheless not be subject to the personal community charge. I must say that I was a little surprised by what some noble Lords have said, because I must remind the Committee that it was not originally the Government's plan to exempt those who are being cared for in nursing homes. All would have had to pay the personal community charge. That was the position when the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc.
828
(Scotland) Bill reached your Lordships' House a year or so ago. Strong respresentations were then made by all sides of the Chamber, including the Benches opposite, that those people being cared for in this way should be exempt. The Government subsequently agreed to take the matter away and consider it. Having done so, we accepted that as it was already planned to exempt long-stay hospital patients, so it would be right to exempt those being cared for in nursing homes. Accountability could not reasonably be expected to operate for many—although by no means all—of those individuals. The decision was welcomed in this place when it was announced and it has now become law in Scotland. However, it seems that now Members of the Committee are not quite so sure about it.
I do not think that we can attempt to pick and choose between those people in nursing homes in the way the amendment seeks to do. I say that for two reasons. The first is that if the criterion is accountability—as we believe it should be—then the income of the individual is immaterial. Secondly, to operate the system suggested by the amendment would be an immensely complicated undertaking. In order to ascertain which individuals in nursing homes had annual incomes in excess of £15,000—a very small proportion, I suspect—the registration officer would have to investigate in detail the incomes of all those people being cared for in such homes. Of course that would lead us to the local income tax arguments that were discussed yesterday, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, found so unattractive. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, finds this amendment, and Amendment No. 34, so attractive because it is a back-door method to local income tax.
The amendment is not a realistic proposition: either there is an exemption or there is not. If the Labour Party, on reflection, do not believe that people being cared for in nursing homes should be exempt, then they must put forward an amendment to that effect at Report stage. Otherwise, they must accept that a handful of relatively wealthy individuals may benefit from exemption, as indeed they would if exemptions had been given to all those who are physically disabled.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has on this one rare occasion misunderstood the position. He suggested that homes will be left in rating because their residents are being exempted from the community charge. In fact, we cannot leave such homes in rating because almost all of them (including those run commercially) receive a 100 per cent. rate relief at present. When we agreed to the exemption, we felt that we could not put such homes back into rating because of the considerable extra burden that would be placed on those who run them. Therefore, we come back to the dilemma that we either accept that there will be some, although relatively few, who will benefit from the exemption as it stands in the Bill (which Members of this place wanted and agreed that the Government should make to the Scottish Bill last year); or we must head down the road towards local income tax which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would be the first to welcome but which Members of the Committee did not take kindly to last night.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Earl give some intimation in regard to the point that I raised?
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Baroness; I did indeed mean to reply to her. However, I cannot answer her in detail on this occasion because I should like to study the point carefully. However, as I understand the position, it would depend on where the sole main residence of the person was. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is inviting us to look at a situation where we have an establishment—a nursing home—inside of which there is a patient. The patient is a rich man but he pays no poll tax. He is being administered to by the workers in the nursing home who are poor people, but they must pay the poll tax. If the Minister believes that that situation is equitable and constitutes accountability, it is certainly not acceptable to those of us on this side of the Committee.
The Minister fairly points out that Members of the Committee on this side wanted those who are residents in nursing homes to be exempt. There is nothing wrong with that. However, what is wrong is that at the same time—we can argue about the figures, and I do not accept that there are only a few people—there will be rich people who will escape paying the poll tax, despite the premise of accountability. There are not only relatively and comparatively poor people, but really poor people who work in nursing homes and who will have to pay the poll tax. I think that that is wrong.
It is no good the Minister saying to us that we should come forward with an amendment to put the situation right. We are really saying to the Minister, "It is your Bill; it is the country over which you have the remit to rule equitably and fairly and you must take into account that if, in practice, that is what the situation turns out to be, then you must put it right."
The other matter that we consider to be absolutely wrong is this. There is nothing wrong with a person who needs to be nursed in a nursing home—rich or poor—being exempt; but what about the person who decides that they cannot afford to go into a nursing home—or perhaps does not wish to—and yet needs the same type of treatment in their own home? They pay the poll tax and their relatives, who will look after them, will also have to pay it; it is inequitable.
The Minister has given us no solace or comfort. However, it is not a matter upon which we are prepared to divide the Committee tonight. Nevertheless, I assure the Minister that it is something about which we feel most strongly. It is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way on the matter. However, in view of the valid point that he made about accountability, I wonder whether he would like to return to the position that we were in when we introduced the Scottish Bill to this place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. There is no justification for the Minister trying to draw my noble
830
friend in that way. He is quite right in saying that we welcome the change; we are merely trying to refine and improve it. If that is not being helpful and trying to revise what is increasingly becoming clear to be a ludicrous way of flouncing local government, I do not know what is. We are trying to be helpful within the terms of the Bill as put forward by the Government. The Committee has accepted the principle of the Bill, so let us try and improve it.
If the Minister has an answer to the accusation made by my noble friend that we may land up with rich people in homes being exempt, whereas the poor people who serve them will have to pay the community charge, then let him give us that answer. It is the Government's responsibility, not ours.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I second the remarks made by my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Viscount Rochdale Viscount Rochdale moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 81, line 37, at end insert—
("Staff in Residential Care and other Homes
.A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if he has sole or main residence in—

(a) a residential care home, nursing home or hostel, or

(b) a hereditament which is exempt under paragraph 15 of schedule 5 to this Act

and he is employed in that home, hostel or hereditament.").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if, when I move the amendment tabled in my name, I mention the main difference between my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, which was discussed a short time ago. The noble Baroness's amendment dealt entirely with volunteers; my amendment deals with staff who have some degree of salary and who are not volunteers.
The amendment I put forward to the Committee refers to staff who are resident in establishments owned and run by charities for the benefit of disabled people. As it stands, the Bill provides that such staff would be liable to pay the community charge. As I shall explain in a few moments, that would incur extra costs to the charity itself and would divert charitable funds which should be used for the main charitable purposes for which the whole organisation has been set up.
In my view, there are two types of institutions which would come within the broad picture that I am trying to illustrate. At one end of the scale would be residential homes, care homes and nursing homes, in which the full-time residents would be the disabled visitors themselves, with only a few of the staff actually living in as residents. At the other end of the scale there would be resident visitors who would only be in the institutions for short periods of time—say a week at a time—whereas the staff would be permanent residents within those homes. Both are now covered under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 and receive 100 per cent. rebate.
The Bill seems to indicate that the Government are continuing relief on buildings so that they will not

831
have to pay the new non-domestic rate charge. They are continuing the exemption on disabled residents but, according to my understanding, they are not continuing it on the staff.
Perhaps I may give an example of the kind of institution that I have particularly in mind in the last category. There is an institution in the North of England that describes itself as an adventure centre for the disabled. Nearly all the individuals who come there come in wheelchairs. They come from all over the country. Occasionally some even come from overseas. They come for one week; they come to get country interests and to learn country pursuits. They have to be instructed so that they can take part in the many activities open to them. These are activities such as canoeing, other kinds of boating, riding, swimming, bird watching and even—the Committee may be surprised to hear—a degree of mountaineering. The effect on disabled people who would otherwise be sitting in chairs in their homes, wherever they come from, is often remarkable. Here they are able to take part in what must have been to them undreamt of activities. They go home with added confidence and able to compete better in the world at large. They go home also often feeling that they can seek a job, and frequently obtain one.
For disabled people to be able to come for a week and take part in such activities, it is essential for them to have available to instruct and to look after them very experienced staff. That is why the staff must live full time in the home that I have in mind to gain the experience. It is obvious that the staff must win the confidence of the disabled people whom they instruct. They must be sympathetic. Above all, they must ensure that there is safety in all the things that they do, and hence the amendment.
The pay of these very experienced instructors, who stay for a long time, is moderate. Their lodging and board are free and their pay is therefore low. Under the Bill, they would have to pay the community charge. I know that the trustees in question have decided that, if this were so, the charity would have to make good to the staff the community charge that they had paid. The extra amount paid would therefore have to be grossed up to meet the additional tax of the staff concerned. The charge on such an institution has been calculated to be over £4,000 a year, which a modest sized charity can ill afford. The money must either be taken from other charitable purposes or be levied on the disabled people. It adds to the running costs of the charity if the visitors themselves are not charged.
Members of the Committee who know about such activities will realise how important it is to give confidence to disabled people. The amendment therefore extends what is already in the Bill for residential care homes to cover the kind of situation that I have described. I very much hope—I am full of hope—that my noble friend will give sympathetic responses to what I have said and will look with favour on the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. I have as much hope as the noble
832
Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and indeed some experience of having that hope dashed in the past. We shall have to wait and see.
The burden of the amendment concerns the effect upon a charity. The tab will be picked up by the charity. The Government have been fair in retaining the exemptions that existed under the rating system so that they will apply to a building or institution under the new system. However, they have the fetish of requiring accountability by the individual. In the pursuance of that, if an individual pays, the charity will lose. The case referred to is one of considerable size and importance, and we know the relevance of this work. There are thousands of such places, but even if one aggregated them the amounts of money involved would not be enormous.
We want to get down to the nitty-gritty of the impact and consequences of the big decisions, and the big decisions were taken yesterday by Members of the Committee, who declined to ask another place to consider yet again the question of ability to pay. Here we are speaking of ability to pay. The big impact of the ability to pay is written small here: it is the ability of the charity to bear the consequences. I hope that the Minister will say something that is not only sympathetic but also meets the point. The point may be met in a way that differs from the precise words of the amendment, but the spirit is there. Perhaps the Minister will accept that the consequences of the Bill as drafted will be damage to a charity. I hope that he will say how that can be avoided so that, even if individuals have to pay, a mechanism can be established whereby a charity will not have to pay. If this cannot be done, a charity with much anguish will say that the standard of living of its employees, who are doing so well, must necessarily fall to maintain what I believe is a wrong premise.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure that all Members of the Committee appreciate the good work that is being done by those who work in nursing homes and residential care homes, particularly perhaps live-in staff who may need to be on call even during their off-duty hours. Indeed my noble friend Lord Rochdale gave us a stirring example of such people just now.
But I think that it would not be appropriate to translate that appreciation into an exemption from the personal community charge. If we were to do so it would be doubtless rightly asked of us to grant similar exemptions for others—those on lower incomes and those also engaged in the caring professions who did not benefit from the exemption.
The exception for those being cared for in nursing homes and residential care homes was agreed to by the Government after pressure during the passage of the Scottish legislation through this Chamber. The Government agreed to an exemption because they accepted that accountability could operate to only a very limited extent for many of those being cared for in such circumstances. The same argument does not, I believe, apply to the staff of the nursing homes concerned. They play a full and active role in the community. They vote at local elections and they benefit from local services. Therefore I simply do not believe that an exemption could be justified.

833
I do of course accept that people on low incomes may need assistance in paying the community charge. However the correct way to give that assistance is through the rebate system, which I have explained in some detail to the Committee already.
Where I had difficulty in following my noble friend was when he said that the charity would suffer. I do not quite see how the charity would suffer, because this is a personal community charge for those who work at the charity. If the salary and the income of those who are working for the charity in looking after the disabled is below a certain level then the means of that person are taken into account and the necessary rebates can be granted. That is the right way of focusing the relief on the individual. Therefore there would be no extra cost for the charity.
Viscount Rochdale: I am a little disappointed at what my noble friend has said. I should like him to go a little further on the question of exemptions. When he was about to sit down he said that he was in some doubt as to what I meant when I said that the charity would suffer. The charity would suffer because it would have to increase the salaries of the individuals concerned by a certain amount. Those amounts would cause the individuals to pay increased tax. All that would have to be added up and made good to the individuals by the charity. Therefore the charity would suffer to that extent. The figure I gave in the particular case that I mentioned was something like £4,000.
That could be dealt with either by taking that amount of money out of charitable funds, which would reduce the service that the charity was giving to the inhabitants by that amount, or by adding it to the fees that the residents have to pay when they come for their week's course.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that matter. I think that I understand his point a little more clearly now. But again I would say that in our view that would be the wrong way of looking at the matter, because we believe that, as the basis of this charge is a personal community charge to the person, the income of that person will be taken into account and if it is below a certain level the rebate will be applicable to him or her.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I genuinely think that the Minister has not grasped the point. If the take-home pay of a worker in the home at the moment is, say, £100 a week, in future when the community charge has been dealt with and the rebates have been taken into account he will take home perhaps £98 or £95 a week.
We are arguing that the impost will diminish the income of the worker. We are saying that the Minister can say, as has been said before, that that is the worker's cost for participating in the new democracy. He has to pay and he has to be accountable. But, in the real world, when the workers say to their employers, "This has nothing to do with me but the impact of it is that I am £5 per week worse off", the good employer regardless of any other factor will say, "This lesson in democracy should not
834
cost you £5 a week. I shall pick up the tab." If the employers do not do this there will be dissension, dissatisfaction and the possibility of a worker deciding to look for a job where he can earn a little more. In the real world, those are the real decisions that will be taken.
The Minister may say that that is wrong and that people should not bridge the gap, tiny as it may be. But I can tell the Minister that £1 or £2 to him or even to myself would not be missed. But there are people in the real world for whom the reduction of £1 or £2 is a real impost. There are employers who will say to those people that they will bear the cost rather than the workers concerned. That is the real world. It is not the world in which the Minister lives.
Viscount Rochdale: I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on this issue. But I would ask my noble friend to give it further thought between now and Report to see whether something further can be done. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 82, line 26, 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 domestic 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 Baroness said: The amendment which I am moving seeks to exempt persons who are temporarily residing in homes or refuges established for the purpose of providing safety against actual or threatened domestic violence. In effect, the amendment will largely exempt women suffering from domestic violence who are residing in women's aid refuges.
However, I must say that the amendment is so worded that if it were ever felt that men were in need of such refuge and similar institutions were provided for men seeking refuge from domestic violence the amendment would cover them too. But in the course of my remarks I shall refer to women and to the women's aid refuges. At the present time there are about 200 such refuges in England and Wales providing accommodation for some 15,000 women and children a year.
These refuges are run by a voluntary organisation—Women's Aid England and Welsh Women's Aid—which provides a 24-hour crisis service. That is followed up by a high level of intensive care and support for the women in the refuges. Women in these circumstances are a very vulnerable group. They are living in temporary accommodation, having sought refuge from their own home in circumstances that are quite traumatic both for the women themselves and, where there are children, for the children too.
I am glad that the Minister has recognised some of the problems involved and I am grateful to him for having written to me setting out some of the arrangements that have already been made with the women's aid organisations. It has been decided, for

835
example, as a result of the representation made, that battered wives will be allowed to register for the community charge without having their names made public. In that sense a certain amount of protection of anonimity is provided for them.
However, I must say to the Minister that the women's aid groups and Welsh Women's Aid in particular do feel that a much greater protection would be provided for the women if they were actually exempt from the community charge and not included on the register at all.
In his letter, the Minister also recognises that there are financial problems which such women will probably have to solve by relying on income support. Even if they come from homes which are not particularly poor—they might well come from homes which are reasonably well to do—it is probable that for a temporary period they will have no income in their own right. As I have said, the Minister recognises that and he has pointed out that, in such circumstances, women would be entitled to the 80 per cent. rebate. Income support would also reflect the additional 20 per cent. payment for the average community charge. That 20 per cent. may or may not cover the actual community charge. As we have already heard this afternoon, there will be areas where there will be gainers and also areas where the amount provided will not be sufficient to meet the actual community charge.
However, the point at issue is that such women are in temporary residence. They have left their homes and possessions behind. They may even have already paid the community charge for the home which they have left. They are being sheltered from violence and they need to be rehabilitated back into the community. The Women's Aid refuges are safe places where women can remain while they decide what steps they should take about legal proceedings, housing options and their future financial situation, including their future work prospects.
At the time they go into such a refuge, it will not be appropriate for women to be thinking of transferring their community charge and thinking in terms of their local accountability. That kind of thought will follow when women are resettled. In any case, transferring the community charge from the original address to the temporary refuge address may not be appropriate. Women may remain in a refuge for a very short time. At most, the time spent in refuges is usually a few months, during which the women sort themselves out and then move elsewhere.
Moreover, at such a time women are likely to be in a highly emotional state. It is unfair to impose too many responsibilities upon them. With the help of the workers in the refuge such women will need to settle children in school and make contact with the DHSS to establish a claim to income support. In many cases, that will be the first time that such women have had to seek DHSS support because of the type of homes that they have come from. Women may be involved with visits to social workers, solicitors, or even the courts. They will be in constant need of advice and counselling.
All those matters require a high level of care and support from the refuge, which, although different from the type of care provided in a residential nursing home, is in some respects equivalent. I suggest that it deserves recognition by an exemption from the charge. An additional factor is that such women will be temporary residents.
It is interesting that the Minister, in acknowledging that fact in his letter to me, has made a very significant point. He pointed out that the women's refuges are not going to be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. He went on to say:
"In order to be designated a building must be used as the sole or main residence of individuals, most or all of whom reside there for short periods. This means that in practice women's refuges will not be designated since"—
and I underline this—
"women who stay in refuges have their sole or main residences elsewhere".
That surely takes account of the argument of accountability which we have heard all afternoon. If those women have their main residence elsewhere—a home that they have just left or one which they are planning to set up and move into—then that is where their accountability should be called into play. Therefore, I suggest that that argument does not apply in the case of women in refuges.
From an administrative point of view, rather than expecting such women to transfer their responsibility for community charge first to the refuge and then to wherever they are moving, it would be more sensible and kinder to the women, and also more sensible from the point of view of registration officers who will have their administrative work added to as a consequence, to make an exemption.
I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment. Last night a series of amendments were moved which had some similarities with this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who regrets that she is unable to be here to speak in support of the amendment this evening, brought up the question of women's refuges. I hope that the Minister will either be able to accept the amendment or assure me that he will give careful thought to the implications of what I have said. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As my name also appears on the amendment, perhaps I may say a few words in support of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has given a very full picture and I also wish to thank the Minister for writing to me. However, I feel that making women pay the personal community charge while they are in refuges adds an unwarranted burden and hassle at a time of great distress. They have many problems to resolve and many decisions to take. Surely arguments about accountability are inappropriate at a time of crisis in their lives.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to what the noble Baronesses have said about women's refuges. Let me say straightaway that the Government share their concern about domestic violence and applaud the good work done by women's refuges.

837
However, the Government see no reason to grant a community charge exemption to women in refuges. There is another and more appropriate way of providing assistance by means of the rebate system. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that officials from my department and the Welsh Office met representatives of the Women's Aid Federation of England and the Welsh Women's Aid last November. As a result of the representations made, as the noble Baroness has said, we decided to allow battered women and other people who live under threat of violence to register for the personal community charge without making their names public.
Anyone who demonstrates to the registration officer that she or he might suffer violence if their name and address were made public would have their name and where appropriate their address omitted from the register extract which will be made available for public inspection. That is clear evidence of the Government's willingness to consider sympathetically representations made by or on behalf of women's groups.
An exemption for people staying in women's refuges would not however be appropriate. Schedule I to the Bill confers limited exemptions on those groups for whom local accountability cannot be said to operate—the severely mentally handicapped, prisoners and people receiving long-term care in hospitals, homes and hostels. Women in refuges cannot be said to fall into that category.
Of course I accept that many women in refuges will need help in paying the community charge. It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain how we see the system working. Where a woman decides to leave her husband as a result of domestic violence, she may go to stay with friends or relatives or she may go to a refuge. At that point she is unlikely to have decided where she will live in the long term. In some cases she may decide to go back to her husband; in others the breach may, alas, be irreparable and she may, for example, apply to the local authority to be housed. However, at that stage there is no need for her to change the address at which she is registered for the personal community charge. She does not know where she may be living in a couple of weeks' time and the registration officer will not in those circumstances require her to do anything until matters have sorted themselves out.
However, in most cases, even if she remains registered at the marital home for the time being, she cannot expect her husband to provide for her or to pay the community charge. So as soon as she leaves the marital home she will need to go to the DHSS office, which will pay income support for her and her children. Entitlement to income support will automatically also entitle her to an 80 per cent. rebate on her community charge. Of course the income support will also include an amount in recognition of the 20 per cent. charge she will still have to pay.
To complete the picture I should say that if in due course she finds permanent accommodation of her own she will at that stage need to re-register for the personal community charge at that address. Unless she has income of her own she will of course continue
838
to receive income support and an 80 per cent. rebate. As I have already mentioned, if she is still under threat of violence her name and new address will be omitted from the published extract of the community charges register so that her estranged husband will not be able to trace her from that source.
I hope that the explanation I have given meets the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses and makes clear why we think all the legitimate worries about battered wives can be met without the need for an exemption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should be grateful if the Minister could help me. I listened very carefully to the range of facilities to which battered wives will have access or recourse. I did not detect in any of them anything which takes account of their special circumstances. The Minister told us that consultations had taken place. I am grateful for the fact not only that he told us but also that they took place and that they were meaningful. Did I detect that the net product of those discussions and of the Government's sympathy was the decision by the Government to provide anonymity in the event of their registering for the community charge? Was the Minister invited to provide more practical assistance than just sympathy? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will be able to tell us.
As we go through the Bill increasingly we shall come across groups of people for whom I feel great compassion. Yet what the Government have offered in this case to women in refuges is wholly inadequate to meet their needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has suggested in the amendment that they need special treatment. I did not detect from what the Minister said that they were to receive anything special other than sympathy and anonymity.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may also intervene at this stage. I was puzzled by the Minister's reply. The problem of women in refuges is a very small one in national terms but it is a major problem for the women concerned. The Minister's solution seems to be extremely bureaucratic and I cannot imagine why he would want to approach the problem in that way.
I should have thought that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, many of the women concerned would not want to get involved with social security officers even if they had little or no income but would prefer to manage on their own. Yet it appears from the Minister's response that he wishes to push them into social security offices. I cannot imagine why he would want to do that.
The other question that I wish to ask him, which is of general significance, is whether the Government are seriously saying that they would go through the whole business of penalties if one of those women did not pay her community charge for one reason or another. Can we assume that in this case that whole section of the Bill which refers to penalties—which ends up with going to prison—would apply to those women? It seems to me that the whole thing is preposterous.

839
Since we understand that the Government are trying to look sympathetically on what one might regard as minor amendments—and it is certainly minor and does not infringe any fundamental principle—I cannot imagine why the Minister does not say that he will go away and think about it. It would help the Government not to levy the community charge in this situation because it would remove a problem for them.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I am disappointed at the Minister's response. As I indicated, the women's aid groups feel that it would be much more helpful if women in refuges could be exempted. I know that women's aid centres will not be responsible for a collective community charge. However, I think that we have to accept that most of the care and responsibility for taking the women to the DHSS, telling them what to say and helping them, throughout rests with the women's aid centres. The very fact that there is an additional burden on them in the form of the community charge is a burden both on the women and the women's aid centres.
In response to the question asked by my noble friend, I should like to say that the women's aid centres have been very modest in their request to the Government. They have asked for this exemption. I accept that, as the Minister said, in some cases more than the total amount will be provided for the community charge for those women living in a low rated area and rather less than the community charge will be provided for those living in a higher rated area. I accept all that he has said and that the Government are attempting as far as they can to meet the request financially. However, it is the emotional problem which is involved and which we are asking the Government to take into account.
The Minister says that a woman has no need to register until it has been decided what she will do and whether she will go back to the matrimonial home or set up a new home. Before I decide what to do about this amendment, I should like his views. Is he really saying that while the woman is residing in the refuge she does not need to do anything about registering or changing her registration for community charge?
The Earl of Caithness: On that last point the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is absolutely right. That is what I said. Her sole or main place of residence is not determined, because she may very well go back to her husband and the home which was her main or sole place of residence. If she moves or is rehoused by the local authority, she will have a new sole or main place of residence.
Baroness Lockwood: Then surely the Minister is meeting the objective of the amendment. The amendment asks for exemption while the person is in that refuge. If the Minister is now telling me that while the woman is there she will not be required to register and meet the community charge, then the point is covered.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the noble Baroness and I are on absolutely the same rails until we come to the unfortunate situation in which the woman goes into the refuge. She does not have to change her main place of residence from her home to the refuge and back either to her home or elsewhere. The main or sole place of residence will remain that place where she was until she decides to change it. Notwithstanding that, she will still be liable to a personal community charge and the assistance that she will be given will come through the rebate system.
I should like to answer the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Peston. I should make clear that when officials met representatives of the women's refuge organisations they were concerned on two counts: first, the fear that women would be traced and, secondly, the possibility of them having to pay the collective community charge at the refuge. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we have met the women's organisations on both those points.
Certainly it is not the case that we are pushing women toward the DHSS. We look at the matter realistically and understand that women who find themselves in such circumstances with no income will inevitably have to seek support from public funds. The point I seek to make is that immediately they have received income support they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate.
In reply to the point about penalties made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I envisage that we shall have a long and interesting debate when we reach that point and I hope that the noble Lord will then be in his place.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I should like to have the opportunity to read very carefully everything that he has said in order to see just how much difference there may be between us.
The Earl of Caithness: If, when she has read the Official Report, the noble Baroness would like to see me, of course I shall make time for her.
Baroness Lockwood: On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 82, line 26, at end insert—
(". A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on that day he is in receipt of no income other than State benefits but excluding any earnings related benefits and his capital resources of less than £8,000.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the list of exemptions under Schedule 1 an individual whose only source of income is state benefits and who has very limited capital resources. The Minister mischievously said that he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, by adding his name to this amendment and the previous one moved by my noble friend Lord Graham, was using a backstairs method to bring in local income tax. That

841
was a rather mischievous remark from the Minister. There is no such purpose behind the amendment, as he knows full well.
This amendment follows up the principle on which the Government have already moved forward by stating quite clearly that regulations will be brought in to give some relief from the community charge to individuals who have very low incomes. It may be asked why we have indicated a figure of £8,000 in the amendment as the limit for capital resources. One must bear in mind that that is a maximum figure and it may well be that the capital resources fall below £8,000.
The Government, through the mouth of the Prime Minister and other Ministers, have repeatedly stated that individuals should stand on their own feet and if necessary provide toward their own retirement. I should like to ask the Committee to consider two possible cases. First there is the example of a couple who are pensioners. They decided that they would save money so as not to be a burden upon their sons and grandsons in later life and could have their house repaired and have other jobs done in their home. They are pensioners and state benefit is their only source of income. They may be living in an area in which the community charge is high and they may have to pay two community charges. Are we suggesting that those individuals should eat into their capital in order to meet the full amount of the community charge? The second case illustrates circumstances which are not dissimilar to those of a neighbour friend of mine. He was a man who took early retirement and had a limited amount of money. He died and his widow is now a pensioner. In order to meet the community charge does she have to eat into the limited amount of money that her husband received when he took early retirement?
This amendment seeks to ensure that a person whose only source of income is state benefits and who has very limited capital resources which do not exceed £8,000 is included in Schedule 1 under the list of exemptions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I have already made the point several times, both at Second Reading and during this Committee stage, that we believe that a great deal of this Bill is about restoring accountability. Exempting income support recipients from the community charge would, we believe, severely reduce the extent to which that aim can be achieved. Each year, every adult, with very few exceptions, should receive a community charge bill setting out how much the local authority spends compared with its assessed need to spend and how that will affect the amount that people in that area will have to pay. As a result, those who receive a bill will be better able to judge the performance of the authorities in whose area they live.
There is no reason why people who are in receipt of income support should not receive a community charge bill. They use local services and they will have a say in the decisions of the local authority through the ballot box. They should also be aware of the cost of local services. In that respect they are no different from other adults who will be subject to the personal community charge.
842
Of course those on income support cannot be expected to pay their bills without assistance, but the answer is not to exempt them. We have said that those who are in receipt of income support will receive a maximum benefit of 80 per cent. of the community charge. They will receive a net bill for 20 per cent. of the community charge levied in their area. However, we have also made clear that income support levels will include an amount to help pay that remaining 20 per cent. The result will be that those on income support will not only receive a bill but, commensurate with their limited financial resources, will have some moderate exposure to the effect of variations in local spending.
In an area of modest spending the individual concerned will be in pocket. The amount provided in income support will be more than the 20 per cent. bill that he needs to pay. As spending grows the bill will gradually rise. Those not receiving rebates will be exposed to the full marginal cost of increases in spending. A rise of £1 per adult in spending will increase the community charge by £1. Those who are on income support will pay only 20p towards each additional £1 of local spending. However that will still play an important part in strengthening accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, cited the case of a single pensioner. I am delighted to be able to say to him that, although I should need to consider in detail the circumstances that he mentioned, as a general rule 80 per cent. of all single pensioners will be better off under our proposed community charge than they are under the existing rating system.
Earl Russell: I speak in support of Amendment No. 34 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who is unable to be present. I have listened with some puzzlement to the reply that has just been given to the Committee. It seems to me that the Government have created an enormous and complicated apparatus in order to achieve a very small and somewhat theoretical gain. There are to be rebates of 80 per cent. and there is money to be paid out of public funds in order that it may come back into public funds. That is a long, circular, laborious and expensive process. I understand that the Government themselves estimate that the housing benefit caseloads will increase by 18 per cent. as a result of the rebate scheme.
We are led to understand that all this is done in the name of the principle of accountability. I understand that that is a real principle, but in the real world principles have to exist together. It seems to me that this principle is being elevated to a very lonely eminence where it is dominating all other principles including that of practicality. Furthermore, the principle of accountability is being invoked in only a very limited context. It is being invoked only in the context of the amount of money that a local authority spends.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, last night referred to a local council doing well. It was fairly clear that she was referring specifically to the amount of money that a local council spends. A lot of people would take the principle of accountability

843
a great deal more seriously if it were made clearer that the council is accountable for the quality of its services as well as for the size of its spending.
We find this complicated apparatus built up at great expense by a government constantly saying that they are concerned to save public money simply in order to assert the theoretical principle. Some of us feel that we have wandered into the more complicated part of the Athanasian Creed.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has ever served in a local authority. I am a member of a local authority. I welcome the idea of being more accountable to the local electorate. The first port of call for that accountability is the cost of services. I suspect that where the cost of services impacts on an individual that becomes the first hurdle. If the cost is excessive, the individual moves on to the question: is it producing value for money? A further judgment is therefore made not simply on cost but on whether or not the cost is producing a service that an individual considers is worth paying for. I do not believe that accountability stops on the bottom line of cost. It moves on to making judgments about the quality of service.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl has made it perfectly clear that he disagrees with the proposals in the Bill, and the accountability in which we believe. I cannot remember whether the noble Earl was here for the discussion last night on his party's proposal for a local income tax. That is not a very accountable tax and would be a great deal more costly to administer and a great deal more costly for most people to pay.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said. However, the Minister has not made any comment upon the point in the amendment regarding capital resources. In view of statements that have been made by Ministers in the other place, can the Minister repeat the position with regard to capital resources held by an individual in relation to liability for community charge so that it is on the record? Does the Minister consider that our figure of an £8,000 limit is reasonable?
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, knows, the tailoring of the community charge and the rebate is linked to the social security legislation which I believe sets out the position quite clearly.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may suggest that this is a suitable time to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return before 8.35. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Scotch Whisky Bill
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In another place the Bill was in the capable hands of my honourable friend Mr. Bill Walker, the Member of Parliament for Tayside. He was fortunate to draw a high place in the ballot and took the opportunity to respond to the long-standing and increasingly urgent need for legislation to strengthen the hand of the Scotch whisky industry. During its passage through Parliament so far the Bill has had all-party support and considerable help from the Government. It is also strongly backed by the Scotch whisky industry, its workforce and the trade unions. It is doubtless also backed by many other people who throughout the UK, and throughout the world, enjoy a dram of true Scotch whisky and wish to continue doing so.
At this point I must declare a modest consumer interest in that from time to time I greatly enjoy the odd dram myself. I must also declare a financial interest since the firm in which I am a partner grows, among other things, barley which is sold for malting. The widespread support for this Bill is not surprising. As your Lordships will be well aware, the Scotch whisky industry is of enormous importance to the economy of Scotland and the UK. It provides direct employment for some 15,000 people and indirect employment for many more. It produces exports worth over £1,000 million a year and it contributes £1,000 million a year in revenue to the exchequer. In Tayside alone, where I live and where my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie—who I see is down to speak later in this debate—also lives, and where Mr. Bill Walker, the promoter of this Bill has his constituency, there are no fewer than 10 distilleries, and blending and bottling plants, and seven registered offices. Further north the industry is of even greater local significance. Added to all that, I need hardly say that Scotch whisky is quite simply an inseparable part of our heritage and culture. It makes many friends for Scotland, and that is certainly reflected in the growing Scottish and UK tourist industry.
The immediate need for legislation is brought about by the proposed European Community regulation. This will cover all the main spirit drinks: gin, brandy and rum, for example, and it will contain a definition of whisky. It now seems likely that that definition will be less stringent than the current UK definition as set out at the moment in the Finance Act 1969. The fear is that a less rigorous definition could make way for the production of lower quality whisky in Scotland and that this could be marketed, as, for example, "whisky—a product of Scotland". That would be confusing for consumers. It might greatly damage the quality image on which the reputation of Scotch whisky has been built. The need for clarification for that which is Scotch whisky and that which is not is now upon us, and that is what this Bill aims to achieve.
The broad aims of the Bill are three-fold: first, to ensure that all whisky produced in Scotland is true Scotch whisky; secondly, to prevent the sale in Great

845
Britain of whisky purporting to be Scotch whisky but which in fact does not meet the definition of Scotch whisky; and, thirdly, to enable Ministers, if and when the time is right, to set a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky.
Because of the need to take account of that which is decided by the European Council in due course, the Bill is constructed as an enabling measure designed so that its various provisions can be brought into effect by Ministers as and when required by means of orders laid before Parliament. I should like to take your Lordships through the Bill because it is slightly unusual in structure and I think it would be easier if I were to do that.
Clause 1 is central in that it prohibits production in Scotland of whisky other than Scotch whisky and provides for sanctions. Your Lordships will note that the part of the Bill dealing with definitions of "whisky" and of "Scotch whisky" comes later in Clause 3. Clause 1(1) makes it unlawful to produce in Scotland, mature in Scotland or keep or use for blending in Scotland any whisky other than Scotch whisky. This would mean that all Scotch whisky would be known to have come from Scotland and other whisky would be known not to have come from Scotland.
Subsection (2) concerns the ability to enforce these prohibitions by civil action. If they are contravened, any producer of Scotch whisky or an association of producers, such as, for example, the Scotch Whisky Association, would be able to apply to the Court of Session for an interdict.
Subsection (3) of that clause makes any whisky produced in Scotland that is not Scotch whisky in contravention of subsection (1) liable to forfeiture, and the fourth subsection makes those parts of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which relate to forfeiture apply to this Bill.
Clause 2 makes it unlawful to sell as Scotch whisky spirits which do not meet the definition of Scotch whisky. Clause 2 also allows Ministers to set by order a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky and, should the power be exercised, makes it unlawful to sell Scotch whisky at any lower strength. I should add here that the reason why the Bill does not stipulate a minimum alcoholic strength is that all interested parties will require to be consulted when the time comes before it is decided what is appropriate.
Clause 2(2) allows a Scotch whisky producer or association to apply to the High Court for an injunction in England or to the Court of Session for an interdict in Scotland to prevent people who are contravening the sales prohibition from continuing to do so.
In Clause 3, to which I referred previously, the first subsection contains definitions of various terms. Your Lordships will note that "Scotch whisky" is described as:
"such whisky (distilled and matured in Scotland) as conforms to a definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order made under this subsection".
Once the order is made the new definition will replace the current definition which is that contained in the Finance Act 1969. It is intended that the new definition should relate much more closely than does
846
the present one to the modern practice of the industry and that there should be full consultation with all interested parties before the definition is finalised and the order laid. The wording of the definition in Clause 3 is the anticipated Euro definition which is set out in the draft Community regulation. As the text of the regulation is not yet settled it is necessary to allow for an amended version. That is done in subsection (2).
Subsection (3) allows orders made by Ministers under Clauses 2 and 3 to make different provisions for different cases. For example, it may be necessary to define different production processes for malt and grain whisky separately. Subsection (4) states that orders under Clauses 2 and 3 are to be by statutory instrument, subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
Subsection (5) means that the definition of Scotch whisky in Clause 3 will apply for all purposes of Customs and Excise. This is achieved by inserting it in the place of the old definition in Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1969.
Clause 4 makes possible corresponding legislation for Northern Ireland. The subject being a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it cannot be dealt with by way of an Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament but by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The clause simply enables the corresponding legislation made by Order in Council to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important to note that the Bill in no way affects the production of whisky in Northern Ireland.
In Clause 5 the second subsection states that most of the provisions of the Bill will come into force by means of a statutory instrument on a day or days appointed by Ministers. Only Clause 4 will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Under subsection (3) Ministers may include transitional arrangements in these commencement orders. Subsection (4) confines the Bill, apart from Clause 4, to Great Britain.
I hope it will not be misunderstood if I suggest that the continuing good name and quality of Scotch whisky are likely to be dear to the hearts of many Members of your Lordships' House. The emergence across the world of a variety of whiskies of one kind or another and the projected Euro definition of whisky make it highly desirable that legislation should be in place in this country as soon as possible. The European Community allows for such legislation. It could hardly do otherwise; after all, champagne has been protected under French law since 1934 and that protection will continue.
I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that your Lordships will give it a fair wind.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness on the manner in which she has both introduced and explained this rather important Bill. I believe, without anticipating what other speakers in the debate may say, that most people will wish to welcome its general aims. However in certain parts of

847
Scotland there is concern about the designation of alcohol by volume, particularly in the light of the fact that powers are to be given to Ministers to make this designation by order. The attitude of Ministers to the trade in lower strength Scottish whiskies has yet to be specifically defined. There is the possibility that these lower strength whiskies, which are popular in Scotland and beyond, could be abolished by Ministers without the necessity for further legislation.
As I understand it, the history of the legal position of Scottish whisky is that there is no minimum strength at present in United Kingdom legislation, but there is a defence in law—if spirit is sold over 37.1 per cent. alcohol in volume, and even sales at a lower strength than this are legal if the reduced level is clearly marked. Currently the position is that since 1983 whisky under 40 per cent. alcohol by volume marked "under-strength" is acceptable. In 1985 agreement was reached between the producers of lower strength whisky and the Minister of Agriculture for a voluntary practice of marking "under-strength" clearly on the label.
I have already mentioned that these lower strength whiskies have grown in volume sales in recent years and I am advised that currently 10 million bottles are sold annually. The reasons for the popularity are, first, price, and, secondly, quality, because it is a well blended whisky. I am told that Which? magazine recently tested Scotch available in supermarkets. A leading lower-strength brand came second in their test. There is also the growing use of mixers with whisky, and that points the way for most consumers to purchase a slightly cheaper product in the first place if it is consistently well blended.
The image of Scottish whisky, to which the noble Baroness referred, is important. It is equally important that domestic consumers should have the opportunity of making a choice between full-strength whiskies of nationally-advertised brands which are usually sold at or near the manufacturers' recommended price, and sometimes with considerable encouragement from the supplier to sell at those particular prices. One recalls the intervention of the Director-General of Fair Trading not so long ago. He felt that a particular supplier was perhaps encouraging his outlets too strongly to sell at a specific price by reason of an indication that if they failed to do so they may suffer a loss of supplies.
The damage to the image of Scottish whisky abroad comes from bulk exports of whisky. The whisky is bottled in foreign countries and sold under different laws. It is regrettable that the Scotch whisky industry has so far failed to deal with the growing problem of bulk exports to foreign countries.
The main producers of lower-strength whisky are smaller private companies. It is important to preserve them because much of the Scotch whisky industry is now controlled outside Scotland, regrettable as that is to most Scots. The noble Baroness referred to the European Community's activity in that area and it is an important point to make in the debate this evening.
848
The harmonisation of excise rates of duty in the Community, as part of the move towards completing the internal market by 1992, presents social issues as great as those arising from seeking a two-tier system of value-added tax, for example, with near-common rates throughout the Community. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community reported on indirect taxation and the internal market in 1986. The report was numbered HL 127. It is an important report and it showed clearly the nature of the potential social problem confronting harmonisation. For example, is the United Kingdom to end zero rating on food for value-added tax purposes while reducing excise rates on alcohol and tobacco to levels imposed by other major member states? We must ask ourselves what effect such changes would have on consumption.
The noble Baroness referred to current European Community activity regarding definitions and regulations for spirits throughout the Community. I understand that the proposal as it stands is that the common alcohol-by-volume content for spirits should be fixed at 37·5 per cent., and that negotiations are under way in that connection. We therefore see some dangers under the Bill if Ministers use powers to designate higher alcohol-by-volume rates for whisky sold in Britain. That might lead to bulk exports of whisky to the Continent with the loss of the bottled trade and a growth in the continuing problem of selling Scotch whisky at strengths below that which it is being sold here.
During the discussion of the Bill in another place, which was at times contentious, the Minister made it clear that the Government had not made up their mind on the question of alcoholic strength. I certainly do not expect the Minister to make a statement on that matter this evening. The purpose of my intervention is to emphasise some of the arguments which have been brought forward for applying a not too heavy-handed approach in this matter. There are also the dangers which could exist for an important if small section of the trade in Scotland if a level of alcohol-by-volume content is set higher than that which they are currently operating. That said, I welcome the Bill.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill perhaps in a slightly different way to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I must declare an interest in that I also grow malting barley and it is probable that I consume even more whisky than the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill. But by all kinds of test I believe that I am qualified to speak about whisky, including the hereditary test. I had a forebear who was the farmer of Pitmillan. He consumed a great deal of whisky and his wife did not altogether approve. For the benefit of the English present, I shall put what he said into English. One day in exasperation she said, "William, William, you've drunk as much whisky as would swim a ship". He looked at her complacently and said, "Aye, I believe I would have given it a gey shake".
Whisky is part of our heritage, and it is often misused. However, taken on the whole it has done the

849
Scots a great deal of good. Our national poet extolled its virtues when he said:
"Wi tippenny we fear nae evil,
Wi usquebcach we'd face the deevil."
Again, he said:
"Freedom and whisky gang thegither".
In taking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to task, I believe it is terrible that a good Scot like him should be defending this tippenny which is now being sold. I have no doubt that it is being sold because the price is dropped below what one expects for a decent bottle of whisky at the proper strength. Although that is clearly marked on the bottle, people see that they can buy a bottle of whisky for £6 and they do so. It is a kind of deception, although it is clearly marked, and it cannot do anyone any good. After all, if one wanted to reduce the strength of whisky, one needs only to add a little water.
There seems to be no point in charging more per unit of alcohol and then selling it like that. I believe that it reduces the value of whisky in the eyes of the world. There is no question that the Scotch whisky trade has been built up with immense skill all over the world. It may have fallen back a little lately but it has promoted exports on the excellence of the product. Without any doubt the strength of the product has a great deal to do with its quality.
I agree with the noble Lord about one matter. I believe that the industry has probably done itself a great deal of harm by exporting malt in hulk and allowing other countries—notably in the Far East—to reduce it with their own grain whisky and then sell it as an imitation of Scotch whisky. In the long run that cannot have done us any good. I welcome the move to protect standards, as does my neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I should like those standards to conform to previously accepted strengths of blends of whisky. Possibly they are our main export, although increasingly the single malts are coming into favour all over the world. A great deal can be done to promote them and they are much more difficult to imitate and to cheat with than are the blends. Nevertheless, I believe that standards must be set.
The name is extremely important. We cannot allow the name of Scotch whisky to be anything other than the traditional Scotch.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, who is to reply, on her ambitions. She sits on the Front Bench surrounded by four Scots and she is to reply on behalf of the industry. I admire her courage, her cheek and her competence.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, when I started to investigate this Bill I was surprised and concerned to learn of the number of counterfeit whiskies available on the market, and that there is no statute establishing a definition of Scotch whisky. This is a very important Bill designed to protect an industry which, as has already been said, generates over £1 billion in foreign exchange earnings. It provides direct employment for over 16,000 people in Scotland.
850
Although free trade without restrictions is important to this country, particularly within the EC, unless the Ministers can produce a satisfactory standard for the nature, substance and quality of Scotch whisky, this important industry will be wide open to counterfeit imitations. Even within my own area of the Lothian Region the trading standards director and his team of officers are facing an ever-increasing battle against cheap imitations of well-known quality products flooding the market.
The definition of whisky in the third clause is broadly the definition recognised by the EC. However, there is nothing in the EC rules preventing any member country from setting a higher standard for its own products. Your Lordships will see that at line 33 the definition uses the expression:
"with or without other natural enzymes".
Very crudely, that can be regarded as flavour buds. Scotch whisky is always without other natural enzymes. Seven hundred litres or 154 gallons is a huge cask. The largest cask used by the Scottish whisky industry is a hogshead of about 52½ gallons or 238 litres. In the quality whiskies of Scotland it is extremely important to keep the surface area of a cask at a suitable proportion to the volume of the contents so that undesirable products can evaporate through the wood and flavours can he absorbed from the wood. It should be emphasised that three years in a wooden cask is the absolute minimum period and I believe I should add that the age of a blended Scotch whisky is determined by the youngest whisky that goes into the blend.
In Clause 2(1)(b) reference is made to the minimum strength of Scotch whisky when sold over the counter. While I do not believe that a figure should be determined in this Bill, the general opinion in the industry is that it should be not less than 40 per cent. by volume. In days gone by that would have been 70 per cent. proof. It is worth pointing out that whenever water is added to whisky, or beer for that matter, thereby reducing the strength from the production strength to the strength in the bottle, it tends to go cloudy, as one will often see in homemade wines, because it is a yeast product.
Both the previous noble Lords who have spoken raised this point but I should like to take it further. It is because whisky or beer tends to go cloudy that the industry passes it through a filter. If the alcoholic strength is less than 40 per cent. by volume, it means that a lot of the natural flavours are filtered out. That results in three distinct disadvantages: first, the whisky loses many of its natural flavours; secondly, it is relatively more expensive to buy a bottle at 37½ per cent. than 40 per cent. in respect of the alcoholic strength; thirdly, it would be very difficult for the industry to prove a counterfeit product.
As has already been said, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to establish by statutory instrument the definition of Scotch whisky. I wholeheartedly support this Bill and hope that it receives a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I am confident that it is adequately drafted and meets the requirements of the industry in allowing it to take to court any person

851
contravening the provisions of this Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for introducing this important piece of legislation.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, as a native Scot and a consumer of Scotch whisky of long standing, I join with my noble friend Lord Balfour in urging your Lordships to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading forthwith.
I remember that at one time I was discussing prohibition with a prominent Minister of the Indian government. I contended that porridge and Scotch whisky were important parts of our national diet. I could go on and on because I can remember when I fitst drank whisky during the 'flu epidemic in 1918–19. The eminent Scottish physician whom I consulted said that whisky is a preventive, and possibly quinine also. He said, "The medical profession know nothing about what they call influenza".
My excuse for speaking tonight is to urge the promoters to initiate a campaign to go back to the old-fashioned request for Scotch and soda—emphasising the Scotch—or, in the United States, the euphonious Scotch-on-the-rocks. It is also interesting that in South America the practice is to order a whisky by the brand name, and that point has already been made by one speaker. The brand names are important. I urge your Lordships to lose no time in putting this excellent Bill onto the statute book.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the break but I made a muddle of putting down my name. The French in the Champagne district are proud of their sparkling wines and since 1934 have prevented others from using the name of Champagne. There is Sekt in Germany, Asti Spumante in Italy, Vin Mosseaux de Borugogne and even sparkling elderflower wine which we make and drink at home. They are all delicious but not one is allowed to be called champagne. Surely if our auld allies can protect their national wine, we should so do in Scotland. Our Usquebeach, which means the water of life, is not the same as Jack Daniels, Tennessee Mash, Welsh whisky, Eurowhisky or Japanese whisky. It is made in Scotland and made to a very high standard. It is made from distillation through copper coils from a mash of very high quality malting barley, as grown by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and also by ourselves. It is then fermented to a high alcoholic strength and matured for a long time in proper wooden casks.
It is enjoyed by many, not only Scotsmen. As Daisy Ashford wrote in The Young Visiters:
"Bernard always had a few prayers in the hall and some whisky afterwards as he was rather pious".
Surely we should take this opportunity of allowing only the highest quality whisky produced in Scotland to be called Scotch whisky. Who else can export the water of life?
8.10 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the very clear and concise way in which she put forward the Bill and explained to us the various clauses, which, on the whole, are fairly simple and straightforward. They are to be welcomed. Like most of the other speakers I confess to the universal liking for Scotch and, as my noble kinsman said, the family on both sides have a fair record of consumption in the past and the present generation are keeping up that heritage.
I always remember the story of the temperance meeting. The speaker had very carefully explained all the points about what happens to you when drinking Scotch whisky, including killing a worm in a glass; pouring it in, and things of that kind. When question time came, a gentleman at the back repeatedly questioned the speaker about one thing after another, but the speaker was fit for him. Finally, the gentleman at the back said: "Well, there is one thing, ye canna say that we dinna like it".
The definition of whisky as Scotch, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, is universal. I have travelled a good deal in other countries including America, and there is no question but that if one asks for Scotch one gets Scotch whisky; if one asks for whisky, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, there are various brands of bourbon which are produced the world over. I am very much against the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that Scotch on the rocks is a drink that should be encouraged. However, every man to his taste.
As regards the strength of whisky, my noble friend Lord Gallacher has a point; namely, that if there is a demand for it, it should be clearly marked. I am not sure that at present it is as clearly marked as it should be. It is marked at 37.5 per cent. proof, and I have seen bottles of a lower proof level than that. The bottles are not as clearly marked as I should like, but how many people look right down in the corner to see the proof level? Probably they have their finger or thumb over it anyway. I believe that bottles should be much more clearly marked than they are. I am not against the production of lower proof whisky if there is a demand, but I do not know why it cannot be pointed out to people that it is far better to buy a bottle of 40 per cent. by volume and water it down if one wants it a little weaker. It is also a little cheaper.
I am sorry to take the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to task twice but I do not think the 70 proof is a percentage. I believe it is the temperature at which its flash point is reached. I may be wrong, but I think not, because many people have often asked me about it and I have tried to explain. Sometimes I say that it is the temperature at which it explodes! I am rather sorry that we have forsaken that because it was unique for a bottle to have that figure on it. However, we have to move with the times.
Another question is the size of the bottle. I believe that the standard 75 cl. should be clearly marked on the bottle because there are quite a lot of bottles, particularly brandy bottles, although they do not come into the picture tonight, which contain much less than 75 cl. As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange,

853
said, the Bill is simply to enable us, when we go fully into the Common Market, to argue the case of the name, as the champagne people did a few years ago, for Scotch whisky and the method of making it.
I am sure that we all welcome this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I believe the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, also suggested that we get it through as quickly as possible. I cannot imagine that there will by any amendments put down.
Perhaps I may finish with another story about Scotch whisky. Not long after the private stills had at last disappeared, an Englishman arrived in a West of Scotland village and got into conversation with a native. He asked the native if the cost of living was high. That is something about which the native of a small village in the North of Scotland would not talk about a great deal. He looked a little blank so the Englishman said: "Are the necessities of life expensive here?" The Scotsman said: "Och aye, they are very expensive; and are nae worth drinking when you get them".
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add that I never recommended the consumption of Scotch on the rocks. I only used the word because of the programme that I hope will follow this Bill. It is a euphonious description and promotes Scotch. I never favoured Scotch on the rocks, especially if the rocks were made with London water. It is to be avoided like anything.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.
8.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I remind my fellow Scottish Peers that it is not for nothing that my maiden name was Campbell-Harris. Your Lordships have tempted me. At the age of 12 and at the very first grown-up lunch party I went to, my mother allowed the hostess to pour me one glass of sherry. The hostess made a mistake and gave me one large glass of neat Scotch. I drank it with alacrity. I like to think that I have never looked back since that day.
I am most grateful for the opportunity given by the Second Reading of this Bill to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the wellbeing of the Scotch whisky industry. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said and I wish to reassure him, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said in her eloquent opening speech, that the Government have given firm assurances that they will consult widely with all those having an interest in the precise level of minimum strength to be set for Scotch whisky. These consultations cannot therefore be prejudged by giving any prior commitment on the level of minimum strength that may be proposed in the light of those consultations.
Since the question of a minimum alcoholic strength of whisky—not Scotch—is also the subject of current negotiations in Brussels, it would in addition be unwise to prejudice the position of the United Kingdom in those negotiations by specifying a minimum strength in the Bill.
854
As regards the noble Lord's remarks about exports of bulk Scotch whisky, the question of whether the Scotch whisky industry should export its products in bulk is really a matter for the industry to determine for itself. There can be no question of the Government legislating to prohibit such exports. To do so would risk criticism in GATT and it would be of doubtful legality under EC law.
My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to the abundance of counterfeits available in his area. I reassure your Lordships that there is no evidence of counterfeit Scotch whisky available in the United Kingdom even if there are counterfeits of other products. There is certainly some evidence of counterfeit Scotch in overseas markets. The industry vigorously and rigorously searches this out and it brings legal proceedings against offenders in foreign courts. This Bill will reinforce the efforts of the industry in these proceedings and strengthen its hand.
The industry has made tremendous efforts throughout the world to defend its own interests. However, this Bill deals with problems which the industry alone cannot solve. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Bill as a practical step which this House can take towards safeguarding this great industry and thus equipping it better to increase its exports based upon the undoubted quality of its products. I warmly commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope that it will not be long now before we can go out and have a wee dram.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. In a small way this subject is an inspiration to us. We have certainly borne out the fact that there is no subject which arises in your Lordships' House which does not find a number of experts to speak upon it. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, speaking as a prominent member of the Select Committee on the European Communities, particularly on the agricultural side. He knows much about what is going on within the Community and he was able to bring that experience to bear in what he said. He referred to the producers of lower-strength Scotch whisky and any anxieties they may have. This was discussed very fully in another place. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this matter requires an enormous amount of consultation before any minimum strength is fixed. All those people will be consulted. That assurance was given in another place and I think I can give it now too.
We do not yet know what strength Europe will settle on. Should it be lower than the 40 per cent. for which the industry has hoped it is possible for it to ask the Government to go to Europe and ask for a special dispensation for Scotch whisky. That can be done but it would be a judgment for the industry whether to ask for it and for the Government to decide whether they would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, clearly very strongly

855
disapproves of the export of whisky in bulk. It is true that in Australia one finds whisky which has travelled a long way and which is sold at a strength different from what one would expect here. That is the way they drink it in Australia. It is a commercial matter on which the industry has to make a judgment.
I am sure that we were interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, had to say about the production process, about which he knows so much. We will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about the importance of the different brands. I am sure that we all agree about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reiterated my earlier comment that champagne is protected and is defined geographically. That is what the Bill seeks to do. I was much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and indeed my noble friend Lady Trumpington had to say. My honourable friend in another place, the promoter of the Bill, appreciated very much the help that the Government have given both with the drafting of the Bill and in its various stages. It has been encouraging that the Government have been so helpful. I am grateful to the House and I hope that it will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Persons subject to standard community charge]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): In calling Amendment No. 37, I have to say that if this were to be agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 38 or 39.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 37 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 46, 47, 50 and 51 and I understand that together with those amendments have been grouped Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 45, 48, 49, 52, 94 and 101 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. By a delicious irony the noble Earl and I reach the point of Amendment No. 50, which is in our joint names, by a circuitous route which we take separately. We then depart again with further amendments from the noble Earl.
I must say at the outset that it is clear that the intention of both of these sets of amendments, and
856
the common amendment which forms part of both of them is similar though not identical and it is to give effect to an undertaking given by Mr. Christopher Chope, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 25th February that mobile caravans should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
Let me first rehearse very briefly the reasons why it was argued on the part of the Opposition that mobile caravans should be removed. The first and perhaps the most important point of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna is that not to remove them would create an anomaly between caravans in England and Wales and in Scotland where the standard charge will not apply. I do not think my noble friend or I would welcome a collection of caravans on the Border at Gretna Green or anywhere else. My noble friend Lord Morton comes here by aeroplane and does not notice these mundane things.
But the point that we wanted to make out of this, which does not appear to be reflected in the Government's amendments, is that caravan parks are commercial operations and we think it is more appropriate for them, in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought was appropriate for residental homes, to remain in non-domestic rating—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I stood firmly corrected by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I had not read, I fear, to the end of Clause 56 of the Bill and I had failed to spot that the definition of a domestic hereditament had been changed, so that nursing homes are now not part of the non-domestic rating system. For that I can only apologise to the Committee and I shall try not to do it again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But the noble Lord does not mind us teasing him if we catch him out on the rare occasions when it is possible to do so. But, as I say, we would prefer caravan parks to be treated for non-domestic rating purposes and to be treated as commercial operations.
There are elements of common ground between us. It is common ground that we think that caravans are different from most second homes in that they are chattels and depreciating assets, and that practically they are movable and it would be difficult to trace the owners of movable caravans. The approach which we took in the amendments was to rely on non-domestic rating. The approach which the Government take in the amendments, as I understand, is to say that, if the caravan is stationed on land which is a protected site for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites Act, then it is subject to the standard charge.
I suspect that the difference between the two will probably work out for most people concerned as a technicality. But it would be valuable if the Minister in responding to this amendment, and indeed in moving his own amendments, which I take it he will do now, would explain the difference and then we can see whether there is any point of substance between us. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out his approach to the problem and for acknowledging the fact that the Government's approach has been on broadly the same lines to achieve the same ends, although perhaps along a slightly different route and with one small difference which he has highlighted. I am also grateful to him for acknowledging the fact that the Government's amendments stem from our willingness to listen to arguments constructively put forward in another place.
As Clause 3 stands, the owner of any caravan or houseboat which is not used as a sole or main residence would be subject to the standard community charge. However, that is not wholly consistent with the approach adopted in Scotland, whereby holiday caravans and houseboats will not come within the scope of the standard community charge; instead they will remain in non-domestic rating.
It was argued in another place that the Scottish approach was correct and that holiday caravans and houseboats should remain in rating. The government amendments, which have been drafted after consultation with representatives of caravan site owners and operators, give effect to that commitment. The effect of the amendments is to take all holiday caravans and houseboats out of the scope of the standard community charge. The only caravans which will remain within the scope of the standard charge are those which are not used as a sole or main residence and which are stationed on a protected site, as the noble Lord pointed out—that is, one defined for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. A protected site is one where caravans are stationed not for holiday use but for residential occupation.
Perhaps I may confirm, as I am happy to do for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that holiday caravan parks will be subject to non-domestic rates. We shall ensure that this happens by bringing forward suitable clarifying amendments to Clause 56. In other words, the standard charge under the government amendments will apply only in the case of mobile homes which are used as second homes. That approach is in line with the Scottish Act and has been accepted, as I have already said, by the representatives of the caravan industry to whom I have already referred.
Therefore I hope that in the light of those remarks and the assurances I have given about caravan parks, especially holiday caravan parks, the noble Lord will accept that we have met the intentions as we said we would. I trust that when it comes to the point he will accept the Government's amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot give any commitment about amendments which have yet to be tabled and I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to do so. However, it is clear from what he said that we are getting closer together on the intention behind this series of amendments than was evident at the beginning of the proceedings. Indeed, it may not matter so much which side approaches the problem in order to arrive at the same result. I notice
858
that neither side has paid any attention to the issue of houseboats, which occupies a considerable part of the text of the noble Lord's amendments. Again I do not think that the difference is of enormous significance. I suspect that when it comes to the point neither caravan nor houseboat owners will notice a great difference between being subject to the standard community charge and being subject to non-domestic rating. Therefore, in those circumstances, I think it would be best if I withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("(1)(a)") to end of line 14 and insert ("and (b) above, and
(b) the condition that it is stationed on land which is a protected site.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment, when referring to Amendment No. 37, as the Government's alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person who is in the process of changing his sole or main residence for another shall not be liable to a standard community charge for a period limited to three months if he has a freehold or relevant leasehold interest in both properties.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to deal with the situation which arises when people change house. It is perhaps, if I may say so as a Scot, typical of the draftsman's approach where he has a piece of Scottish legislation which he totally ignores. The Scottish legislation allowed for this provision, after a debate of which the Minister is aware. It allowed for the position covered by Section 11(8) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. However, when the Government come to draft this Bill it is ignored completely.
People are either in a position where they have two houses and are desperately trying to sell the one they are moving out of, or they have no house, which from the point of view of personal and standard community charges does not matter. However, when someone is changing house it is quite iniquitous that they should have to pay charges for the two dwellings, one of which they are trying to dispose of. The Scottish Bill dealt with that situation; the English Bill does not. It is in the endeavour to deal with that situation that Amendment No. 41 has been put forward. I do not doubt that the drafting is wrong and that it will be amended in some way or other by the government draftsman. However, the purpose, as I have already said, is to deal with such a situation, and the period of three months is the same as was allowed in the Scottish Act. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can deal with the matter speedily and reassure the noble Lord about his amendment, which, as he explained, seeks to give a three-month period of grace to people who become subject to the standard community charge as a result of moving house.
I entirely accept the principle adumbrated by the noble Lord. We have repeatedly made it clear that we shall provide that the standard community charge cannot be levied on properties that are vacant for up to three months in the same way that vacant property rates are imposed at present only after three months have passed.
However, it is not necessary to make the amendment in order to achieve the desired result. We shall achieve that end by using the powers under Clause 36. We shall specify that properties which are empty for up to three months are to constitute a separate class of property and we shall then set a multiplier of zero for that class. The end result in England and Scotland is precisely the same. It is on the face of the Scottish Act, and we have a regulation-making power. This is a matter reflecting different drafting approaches, but they achieve the same objective.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The determination to do something by regulation rather than by statute seems strange. The Minister and I argued about the question last year. Why is it necessary to do this by regulation, except perhaps to allow the English six months in which to sell a house rather than three months? As a Scot, I wonder what the difference is. Is it that the Scots would need amending legislation while the English would have a regulation subject to the negative procedure? If so, why is there the difference? What do the Government fear in making the two the same? Do they intend to amend the Scottish Act so that it is covered by regulation and the two run side by side? The Government undertook that the two would run side by side. Why is there a difference?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord should not suggest that we change one to make England different from Scotland. That is far from the situation. We have made clear on many occasions that the three months' figure is that which exists. I see no reason to suppose that Scotland and England should be separate. As I said, this reflects different approaches to drafting. As the noble Lord will know—and as I begin to discover when I tackle an English Bill after a Scottish Bill in quick order—there is no difference of intent; it is a matter of drafting.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As the Minister knows, it is easier to produce a statutory instrument and have it approved by Parliament than to produce an amending Act. If in August or September, say, the Department of the Environment considers that four months, six months or one year would be better for England, how will the Government change the Scottish Act to bring it into line? If the two are to be the same and regulation is the better way, perhaps the Minister will undertake to amend the Scottish Act with a related schedule in this Bill. The matter is
860
simple: the Scottish Act will be amended and there will be a power to make regulations, but let us have the same "rule", if I may use that word, for Acts and regulations for both countries. That was the Government's undertaking.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord and I have discussed this many times previously, we must not become too bogged down in the technical differences that arise on drafting. The intention is the same. I cannot say that for all time there will be no change or that they may not coincide at any particular point, but I assure the noble Lord that there is no intention to have any difference. If there were, I should not have given the earlier assurance.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I know well that the Minister is an honourable man, but he will not be the Minister responsible for rating in Scotland and England. What is wrong with fulfilling the Government's earlier undertaking that the two situations will be the same?
The Government have an alternative. They can put the English one on the face of the Bill or the Scottish one into regulations, but either way they must do the same for both countries. If they do it differently, as presently appears, they are not achieving the same objective for the two countries and are therefore in breach of their undertaking. I must press the Minister on the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: I am happy to consider whether we can examine the Scottish Act in the light of the passage of this Bill in regard to the need for some amendment. I do not necessarily hold out any hope that that will be the case. We often have this kind of discussion when there is a slight difference between the way in which an English Bill is drafted and the way in which a Scottish Bill is drafted.
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that there is any intention to change the legislation in one country without bringing the other into line. If there were to be a change to the Scottish legislation, by regulations or statute, it would require primary legislation. In this case, only the negative procedure is required. There is no such intention, and I hope that the noble Lord will give the Government credit for having so stated.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister says that there is no intention by this Government. However, sometimes the intention on small matters of this kind is not the intention expressed at a Cabinet meeting but an intention—or lack of intention—expressed by a civil servant in one department and not expressed by a civil servant in another department.
It is important that the two lie together. This Bill includes passages for altering the Scottish legislation. It is easy for the Government, if they so wish, to change the Scottish Act by regulation and to provide a power to make regulations. For once, I should not oppose that if that was how the Government chose to do it. If the Government chose to do it by following the Scottish Act and including both in that Act, that again is easy. One way or another, however, I ask that we have the same rule for the two countries.
Lord Glenarthur: The difficulty in what the noble Lord proposes is that not only would we be faced with altering this Bill or, indeed, the Scottish one, but a host of amendments would be necessary to various measures already passed in another place reflecting slight differences in the way in which the English and Scots approach issues.
I can only give the assurance that the Government do not seek to try to make differences between England and Scotland in this matter. Three months is the figure, and three months it will stay. It is not the Government's intention that there should be a change; or, indeed, if there is a change, that there should be a difference between one side of the Border and the other.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is pointless to continue the discussion. I shall return to this at a later stage. It seems to me that it is easy for the Government to do one or the other to bring the two into line on this issue. The Minister apparently is unable to get instructions on that point. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall come back to this at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person shall not be subject to a Charging Authority's Standard Community Charge on any day if at any time on the day he is required as a condition of his service to live for the time being in a specified property (the tied property) and he maintains elsewhere in the United Kingdom a freehold or relevant leasehold interest in unoccupied property, with the intention that once the requirements under his conditions of service end he will return to live in the said property.
(8) In each chargeable Financial Year the Secretary of State shall for each Chargeable Authority increase the Revenue Support Grant he would otherwise make under section 84 hereof by the amount by which the Charging Authority's Standard Community Charge is reduced by virtue of subsection (7) hereof.").
The noble Lord said: This deals with a person who has lived on the site of his job for a period and who has a house of his own. In the circumstances, it is unfair that he should have to pay the standard charge in respect of his own property in which he is unable to live because of his job when the property is standing empty and unlettable as he may choose to live in it at those times when he is not working at his job.
The people who fall into this category include school caretakers, vicars, teachers in special boarding schools and wardens of residential care homes. Such people have to live on the site of their work in accommodation that they must give up when they cease to work. If they are careful people, they tend to have a house to which they can move when they change jobs, retire or can take a day or two off. I am sure that the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment in the terms in which it is moved.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has described how his amendment concerns people living in tied accommodation, and he has cited a number of examples. Those people who have a separate property which they intend to use as a retirement
862
home when they finish work will of course be subject to the personal community charge at the property which constitutes their sole or main residence. They may have to pay the standard community charge in respect of the other property unless it is used by someone else as a sole or main residence. It will be up to the community charge registration officer, subject to appeal, to decide which of two homes is a person's sole or main residence.
I understand why some Members of the Committee are concerned about those who fall into these circumstances and who do not generally regard themselves as second home owners. But it is important not to lose sight of the fact that in these cases there are two homes—two properties—and, at present, rates will be paid in respect of both properties. So what we are proposing is no new imposition. We are merely proposing that the two rate bills should be replaced with two community charge bills—one in respect of each residence—one for the personal charge and one for the standard charge.
It is far from certain that the total amount paid in these cases will increase. To reply to one of the examples that the noble Lord gave, a schoolmaster who owns a retirement home will be paying rates on that home at present and he may very well pay a lower standard charge bill in future. Whether the standard charge bill is larger or smaller than the existing rates bill will depend on a number of factors, including the use that the local authority makes of its discretion to levy the standard charge; and, of course, the existing rateable value.
On average, one full standard community charge bill, set at two units of personal community charge, will be equivalent to the average rate bill at present. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in principle we are not imposing any extra burden on people who live in tied accommodation and who have a second home. I would repeat that the important point to remember is that there are two rate bills at present.
There is of course a second order question which concerns the matter of who actually pays the bills. I could dwell further on the matter of who pays the bills; but I hope in the light of the explanation that I have given (which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will accept) that there is no reason to believe that schoolmasters or other people in tied accommodation will necessarily be worse off than under the rating system, and that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: At this time of night, I shall not press the amendment; but I must say that the answer of the Minister is far from satisfactory. I must try and fit in with the thinking that perhaps the other side of this Committee might have. For example, take someone who is a housemaster at a public school. When he is working there he will have to pay the personal community charge. If he has a house for his planned retirement between the ages of 60 to 65 (and he will be very ill-advised if he does not have a house) and if he is single, it seems to me highly unlikely that any local authority will use a multiplier of any less than two for the standard community charge. That is

863
because there is no incentive for it to use anything other than the maximum for the standard community charge. In that case, that person will pay what may be very much more than his rates.
I am not quite certain that the rates argument has any validity. The Government have said so often that the rates are totally unfair anyway so there is no point in comparing this provision with the rates. I believe that the Government just have not thought this provision out for the various people who have to live, because of their jobs, in certain places and who lose that right of residence when they lose the job for one reason or another. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person shall be exempt from a charging authority's standard community charge on any day if at any time of the day he is—

(a) a patient who has his sole or main residence in a hospital as defined in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 below, or

(b) he has his sole or main residence in a home as defined in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 below and he is being cared for there,

provided that the building in which he has an interest which but for (a) or (b) above would make him subject to the charging authority's standard community charge was his sole or main residence immediately before his admission to the hospital or home referred to above.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which tries to deal with the situation of a single person. Again, we must think of a single person because this measure does not really apply if there is more than one person living in the house. If there is a single person living in his own house for which he would normally pay the personal community charge and then that person gets taken into hospital with appendicitis, for example, and is in hospital he becomes an exempt person. He is exempt from the personal community charge; but, so far as I can gather, he is not exempt from the standard community charge. Is that right or is that wrong?
If that person is not exempt from the standard community charge, a situation could arise where somebody who is paying one personal community charge is taken into hospital—quite a number of people who are taken into hospital find themselves in financial difficulties—and then suddenly instead of not having to pay his personal community charge, he has to pay twice that in the standard community charge because he is in hospital for the relevant period. I am sure that the Government have not thought this provision through. That possibility is something that must be considered. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Would the noble Lord mind repeating how it is that someone can be caught for two community charges? I did not quite understand the case that was being made.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry if I did not make the case clear. If somebody is living alone in a house, he pays the personal community charge. If he then gets taken into hospital, he becomes an exempt
864
person and the house in which he was living becomes empty. If the house is left empty, it becomes liable for the standard community charge, and the exemption in Schedule 1 is only an exemption for the personal community charge. Therefore that person may become liable to pay twice what he had to pay before when he actually lived in the house because he is no longer living in it. That was what I was trying to say. That provision I feel sure, even for this Government, is a mistake. I am sure they did not mean it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I question whether the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is right in saying that that is a mistake. A few moments ago he was criticising fiercely the fact that in the Bill the Government have taken powers to deal with the multipliers for the standard charge by order. I was not clear whether he was asking that the Scots should have the same system or that the English Bill should be brought in line with the more rigid Scottish Act. The fact of the matter is—no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm it—that it is open either to the Minister to make the order under Section 36 setting the charge anywhere between nought and two (therefore the assumption that it will be twice the charge is premature) or, alternatively, the local authority can determine what the multiplier is in respect of the standard charge as regards a dwelling of a particular class.
I see no reason why a particular class should not be dwellings which have been left vacant because someone has been taken to a hospital or nursing home. The Bill contains a provision for dealing with that precise point. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, who has a longer experience in dealing with this legslation than I have. I have only had to invent it. He has actually had to deal with the Scottish Bill in the House. I should have thought that the power was there and that it could be used. It is precisely because it is done in that way that gives the Government and local authorities flexibility to deal with the problems which he is drawing to the attention of the Committee.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I do not think that the Scottish Act will allow a class of standard charges to be invented for people who are going into hospital. The class that the local authority can fix is that of unoccupied houses. It could not say, "This house is in a different class from that house", when the only difference is the reason that it is unoccupied. I may have misunderstood the Bill completely. I probably have, because I have seldom seen a more difficult Bill to understand. However, I doubt whether the noble Lord can get away with that classification, which seems not to fit the status of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise. No doubt my noble friend will shed a flood of light on all this. However, it seems absolutely clear to me. Clause 36(3) says:
"A specified class is such class as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It seems to me that the Committee may criticise the breadth of the order making power. However, it gives

865
the flexibility which the noble Lord asks for. The power is there and I cannot think why he is complaining about it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That will not do. Those of us who are lawyers are accustomed to such things as the Wednesbury rules which apply to judicial review and all sorts of ideas such as being prejudiced against red-haired teachers, to take an example mentioned by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Green, in 1947. That will not do for that sort of classification. I am sure that that is the kind of classification which the noble Lord is trying to invent in the provision. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I had better see what the Minister has to say.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall endeavour to enlighten both my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite. Perhaps I may start by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I accept that hardship may arise where a person becomes resident in a hospital or residential care home and leaves his or her previous home vacant. In the long term, one would expect a person in those circumstances to sell his previous home, thus extinguishing any standard community charge liability. However, that may not always be possible either because of difficulty in selling the home or because the person wishes to return in due course.
However, I am not convinced that a blanket exemption is justified in such cases or that a reduced standard charge should be allowed for an indefinite period. We believe that the answer lies not in the amendment but rather in giving individual charging authorities the discretion, as my noble friend has suggested, to set a separate standard community charge multiplier, perhaps for a limited period, for houses and flats left empty by people who move into homes and hospitals.
We shall give effect to that proposal by specifying in regulations under Clause 36 that properties left vacant by people moving into homes and hospitals are to constitute a separate class of property. That will give each charging authority complete discretion to set a standard charge multiplier of zero, if it wishes, for properties in that field. The effect of setting a zero multiplier would be to confer a complete exemption. I hope that the noble Lord opposite agrees that giving local authorities discretion on the matter is by far the best approach, since locally elected councils are in the best position to judge what is in the best interests of local residents.
So far as the Scots are concerned, as I understand it, the Scots will get the benefit that will accrue from that approach. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the undertaking that I have just given would go a long way towards meeting the spirit of his amendment but that we do so by a slightly different route, not for the first time.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord responds and decides what course to take I should like to ask the Minister to explain a little more fully what he has just said. I listened most carefully and tried to understand him. He will know, as will all Members of the Committee, that people go into hospital for very
866
different reasons and with very different expectations. Sometimes their expectations are not fulfilled. Sometimes a person goes into hospital expecting to be there a week and finishes up being there many years. Sometimes a person goes in expecting to be there a very long time and finds that suddenly he is sent home.
When the Minister explains that the local authority is in the best position to judge individual cases and to establish a particular class, is the authority to establish a particular class with respect to patients as a whole or is it to establish a separate order for every individual patient according to the individual circumstances? It appeared from the noble Lord's answer that a blanket approach was suggested with regard to all patients, whereas that would clearly not be appropriate. Alternatively does he expect that there will be flexibility within the different degrees of being a patient so that there will be many classes rather than just one or two?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that that would be a matter for the local authority—the charging authority—to determine. My proposal suggests that that charging authority should have discretion to set the standard charge mutiplier of zero if it felt that that was the right way to proceed within its local area for the properties it feels should fall within that separate class to meet special needs.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I can enter the debate at this point. There are a couple of points which have not been considered in this debate. We are asked by the Government to believe that they will make an order that will give power and discretion to the local authority virtually to the level of the individual household. Quite honestly, after nine years of this Government's activities in restricting the powers and abilities of local authorities I cannot believe that anyone would accept that as a sensible explanation. That is quite apart from the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, concerning the discretion in terms of the detailed level of categories that is liable to be made available. The mind boggles at the risk of, dare I say, corruption coming into play if a local authority could make a decision on the terms of the community charge levy down to the level of the individual household, whether or not, as has been suggested, it could discriminate against red-haired people. That seems to be ridiculous.
The other point that I should like to interject into this debate relates to the effect of the Treasury. We are asked to accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment—who will presumably be the Minister determining the regulations—will remain as at present. That is not so into the long-term future. The other factor that we do not appreciate is that the Treasury will have an input. It will take an interest in the breadth of the tax base. It will stick its oar in and say, "If you have exemptions left, right and centre it will create a problem in tax rating capability". So it is not just one Minister who will be involved; it will be a series of Ministers through time and a lateral extension of Ministers.

867
For all those reasons I hope that we can support the amendment and have the provision written on the face of the Bill to protect poor people who go into hospital and will be levied double the charge as a result.
Baroness Blatch: Members opposite underestimate the ability of local authorities substantially on this point. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of any local authority to have a view either about an individual's circumstances, such as whether or not in the case of a single person living in one house who goes into hospital and has already paid a community charge it should levy up to the maximum of two charges. It is not beyond the wit of a local authority to have a policy about the general circumstance and then relate it to a specific person.
I should like to add as a tailpiece that if one is comparing the proposals in the Bill with the situation that we have at the moment, that person right now would be paying rates whether he was in hospital or out of hospital. Under this proposal such people would receive a substantial reduction in that they would pay one community charge. Even if the maximum were to rise to two community charges, it would probably be comparable to what they are paying now in rates.
I still come back to the need to have a little more faith in local authorities than is shown by the Benches opposite. I believe that it is quite possible for a local authority to judge particular circumstances. It is also possible in the case of someone who is detained in hospital for a very long time, possibly without any prospect of coming out, as has been referred to already, that judgments can be made about whether or not that person's property can be disposed of. If the property is retained as an investment, it might well be that part of the investment is liable to pay up to two community charges.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken. I wonder whether the noble Baroness Lady Blatch lives in the real world in Cambridgeshire. Has she ever considered how difficult it is to convince a relative who has gone into hospital that he or she is not going to leave it? The house in question belongs to the relative and he has to deal with that situation. It is not the easiest of situations to deal with.
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the regulations that he mentioned will be made under Clause 36(4)?
Lord Glenarthur: Will the noble Lord repeat that question please?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Are the regulations with which the Minister is threatening us, or which he is promising us, to be made under Clause 36(4)?
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that I am threatening any particular amendment to the Bill. I understand that the regulations will be made under Clause 36(4). The noble Lord is correct.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will look at Clause 36(4). That clause does not give the local authority the power to specify. It is the Secretary of State who is given the power to specify a multiplier. It does not give any freedom to the local authority. It states:
"If the Secretary of State so requires by regulations, a multiplier for a specified class of property shall not exceed whichever of the following he specifies in the regulations as regards the class, namely, 0, ½, 1, 1½, and 2".
It is the Secretary of State who specifies; it is not the local authority. The local authority has no choice in the matter.
The period is left totally blank. How long does one give someone who is taken into hospital of whom the consultant says, "Well, it is very unlikely that your relative"—a mother or a father—"will come out of hospital"? How much time does one allow the family to persuade a parent that he or she has to give up his house? There is no suggestion of a period of time in that clause.
Are these regulations to be produced before the Report stage of the Bill or will they be like the Scottish ones which come out in drafts, like the Encylopaedia Britannica, after the Act is passed, telling us such things as that bicycles can have anything up to four wheels. When shall we have the regulations? If the Minister does not believe what I have just said, he can read the Scottish regulations for himself. According to them, bicycles can have up to four wheels.
Lord Glenarthur: The mind boggles. I should like to correct one point which relates generally to the discussions that we have had and to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. As I understand it, the powers that would be used in this specific instance in the way that I have described would apply only to a whole class of property about which the local authority would not be able to decide case by case. Indeed that would not be desirable.
The exemption will only be needed in cases where people become solely or mainly resident in a nursing home or hospital. If someone were to enter hospital for just a short time, perhaps a couple of days or so, he or she would not become exempt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The whole of this Bill relates to a person who is "solely or mainly resident on a particular day". That wording runs throughout the whole of this Bill. It concerns any particular day on which a person is solely or mainly resident. So there is an interval of 24 hours each way every way through the Bill in which someone is "solely or mainly resident" somewhere. I have personal difficulties because sometimes I seem to be "solely or mainly resident" in a British Rail sleeper. I am not quite certain whether that situation applies. However, in the Bill we are talking about one day.
Lord Glenarthur: If there is the concern that the noble Lord has expressed that local authorities may not be able adequately to safeguard all those concerned—and I recognise the force of the argument he has put—will he agree that this might be

869
a better way to proceed? I recognise that the force of his argument is that he is not happy for the matter to be left to local discretion.
Lord Morton of Shuna: No, not at all.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is not arguing that?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am not arguing that. I am arguing that the power under Clause 36(4) is given to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister let us know in what way he or she will deal with the power?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is arguing two points. They overlap to a certain degree but not entirely. There are two different kinds of orders that can be used to give discretion. One is by the local authority. That is what I described when I responded to the amendment of the noble Lord. I was going to make another suggestion that I hoped would go further and would impose more of a duty upon the Secretary of State. I am not content to impose further duties upon the Secretary of State if that is not what noble Lords opposite wish. However, I still believe that ultimately the responsible way to tackle this is through the local authorities. They know their people and have a responsibility towards the people in that area.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be impertinent for me to seek to defend my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. He hardly needs that. I intervene to defend the Minister who has got himself into an impossible position. He does not seem to appreciate our argument. We are saying that Clause 36, as it stands, and as paved by this amendment, gives the Secretary of State a power, but the Minister can give no indication how it will be used. There are clear indications of potential injustice, as instanced by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. Surely the wise thing now is for the Minister to say that he will take this away, consult his right honourable and honourable friends, and bring to their attention the arguments which have been advanced in the Chamber. That is the only way in which he can get off the hook on which he has placed himself.
Lord Glenarthur: I have not placed myself on a hook. There is a perfectly valid argument to support the case that this discretion should be given to the local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not what the Bill says.
Lord Glenarthur: It is not what the Bill says, but it is precisely what I said when I answered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I made it perfectly plain that we were not prepared to follow his amendment but to give effect to what he proposed by specification in regulations under Clause 36. Clause 36(1) and (9) give the power to charging authorities to set multipliers. That is
870
written into the Bill. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 36 he will see that subsection (9) sets out what a multiplier must be. Subsection (1) states:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area".
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has moved from Clause 36(4), which earlier he accepted was the regulatory power, to Clause 36(9) which states;
"A multiplier must be one of the following",
and various possibilities are given.
Clause 36(1) states:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area".
That is one multiplier for all properties in its area. That could cover a person who has a large holiday home and someone who moves into hospital out of his or her home. It does not give the power to the local authority to use different standard community charge multipliers for different types of property. It says quite firmly:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area"—
not that they shall differ from one to the other. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh had the right suggestion. If the noble Lord will take the matter away, I shall withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that it is important we get this right. It is not just a question of taking the matter away and leaving half the arguments unanswered. The noble Lord will read:
"If it sees fit, different multipliers may be determined for properties of different specified classes".
He has given half the answer but he has not given the whole answer.
I was going to make a suggestion, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seemed to wish me not to do so. Having listened to the debate I realise that there is certainly an element of concern about the powers of discretion. I do not believe that the noble Lord is indicating that he disagrees that there has been some concern about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But—
Lord Glenarthur: If I may finish my argument, which I have tried so far twice to finish and the noble Lord has not allowed me to do so, what I should be prepared to do would be to propose that the Secretary of State should use his power under Clause 36 to set a standard charge multiplier at zero in these cases across the board.
If the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh or Lord Morton of Shuna, will agree to withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to recommend to my right honourable friend that he should use his power in this way; that is to grant a complete exemption. I shall then report back to the Committee, or to the noble Lord in some way that perhaps I can

871
determine, to indicate what the outcome of that might be. That is as far as I can go at the moment and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am perfectly happy with that and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wonder whether I may just pose a question to my noble friend. Clause 3 perfectly properly catches people who have two homes. Many Members of this Committee occupy two homes and will inevitably have to pay the standard charge on what is not their main home. That is quite right; rates are paid at present. Then the logic of the Bill is entirely satisfied because, as no doubt Members are well aware, one may be registered for voting in local elections in both homes. There is nothing whatever to prevent one from casting a vote in two different local authorities, though not more than one vote in one local authority; so the logic of the Bill is absolutely sound.
However, as I understand it, the standard charge will also apply to the remote holiday cottage which may be occupied only for a few weeks or a month or two in the year. It is well established that in those circumstances the owner is not entitled to have his name put on the electoral register. Nevertheless at present he pays rates and does so without any representation. The only question I should like to put to my noble friend is whether the Government have any intention of modifying the electoral law so that in those circumstances somebody who is paying a standard community charge in respect of a property where at present he is paying rates but cannot vote may in future be able to pay the standard community charge and be able also to exercise his right to hold the local authority concerned accountable by voting in the local election. The logic of the accountability principle which underlies this part of the Bill seems to point in that direction. That is the question I should like to put to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to speak on the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so not for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Mulley would have put forward because he has withdrawn all the amendments which referred to it. I do so because I believe that there are enormous misconceptions about what is meant by a second home. They appear to be held more firmly by this Committee, perhaps for obvious social reasons, than by anybody else. I shall have a few words to say about the most revealing comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Second homes, in the sense that many Members of the Committee have them—a country cottage or a place to go at the weekend—are most untypical of the type of second home which will come within the scope of the Bill. Most second homes in this country will belong to those who do not wish to have second homes; in other words, people who are in hospital or
872
comparable institutions, as has recently been discussed. They will belong to people who are obliged to live in one place for the purposes of their work—perhaps working abroad—but need to keep a home in this country which they do not occupy. There will be far more of those second homes than of those which in the classic sense belong to the middle and upper classes who have the good fortune to be able to afford two places in which to live in this country.
The second point I should like to make is that for the very rich the standard community charge will not apply in any event. Anyone who has a second home in which he can afford to maintain a housekeeper, a gardener or any resident person will benefit from the fact that the property will be subject to the community charge to be paid by the person living there. The owner may go there for weekends, to shoot grouse or whatever and he will pay nothing. The conception that we have of owners of second homes as being people who need particular concern and care is totally wrong.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reveals only too clearly why we on this side of the Committee insist on calling this a poll tax and not a community charge. The noble Lord is concerned that those who have this position of privilege should have an additional position of privilege in that they should be able to vote in more than one place in local authority elections and be able to choose where to vote in parliamentary elections.
To some extend that is the position that already exists, although I yield to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Underhill, who will correct me if I am wrong about that. However, to link any of that to the provisions of the community charge is to reveal that it is a poll tax under a euphemistic name.
The whole concept of the standard charge, as it has been put forward by the Government, is a false concept. It is not based on reality. We have had to chip away at the edges, as has been done by my noble friend Lord Morton, by revealing some of the difficulties which will arise when second homes are owned by people in need rather than people in positions of privilege. I should like to give notice that on Report I shall be putting forward a series of amendments in conjunction with amendments to Clauses 36 and 14 and possibly to Schedule 1. They will attempt to deal with the matter in a comprehensive way which will be much fairer than the existing system. We do not propose to press the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill, but we are most clear about its defects.
Lord Monkswell: While I agree with the arguments put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench, I was interested to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I ask the Government to clarify the situation. Is it true, as he suggested, that rich people with more than one home have more than one vote as individuals in local authority elections? If that is the case, it is not the popular understanding of the situation, and I would hope that the Government might do something to correct that anomaly and ensure that rich people

873
cannot vote in local elections which may be held on the same day in two or more different places. That seems to me a total abnegation of democracy as we know it in this country, or what is popularly understood in this country. I hope that the Government will resist the idea that their rich friends can have two or three votes in local elections. I hope that we shall receive some respect for democracy from the Government.
Baroness Blatch: I am fascinated that in order to press the case against Clause 3 standing part of the Bill the reference is not being made to second home owners, tied houses, or people who have to work abroad; but in order to get back at the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the second home owner is referred to as rich.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may just make the point that I did not talk in terms of the second home owner being rich. I talked in terms of rich people with two or three homes. There is a difference.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord is drawing conclusions which seem to be at some variance with the facts. Perhaps if he consults some of his friends in another place he will discover that many of them, because of their jobs, have to have two homes. Of course, they are registered at both and because they pay rates they are entitled to vote in different elections. They are voting for two different local councils to which they pay two lots of rates. That has been the law for as long as I can remember. Why the noble Lord should now think that that is some appalling breach of democratic principle passes my understanding. That has been the law of the land for many years.
I ask that if there is a property for which, under the electoral law, a person is not entitled to be registered for a vote, are the Government intending to look at that? The principle of accountability which is enshrined in this Bill seems to require one to close the loop; that is to say, to express one's views on the level of efficiency and standard of service given by the local authority to which one is paying one's standard community charge.
Lord Monkswell: So far as I understood the history of this country, the qualification to vote being based on one's income or one's property was abolished many years ago. We now live in a country where there is adult universal suffrage based on the individual and not on their rate-paying or tax-paying ability or their wealth characteristics. Surely that is the criteria on which any democracy should determine the capacity to vote, and not on whether an individual pays rates. To think that if one pays rates in two different areas gives one the qualification to vote is preposterous in this day and age.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I should intervene to try and straighten out this matter because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is labouring under something of a misapprehension. As I understand it, it is not possible to vote in two places on the same
874
day, supposing there were to be district council elections which affected both a residence in the country and a flat in London, or something like that. As I understand it, the only exception is if one happens to own property both in Scotland and in England. It is then possible to vote in two places but not if the elections take place on the same day. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has nailed his colours to the mast on his objections to Clause 3 and says that he will return to the charge at a later stage in the Bill. One of the disadvantages in dealing with the theory lying behind a clause when one reaches the end of the clause is that it does not allow one the opportunity to introduce it fully in the beginning. Therefore, perhaps I can take a little time to explain the importance of Clause 3.
It has been frequently said that the Bill introduces "the community charge"; but there are in fact three charges. One is the personal community charge, and that is the one that most people have in mind when they talk about "the community charge". There is also the collective community charge, which is a close relative of the personal charge. The third member of the trio is the standard community charge.
The standard charge is rather different from the other two community charges. It is not designed to secure a payment from those who have their sole or main residence in the area. Its aim is to allow authorities to charge the owners, or where appropriate the leaseholders, of domestic properties within the area at which no one is solely or mainly resident. There are various circumstances in which a domestic property will be no one's sole or main residence. For example, a family may have more than one home and the second home may be a weekend cottage of the kind that we have been talking about. It may be a pied a terre in London or it may simply be empty, perhaps awaiting sale, renovation or something of that kind.
The owners and tenants of second homes and holiday homes at present pay rates, as we all agree. They also use local services. Local authorities can also levy rates on empty properties after a period of three months has elapsed since they became empty. In fact, I understand that a number of local authorities, particularly in London and the other metropolitan areas, levy property rates. If in future there were no possibility of a charge on second homes and empty property, if the standard charge did not exist the owners of such properties would receive a windfall gain and would be paying nothing towards the cost of local services. So we decided that there should be the possibility of payment equivalent to up to two units of the personal community charge for the area.
As I hope the Committee will recognise, two units of personal community charge will be broadly equivalent to the average rates bill. I should stress also that we envisage the standard charge being up to two units of the personal community charge. There will be some circumstances in which we shall propose that the Secretary of State should be able to set up a lower figure, rather on the lines that we discussed on the last amendment, rather than two as the

875
maximum. As I have described, individual district councils will have discretion to levy a reduced standard charge or even to decide not to levy a standard charge at all in some circumstances.
Perhaps I should explain why the Government do not think it appropriate simply to leave second homes and empty property in rating. There are two parts to my answer. The first is that the Bill is structured so that domestic property—property which is used wholly for the purpose of living accommodation—will no longer pay rates. Non-domestic rating will then apply only to accommodation which, as its name suggests, is not used as living accommodation. There is also a simple, practical reason for treating all houses in the same way and not trying to keep some in rating.
Second homes may become someone's sole or main residence at any time. They may then revert to being second homes. Keeping them in rating would cause a great deal of extra work for the valuation office and would mean potentially that every house may need to be given a rateable value as it could become empty or be used as a second home. Perhaps the most important reason for not keeping second homes in rating—here we go back to the main principle of the Bill—is that domestic rates simply are not a fair way of paying for local authority services. Indeed, the party opposite has acknowledged this several times in the course of the past couple of days.
The use which a second home owner makes of local services has nothing to do with the size or value of his home. Most local authority services are provided to people rather than to property, so it is much more logical to have a flat rate charge which reflects the
876
benefits that a second home owner derives from local services in the area of his second home.
I suggest that our proposal for a standard community charge is the best way to proceed. I remind the Committee that not all second homes will be subject to the charge and I have described how properties that are empty for less than three months will be exempt, so there will be a period of grace after moving house. I turn again to the point that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made. It is perfectly true, as he said, that people are not entitled to vote in two places simply because they have two homes. Therefore the standard charge will often be payable in an area where its owner is unable to vote.
The explanation is that the standard community charge is only one aspect of our proposals and one whose central purpose is, I hope the Committee will appreciate, not designed purely to secure local accountability. That matter is taken care of by the personal community charge and the collective community charge. The standard charge is designed instead to ensure that people with second homes pay a contribution towards the cost of those local services in the area of the second home. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is entirely desirable, because, as my noble friend has indicated, people pay rates on their second homes at present and they would receive that unfair windfall gain if there were no standard charge.
I have no hesitation in urging the Committee to support the principle of Clause 3. It is fair and flexible and it is right. With respect, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about voting and about the history of who has the right to vote where at any point were something of a red herring.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Section 3: interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A), "Interest" means a legal estate.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 57. These are purely technical drafting amendments designed to clarify the meaning of Clauses 3 and 4. I do not believe that they are in any way controversial. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am only a Scottish lawyer and therefore I am a complete lay person in matters of English law. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was sitting to my left, but he has now left us. I have to rely on the wise advice of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones on my right.
What does this sentence mean, if anything? It says:
"'Interest' means a legal estate".
That is an odd sentence sitting by itself. One finds in Clause 3 that the interest being referred to is interest in property. If somebody owns property but does not have the full title, does it mean that he has no liability for community charges? Is it because he does not have completed title? Is that what is intended? What does "legal estate" mean? If legal estate means what I think it means, what is an illegal estate? Where are we going, and what is the meaning of this?
Lord Glenarthur: In the interests of time I hoped that I would be able to get away with a very brief introduction. However, the noble Lord has tempted me and I shall therefore endeavour to explain it.
The first thing I shall certainly not do, if it is possible to put it like that, is to define what is illegal. I can explain to the noble Lord that a legal interest which is a legal estate is one under a formal signed lease. There are, however, other less formal kinds of leasehold interest. These fall into two categories—a beneficial interest and an equitable interest. A person would have an equitable interest in a property if he had an agreement to a lease—that is, an informal agreement to enter into a lease—but not yet a formal lease. A person would have a beneficial interest if the lease were held by someone else—a trustee or someone like that—who held it in trust for the person.
These amendments seek to say that one has to have a formal signed lease before one can become subject to the standard or collective community charge. Having an agreement to a lease, or having someone else hold a lease on one's behalf, is not sufficient. I can assure the noble Lord that this is purely a clarifying amendment. Even if the noble Lord does not seem particularly clarified by it, I can assure him that that is the intention.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is all very well, but if I have a lease which is beneficial or an equitable right to a lease, so far as I can see I have every interest not to complete title to the lease but to leave it in the hands of some company which owns the lease and has a contract to sell it to me, but which has not
878
completed the title. Then I will not have to pay the community charge. The lease owner with the contract to sell it to me—and I, of course, pay the rent quite happily—may be in Jersey, Monaco or wherever, and you cannot get the community charge out of him either. The opportunities for avoiding the community charge under this definition seem on the face of it to be extensive. But I am not an English lawyer and perhaps English lawyers do not think of such things. Scots lawyers certainly would.
The Earl of Lytton: If I may intervene—and I thank the noble Lord the Minister for giving way there is one point upon which I should like some clarification. It relates to the fact that anyone who has a freehold interest in a property may become liable to the standard charge. This could be a divided interest, such as that between husband and wife or between a group of people. I must straight away declare a personal interest at this point and say that I have had some very helpful responses at very short notice from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this matter. But I should like to seek clarification that, in the case of joint or multiple ownership, each individual owner of a relevant interest will not attract the maximum charge which could, in cases where the double charge applies, amount to a very great inequity for second homes.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend tell me whether a licence to occupy constitutes a legal estate?
Lord Glenarthur: The short answer to my noble friend is: no, I cannot. I have to say that for once I thought we had a relatively straightforward amendment. It just shows what pitfalls there arc when one imagines that that is the case. I wonder whether I can take on board the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I honestly do not know the answer to the point he raised. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is at least a Scottish lawyer, but I am no sort of lawyer and I do not think I can go into the detail of it now. I believe it to be straightforward. What I should like to do is give the assurances for which noble Lords have asked me when I have read in Hansard what they said. I hope that that will satisfy both them and my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Then I presume that the Minister is not going to move the amendment now and will come back with it, if he wants to explain it, at the Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: No, I rather hoped that the noble Lord might take me as being at least honest in this matter. I believe it to be perfectly clear so far as English lawyers are concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the principle of it and that I may indeed move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 45 has been spoken to, but I have to say that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 46.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 26, leave out (", self-contained part of a building, caravan or houseboat") and insert ("or self-contained part of a building").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot therefore call Amendment No. 46.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("or houseboat").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert—
("(8A) Whether anything is a caravan at a particular time shall be construed in accordance with Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
(8B) Land is a protected site at any time if it is at that time a protected site for the purposes of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("or houseboat").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Persons subject to collective community charge]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("education") to end of line 28.
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56, 68, 69 and 70. At this early hour of the evening we take a nice flight of fancy into the collective community charge by the quirks in the way the groupings run. The main point of what I wish to say is set out in Amendment No. 69, which inserts into the collective community charge a family community charge, as well as the hostels community charge. Perhaps it may be difficult for Members of the Committee to grasp these new concepts, having just dealt with the personal and standard community charges. However, I can only apologise for the way that the situation has fallen upon us.
The principal object of this group of amendments is to provide a single assessment for a family unit living together in one principal residence. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Government are keen on strengthening the family role in the nation today. That is also something about which I feel most strongly.
There are three main effects which I should like to bring to the Committee's attention. However, before I set them out I should like to emphasise that I support the idea of a charge for such local authority services and that that charge should be levied on the individual. To my way of thinking it is a charge and not a tax, and the flat rate charge, with the abatements which are provided, seems a reasonable way forward.
However, as I said, there are three principal effects which come before us. First, the adult family members living together can be assessed together. If all of them are shown on the register as separate individuals they will pay the personal community charge; if on the other hand one name only is shown on the register, it will fall within Clause 9 and form part of the collective community charge. The individual family can decide who will be shown on the register and how it will be played in conjunction with the registration officer.
The second effect is that it will save administration costs because the local authority will have to provide only one assessment for the whole family—whether two, four, six, eight or however many members of the family are living in the residence. The principle has been discussed with members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy who have warmly approved of the principle set out.
The third effect is to provide rebates of 50 per cent. for certain needy members of the family. The level of rates is not the key factor; it is obviously the principle concerned.
In Amendment No. 69 I have inserted three categories of people. The first is the dependent spouse or relative. Amendment No. 70 sets out my definition of "dependent". The second is 18 to 25 year-olds. The third is those over the age of 80. From the point of view of accountability, I believe it is important that as many people as possible should contribute, because they receive benefit from what is provided for them by the local services. Many cases of hardship and difficulty need to be covered, however, so that people are protected.
I turn to the dependent spouse or relative. There is the case of the single earner couple where the non-working partner looks after children or perhaps an elderly relative. This is the opposite of what we discussed earlier in Committee—that is, an elderly or handicapped person living in a family. I refer now to the individual who stops work to look after a dependant. If the husband in the family earns £7,500, as the Bill stands the couple would pay two full charges, say £450. This would penalise someone who gives up work to care for a dependent person. The proposed provision would be of assistance to take account of the family circumstances and responsibilities.
There are today more young people moving out of family homes earlier than was the case in the past. This helps to exacerbate the housing shortage, which is pushing up housing prices. Fortunately this is abating now in the South-East, although the trend continues in East Anglia, where housing prices are continuing to rise. For national insurance purposes, the age of 25 is chosen for rebate for young workers.

881
I have therefore selected that age. The young are likely to be the low wage earners. They therefore need protection. I have suggested a 50 per cent. rebate. This would encourage families to stay together and to live in one home where that is the right thing to do. They will continue to have the choice, but the amendment would provide an incentive.
I turn next to a rebate for the elderly. Perhaps I may say first what I am not talking about. I feel strongly that Ministers are wrong about what has been termed the case in which 80 per cent. plus 20 per cent. does not equal 100 per cent. This is my big stumbling block on the Bill. For example, old age pensioners with no other income who are living in Camden will receive 80 per cent. rebate and only 20 per cent. of the average rate, and will have to pay more than they receive out of their pensions.
It is about this situation that I feel uncomfortable. It worries me intensely. However, my noble friend the Minister will be glad to hear that I am not talking about that in this case. I wish to make that clear. This is a rebate for the elderly to give an incentive to the family to care for such an individual in their own home rather than for that elderly person to go into a home for elderly people. We have had quite a lot of discussion about that today. I believe very strongly that a financial incentive such as this to encourage the person to stay in the family home will actually save the Government a lot of money. It is cheap at the price.
Another point that I should perhaps make as I draw to a close in moving this amendment is that ethnic minorities often have very large families living in one home. This amendment would provide some respite for them. Even if it were only a transitory matter, a large family living in a home will be badly hit by having to pay a large number of community charges where at the moment they only pay one rate for the property. This amendment would ease their burden. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to give a general welcome to the thrust of the amendments. There have been many occasions when we on this side of the Committee have moved many amendments that have sought to ameliorate the kind of situation to which the noble Viscount has referred—that is, the net burden upon a family.
I know what the noble Viscount is seeking to persuade the Committee and the Minister to take into account. He is saying that to keep the family together is not only important but it is absolutely crucial and vital in the social conditions of the time. I feel fairly certain that Members on this side of the Committee subscribe to that view.
I listened very carefully to all of the arguments, and to the case that was made. They all fit together. At the end of the day what the noble Viscount is saying is that if the Government really value family life, the ethic of family life and the interdependence of one member of the family on another, and if they wish to keep young people at home longer than is usually the case—and they leave home for a variety of reasons—one of the ways in which they can do this is to, as it were, tax the family as a unit rather than tax the individuals in it. That is acceptable.
882
We have had many opportunities over the past two days to deal with this issue in different ways. The sadness is that we do not get support from all round the Committee for those opportunities. But nevertheless I must say that we on this side certainly subscribe to and support the points that the noble Viscount has made.
The noble Viscount makes a case which may be acceptable to the Minister. He said that this provision would save the Government money. That is something near and dear to the heart of the Minister. This is not only a matter of whether the community charge and the tax is fair, but there are all the other social costs to be taken into account. The noble Viscount has pointed out quite fairly that those costs can flow from an ununified family unit and from the stresses and the strains that such a unit causes. Those will result in calls upon the social services and social costs.
I cannot possibly go into all of the details. In our view, the noble Viscount made out a very cogent case. I very much hope that the Minister will say something helpful in reply to him. The Minister particularly needs to answer the charge about the way that the Bill is balanced. Not only does it give the noble Viscount great unease at the inequity of its application, but at the end of the day he poses another interesting point. That point is that we are not just in this case talking about money or a tax or charges; we are talking about community life and family life.
If the Government wish to put their money where their mouth is, this amendment is one of the ways in which they can do it. We certainly give it our general support.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, with rising astonishment. My mind goes back to the 1968 Finance Act when the Labour Chancellor introduced legislation to aggregate the investment income of children with their parents with the express purpose of making sure that those families paid more tax than if the income were disaggregated. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has stood that argument absolutely on its head. I suppose that one should rejoice at a sinner repenting. However, the fact is that it is the same party, it is 20 years on and the argument is exactly the contrary.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me. To get rid of a tax dodge, which is what the 1968 attitude was, is unfair. If he says that circumstances and conditions in 1968 fit exactly the circumstances and the inequity of the Bill in 1988, then no matter what else I have to learn, it is clear that the noble Lord has a great deal to learn.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin is rather unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The noble Lord has always spoken in this House in favour of the family. The fact that his party was remiss some years ago is not his personal fault. The amendment has much to be said for it. It is important to keep the family together. The increasing demand for accommodation in the South-East is

883
caused by the breaking up of families. If families stayed together we should need far fewer houses. It puts the cost up; it puts them out of reach of many people and it makes the economy difficult to run in the South-East. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Brentford has much to be said for it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The thrust of the amendment is to try to keep the family together. The argument is that the legislation, in the way that it will be applied, runs the risk of encouraging a drift away from the home. I bow to the knowledge of the noble Lord. However, my recollection is that the legislation of 1968 was a million miles removed from breaking up families.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that, while I am sure that my noble friend is well intentioned, he is labouring under a serious misconception about the collective community charge. That charge is not a family charge, as he has suggested. It will apply only to properties such as hostels, night shelters, bedsits and so on which are in multiple occupation and where residents come and go fairly frequently, making individual registration impractical. The collective charge will not apply to any stable family living in its own home. He has started off on the wrong foot.
The effect of the amendments which my noble friend has proposed would be to limit severely the scope of the collective community charge. Clause 5, as currently drafted, allows the registration officer to designate for the collective charge any property used as short-stay accommodation by people who have no other sole or main residence and where the registration officer judges that it will be difficult to register people for and collect from them the personal community charge. The amendment would delete that criteria and substitute a reference to the amendment he proposes to Clause 9.
I do not think that it would be appropriate to narrow the scope of the collective charge in the way which my noble friend suggests. That charge is an important mechanism for ensuring that contributions towards the cost of local services can be made, even by those who stay for only a short period at each address. The amendment would mean that in many cases the collective charge could not be used and the registration officer would have the unenviable task of trying to register each individual for the personal charge, which I am sure that my noble friend would not like to see.
Of course, as many Members of the Committee made clear yesterday when we discussed Amendment No. 5, there are some residents of collective charge properties who command particular sympathy. The Committee will recall that I agreed to take away the question of an exemption for those living in charity hostels, and to report back in due course.
However, we are not talking about those kinds of hostels today. We are talking about all collective community charge properties, including those which provide accommodation for people who have jobs
884
and can well afford to pay a collective charge contribution. It is simply not acceptable to give reductions of 50 per cent. in collective charge contributions to certain categories of people, across the board, as the amendment proposes.
The categories of people my noble friend has described are 18 to 25 year-olds, the over-80s and those who are dependent on the owner of the designated property. As I have said. I do not believe an across-the-board 50 per cent. reduction would be justified for these groups, but I accept that some of them will need help. Where assistance is justified, we intend to be more generous than my noble friend.
Where 18 to 25 year-olds with low incomes stay in collective charge properties they will be eligible for rebates. Where they are unemployed, for example, they will pay ony 20 per cent. of the charge, not 50 per cent. as the amendment would require. Moreover, their income support will be increased by 20 per cent. of the average charge. So they will be treated much more generously than my noble friend proposes.
Let me briefly mention the second category—the over 80s. There will, I think, be very few people over 80 who move home frequently and so come within the scope of the collective charge. But, whether they are subject to the personal or to the collective charge, elderly people too will be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. if they are on low incomes, and they too will have their income support uprated by 20 per cent. of the national average charge.
Both my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Swinfen spoke of the importance of keeping the family together. My noble friend Lord Brentford mentioned the matter of financial incentives for families to keep elderly relatives living at home. As my noble friend Lord Caithness has already said today, we do not accept that there will be an incentive to move old people into an institution. Where an old person has a low income he will be entitled—regardless of the income of his adult children—to a rebate of up to 80 per cent. plus an increased amount of income support. Again that is more favourable than the 50 per cent. discount offered by my noble friend Lord Brentford.
A majority of elderly people—including the vast majority of single pensioners living alone—will be better off with the community charge than they are with rates. And more than half of all pensioners—about 4 million people—will be eligible for rebates.
The final category of individual, to whom my noble friend's 50 per cent. concession would apply, are those who are dependent on the owner of the hostel. The community charge system treats dependent relatives very favourably. Any dependent adult, other than a spouse, will be separately assessed for a rebate and income support. So if, for example, a 19 year-old unemployed son or daughter is living with his or her parents, or an elderly relative is living with his or her children, then those people will be eligible for rebates—again of up to 80 per cent.—and income support in their own right, irrespective of the incomes of others in the household. Only husbands and wives, and unmarried couples living as husband and wife,

885
will be jointly assessed for rebates. So yet again, the Government are being more generous than my noble friend to those people who really need help.
I think that those are compelling reasons why this would not be a sensible amendment. More than that, it treats less favourably than the Government's proposals those people who really do need assistance.
Viscount Brentford: I am grateful for the detailed reply. Unfortunately my noble friend the Minister misheard my opening sentence and an awful lot of what he said does not have any bearing on my amendment. I said that the amendment inserted into the collective community charge a family charge as well as a hostels charge. The two run neck and neck and do not overlap. Therefore what he said about trying to apply the hostels wording to my amendment does not really take effect.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to say that such may be his view but in point of fact that is not the result of the amendments that he has put forward.
Viscount Brentford: I admit that I drafted this amendment fairly late at night but I beg to differ from my noble friend. For instance, I expressly excluded from the amendments the unemployed 18 to 25 year-old, about which my noble friend the Minister spoke at great length. I am not concerned about the specific wording of the amendment. I should have liked to hear from the Minister whether he was prepared to consider any aspect of this amendment in order to promote the family in what is essentially a very individualistic community charge. I am very disappointed at his lack of comment along those lines. Nevertheless at this late hour naturally I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
("(6A) "Interest" means a legal estate.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.