Lords Sitting of 18 February 1992

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

The Lord Bishop of Southwark
Robert Kerr, Lord Bishop of Southwark—Was(in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Worcester and the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty The Queen, I have accepted an invitation to attend a European Speakers Conference in Strasbourg, France, between 20th and 22nd February. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday, 20th and Friday 21st February.

Neurological Training Posts: Proposal
2.43 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the proposal of the joint planning advisory committee of the Department of Health that the number of neurosurgical career registrar appointments at the National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery should be reduced from five to nil in 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in these professional matters, the department is advised by the joint planning advisory committee which in turn is advised by the special advisory committee of the relevant Royal College on the appropriate distribution of available posts. In the usual way we accepted this advice and our response was issued in guidance to regional health authorities in March 1990. It was also included in the report of the joint planning advisory committee published in September 1990.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. Perhaps I may make the point, in asking the Minister to clarify the issue further, that the Royal College of Surgeons of England is now very seriously concerned about the position with respect to these registrar appointments at this centre of excellence for training in neurology and neurosurgery. Does the Minister agree that to remove all registrar training posts from this very
1108
important centre, while being of benefit to the training of visiting registrars from overseas, will have a seriously detrimental effect upon the training of young British neurosurgeons?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the joint planning advisory committee reviews all specialties regularly. Where a specialty is expanding, numbers in the training grades are adjusted to ensure that there is a sufficient supply to match future consultant vacancies. It was felt in this case that the training requirements of the career registrars were more appropriately dealt with if they were spread about the country. As I understand it, the national hospitals still have three senior registrars in post who are not affected by this recommendation; but, as in all other cases of this kind, JPAC reviews regularly, and if necessary it can be asked to carry out an urgent review.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that JPAC is prepared to discuss this problem before the next review term, which I think is 1995? Are the Government satisfied that the decision will not have a detrimental effect on the future training of neurosurgeons and neurologists?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the latter point, as with all cases of specialty, we take advice from the professional bodies concerned. I believe that that is the appropriate way forward. I can tell the noble Lord that the next review of this particular specialty is due in June 1993. But, as I said, if the circumstances justify it, JPAC is prepared to undertake a more urgent review. We would most certainly look at such a review.
Lord Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, at least one past president and the fellowship of the college are appalled by the prospect that British neurosurgeons may become, in effect, debarred from holding these very key training appointments?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I could understand such concern if I thought that it was justified.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have one further question. In agreeing to draw to the attention of JPAC the concern of the profession about the situation, will the Minister also draw to the attention of that committee—which I wholly accept is a professional committee—the anxiety about the interrelationship between, on the one hand, the number of training posts in the registrar grade and, on the other, future senior registrar vacancies? Will the noble Baroness also bear in mind the devastating effect that the reduction in registrar posts of an honorary nature will have upon the future of research in our National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am certainly happy to say that the department will do whatever it can to bring together the special advisory committee and JPAC in the matter; and will draw to their attention the points made by the noble Lord about the interrelationship between the various grades of post and the training requirements that lie behind them.

Amphibious Forces
2.47 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults Lord Cochrane of Cults asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in replacing the ships required for the United Kingdom's amphibious warfare capability, as described in paragraphs 417 and 611 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the decision to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term is an integral part of our plans for Britain's Defence for the 90s. That was confirmed by my right honourable friend the Minister for Defence Procurement in another place on 13th February 1992.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply which contains much more encouraging information than had been expected prior to the Statement given in another place. Nonetheless, that Statement referred to project definition contracts. Can my noble friend tell the House how long those contracts will last and how long after they are completed it is expected that the contracts for the replacement of the two major ships, which are both between 25 and 27 years old, will be placed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the results from the various studies will begin to be received towards the end of this year. The current plans are for the invitation to tender to be issued in the spring of next year with an order date in the autumn of 1994.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the Government gave such a full and satisfactory reply in another place last week that it seems a little unkind to ask them for more information. But, nonetheless, we are tempted to ask for further information. In particular, will the Minister consider publishing the staff requirement of the amphibious ships? We are told that the helicopter carrier will carry 12 helicopters of a certain kind and that there is another more modern helicopter, but what crew will they carry? What marines and so on will be on board those ships? It might be useful to know the staff requirements. The White Paper refers to 5,000 personnel in amphibious warfare. Are those all Royal Marines? Finally, we have heard about taking ships from the merchant trade with the red ensign, but will those ships be available when the time comes?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we very much hope that the ships will be available when the time comes, if they are needed. On the noble Lord's other question about personnel, that is something about which it might be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord. However, but I can certainly tell him that the helicopter carrier will initially carry Sea Kings and that the transition from Sea Kings to EH101s will depend upon the development of the EH101 aircraft. The order last year was for 44 Merlin helicopters which, as the noble Lord will know, is the
1110
anti-submarine warfare variant of the Anglo-Italian EH101. Those 44 helicopters will be deployed on aircraft carriers and type 23 frigates.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend explain why the very important Statement that was made in another place on 13th February was not repeated in this House, thus not allowing your Lordships the chance to ask questions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my understanding is that the Opposition did not require a Statement to be made.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the revised manpower targets that have been set for the Navy, which were reduced by 5,000 from the original Options for Change to the second when, in the original case, the replacement for the ships was not confirmed, will allow the Royal Navy to be certain that it is capable of manning those ships?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly, that will be the case. If the ships to be placed are within the bounds of the Royal Navy, the appropriate manning power must be there to look after them.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, despite the many changes in the Baltic and elsewhere since Options for Change, are we still committed to NATO for providing the resources for amphibious landings in Norway?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is quite correct. With Dutch counterparts, they are assigned to the Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) as part of NATO's rapid reaction forces and could indeed form part of the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there may well have been consultations with the Opposition, but on the other hand, the Government must make up their own mind about consultation in the interests of the House as a whole. Given that the House has attached considerable interest to this matter, will the Leader of House undertake in future to consider the wider interests in such matters, as opposed to those between the Government and the Opposition only?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we certainly try to accommodate the Opposition as much as possible. We shall certainly take note of that matter in the future, given what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said. On at least one and possibly on two occasions recently the Government have made Statements without a request from the Opposition. That is perfectly reasonable. It is for the Government to decide whether they wish to make a Statement. Turning to the subject matter of the Question, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the overhaul programme

1111
that has been announced for land and support vessels other than for "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Tristram". When will that overhaul programme begin?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise but I did not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. Is he talking about the overhaul situation?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am talking about the five landing ships—the beach landing support vessels—that the Government are committed to maintaining. We now know that "Sir Galahad" is a new ship; that "Sir Tristram" has been substantially rebuilt and that the Government intend to implement a fundamental overhaul and re-equipment of the other three vessels. When will that programme begin?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for expanding on his earlier question. As regards the five ships, design studies are underway into SLEP, which stands for the ship life extension programme, for three of them. We hope to issue the first invitation to tender in the first half of next year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear that his answer does not mean that the Opposition have a veto on the repetition in your Lordships' House of important government Statements?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. The Opposition do not have a veto in that respect.
Lord lronside: My Lords, will the landing ship docks—or LPDs—which are to be built for the Royal Navy be compatible with a similar vessel that is to be built by the Royal Dutch Navy for the purpose of taking part in the Anglo-Dutch combined landing force, which is still required in the North Sea?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot say exactly that it will be completely equivalent to the ship that the Dutch Navy will be using in that exercise. However, it will follow its particular role, which is as an assault ship to transport troops and vehicles ashore, using its landing craft and helicopters.

Cultural Property: Illicit Traffic
2.57 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not signed the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, ratification would expose us to formidable bureaucratic problems including differences of national interpretation of the meaning of cultural goods, the need for additional resources and possible new parliamentary legislation. Non-ratification does not affect our ability to take steps outside the convention to combat illicit traffic.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not nevertheless the case that the signatories and ratifiers of the treaty include most of the countries in which saleable works
1112
of antiquity and arts are found—I have in mind especially Egypt, Greece, Italy, Syria and Turkey from the list—but exclude the countries where one would expect such things to be auctioned or sold on the art market, principally Switzerland and this country? Is there any connection between those two facts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, absolutely not.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, are the Government aware that looted antiquities exported illegally from Greece and other countries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, are publicly advertised for sale in this country? Do the Government agree that if we were signatories to the convention, that would be much more difficult to do? Does my noble friend agree that antiquities that have been looted from this country are publicly on sale in the United States and that we have no redress so long as we remain non-signatories to the convention? Does my noble friend further agree that talk of bureaucracy is not sufficient in this difficult situation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is probably referring to the Icklingham bronzes, which are in New York. The problem is that we do not know who exported them illegally. However, we do know that they were exported illegally. Under United Kingdom law, we cannot get them back because we have no proof of ownership. There is no proof of who owns them or, indeed, where they were found. Various allegations have been made by someone who feels that they were looted from his land, but there is no proof of that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, given the widespread feeling that the Government should have signed the convention—or, not having done so previously, that they should sign it now—why do they continue to resist doing so?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are a number of differences of interpretation. The convention refers basically to works of art that are in the public domain. Some countries regard that as including works that are privately owned, which they regard as being in the public domain also. We support the convention in principle, but there are problems in United Kingdom law. We have our own laws, which we feel achieve many of the same objectives as the convention.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the answers he has given seem to be slightly contradictory? At the beginning, he gave the impression that we have all the powers that we need even though we have not signed the convention. In his answer to my noble friend he seemed to indicate that we could do nothing about getting back the treasures because we had not signed the convention. Which of those answers is the correct one?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the treasures are in New York. The problem is that there is no proof of ownership of the treasures. That is why the alleged owner is having difficulty in getting them back.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is there not a draft directive from the European Commission on the

1113
restitution of illegally exported cultural objects which was referred to by the Minister for the Arts in another place on 3rd February? How can that help solve the problem given that internal frontiers will cease to exist after 1992 which will make it even easier for smuggled and stolen goods to circulate within the Community? Have the Government any plans to deal with that difficult problem?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we fully appreciate the need to ensure that our national heritage continues to be protected, as allowed for by the provisions of Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome. Other member states are equally worried that the advent of the single market, to which the noble Baroness referred, should not have an adverse effect upon the protection of their heritage. We are therefore currently considering with our European colleagues a draft directive from the Commission for countrywide co-operation and the establishment of a right for a member state to apply to the courts of another member state for the return of illicitly exported national treasures.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there appears to be a continuing trade in smuggled antiquities in this country? One case is coming before the courts. Will the department please see what other cases there are so that when the court has decided it can take suitable action instead of waiting?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware that there is a large trade in smuggled goods in this country. I do not believe that to be the case. We have one of the most open markets and, therefore, unlike many of the secretive markets in Europe, it is easy in this country to establish whether something has been stolen or illegally exported. Our museums and galleries and the United Kingdom art trade have a voluntary code of practice to which, by and large, they keep. They regard the code as extremely important.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least one of the antiquity dealers provides separate bank accounts under different names for people who import goods which should not be imported?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a case in which an employee of Sotheby's made allegations in his defence when he was found guilty of stealing antiquities. It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment upon allegations made in the privileged circumstances of a trial which are unproved.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, with regard to the Icklingham bronzes, could not the auctioneers and dealers in New York who are selling them be asked? They must be being sold on behalf of someone. Is it not possible to find that out? Could not Interpol help?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is a complicated case. As I understand it, it is alleged that the bronzes were stolen in 1982 from Mr. Browning's farm and illegally exported. They appeared in America. We have been
1114
informed that Mr. Browning has retained a lawyer in America to bring a case against the gallery which is the so-called present owner of the bronzes for wrongfully acquiring the bronzes. We await the outcome of that case.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, in view of this Question and certain goings on in or around another place, will the Government make it clear that the receiving of stolen goods is still an offence against the law of this country?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the receiving of stolen goods remains an offence against the laws of this country.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Minister has given as a reason for the Government not signing or ratifying the convention that there are differences over its interpretation. How many other conventions have we not signed or ratified because of difficulties over their interpretation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper, and I do not have the information.

Freight: Water Transport
3.3 p.m.
Lord Mellish Lord Mellish asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to take action to encourage firms dealing with non-urgent cargoes to use river transport instead of road or rail.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government believe that companies must be free to make a commercial decision as to the mode of freight transport they wish to use. However, we are examining a range of options for water transport as part of the Roads to Water initiative, following a Department of Transport seminar last July on the promotion of freight on inland waterways. To help promote the environmental benefits of transferring freight from the roads, the Government have also enhanced the freight facilities grants scheme which assists companies which are considering investment in rail or inland waterway facilities.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. At least the Government are trying to do something. I want to get this on the record. Is it not a fact that day after day one can leave the House and see that the River Thames is devoid of any freight of any kind; and that applies not just to the River Thames but to the rivers that adjoin it? Why are we not using it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, a range of points arose out of the Roads to Water seminar. The Department of Transport is looking at the need and scope for additional research into the choice of transport methods; that is to say, road, rail and water, and, what is most important, the exhaust emissions from those modes of transport. The Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment are also considering the scope for advice to local planning

1115
authorities over more sympathetic treatment for waterside freight handling facilities as part of the basis for land use planning which will contribute to a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the grant scheme to which he has referred might just as well be applied to rail and road? For instance, a company is proposing to remove many tonnes of limestone from a good railway network in the heart of Wensleydale to a narrow but beautiful Dales road. If the grant scheme were to encourage the company to alter its view, that would be to the benefit of many and would be widely welcomed in that part of the world.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the freight facilities grants scheme also encourages companies to switch from road to rail transport in appropriate circumstances where there will be environmental benefits from doing so.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister has referred to various grants schemes. I assume that he is referring to grants under Section 36 of the 1981 Act which resulted from an amendment which I had great pleasure in moving in your Lordships' House. That provides for the transfer of freight from road or rail to inland waterways. There is no restriction on whether it is from rail or road. Does the Minister see any problems over this matter? If so, what will the consultations cover, because under the freight scheme it is now possible to make the transport of goods by waterway economically viable? That was one purpose of the 1981 amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The grant scheme that I mentioned arose directly out of Section 36 of the Transport Act 1981. There are environmental benefits to be gained from shifting freight onto the waterways but, nevertheless, there are constraints, both physical—in terms of the size of locks, vessel draughts and so forth—and economic, which are bound to affect what in the end are commercial decisions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, against that the Minister must surely understand that one day we shall have a government and a Minister of Transport who will say to firms carrying light oil, household refuse and similar non-urgent cargoes, "Instead of carrying it on roads and over bridges, you will carry it on the water. You will overcome the economics, you the employers". What about that?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as regards widening the scope for waterborne freight, I return to the point that government incentives are in place and the Government are keen that those incentives should be taken up. It is now for the demands of the market to operate and for the market to respond to the incentives available.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problem behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is that we suffer from an historical anachronism and millstone? Does he agree
1116
that when we take into account the combination of speed and the size of the unit load, sadly, overall the water transportation system in this country is not adequate?
Earl Howe: My Lords, our canals and rivers are generally too shallow and narrow. They also tend not to go where commercial traffic requires today. However, some are suitable for bulk load where speed is not important and transhipment costs to other methods of transport are not involved.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the Minister referred to the grants, which are welcome and which will encourage people to use rail more to carry goods. Can he elucidate a little more on planning guidance? In my part of the world there are at least three applications to build abattoirs. That would make a great deal of sense with so many sheep and cattle to be distributed in carcass form, as well as live animals, to the Continent. Is it possible for the Government to give encouragement to local authorities to consider areas where planning consent could be given where the rail facilities exist for such transport?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow that it is best not to stray too far from the Question on the Order Paper in which the emphasis is very much on water-borne transport. If he cares to put down a Question on the railways I should be pleased to answer it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but the Question refers to non-urgent cargoes. Therefore some of the points raised by noble Lords do not apply. Most non-urgent goods are dry bulk goods.
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, there are opportunities for non-urgent cargoes, but the definition of non-urgent is a matter for the commercial enterprises concerned.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. and the House will then proceed direct to further consideration on the Report stage of the Charities Bill.

River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Local Government Finance Bill
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Persons Disregarded for Purposes of Discount]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 85, line 16, at end insert ("or
(c) he is regularly and substantially engaged in caring for and lives with a severely disabled person who is in receipt of attendance allowance or such other payment for attendance as may be prescribed.
11A. For the purposes of paragraph 11, a person shall be treated as engaged "regularly and substantially" in providing care in any week when he is, or is likely to be, engaged and regularly engaged for at least 35 hours a week.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to extend the right of discount to informal carers looking after disabled or frail people. A formal, paid carer would receive a community charge discount, but informal carers do not receive any such discount at present. This seems a somewhat illogical arrangement.
The case for granting a discount to the informal carer is surely strong and not extremely expensive. Many informal carers give up jobs or substantially reduce the hours that they work and thereby lose not only immediate pay but also the prospect of a pension in order to look after people who are infirm and in need of care.
It is the Government's policy that as many people as possible should be looked after in their own homes and not in institutions. If they are properly cared for this is a desirable way of dealing with the problem but it puts heavy burdens, both personal and financial, on the people carrying out the informal caring. That being so, it seems reasonable that they should qualify for the 25 per cent. discount.
The amendment does not ask that every informal carer should receive this advantage. It would be available only for people caring for those receiving an attendance allowance. We understand that that reduces the number of people involved to about 900,000 out of the 6 million carers that are said to exist in the country. Of the 900,000, by no means all would necessarily qualify for the discount. In addition to the need to have the attendance allowance, the carer must be caring for 35 hours a week or more. Because of the curious quirk in the regulations, which we are not discussing at the moment, the carers must be caring for only one person. It is a peculiar fact that if they are caring for two people, taking over 35 hours a week, that does not qualify them for relief. We are not discussing that today, but it reduces the figure of 900,000 quite considerably.
Thus on grounds of equity and that the cost is by no means large. I hope that the Government will consider this concession. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether it would help the House if I intervene at this point. I indicated at Committee stage that we were considering extending the status discounts applying for care workers under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may not consider these remarks as my winding up on the amendment, which will allow other noble Lords, if they wish, to speak after me.
Broadly speaking, any full-time care worker who is employed by a charity, local authority or the person in receipt of care and who earns less than £25 per week is exempt from the community charge. We had proposed to carry this definition forward unchanged into the council tax by granting discounts to such people.
We have heard many representations from noble Lords, from Members in another place and from organisations representing people with disabilities that many care workers are not covered by this definition. They have argued in particular that a disabled person should not lose the single person discount because he or she needs a resident carer who would not otherwise live in the home. We have listened very carefully to these representations. I pay particular tribute to the Association of Disabled Professionals and RADAR, whose practical advice on the subject has been most helpful. Having listened to that advice I am pleased to tell your Lordships that we have now devised a wider definition of care worker.
We propose that discounts should be available where a disabled person on higher rate attendance allowance lives with a full-time carer. The only exceptions will be carers who are the spouse or partner of the disabled person or the parent of a disabled child under 18 years old. In these cases the carer would normally be living with the disabled person irrespective of the disability and there is no possibility that the bill for the property has been pushed up by his or her presence.
From April 1992 higher rate attendance allowance is to be replaced for new claimants under 65 years of age by the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance. People receiving that allowance will also qualify.
Some care workers who are exempt from the community charge would not qualify for a discount under the new definition I have described. The Government therefore intend that the old definition should be retained alongside the new one. This extra discount will benefit a large number of people with disabilities and their carers. I am sure it will be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House as well as by the people directly concerned.
Our proposals will be effected in regulations under Schedule 1. There is no need for any amendment to the Bill. I hope that in the light of our proposals the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven if I move into slightly more Committee style because this is welcome news from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, identified who would be covered by the proposed

1119
amendment, but only 700,000 may be involved. Can the Minister give us an indication of the number of people who may be aided by the proposal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that 190,000 people will benefit from this extension at a cost of £19 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, would that be the same group of people as those who would receive invalidity care allowance and the carer's premium, or would it reach a wider or different group of people? The numbers are the same.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall reply to the noble Baroness. I heard what I said. I referred explicitly to people receiving the higher rate attendance allowance. The noble Baroness may be asking whether we can widen the group of people involved. I have already named the exemptions who will be part of the 890,000 figure referred to by the noble Baroness. The lower rate attendance allowance is awarded to people who need care either only in the day time or only at night. Such people are less likely to need a full-time carer living with them. The extension is concerned with people who live in as carers caring for people both day and night and who thereby add to the costs of that person's disability overheads.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister's comments are welcome and I thank her for them. I wish to read carefully what has been said and work out who has been excluded from the extension. If the exclusion involves a greater number of people than I hope is the case, we may well return to the matter on Third Reading. However, for the present I thank the noble Baroness and the Government for this concession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Administration]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 86, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
("(c) that where a liable person is in receipt of council tax benefit and so requests, payments on account of not less than an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulation, made in accordance with paragraph (b) above shall be accepted at weekly or fortnightly intervals at no additional cost to the payer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved this amendment in a slightly different form. I note the vein in which the Minister has responded to the proceedings today and I hope that it will continue, now that the amendment has been modified in order to meet criticisms. It is designed to make payment easier for those who are on low incomes and especially those who have to budget on a weekly or fortnightly basis.
The amendment seeks to place a duty on local authorities to make available, if someone so requests, the facility to pay the council tax weekly or fortnightly. I have narrowed down the number of poor people to whom this facility can be extended to those who are in receipt of council tax benefit—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, there must be something wrong with the noble Lord's microphone. We have not been able to hear a word he said. I hope he can move nearer to a microphone.
Noble Lords: Go back a row!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope I sound better now that I have moved. I apologise to the House. With the leave of the House, I shall recommence my remarks. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her receptivity towards the amendment which preceded mine. I hope that her mood extends to this amendment. I have taken note of the criticisms made of my amendment in Committee. The amendment was designed to allow poor people who receive their income on a weekly or fortnightly basis to pay their council tax on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The amendment I now move has the same aim.
The amendment seeks to lay a duty on councils to provide those people with that facility if they so request it. The amendment is narrower than it was in Committee as I have restricted the facility to those who are in receipt of council tax benefit. Therefore the amendment seeks to help the very poor. It is only right that local authorities should follow what is best practice among local authorities and provide this service.
As I said in Committee, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, at Henley, the local district council provides the facility I am discussing. In the constituency of Mr. Robert Key at Salisbury, the facility is also provided. I do not see why all local authorities should not be obliged to provide this service to the poorest people in our community.
It is noticeable that the monopolies that control electricity and gas are also extending this kind of facility to the poorer people of our country. I am concerned that the less conscientious local authorities should have their standards brought up to the standards of our better local authorities. I should add that this kind of facility is also offered in Newcastle. There are good local authorities throughout the land that provide this facility, and I wish to ensure the others do too.
The facility I seek falls squarely into the spirit of the Citizen's Charter which has so recently been given additional force by yet another pronouncement from No. 10 Downing Street. Taken altogether, these are compelling reasons for offering the facility I seek. I also believe that the facility would improve the general climate surrounding the collection of the council tax. Unfortunately, the collection of the community charge has not been well received. I strongly urge the House to take this opportunity to improve that climate of opinion. We want to draw a line after the community charge, forget it and start to implement the council tax with good practice.
The amendment also provides that a minimum charge should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. In Committee there was some criticism that the facility I seek might be counter-productive if councils discovered it cost too much to collect the council tax

1121
paid on such a basis for it to be worthwhile. I do not need to prolong the proceedings as the arguments were fully deployed in Committee. The amendment was well received on all sides of the Chamber. As I have modified the original amendment, I hope that the House will find my amendment acceptable on this occasion. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House supported the amendment in principle in Committee although at the time we registered a concern that without a de minimis element local authorities could spend more collecting the charge than it might bring in. However, the modified version of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has our wholehearted support.
The amendment recognises that debts are multifaceted. People with council tax debts are also likely to have rent debts, fuel debts and perhaps hire purchase debts and may be in arrears with their social fund loan. We hope that the amendment will help float people out of that swamp by instituting as of right small, regular and affordable payments. We hope that such a process will provide a financial structure to what can be chaotic lives for families who are in and out of work, in and out of benefit and who are often poised on the edge of homelessness. Such families find it especially difficult to meet monthly payments when they receive their income weekly or fortnightly and when so many other items of expenditure, paid for on a weekly basis, press for their attention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, most good local authorities already do everything possible to keep such families together and in their homes by means of weekly door-to-door rent collection and other such measures. We can visualise the alternative to this measure if we recall that something like 42 per cent. of all of those in prison for less than six months are debtors. Weekly payments may not be tidy and it may be irritating for local authorities to deal with small sums. But the alternative is infinitely worse, in particular as regards the use of the bailiff procedure. Homes may be broken up and children may be put into care. Indeed, I suspect that the provisions of the amendment, if accepted, would be cost effective in the long run because the alternatives available to local authorities such as the attachment of earnings, the attachment of benefits or the use of bailiffs' warrants, are seldom effective.
As the noble Lord said, the amendment would ensure that weekly or fortnightly payments would not simply be a matter of convenience for the payer; restricting them to families on benefit would identify those most in need. Secondly, a de minimis payment to be prescribed by the Secretary of State—which might be a payment of £1—would ensure that local authorities would at least cover their costs, perhaps through the use of the Giro system, as barely half of all low income families have a bank account or building society account.
In the past the Department of the Environment has quite rightly called on local authorities to be flexible and has suggested such methods of payment, as have
1122
the Audit Commission and many local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the amendment would ensure that best practice became common practice. We support it strongly.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the proposal sounds attractive but I am afraid that I am opposed to the amendment. The proposal is neither practical nor workable and should not be put on the face of the Bill. Councils can and often do and will allow payment on such a basis, but to make it an inflexible rule is unrealistic. It is unrealistic to say that there would be no additional cost to the payer. Which payer? It will cost everyone else a great deal more to set up such a procedure.
When I served on my local gas consumer council we received a request from people who wanted to pay on a weekly basis. We were able to introduce such a facility. There is no doubt that some people find that there is pressure in relation to every penny. Some people find it very difficult to put money aside. A procedure was set up through the local consumer bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the fact that one can now pay for gas or electricity or one's television licence on such a basis. There is no reason in the world why councils cannot set up a similar process, but to lay it down in law is unrealistic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that good councils had a weekly door-to-door rent collection service. She is way out of date in respect of London because after rent collectors were murdered in London that was rapidly discontinued.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I said that in cases where families were in debt most local authorities had such arrangements. That applied to the narrow category of people who were already in debt.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness will find that in London it is considered such a risk for people to go around collecting money that no one is willing to take on that job. The GLC had to discontinue door-to-door rent collection for that reason. Now people pay their rents at post offices or local housing offices.
Arrangements are already available. This would not be a cheap process to implement. I believe that the cost of every little change to a council tax system has been underestimated. Every time computers or records are altered, that costs a lot of money, not just a little money, in terms of staff time and computer time. Such arrangements can be made on a humane and practical basis without the need to include a requirement in the Bill. For that reason I oppose the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we discussed the matter at Committee stage. I still cannot for the life of me understand why there is such resistance to the amendment. The noble Baroness has just asked why local authorities should not be left to do what they think fit and why this should be forced upon them. There are many reasons why it should be forced

1123
upon them. People move around the country. Wherever they may be they will still have to pay their council tax. They may move from one area where they have paid weekly to another area where they are forced to pay monthly, half-yearly or whatever the case may be. Therefore there is a case for a standard system to be available to council tax payers.
As I pointed out at Committee stage, there have been considerable problems with the collection of the poll tax. One of the reasons for those difficulties is that the arrangements for the payment of the poll tax have not been satisfactory. Here we have an amendment which attempts to put the matter right and to give everybody the opportunity to pay in a manner which suits their circumstances. It still does not seem to be understood, particularly by noble Lords opposite, that many people in this country, particularly those who are partly or wholly on social security benefits, can budget only on a weekly basis. Once one removes that facility their finances go haywire, they get into debt and eventually find themselves in the courts and, in extreme cases, in prison. That is what the amendment seeks to avoid.
To say that the proposal will cause difficulties is nonsensical. When local authorities used quill pens they collected most of their debts on a weekly basis. Now that they have wonderful computers which can carry out millions or billions of operations in a second or in a minute we are told that that is too expensive and causes difficulties for the local authorities. That is sheer, untrammelled nonsense. If we only thought about people instead of systems, we should be helping not only the local authorities but also families in this country.
I implore your Lordships to think about the problems we have experienced with the poll tax and to give the amendment your support. I feel sure that it will save a great deal of trouble and will bring relief to many ordinary people in this country who are used to budgeting on a weekly or fortnightly basis and will continue to do so.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever in agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when she said that we all want to make best practice become the norm. The only question to be addressed is whether that has to happen by law or whether it ought to happen simply because it is best practice.
This time round, in contrast to the Committee stage, I have had the advantage of receiving a briefing from the CAB. I am sure that that has nothing whatever to do with the fact that I recently persuaded my colleagues in one of the companies which I chair to make a contribution to the Friends of the CAB. This time I have the briefing whereas last time I did not. One of the interesting facts which emerges from the CAB briefing on the subject is that it is called in aid that many of the privatised utility companies now offer their customers a wide variety of systems for easy payment. However, a law has not been required in order for them to do so. They have done so, often in different ways, to benefit different categories of customer in a way which is most suited to each particular industry's area, whether it is one of the
1124
regional electricity companies or one of the water companies. I do not believe that this House would have accepted an amendment which imposed on all the regional electricity companies or all the water companies a single system for making payment of their charges by law.
I accept the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the amendment carries within it two useful limitations. However, it still imposes on all authorities an obligation which many authorities already meet. In some cases they meet it more widely, extending the benefit of weekly or fortnightly payments to a wider group than those receiving council tax benefit and often without the necessity of a minimum sum. In order to find a scheme which is acceptable to the House the noble Lord has circumscribed his amendment considerably. But it still suffers from the disadvantage of seeking to impose a single uniform pattern on all authorities, whatever their circumstances. We hear enough about the differences between local authorities in rural areas, city areas, and city centre areas (to which my noble friend has just drawn our attention) to recognise that such an action would not be very sensible.
The powers are there. The local authorities can introduce this provision. They can introduce a scheme which is suited to their local conditions. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who seeks to impose a single uniform pattern right across the local authority field. In other debates on other occasions he and his party bewail the centralisation of power in the hands of central government.
Where it can be left to local authorities to decide how they will collect their council tax, it behoves this House to allow it rather than to impose a single uniform pattern on them. It is not out of lack of sympathy or a desire to help families who budget weekly or fortnightly. Councils have that power and, as the CAB brief makes clear, many of them use it, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the Secretary of State's constituency and the Minister's constituency of Salisbury. Why should we impose a uniform pattern on everybody? That is the only reason that I oppose the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that I and my colleagues wish to impose a rigid pattern on local authorities. Will he consider what has happened with the poll tax, which I mentioned during my speech? In one part of the country poll tax payers pay 2 per cent. of their bill in respect of non-payers; in other parts of the country, including my own town, as much as 15 per cent., 18 per cent. or 20 per cent. of their bill goes to provide for non-payers. If the noble Lord wants one good reason for supporting the amendment, that is it —on purely financial grounds.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have wearied the House long enough. However, if the noble Lord believes that local authorities have not learnt some of the lessons about the difficulties of collecting a new tax, as a result of the experience of the community charge, he greatly underestimates the wisdom of many district and borough treasurers. I am sure that a great

1125
deal has been learnt. The debate has been helpful in drawing the attention of both sides of the House to the desirability of making it easier for council tax payers to pay their bills. That still does not justify imposing on them all by statute a single uniform system. That is my objection to the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned the citizens advice bureaux and its brief. It is also true to say that in its latest report it brings to the notice of the Government that its main work now lies in the field of debt counselling. It deals with thousands of cases. The CAB discusses a person's income with him and allocates it for individual payments, almost putting it into little boxes.
The noble Lord mentioned the work of the CAB. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, knows the Birmingham settlement very well indeed. These days it does nothing except try to sort out the debt problems in which people have become entangled. This is a very reasonable amendment. One can pay through a bank account by standing order every month. Forms have to be filled in and obviously the local authority has to get in touch with the bank which then makes a proposal. This amendment has a similar effect.
Some local authorities have neighbourhood offices and it is a simple procedure for someone to go in and pay on a weekly basis. That is being done by many local authorities. The noble Lord appears to be saying that if some local authorities can do that successfully and collect the money, so that the people concerned are not in doubt, surely it is a far better vehicle to use than that of bringing them before the courts with all the associated difficulties.
Another point which is not perhaps particularly relevant to this amendment concerns house repossessions. When the Government found out that repossessions were taking place because people were not passing over to the building societies the amount of social security that they received to pay the mortgage, they said that they would stop the amounts out of the social security payments and pay the money directly to the building society. That was an instance of discretion being used. That could not be done with people living in a rented house. It could be done only in cases of repossession, when the money was automatically taken out of income support.
We believe that this amendment may be another way to help people to avoid debt.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when I rose at Committee stage to oppose a broadly similar amendment, my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton accused me and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who was also opposed to the amendment, of doing so only because we had never been paid weekly and had no conception of what it was like to be paid on such a basis. I must assure my noble friend that I can well remember the proud moment 40 years ago when I first
1126
received a weekly wage packet containing the princely sum of £5.10s. That subsequently went up to about £9.7s.6d. It was paid in cash and paid weekly.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. My first princely pay packet from the Army, for which I queued up, was £1.5s.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wins hands down in his experience of these matters. My noble friend in fact cannot accuse either of us of not knowing what we are talking about. More pertinently, although more and more people are no longer paid in cash and are paid monthly, I still know many people who are paid weekly or fortnightly or receive pensions on such a basis. They find no difficulty in putting aside the sums necessary to pay their electricity, gas or telephone bills, or their television or road fund licences. Although many of those items have to be paid at intervals of less than a year or less than a quarter, it is rare to be able to pay them on a weekly basis.
Having said that, I appreciate that the current habit of requiring the poll tax (subsequently the council tax) to be paid in 10 instalments is rather confusing. I should prefer 12 instalments. I go so far as to say that, despite the cost, there might be a case for obliging councils to accept payments fortnightly. However, to insist that they accept weekly payments, which must cost more money to collect, would be going too far. For that reason I cannot support even this revised and improved amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the strength of feeling on the Benches opposite about this issue is obvious. I listened carefully to the points made by noble Lords both today and in Committee. As a result of our long debate in Committee, we gave the amendment very careful thought. I recognise that the new proposal before the House limits the arrangements to benefit recipients with a de minimis cut-off. But we cannot ignore the fact that the amendment would place a significant new burden on local authorities and that we should be imposing that burden by statute. We should be handing local authorities significant difficulties.
There would be particular difficulties in dealing with those who move in and out of benefit. For those moving into benefit during the year, the authority, if requested, would have to change those persons' instalments from monthly to weekly or fortnightly. Those who moved out of benefit would lose their right to pay weekly or fortnightly, although the authorities would have the power to continue to accept payments at those intervals. It may be helpful to the House if I illustrate what small sums would be involved in many cases, if we accepted the amendment.
It is likely that most people on benefit will live in properties in bands A, B and C. We do not of course know what the average council tax will be for those properties, However, exemplifications provided last year, with the consultation paper, on the council tax suggested that the council tax for a one adult household would be £200 for band A; £233 for band

1127
B and £267 for band C. The actual amounts are likely to be higher but not significantly so. For a single adult on 50 per cent. benefit the annual amount required to be paid would range from £100 to £135 which would mean £2 to £2.70 per week. Those are clearly uneconomic sums to collect on a weekly basis. I accept that the amendment recognises that there should be a cut off point but it is difficult, on those figures, to see where this should be.
So far as concerns costs, the House should recognise that in many cases the only means for making weekly or fortnightly payments—it has been acknowledged by noble Lords opposite —will be through the Post Office. The Post Office charge 50p-60p for that. Under the terms of the amendment who would pay? The cost would fall on all taxpayers.
Let us remind ourselves what local authorities will he able to do under the Bill as it stands. It will remain open to local authorities to respond to requests from individual taxpayers to set up more frequent payment arrangements than the general instalment scheme. I am sure that local authorities will behave sensitively if approached with requests for more frequent instalments. I believe it is right that that should be a matter for authorities' discretion.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for reminding us that local authorities will be free to act creatively in setting up schemes to help their taxpayers. As noble Lords know, authorities will be allowed to set up their own instalment schemes for their tenants in accordance with prescribed rules. The power will permit authorities to have a different instalment regime to the standard 10 monthly payments scheme. Authorities will therefore be able to set up a scheme to collect council tax at the same time as they collect council rents. This may well be at weekly or fortnightly intervals. The rules for such a scheme, which the Government will set in consultation with authorities, will ensure that it can be no less generous than the normal 10 monthly scheme.
I am sure that there is one thing that should not escape our attention and in particular the attention of the noble Lords opposite. The Local Authority Associations were not attracted to the broad proposal previously put forward to allow weekly or fortnightly payments as of right to anybody who applied. The ADC and LBA were directly opposed and the AMA argued that unless central Government were prepared to underwrite any extra costs the matter should be left to local choice. I confess that I cannot believe that the associations will be much more attracted to the current proposal.
What we propose, and what noble Lords opposite keep saying that they want, is a tax which is easy to administer and cheap to collect. I find it difficult to square that with the effect of the amendment which will greatly increase the complications and cost of collection and remove local discretion.
We should not exaggerate the divide between the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the Government. The difference between us is that the Government intend to give a power to local authorities to use their discretion to implement a scheme for weekly or fortnightly instalments for their council tenants and
1128
for others in cases of need. The noble Lord wants to oblige local authorities to institute such a scheme on demand on a much wider basis. We believe that there is a balance to be struck between the convenience to the taxpayer and the cost to the public purse and that we should therefore enable local authorities to set up their own schemes and be as sensitive as they can to local needs.
There are good reasons for thinking that local authorities will respond sensitively. For one thing, it will be very much in the interests of districts to show the Local Government Commission that they are responding efficiently to local needs and concerns.
I hope the House will accept that authorities will be given adequate powers to make different instalment schemes of general application and that it should be for those authorities to respond to individual requests for different arrangements at their discretion. I am sure that we can rely on local authorities to use their discretion in that area with sensitivity.
I have not hitherto mentioned that the amendment is defective, but it is so. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that, quite apart from that, the amendment does not stand up on its merits. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I much appreciate the tone with which the noble Earl replied to the debate. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that the debate has been helpful. It appears that citizens advice bureaux, those who supported us, the Government and myself are not so far apart as we were on the last occasion.
To those who oppose the amendment, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I say the following. The noble Baroness has had experience of the gas industry about which she told us. I believe it was the noble Baroness who spoke about a television licence. That cannot be paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis. One can collect stamps for the next television licence, but that is not the same thing. However, if local authorities are not subject to the Citizen's Charter, it would have very little force if it applied only to central government and their agencies.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the essential difference between such utilities as the gas and the electricity companies and the local government authorities is that local government is imposing and collecting a tax. If central government have a single rule for the collection of tax from all their citizens, why should not local government have a single rule for the collection of local taxes? That seems to make a substantial difference between the utility companies and the local government authorities.
I need say no more. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, states that he is confident that local authorities will come up to the best standards. I am afraid that my confidence is not the same. That is the difference. If local authorities do not have compulsion then they will not come up to the standards, but if they have compulsion they will do so. I shall leave it at that and seek the opinion of the House.
3.57 p.m.
On Question Whether the said amendment (No.42) shall be agreed to?
Their lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brain, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Devonport, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Soper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tenby, V.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henniker, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wharton, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Bessborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Biddulph, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blatch, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blyth, L.

Alport, L.

Boardman, L.

Arran, E.

Borthwick, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Balfour, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Barber, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Beloff, L.

Caldecote, V.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

1130

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Clinton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Manton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Crathorne, L.

Middleton, L.

Cross, V.

Monson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

De Freyne, L.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elton, L.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

Orkney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pender, L.

Flather, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prentice, L.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gisborough, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Haddington, E.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Roskill, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Salisbury, M.

Harlech, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harvington, L.

Selborne, E.

Havers, L.

Selkirk, E.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Terrington, L.

Joseph, L.

Teviot, L.

Kemsley, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Ullswater, V.

Knollys, V.

Waddington, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.7 P.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 86, line 3, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision—

(a) that any person appearing to an authority to be a resident, owner or managing agent of a particular dwelling shall supply to the authority such information as fulfils the following conditions—

(i) it is in the possession or control of the person concerned;

(ii) the authority requests the person concerned to supply it; and

1131

(iii) it is requested by the authority for the purpose of identifying the person who, in respect of any period specified in the request, is or will be the liable person in relation to the dwelling;

(b) that the information is to be supplied within a prescribed period of the request being made and, if the authority so requires, in a form specified in the request; and

(c) that a request may be served on the person concerned either by name or by such description as may be prescribed.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 to 49, to Amendments Nos. 53 to 60 inclusive and to Amendment No. 126. Amendment No. 44A will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. These amendments fulfil the undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Howe in Committee that the Government would consider the question of local authorities' information needs and return to the matter on Report.
The amendments ensure that local authorities can obtain the information which they need to operate the council tax. They replace the wide powers currently available to local authorities under Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That provision enables local authorities to obtain information about the occupiers of land and property. It goes much wider than is necessary or desirable for the council tax.
There is no need for a register of all adults under the council tax. Most households will pay a standard bill. In those circumstances the authority does not need details of adults other than the liable person. But, as with any billing system, it will need to know to whom to send the bill. These amendments, therefore, enable billing authorities to require the resident, owner or managing agent of a dwelling to provide such information as is necessary to identify the liable person.
The power does not enable authorities to require information about discounts. It does not allow them to go on fishing expeditions to find out about adults in households who are not liable to pay the council tax. That is the subject of Amendment No. 44A standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
The discount system does not require either a register of adults or a power to require information. If people wish to claim a discount the authority will be able to ask them for information to enable them to verify the claim. If the information is not supplied there is no obligation on the authority to grant the discount. It is in the interest of the household to provide information in support of discount claims. But discounts will apply to a minority of households. It would not be right to provide a power for authorities to require information from all households when most of them will not be affected by the discount provisions.
Amendment No. 44A, which we discussed in Committee, is unnecessary and unworkable. Authorities have no power to require information about discounts in any event. As I have said, they may of course ask for information to verify discount claims or to check that a discount is still available.
The amendment seeks to prevent them doing that. However, authorities would simply have no means of knowing which households were outside the scope of their inquiries. The new powers ensure that the council tax can be administered efficiently without undue intrusion. I ask the House to reject Amendment No. 44A and accept the government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was glad to have the Minister's explanation of this series of amendments. She presented it as though, somehow, it was the logical consequence of the Government's logical thinking on this issue. That is far from being the case.
What has transpired is that the local authorities have pointed out the difficulties of the provisions in the Bill. They have pointed out to the Government that Section 16 of the 1976 Act could be made to apply to the council tax. The local authorities have taken the lead in bringing the Government to some sense of realism about the problems which will arise from the introduction of the council tax.
The problem is of the Government's own making. It arises because of the complexity of the hierarchy of obligation which is imposed in Clause 6(2). There are no fewer than six different categories of people who are liable persons in a chargeable dwelling. They follow one after another in order of priority. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that local authorities need to have some information about who is liable within a chargeable dwelling. It is not surprising that despite local authorities' natural distaste for prying and for seeking information which is confidential or intrusive in any way, they believe it necessary to have some information in order to perform their duties.
In her introductory speech, the Minister referred to the fact that the proposed amendments do not apply to discounts on the basis that the obligation for discounts is on those who wish to claim them rather than on local authorities to identify those who are eligible for discounts. I am afraid it is not as simple as that. The point about this is that the resources element of the local authorities' grant will depend not on the final outcome of who receives the discounts but on the local authorities' first estimate of how many people are likely to be eligible for discounts.
If the local authorities have no way of knowing how many people will be eligible for discounts and if they do not have the right to obtain the necessary information, they will not be able to claim the discounts against the resources element of their grant and they will lose that.
That position is made considerably worse by the fact that if they do not know that the discount is to be claimed and the discount is not claimed until either the council tax bill is received or, even worse, until there is some pursuit of the bill—in other words, attempted enforcement of the council tax bill—they will be involved not only in loss of grant, but they will be involved in considerable expenditure in seeking to enforce the council tax only to find that a late claim for discount is made.

1133
It is by no means as simple as the Minister claims in her rather cursory introductory speech of this important series of amendments. The Minister spent a good deal of time criticising Amendment No. 44A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis. It is true that the relationship between Amendment No. 44A and the series of government amendments is complex. It may well be that we must withdraw Amendment No. 44A in order to see how the Bill reads when the government amendments have been passed, as no doubt they will be. This may be a matter to which we must return on Third Reading.
The way in which this is being introduced in response to quite reasonable attempts by local authorities to ascertain what powers are and should be available to them is not satisfactory. Those matters should have been considered at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill through Parliament. Although we shall not oppose these amendments, I give no undertaking that they will pass without further scrutiny on Third Reading of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the House is now addressing this issue which many noble Lords have said must be addressed sooner or later.
I have the same anxieties about the balance between the efficient gathering of information and the intrusion of privacy, which has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and in particular with regard to the question of discounts. It seems to me that it may not be sensible to provide for a part of the exercise by local authorities without addressing the gathering of information concerning discounts in order that a local authority can assess its tax base—and I use that term rather loosely.
I have some questions about the provisions of paragraph (2A) as it appears on the Marshalled List. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help on those matters. It states that to any person who appears to an authority to fall within the category of resident, owner or managing agent is required to supply information. Heading (c) deals with the addressing of an inquiry by name or description. Presumably we must stay away from, "Dear Occupier" because of the hierarchy. Will letters be addressed to "Dear Owner, resident or managing agent"? I cannot see how that will work in practice.
The word "control" in subsection (2A) (a) (i) refers to information:
"in the possession or control of the person concerned".
Does that mean information which is accessible on inquiry, because the word "control" gives a sense of physical control. I am not sure how that is intended to apply to information.
Finally, having addressed briefly those points, I thank the Minister for taking up the points in a much more comprehensive and effective way than I did in moving amendments to Schedule 3 as regards penalties and various other matters. I do not claim credit for raising those matters in the first place
1134
because I believe that CIPFA raised them with me but it will be welcomed that those points have been taken on board.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, these are helpful amendments. As noble Lords on both sides of the House have stressed, one wants a situation in which there is no unnecessary prying and probing for information which is not required for the precise purposes of the Bill. Clearly, a certain amount of information is required.
I am not sure that the spectre of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of the need for a great deal of information when adjustments are being made for discounts is necessarily warranted. After all, discounts are accounted in relation to dwellings rather than persons. It is true that persons give rise to a discount situation, but the discounts are in relation to dwellings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I agree that discounts are given in relation to dwellings. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the number of discounts which finally result will affect the amount of money the local authority is able to raise from the council tax. If discounts only become apparent after the authority has made its submission, the authority will not receive the resources element of grant on that part of the discount which has not been anticipated. That is my point. I do not disagree that discounts are themselves based on dwellings.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, that is right, so long as one bears in mind that the maximum number of discounts that take effect in relation to a dwelling is two, as I understand it. That is the point. Any number of persons may fall to be disregarded in respect of the tax, but in the end only two discounts —75 per cent. and 50 per cent.—are allowed in relation to any one dwelling.
In that connection I had a rather detailed question to pose in relation to Amendment No. 44A. Should the amendment be withdrawn the question will not be relevant, unless the amendment is to be brought back in another form. The amendment provides that,
"where the chargeable amount is subject to a discount, the authority shall not require information from the liable person if other persons who fall to be disregarded under Schedule I become resident in the dwelling".
The word "if" is intended to mean "as to whether"; it is information about other persons who fall to be disregarded; it is not that the obligation is modified by the presence or absence of such persons.
My point in that regard is that one can well imagine a situation where a single person lives in a dwelling which is therefore subject to discount on the basis of being occupied by that single person—if the noble Lord wishes to answer my question, he will do well to hear it and perhaps I may pose it. Should other persons move into that dwelling the local authority will clearly need to know whether or not those other persons are persons who fall to be disregarded for the sake of discount. To that extent there is perhaps an element of unclarity in the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that there is an element of unclarity.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a question.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, that is correct.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am intervening at the noble Lord's invitation because he asked me a specific question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Question!.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am trying to be quick, if I am allowed. "If" means "if"; it does not mean "as to whether". "Disregarded" refers to cases involving, for instance, students and therefore the amendment is entirely proper. I hope that that was quick enough.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister, following questions that have been posed, how the authority is to discover whether or not a person is a resident. In the area where I live—I have said this before—a great deal of property is rented out at ridiculous rents to people who come and go at a great rate. Seeing everyone emerge through the door each morning will not tell an authority who is the permanent and who is the temporary resident. The request for information should be sent to the landlord.
I suspect that in many cases the poll tax is owed in this borough for the very reason that the notice has been issued to the occupier. The renting tenant does not consider himself to be the occupier. As I have mentioned before, one or two of the Australians who have stayed here—I apologise to the noble Baroness —have skipped off back to Australia owing rent, and I hardly think therefore that they will have paid their poll tax.
Seriously, how does one judge the matter without making some inquiries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can deal with the question of the noble Baroness first. It was touched on by a number of noble Lords. For a large percentage of houses the local authority will make an assumption about an owner or liable person and be correct. Indeed, it links in with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that local authorities are in receipt of a great deal of information about residents in their local area. They will have a large amount of information already available to them.
A hierarchy exists. The local authority will go through the hierarchy—it may be the tenant or chief occupier of the property. That person will be required to give information. It may be that after the first or second question the officer will realise that the wrong person is being approached and will move on through the household until the right person is found.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about paragraph (2A)(a) (i) which states,
1136
"that any person appearing to an authority to be a resident, owner or managing agent of a particular dwelling shall supply to the authority such information as fulfils the following conditions—
(i) it is in the possession or control of the person concerned".
First, if a person is in possession of the information that person will be required to pass the information on. Secondly, "control" does not mean physical control. But there may be someone who has a responsibility to acquire that information and it will be important that that person acquires it and passes it on to the officer.
Not a great deal divides us. The issue is important, whether it is a rates bill or a community tax bill. Where the bill is related to the liable person in a property it makes sense to have the powers to require other persons to identify who the liable person is for purposes of the council tax bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 86, line 42, at end insert:
("(c) that a Local Billing Authority may charge interest at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent. on any sum due to be paid but outstanding as at the due date having given prior notice,
(d) that should any liable person make payment of any sum demanded which is subsequently found to be refundable, interest at the same rate as that notified in (c) above shall be paid in addition to the sum agreed to be refunded provided the Local Billing Authority had already given notice of its intention to charge interest, and
(e) that the Secretary of State may by order amend the limit of interest in sub-paragraph (c) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this subject in Committee and I believe that I detected a broad sense of support from your Lordships. However, one or two points were not quite right. It was suggested that perhaps one might rethink and redraft the amendment, which is what I have done. I regret to see that on the way I have lost one supporter in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. How on earth I am likely to achieve anything without her sound support I do not know; perhaps I can try and encourage her.
My noble friend Lord Howe said in Committee that the Government would look carefully at the point. I was reassured and felt that something had reached home. Regrettably, I understand from my noble friend Lady Blatch that the Government are not happy with the amendment. It would add an extra administrative burden to local authorities. I detect in that response the principal reason why my noble friend feels unable to bring forward a satisfactory amendment. The Government are somewhat concerned at imposing on local authorities what they perceive to be an extra administrative burden.
I bear in mind also the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who suggested that charging 2 per cent. over bank base rate would be administratively complicated and difficult, particularly with the base rate changing from time to time. I take that point on board. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested a flat 10 per cent., as is done in France or as the Inland Revenue does at the moment —I believe that it charges 9.75 per cent. on unpaid tax. Again, one tried to look at that point.
The object ought not to be repeated at length because the matter was discussed at Committee stage. It must be fairly obvious that, broadly speaking, if local authorities find themselves lacking in funds because people fail to pay the debts due by a certain date, it is only right and proper, as with the payment of any bill, that if one does not pay on the right date interest is charged. Equally—and probably more important with a rather complicated system of rebates which of necessity is contained in the Bill—it is possible that those who pay their council tax bill in good faith may find, on appeal or on question, which sometimes takes several months to unravel, that they have overpaid. It is vitally important that those people should benefit from the interest on the money that they have laid out to the councils. Therefore, the measure works both ways. I would like to think that the amendment as drafted meets the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Equally important is that the amendment does not interfere with the local authorities. It simply gives power in law for local authorities to charge interest legally if they so choose. It lays down a suggested maximum as at this date. It provides for one aspect of central government where the Secretary of State should keep the figure in the amendment at 10 per cent. or change it to a lower maximum figure or a higher figure, depending on how interest rates go. I do not believe that this amendment imposes anything on the local authorities, but it gives them a power and it is backed by law. If the local authority fails to—
Noble Lords: Order!
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not know what is the matter with noble Lords opposite this afternoon. They are a bit touchy. Why is that? When an amendment is being moved it is surely permissible for another Member of the House to ask for clarification of the amendment. Of course that is right. If the noble Lord gives way, as he has done, it is perfectly permissible for me to ask him a question. If he is not giving way—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. I gave way to the noble Lord because it is only courteous to do so. It would be better if I could finish. I apologise to the House if I have been rather long. If the noble Lord has a point to raise I am sure it will be appropriate to raise it when he comes to speak. If I am permitted, I shall try to do my best to answer at the appropriate time.
The final thing I want to say is that the local billing authorities must give prior notice of any intention to charge any form of interest, be it from 1 per cent. to 10 per cent.; otherwise it should not be done. If such notice is given, interest would be paid on any amount overpaid by the taxpayer. I had good support at Committee stage for the general principle. I now look
1138
forward to greater support as I feel that I have tried to meet the points raised by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I am specifically asked for a response, as I was by the noble Viscount, I can only respond in terms of modified rapture. It is certainly true that it is much better to have a discretionary power for local authorities than a mandatory one. It is certainly true that local authorities should have the right to decide whether to apply an interest charge. I still feel, as I felt when this matter was raised in Committee, that a variable charge is not entirely desirable.
The noble Lord has now introduced, perhaps in a very minor way, a Henry VIII element into his amendment by providing a figure on the face of the Bill and then providing that the Secretary of State may change it by order.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I definitely support the principle that people who do not pay the council tax at the correct time should not benefit at the expense of others. That is the reason why this amendment received my support last time. As I understand it, the objection to the amendment as it stands is that it would be a very time-consuming and difficult process to work out just how many days under or over-payment there were. For that reason I am persuaded that the amendment is not practical in its present form.
I very much liked the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, last time. I believe he quoted the French system which imposes a flat 10 per cent. Under the method of collection used by most local authorities, 10 instalments are made so that the last one is paid in January. The months of February and March are used to collect the money which has not been received. Therefore, by the end of the fiscal year, and before the council is into the next one, there is a period where someone who has not paid is clearly shown not to have paid. Rather than just calculating to the day of payment, a measure should be designed —I hope the Government will look at this—so that if payment has not been made by the end of the council tax year, the defaulter is liable to a charge for non-payment at whatever percentage is agreed.
I should like to see incorporated in all judgments that if the local authority has to go to court to get its money, not only costs—which are of no benefit whatever to the local authority because they simply cover court costs and its own costs—but interest are chargeable. It should be part of the judgment. I should like the Government to look further at this. People who do not pay should not benefit from not paying. The world has become filled with people who defer payment as long as possible. I do not mean that they do so because they are in difficulties over payment but simply as a deliberate policy. Many people have said to me that, whereas once they always paid their bills on the day they arrived, they now pay them at the last possible date—and these are people who consider themselves to be well paid. If everyone adopted that

1139
principle there would be a considerable loss of revenue to the local authorities. I support the principle of the amendment but I do not support its precise terms.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend has a very great precedent in his favour in the sense that for many years now a system has been built up in this country both for the direct taxes and for some of the indirect taxes on which interest is both charged and paid. We do not have to go to France or any other exotic place to find adequate precedents. I am not referring to Swindon. I am referring to my noble friend on this side of the House. We do not have to go to France or any other remote country to find the answers to so many of these problems because we have thrashed out the answers ourselves over a long period of years.
The problem here is not how it is done, because that is very well known, as are also the problems involved. The issue is whether, having regard to the size of the tax—it is a relatively small one compared with income tax or VAT—it is worth while going to the length of setting up this kind of organisation. Increasingly in these days people are inclined to plan their cash flow. I believe that they are perfectly entitled to do so. The 30 days' grace that one is given to pay one's income tax is normally taken advantage of. I see nothing wrong with that whatever. If that is what Parliament has said, why should not the citizen take advantage of the latitude that Parliament in its wisdom has decided to give him or her?
There is a subsidiary point which I should like to raise. It follows directly after the amendment moved by my noble friend. He is quite rightly trying to keep the scales evenly balanced between the authority and the citizen. If one turns to subparagraph (4) (b) which immediately precedes the one which my noble friend proposes to insert, one finds that if the liable person has paid too much the excess,
"must he repaid or credited against any subsequent liability".
I do not believe it is right that the local authority should be given discretion to hold on to the citizen's money if that money was not due to the local authority in the first place. I hope that when the regulations are made they will ensure that they option whether it is to be repaid or that the excess is to be carried forward should be left in the hands of the citizen and not in the hands of the local authority.
Lord Monson: My Lords, now that the undue complexity and the other minor defects of the noble Viscount's Committee stage amendment have been rectified, I am glad to give my support to the revised version. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, very broadly it would bring the council tax into line with other forms of taxation in respect of which the Inland Revenue can charge interest on overdue payments as well as refund interest on tax overpaid, which is a logical thing to do. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, the sums involved are generally smaller than they would be in the case of income tax, CGT or other forms of taxation, but the object is not to make money out of the interest charged but simply to encourage people to pay
1140
promptly, thereby saving the local authority a good deal of money when clerical expenditure is taken into account.
Having said that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have a point when he criticises heading (e). If the House as a whole agrees with the noble Lord, perhaps the thing to do in order to save time, bearing in mind the pressure that we will be under in the next couple of weeks, is to agree with the amendment today on the understanding that the noble Viscount will move an amendment at Third Reading to delete heading (e).
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I had not wanted to speak on this amendment. I merely wanted to seek clarification regarding a particular word. However, because of the barracking of noble Lords opposite, I am now forced to make a speech, whereas if I had obtained the answer that I wanted I could have just sat down here and listened to other noble Lords speak.
Heading (c) of the amendment states:
"that a Local Billing Authority may charge interest",
at such and such a rate. However, I have been involved in so many debates when I have been told that "may" means "shall".
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh, yes, my Lords. Indeed I have. I wanted clarification as to whether that "may" really means "may" or whether the Civil Service and the interpreters of the Bill will convert the "may" into "shall". Noble Lords opposite said "No" when I mentioned this point, but I want to be absolutely sure, bearing in mind the previous Vote, that the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, wants to give local authorities the option as to whether to charge late payers 10 per cent. interest or whatever the figure may be.
Generally speaking I prefer to use incentive rather than penalty, or perhaps a mixture of both. Local authorities should be encouraged to give a discount to early payers as well as perhaps a penalty to late payers. That would be doubly helpful.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I very much disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, when he suggests that "may" and "shall" are equivalent. Your Lordships are continually dealing with amendments, generally from the other side of the House, which seek to take out "may" and insert "shall". If they were of the same meaning, that would be a sheer waste of time, but they are not. "May" gives a discretion and the courts have again and again made that clear. "Shall" does not give a discretion. "Shall" means that one has to do it whether one likes it or not. That is very important on the only point that has been urged against the amendment.
It has been suggested that it would impose an additional burden on local authorities, when dealing with very small sums of money, to have to pursue the amounts that would be involved under the amendment. But as the wording is "may", it seems quite clear that if it is not worthwhile to pursue a claim local

1141
authorities will not be bound to do so, but they can and will be free to do so if they think fit. That seems to meet the point entirely.
On the general merits of the proposition, it seems to me, particularly in the light of our experience of the way in which the poll tax has been operated, that there ought to be some penalty on people who deliberately withhold payment of a local tax of this kind. Simply to provide that interest shall be payable when payment is delayed provides a proper penalty on those who withhold payment.
As to whether heading (e) has the characteristics of a Henry VIII clause, I rather doubt it. We are dealing in a way with matters of taxation which have always been understood to be matters for the Executive and for another place. I do not believe that any serious point arises on that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not lose me other than in terms of sufficiently nimble footwork in putting down my name to the amendment. My mind has strayed a little. I am wondering what one could put down at Third Reading which would tempt the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to expand on his views on distant and exotic countries, particularly given the benefit of his experience.
I have one question for the noble Viscount. Under heading (c) the amendment refers to,
"a rate not exceeding 10 per cent."
I am not sure whether the noble Viscount means a rate not exceeding 10 per cent. per annum or whether, if payment is one day late, an extra 10 per cent. is to become payable.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about one point in respect of the amendment proposed by my noble friend. Schedule 2 applies to Scotland as well. In Schedule 8, which deals with the enforcement rules for Scotland, we find, in paragraph 2(2), that the sheriff, where an authority has charged someone for failure to pay, may add a further 10 per cent. to that amount. To some extent this could be crossing lines which I do not think would be fair to Scotland. I am concerned about that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, in this amendment my noble friend presses his view that a local authority should be able to charge interest on council tax unpaid by the due date and to pay interest on sums overpaid to the authority. Each authority would have discretion but would have had to announce its intentions in advance. The interest rate would be monitored by the Secretary of State and subject to change by him.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Howe said that he sympathised with this objective. That remains the Government's position. I do not, however, believe that the proposition before the House overcomes the difficulties that were mentioned in Committee. In fact I believe it might add a further problem.
As I have already argued, the payment of interest, on possibly small sums, is a time-consuming, complex and costly business. I accept that this is done for non-domestic rates, income tax and a number of other
1142
taxes, but it tends to cover much larger sums. For the council tax the sums will be much smaller. I believe that that was the point that my noble friend Lord Cockfield made. Overpayment will usually arise when a tax payer wins an appeal against the banding of his property and the property is therefore put in a lower band. The overpayment in these cases is unlikely to be more than about £50. For a whole year this could mean a payment of an extra £5. In most cases this would be lower still as payments would have been made in monthly instalments and thus the full amount would not have been overpaid for the whole year. In the case of unpaid council tax somewhat larger amounts of interest may be due. On an average band D property with a tax of £400, interest for the whole year would be £40. But even in those cases, depending on when the payment was due and whether part payments were made, the amounts would be small and would be complex to calculate.
If I understood him correctly, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the point that we could give local authorities some discretion as regards a kind of de minimis provision.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend the Minister will look at the amendment he will see that the amendment proposes to confer a discretionary power. Therefore, any sensible local authority would not bother where the amount was trivial; but it would bother where the amount was substantial.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can see the sense in that proposition.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I trust that the Minister will allow me to intervene in regard to the same point. I do not think that it would be possible for a local authority to exercise its discretionary power as between one tax payer and another. Surely the discretionary power could only be exercised as between one authority and another, regardless of whether the individual amount was trivial.
Moreover, on the same point and in an effort to secure information from the Minister, is there not sufficient case law to show that a discretionary power is very difficult to reject? I believe that a good example would be that of Westminster. The council was forced by the courts to charge for the collection of trade refuse on the grounds of the fiduciary duty; in other words, if the authority has the power it ought to exercise it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understood that my noble friend was trying to make the point that it is not so much a choice between different council tax payers, but between different amounts. For example, if the money outstanding was £50, an interest payment may be made, but if it was below that amount then an interest payment would not be made. That seems to me to be sensible. Clearly there is much to be desired in the amendment and in its wording.
We still have problems with the proposal. I doubt that the sums paid to council tax payers, or taken from them, could justify the effort involved. As I mentioned, we have arrangements for local authorities to pay interest on amounts of non-domestic rates

1143
which have been overpaid, where much larger sums are involved. That offsets the complexity of payment arrangements necessary to ensure equality of treatment. They certainly are complex. I should be happy to show my noble friend a copy of the practice note which my department has drafted for local authorities in order to help them through the calculations.
As I said, complexity is inevitable if we are to ensure parity of treatment between tax payers. That leads me to the further problem that I foresee with the proposal. I do not believe that we could leave such an arrangement entirely to the discretion of each authority. If, as would probably be the case, very obvious differences of approach emerged between neighbouring authorities, I do not think the position at that stage would be sustainable. We would rapidly be driven to drop the scheme altogether or to impose a national scheme.
Having said that, I am aware that there is an existing power. I believe that it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I refer to the incentive argument. I understand that there is an existing power where local authorities can offer incentives of discounts for early payments. That may be a way to deal with the problem rather than having interest payments.
Perhaps I may turn now to the point made by my noble friend Lord Cockfield on the question of crediting overpaid amounts. Overpaid sums must be repaid by the council if the council tax payer so requires, rather than credited. That will be the effect of the regulations that we shall make. In that respect, the provisions will be exactly the same as those that currently exist for the community charge. I hope that I have explained the Government's position clearly to my noble friend. I understand his strong views on the matter and those of other noble Lords. However, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when he alleges that the proposal would not be cost effective, does the Minister agree that, in practice, the Inland Revenue does not charge interest if it amounts to less than £30. The moment that the sum involved rises to £30.01p it is charged. Similarly, no refund is made if the sum amounts to less than £30. If a similar rule were to apply to the noble Viscount's proposal, would it not be extremely cost effective?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. I should be happy to reflect further on the amendment. However, I cannot make a commitment that we shall return to the matter. I believe that there are some administrative difficulties in terms of local authorities. But, as I said, I am happy to look again at the matter and perhaps discuss it with my noble friend.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. I sometimes wonder what would send the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, into total raptures. I am only sorry that we have achieved
1144
only modified rapture. I hope that on another occasion the noble Lord will become totally rapturous.
In answer to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, perhaps he would be so kind as to look at Amendment No. 70A. We can only presume that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will not move that amendment because, apparently, the word "may" equals the word "shall" in the view of noble Lords opposite. However, I shall leave that matter aside. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what the reference in the amendment to "10 per cent." meant. I can tell her that 10 per cent. equals 10 per cent.; in other words, one minute late is 10 per cent. and a year late is 10 per cent. Let us have no complications so that the matter is well understood.
I very much agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. It appears that Scotland is being treated rather differently. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at that point. The situation should be the same; I do not see why Scotland should be any different.
However, I believe that the important thing that my noble friend the Minister said was that he would look further at the matter. It is not for me to try to run the country. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and of course I may get the wording wrong. But we understand the underlying principle of the proposal. I believe that there is support for it. Indeed, I believe that the people of this country would rather like to see it introduced, especially those who pay on the dot. They may like to see that those who do not pay on the dot have to pay more, and pay interest on outstanding amounts due.
In the circumstances, I believe that it is best for me to retire now. I have had two bites of the cherry. We have had a jolly good talk about the proposal. I hope that my noble friend will take the matter away and look at it again to see whether the Government can produce better wording; or perhaps I should leave it to a more erudite and more experienced Member of your Lordships' House to put forward another amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 49:
Page 89, line 45, leave out ("person concerned") and insert ("relevant person").
Page 90, line 3, leave out ("person concerned") and insert ("relevant person").
Page 90, line 11, at end insert:
("(4A) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision—

(a) that any person appearing to an authority to be a resident, owner or managing agent of a particular dwelling shall supply to the authority such information as fulfils the following conditions—

(i) it is in the possession or control of the person concerned;

(ii) the authority requests the person concerned to supply it; and

(iii) it is requested by the authority for the purpose of identifying the person who, in respect of any period specified in the request, is or will be the relevant person in relation to the dwelling;

1145

(b) that the information is to be supplied within a prescribed period of the request being made and, if the authority so requires, in a form specified in the request; and

(c) that a request may be served on the person concerned either by name or by such description as may be prescribed.").

Page 90, line 12, leave out ("person concerned") and insert ("relevant person").
Page 90, line 15, leave out ("particular period") and insert ("period to which the assumption relates").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to when I moved Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 90, line 46, at end insert:
("(e) such other person as may be prescribed in the regulations").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall at least satisfy my noble friend on the Front Bench by confirming that this is a probing amendment. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 applies to England and Wales, but paragraph 12 applies to Scotland, hence the reason for the two amendments to cover the same point. Local authorities should have the power to require information from sources additional to those listed in paragraph 11(2) for England and Wales and paragraph 12(2) for Scotland. The bodies of which I am thinking include the Inland Revenue in respect of sales transactions, the Land Registry or, in Scotland, the Court of Sasines, rent tribunals or rent officers.
The amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State to include such persons as he decides by regulation. This may not be quite the right way to do it, but the local authorities should have the widest possible access. We need to find out who is involved with what property in terms of the community charge or anything else in that respect. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, this is simply a probing amendment. The provisions which my noble friend seeks to amend deal with the supply of information to billing authorities—and, in Scotland, levying authorities—to enable them to carry out their tax functions.
Paragraph 11—and in Scotland, paragraph 12—of Schedule 2 is not intended to be a wide power. It is deliberately restricted to those public bodies which hold information which may be necessary for the administration of the council tax, and it provides a statutory power for them to supply it to the authority. Without such a statutory power there could be a breach of the Data Protection Act if the information were supplied.
We believe that the list of authorities that we have provided is wide enough for council tax purposes. As my noble friend now knows, we have just amended the Bill to provide specific information powers for local authorities in order to identify the liable person. We believe that we have provided local authorities with all
1146
the sources which it would be appropriate for them to access, having regard to the Government's policy on data protection. I hope that that is useful information.
We do not think that it is necessary to make special provision for access to the sources of information that were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Balfour. Both the Land Register in England and its Scottish equivalent, the Register of Sasines, are open to public inspection. Notification of sales transactions is not essential. Local authorities will come to be notified of changes of ownership as part of the conveyancing process, as happened with rates. The government amendments that we have just discussed would enable the authority to discover the identity of the liable person without the need to approach rent officers or rent tribunals.
As I have said, this is a probing amendment and I hope that the probing has given a satisfactory result.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that answer, which has covered a point about which I was a little concerned. Although I read the government amendments, I felt that they did not cover the point about local authorities, but dealt more with houses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 94, line 14, leave out ("Any reference in this Schedule") and insert ("In this schedule:
(a) any reference").
Page 94, line 16, at end insert ("and
(b) any reference to a managing agent, in relation to a dwelling, is to a person authorised to arrange lettings of the dwelling.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 have been spoken to with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Penalties]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 60:
Page 94, line 20, after ("(1)") insert ("Where a person is requested by a billing authority to supply information under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2, 3, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act, the authority may impose a penalty of £50 on him if—

(a) he fails to supply the information in accordance with the provision; or

(b) in purported compliance with the provision he knowingly supplies information which is inaccurate in a material particular.

(1A)").
Page 94, line 26, at end insert:
("(1B) Where a penalty has been imposed on a person under sub-paragraph (1) above and he is requested by the authority again to supply the same information under the same provision, the authority may impose a further penalty of £200 on him if—

(a) he fails to supply the information in accordance with the provision; or

(b) in purported compliance with the provision he knowingly supplies information which is inaccurate in a material particular.

(1C) Sub-paragraph (1B) above applies each time the authority repeats a request.").
Page 94, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

1147
Page 94, line 36, leave out from ("requested") to ("may") in line 38 and insert ("by a levying authority to supply information under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2, 3, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to this Act, the authority").
Page 94, line 41, at end insert:
("(2A) In any case where—

(a) a person is required by any provision included in regulations under paragraph 4, 5, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act to notify a levying authority; and

(b) he fails to notify the authority in accordance with the provision,

the authority may impose a penalty of £50 on him.").
Page 95, line 29, after ("began") insert ("or anything done").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 to 60 have been spoken to with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enforcement: England and Wales]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 96, line 7, at beginning insert:
("( ) No enforcement order shall be made to recover any sum under this Act unless the court is satisfied that when the application for the summons was made, the authority had correctly determined whether there was an outstanding claim for council tax benefit in respect of that sum.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is a version of an amendment that I moved in Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that people are not summonsed for non-payment of the council tax if they have an outstanding claim for council tax benefit. In other words, it seeks to ensure that local authorities present people with a net sum to pay. I have altered the amendment that was previously tabled to take account of the Minister's concern that people might put in false benefit claims to delay the court process. I think that I have met that point by making the provisions apply only to outstanding claims where the local authority applies for a summons. I hope that that is acceptable to the Minister.
Local authorities are often not up to the requirements that have been imposed upon them by the Government. Under the council tax benefit provisions, as was the case for the community charge, I believe that regulations have been made to the effect that the local authority should pay any benefit within 14 days of a claim or as soon as possible thereafter. However, the experience of the citizens advice bureaux is that that is not always the case—far from it. I have two examples with me, which I do not propose to repeat to the House, which show that the payment of the benefit is sometimes as late as eight months after the claim was submitted. It would be a good discipline if the local authorities were required to be more responsive to the regulations that require such claims to be paid within 14 days after the claim has been made or as soon as possible thereafter. It is unreasonable to think that eight months is "as soon as possible".
The other objection to my amendment is that it might be administratively difficult to implement. When that claim was made, most of your Lordships felt that computers should now be able to register a benefit on the same file as that containing details of the
1148
registration and tax liability of the citizen. With a moderately modern computer system, it should not be difficult to present the citizen with a net bill. This matters because people may well be able to pay their bill if they are presented with a net bill, whereas if they are presented only with the council tax without the council taking due account of their entitlement to benefit, the dreadful irrevocable process of calling in the bailiffs, with all the horrors that flow from that, is triggered. That is despite the fact that the citizen is owed money by the council. That cannot be right and it is not good for either revenue collection or the council's cash flow. It is certainly not good for the subject whose house will be invaded and whose cooker and fridge may be removed in distraint for derisory sums of money.
The amendment is an attempt to make it easier for those on low incomes to pay their due, which I am sure is what they want to do, but who need to be helped. I believe that we have heard expressions of opinion from Ministers to the effect that they recognise that poor people should be helped as much as possible to make their payments. That should be made easier for them. This is one of the amendments that is designed to have that effect. I hope that I have tightened its drafting to make it more acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment, and we hope that the Government will do so. Someone who is eligible for benefit; in other words, someone who is poor, disabled, unemployed or elderly should not be faced with court procedures merely because a local authority has failed to deliver to them the benefit to which they are entitled as of right. That is transparently obvious.
In support of the amendment moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I wish merely to give one example from evidence submitted by the CAB which makes the point. A CAB in Sussex reported the case of a disabled, single parent on income support with three children who was therefore, under the community charge, eligible for an 80 per cent. rebate —under the council tax it would be a 100 per cent. rebate —and who received a summons for the full community charge. That action cannot be defended. We on this side would not dream of defending local authority inefficiency that creates such distress. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast to Amendment No. 42, I find myself broadly sympathetic to all the other CAB-inspired amendments. I shall support the noble Lord if the amendment is pressed to a Division.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, there is considerable evidence from the CAB that householders have experienced extreme difficulties and have faced, unfairly, the ghastly trauma of a court summons and bailiffs. That has arisen mostly from

1149
delays in processing their housing or community charge benefit. It is not unreasonable to assume that similar circumstances might arise in respect of the council tax. The amendment goes a long way towards ensuring that that does not happen. The wording has been tightened to take account of bogus claims for benefit, a point which worried my noble friend Lord Henley in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. There is no need to rehearse the arguments again. To persuade local authorities that their right hand should be introduced to their left hand, and that they should discuss what each department is doing, can only be a good thing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I remember the amendment—and as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, stressed, it was different from this one—being discussed in Committee. That was the occasion upon which the noble Lord accused me of being shirty. I accept that this amendment is slightly different, but the same arguments apply. I am not sure that I can take the matter much further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, the poor—as she referred to them—should not be faced with court proceedings merely because the local authority has been incompetent.
I have the greatest respect for NACAB and the work it does, but I am not sure that I accept all the evidence that it puts before us in view of the anecdotal nature of much of it. I suspect that if we put forward policies based on anecdotal evidence we should be, rightly, laughed out of court. I accept that there are authorities that do not meet the 14-day limit recommended for dealing with housing and community charge benefit claims. That point was accepted by my honourable friend Mr. Robert Key when he spoke to the noble Lord some time before the previous stage of the Bill. In the main, most authorities do meet that target. The figures I gave in Committee concerned some 65 per cent. of authorities which manage to deal with their claims within 14 days.
The question is whether we want to go down the line—as I argued in Committee—where there might be an incentive or device for some tax payers to put off their liability to pay the council tax by making bogus claims for benefit. An amendment such as this would encourage individuals to make such claims. It would provide authorities with an additional burden in considering them. That is not in the interests of councils, council tax payers or other residents in the area. Most authorities—this is the important point —will continue to act reasonably if approached by someone with an outstanding benefit claim, and would not continue their recovery process until the claim is settled. That is the advice given in a practice note on the enforcement of the community charge issued by the Department of the Environment to all authorities. I stress that it will be reiterated in guidance on the enforcement of the council tax.
I hope that that assurance will prevent the noble Lord from pressing the amendment. The amendment
1150
has the grave disadvantage of possibly providing the route for some council tax payers to avoid liability by making bogus claims, and so delaying proceedings. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the conciliatory tone in which he replied to me. It could not possibly be described as shirty. He will in any case remember that I withdrew the word "shirty" in all friendliness. I also hope that he remembers the rest of the debate. The amendment has been received with sympathy all around the House except the Government Front Bench. I find that a pity. It gives us no comfort to be told that guidance stressing the policy pursued under the old, discredited community charge is to be pursued in relation to the council tax.
I am surprised that the Minister referred to the CABs documented reports as anecdotal evidence. On the whole, he would do well to withdraw that slur on the CABs. I hope that he will do that just as I withdrew the word "shirty", to which some noble Lords objected. It would make me a little happier if he felt able to do that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord calls upon me to withdraw one word. I am happy to withdraw the word "anecdotal". I was merely trying to make the point that the collection of such evidence, which has no methodological basis, is not the way in which the DSS would like to put forward evidence. If we were to produce new policies based upon a similar evidential process, I suspect that we should be laughed out of court.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. The principle is the same as that of the previous amendment that I moved. Noble Lords who have spoken agree with me that it is essential that the poorer councils should be brought up to the level of the better councils and that good practice should be established by legislation. It is upon that principle that I should like to take my stand, and ask the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Airedale, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Ennals, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ezra, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falkland, V.

Butterfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Foot, L.

1151

Gainsborough, E.

Monson, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Parry, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henniker, L.

Seear, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shannon, E.

Hunt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stedman, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Willis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mayhew, L.

Winstanley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Derwent, L.

Alport, L.

Digby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Elibank, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Barber, L.

Elton, L.

Bauer, L.

Erne, E.

Beloff, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Flather, B.

Biddulph, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blyth, L.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bolton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Borthwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brentford, V.

Haddington, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harlech, L.

Caithness, E.

Harvington, L.

Caldecote, V.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hives, L.

Carnock, L.

Holderness, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hooper, B.

Clinton, L.

Howe, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kemsley, V.

Coleraine, L.

Killearn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Knollys, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

1152

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Renton, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Manton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Margadale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marlesford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Merrivale, L.

Selborne, E.

Mersey, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Somerset, D.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Norrie, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pennock, L.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trumpington, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ullswater, V.

Prentice, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pym, L.

Waddington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Reay, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rees, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 96, line 22, at end insert ("in relation to the recovery of any sum falling within that sub-paragraph which a person is solely liable to pay").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62, and in doing so to speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 76 and 77. These are technical, drafting amendments. They clarify the position in relation to the making of regulations on enforcement in respect of those jointly and severally liable for the council tax as well as those who are solely liable. They will simply ensure that the regulations dealing with enforcement of the council tax will be able to deal with those who are jointly and severally liable for the tax as well as those who are solely liable. The amendments also substitute references to "authority" where "person" is inappropriate; and make minor drafting changes. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am puzzled by these amendments. I am prepared to be convinced that they are technical amendments but it seems to me that paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Bill gives the Secretary of State adequate powers to make the kind of regulations which are now provided for. Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 states:
"The Secretary of State may also make regulations in relation to the recovery of any sum which has become payable (by way of repayment) to a person other than a billing authority"—
That meets the point about the person to whom the payment should be made—
"under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2, 3 or 6(2) or (3) of Schedule 2 to this Act and has not been paid".
What do the amendments add to the power under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on these occasions I have to take advice from those who advise me, particularly on matters relating to drafting. I am assured that the amendments are necessary to cover the point I mentioned in my opening remarks, dealing with those who are jointly and severally liable as well as those who are solely liable. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance. Perhaps I may write to him giving a further explanation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 96, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations under that sub-paragraph may make, in relation to any sum falling within that sub-paragraph which persons are jointly and severally liable to pay, provision equivalent to any so authorised subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.").
Page 96, line 25, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") and insert ("sum falling within that sub-paragraph").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 65ZA:
Page 96, line 32, at end insert ("and the local authority has taken all reasonable steps to enable the person concerned to pay the debt by instalments which reflect his ability to pay.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from an amendment that I tabled in Committee. I was not entirely sure that the Minister was aware of what the amendment intended to do. That matter is recounted in considerable detail in col. 1231 of the Official Report of 28th January. Suffice it to say at this stage that the Magistrates' Association has advised me on this amendment. The Magistrates' Association is keen that when magistrates sit in court and deal with matters of this kind they should have the discretion to take account of the ability of a debtor to pay.
My noble friend said on a previous occasion that the Government did not wish means inquiries to be conducted. Consequently, I have amended the amendment so that all the court has to do is to satisfy itself that a local authority has,
"taken all reasonable steps to enable the person concerned to pay the debt by instalments which reflect his ability to pay".
There is no question of there being another stage of inquiry. Some other amendments would perhaps introduce another stage of inquiry but my amendment does not seek to introduce such a measure.
My main point is that it is important that magistrates should be seen by their local communities to be taking good care of people who have difficult monetary problems and who may also have young families. The magistrates should take care not to put those people into an impossible position. The magistrates should not appear to be acting like rubber stamps. As it stands, the legislation tends to have that effect. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Opposition certainly support the principle of this amendment. We agree that good local authorities will
1154
normally take steps to offer payment by instalments. However, we see two problems with the amendment as worded. I am sorry to say this to a noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Magistrates' Association, but we are not happy with the word "reasonable". We believe that lawyers would find themselves in paradise trying to decide what is and is not meant by the word "reasonable". It may well be extremely difficult and expensive to establish what is and is not reasonable.
Further, my next point is an interesting one to us at any rate. The amendment refers to instalments which reflect a person's ability to pay. However, the council tax is not about ability to pay. The council tax is a fixed tax in which ability to pay is dealt with by discounts and rebates. The ability to pay the resulting amount is not a consideration in the levying of the council tax. I shall be interested to see how the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and his advisers get round that problem.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope I may briefly repeat what I said in Committee as regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I like the amendment and I am prepared to support it. I accept that some of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are valid, but in principle I support the amendment. In view of the results of the Divisions on Amendments Nos. 42 and 61, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68. Clearly, the Government, I and a sizeable minority in the House, are unable to agree on the principle of compulsion. Therefore it would be absurd to ask the House again to decide whether the principle of compulsion applies. That matter has been decided twice in two other contexts. I happily support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I reserve the right to speak to the amendments of the noble Baroness on the subject of bailiffs. I give an advance welcome to those amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, Amendment No. 65ZA seeks to require magistrates' courts to ensure that a local authority has taken all reasonable steps to enable a debtor to pay by instalments which reflect his ability to pay before making a liability order.
I have written to my noble friend to explain why we could not agree to accept his previous amendment which he has now withdrawn. I am afraid that this amendment would still require a court to hold a means inquiry before making a liability order against a council tax defaulter. That would be the only way a court could find out about the debtor's ability to pay. At this stage of enforcement the taxpayer will have failed to pay despite the opportunity of instalments and a reminder notice from the authority and a summons from the court. To a certain extent the summons and liability order stage is the final reminder. Many people pay at this stage and most people do not attend court. It would be impractical to hold a means inquiry at this stage. It would place unacceptable burdens on both the courts and authorities. Having obtained a liability order, we believe it is reasonable for authorities then to be able to enforce payment using the remedies provided such

1155
as distress, attachment of earnings and other remedies, and to decide which of them is the most effective to pursue. Magistrates will of course have to inquire into a taxpayer's means before imposing the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. I do not believe such an inquiry is either necessary or desirable at the earlier stage of granting the liability order.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented to my noble friend that the council tax is not related to ability to pay. I should say there is an effective system that reflects ability to pay in the rebate system. There are rebates of up to 100 per cent. for those who are on low incomes and are not able to meet the council tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords,—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may complete my point. When someone stands before the courts with debts from whatever source, as I have just said the courts can take into account ability to pay. That occurs irrespective of whether the debt has been incurred as a result of a failure to pay the council tax, a gas bill, an electricity bill or any other debt. As I have just said, magistrates will have to inquire into a taxpayer's means before imposing the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the Minister will allow me to intervene on a point of clarification. I have made exactly the point that she is making. I do not necessarily agree with her about the effectiveness of the ability to pay provisions in the council tax; but I made exactly the point the Minister has made when I said those provisions are supposed to be dealt with by means of the rebate and discount structure and that it is the resulting amount that the courts consider.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was dealing with the criticism that the noble Lord made of the council tax as a system. I am simply saying that the council tax as a system of raising revenues for local authorities contains a sophisticated and effective mechanism to determine people's ability to pay through the rebate system. I should also remind the House that under the council tax system those with the least means will be entitled to 100 per cent. benefit. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation. I appreciate the point that has been made both by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I believe it is reasonable to use the word "reasonable". All too frequently courts have to decide whether steps are reasonable or whether some action is reasonable.
I understand the point that has been made. I believe that what my noble friend has said may meet one of the points I have made in that the courts will still have a discretion in the sense that the Bill as drafted states:
"The magistrates' court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable".
If the courts are not satisfied that the sum has become payable, they have the discretion not to proceed further. As my noble friend says, in the event that a person cannot pay for whatever reason he will appear before the courts again. However, my advisers
1156
persuaded me—although I have not been able to persuade your Lordships—that that whole process involves yet another stage and the whole matter goes on longer. We wish to try to abbreviate that process.
It is not a sufficiently important point to press further at this stage. I shall consider what my noble friend said. I may come back to the matter at Third Reading and I reserve the right to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for his support. I do not think that it is relevant whether or not he intends to move Amendments Nos. 66 and 67. Much of the confusion on the part of the Government rose because our amendments were inadvertently grouped together earlier as a result of a printing error and therefore I received a letter which was relevant to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and not to mine. That did not help at all. I shall take steps to see whether we can have arrangements to punish the printers when they make mistakes, but that is by the way. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 99, line 46, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65A I should like to speak also to the other amendments grouped with that amendment. As one of the Opposition peers involved in the Committee stage debate on bailiffs, I should like to say how genuinely delighted we are that the Government have felt able to respond to our anxiety. I should like to congratulate the Ministers on the amendments which have been tabled today. They represent a welcome response to what is a matter of wide concern. Congratulations are due to the Government for that.
In addition, and I hope that the Minister will support me, I should like to pay tribute to NACAB and NCC for their briefing, lobbying and pressure. Without them this item might very well not have been on the agenda and we might not be making the moves which I hope we shall make today. We should acknowledge that.
Amendments Nos. 65A and 70A are designed to strengthen the Secretary of State's hand and impose a duty on him to use his regulation-making powers. We all recognise the need to have effective but humane ways of recovering small debts and the need to strike a balance in so doing between the needs of debtors and the needs of creditors. The better ways are those explored in previous amendments; for example, the acceptance of small debt repayment by instalments, the payment of benefit claims rapidly or appropriate attachment of earnings or even of income support. All of those are preferable to the use of bailiffs. Why is that so? We explored the arguments in Committee but they bear brief repetition this afternoon.
Private bailiffs too often—and even once, twice or three times is too often—are people of dubious reputation and dubious practice whose very effectiveness in collecting debts requires intimidation, threatening behaviour and harassment. Too often

1157
those are the inevitable tools of the trade. Too often such bailiffs confuse "won't pay" with "can't pay". Too often there have been examples of them impounding essential household goods—washing machines and cookers—which have been provided by the social fund to families suffering hardship. Too often they have added unreasonable charges, savagely increasing the debt owed by the family, and then have gone on to sell the goods at unregulated auctions without fixed prices. As a result we see the type of advertisements which appear in our Sunday newspapers for government auctions at which washing machines and the like are marked down from £250 to £20. That is a testimony to private misery and private greed.
We have seen bailiffs do all of those things. We have seen them selling goods without a fixed price, leaving the family without essential goods while still having to pay off loans for those goods, still having to pay off outstanding bailiffs' debts and still having to replace the goods distrained, all out of income support. As the CAB said in a very effective report, distress or the use of warrants is particularly ineffective because it simply drives the debt problem elsewhere. The client either takes out loans at a very high interest rate to cover the debt or loses essential items such as a cooker, which means that he then has to buy take-out food, or the washing machine, and has to pay the higher costs of a launderette. Even if he clears the debt, if the problems underlying the indebtedness remain the person is afloat only until the next bill.
It is clear that the voluntary code of practice on which local authorities as well as the Department of Environment placed such hope has broken down. That is clear if one examines the current situation with regard to bailiffs. Apart from sheriff's officers operating from the High Court, there appear to be three main categories of bailiff.
The first is county court bailiffs, who are civil servants based at local county courts and regulated effectively and properly by the Lord Chancellor's Department. They normally collect arrears within the framework of the Consumer Credit Act and small claims. There are very few complaints about their behaviour. Of 1.25 million warrants they pursued, only 1,900 resulted in the forced sale of goods. They exempt essential goods. That is a model which we hope will be emulated.
The second category of bailiff, about which there are most complaints, is the private bailiffs working for private firms. In the main they are instructed by magistrates' courts for the collection of unpaid fines and by local authorities in respect of the poll tax. They are not directly registered and have no fixed scale of fees and charges.
Thirdly, there are certificated bailiffs who are private bailiffs who have applied for or been granted a certificate by county courts for the collection of rent arrears. That process of certification provides some modest regulation. It covers any previous record and the placement of a bond. However, many of us feel that it still does not go far enough.
At present a household in multiple debt can face visits from several different bailiffs, their goods threatened from all directions. Viable alternatives to the distraint of household goods then become very difficult. Poll tax bailiffs may make an agreement with the debtor to pay an outstanding bill. That can quickly be followed by a visit from a private bailiff who is collecting a fine. As there is no spare income he seizes the goods. By the time the county court bailiff has arrived to distrain for arrears under a judgment neither money nor goods remain. Hanging over the household is the threat of a prison sentence.
Therefore the whole system needs review. That is why we wholeheartedly welcome the Lord Chancellor's review as announced by his department. In the meantime we very much welcome the Government's amendment. However, I should like to finish by asking the Minister to clarify some questions which the amendment raises.
First, have the Government any idea as to the timetable for the issue of such regulations? In other words, will the Lord Chancellor's review unduly delay the control of bailiffs which we should all like to see? Secondly, we welcome the introduction of prescribed conditions, a useful broad phrase. However, can the Minister say whether those will include costs, the giving of notice and reference to the gaining of rights of entry? In one case a certificated bailiff who happened also to be a private landlord used the key which he had as a private landlord to gain entry into a property from which he then distrained goods as a certificated bailiff. We want control over such action. Will control over the sale of goods and auctions also be included? Thirdly, will the Minister clarify the phrase, "prescribed goods"? We presume that that will include basic domestic goods, but does it also include, for example, tools for work or goods purchased with money from the social fund?
I should like to end as I began by thanking most warmly Ministers on the Government Benches who have responded to the anxieties and again to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations—the CAB and NCC—which have made this an issue of such salient significance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness about the way in which the amendments have been received. However, I should also like to say that in speaking to the amendments the noble Baroness did local government an injustice. Certainly I do not wish to criticise the fact that the noble Baroness used specific examples to illustrate her very real concerns. Those concerns are echoed from all over the Chamber, as she knows. However, that does not recognise what I believe is good practice—best practice —in many local authorities where they exercise their duties in these matters in a very sensitive way. Certainly their practices would not be consistent with what has been described by the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box. I do not want the impression to be given of local authorities at large that they are not capable of being sensitive and responsive to the needs of local people, particularly the most vulnerable.

1159
Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions before I address the issues generally. With regard to the timetable for the regulations, we wish to await the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review of these matters. That is important. The noble Baroness mentioned prescribed conditions and asked whether they could include certain items. They could include all those things but, like all regulations, they will be put out for draft consultation. We shall be talking to local authorities and hope to arrive at prescribed conditions that will make sense and achieve the objectives that have been discussed in this House.
Again on the issue of prescribed goods, the noble Baroness gave examples and asked whether they would include fundamental domestic living and tools for work. Those are precisely the kind of things that would be included in such a list of prescribed goods.
As has already been said, the group of amendments includes Amendments Nos. 65A, 67A, 69 and 70A which appear in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It also includes Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 107, 112 and 115 which appear in my name. With the permission of the House, I propose that we consider that part of Amendment No. 107 which relates to computer evidence when we discuss Amendment No. 75.
The group of amendments relates to the process of enforcing the community charge, the non-domestic rate and the future council tax, and in particular to enforcement by distress and committal. During our debates in Committee a number of concerns were expressed about the activities of bailiffs. We have recognised the position and hope the decisions that we have taken to bring forward the amendments in my name go a long way to meet those concerns.
Before describing the amendments in detail I should draw noble Lords' attention to the announcement made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the review that he is conducting of civil enforcement agents. Perhaps I may explain that they are sheriffs, court bailiffs, certificated bailiffs and other private bailiffs. For those noble Lords who have not seen the announcement, the review will consider whether changes should be made to the organisation and management of agents involved in the civil enforcement process; the part which the state should play in the organisation and management of enforcement agents; the way in which any changes in the organisation and management of enforcement agents could be achieved; and whether any changes to the law governing the work of enforcement agents are necessary or desirable. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that decision by my noble and learned friend. I believe that the review will address many of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House.
Nevertheless, we felt that there were two further steps that we should take on the community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax. First, we propose a regulation-making power which would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe those goods which a bailiff should not be able to distrain. That provision is intended to bring greater clarity to the work of bailiffs and to ensure that items essential to the charge payer
1160
for his domestic and work use are protected from distraint. We propose to consult on the items that should be included on the list. There are a number of models already in statute to which we can look, in particular in the County Courts Act 1984 as amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. However, I should not wish to specify in advance of consultation whether we would wish to adopt that particular model in whole or in part. We can indeed get on with the consultation on those regulations.
Secondly, we propose a regulation-making power which will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by description those persons whom local authorities may employ in community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax enforcement work in addition to their own staff. I must stress that we do not intend to use that power until the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review is known and only then, if we think it appropriate, in the light of full consultation. In the interim, it is my understanding that most authorities already use certificated bailiffs in carrying out enforcement work on their behalf. I have already made reference to the sensitivity of the work carried out by many local authorities.
I turn now to Amendment No. 71, tabled in my name, which also relates to the activities of bailiffs. It has been argued that there is some ambiguity in the wording of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, replicated in the Bill before us now, as regards the link between the attempt to levy distress and an application for committal. As the statute and the regulations stand, the local authority may apply for a committal warrant where a bailiff has sought to levy distress but no goods or insufficient goods have been found. It is argued that if a bailiff fails to gain access to a property he is in no position to say whether there are no goods or insufficient goods to distrain. If the local authority has no evidence on which to conclude that there are no goods or insufficient goods, it is prevented from applying for committal.
Bailiffs have no power to make a forcible entry to a property. If, therefore, a defaulter simply denies the bailiff access to his house, the authority may be unable to apply for committal. That would make nonsense of the enforcement process. The amendment before us therefore provides that if, for whatever reason—which includes failure to gain access—bailiffs fail to find sufficient goods to distrain from a defaulter, the local authority may proceed to seek committal. None of that affects the rights of individuals at the committal hearing. It would certainly be open to an individual to argue, as can be done now, either before the magistrates or a higher court, that an authority failed to take the steps necessary to enable it to apply for a committal warrant.
I hope that the House will agree that, having identified this potential ambiguity of wording, it was right for the Government to put matters beyond doubt and ensure that no defaulter is able to evade the proper enforcement process simply by not opening the door to a bailiff when he is in fact present and at home.

1161
Amendments Nos. 112 and 115 ensure that the amendments have effect immediately on Royal Assent.
I should like to end by making a general point about bailiffs. Noble Lords have expressed considerable concern about the activities of bailiffs. I acknowledge that concern and believe that we have responded positively to it. Nevertheless, I should not like to leave the House with the impression that we are unaware of the valuable role played by the bailiffs. Over the past two years they have been given many millions of commissions in community charge matters. Their task is not an easy one. The problem of debt is undeniably traumatic for those concerned. Nevertheless, against those many millions of commissions there have been remarkably few complaints against the bailiffs. That is a record that I believe we should acknowledge also in addition to acknowledging the sensitive work that is being done by local authorities.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness and all her supporters on these amendments will agree to withdraw the amendment. In asking the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to do so, I should note that the power to prescribe in regulations the costs of distress is already available to the Secretary of State under the Bill. I therefore hope too that the House will agree to support the amendments that we have put forward.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to rise to say briefly that I fully endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about the Government's actions in regard to bailiffs. Both the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Baroness and the Lord Chancellor's decision are most welcome and could hardly have been a more comprehensive response to the kind of pressure that we have been putting on the Government. That response is most welcome, both in the Bill and for what might come out of the Lord Chancellor's commission.
I thank the noble Baroness also for explaining so well the contents of the Bill. That has enabled me to cut short my questions to her. Amendment No. 71 had puzzled me. I shall read her explanation with great care and if we need to come back on the Question of whether the Bill do now pass, I might possibly seek further elucidation. Certainly there is no need to pursue this matter further by way of amendment. That, if I may say so, is a very happy issue indeed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might be helpful if I also say in response to the timing that the Lord Chancellor will be issuing a consultation document - we believe by this summer. It will go out for very wide consultation. The timing will depend very much on the conclusions of that consultation process as to precisely what goes into the regulations or into primary legislation if that should be needed.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that it falls to me to comment because Amendment No. 65A was moved first. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, answered the question on timing that I was about to ask. There appears a long history of willingness to consider the subject of bailiffs, in particular private bailiffs, but of nothing happening as a consequence. I refer to 1968, the Withers Payne Report, and so on. The provision is now on the face of the Bill with the support of the House. That gives me much greater confidence that whatever the outcome of political events in the future we shall now see a remedy for those problems.
In that spirit, I warmly welcome everything that the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I fear that Amendment No. 65ZA has not been moved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can be helpful. We have passed Amendment No. 65ZA.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 100, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The regulations may include provision that—

(a) no person shall make a distress unless he is an officer of the authority concerned, or he is a person of a prescribed description and any prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(b) no person making a distress shall seize goods of a prescribed description.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 70A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 70 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 100, line 33, leave out from ("and") to ("on") in line 34 and insert ("the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 71 with Amendment No. 65A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 101, line 1, after ("concerned") insert ("to the constables of the police area in which the warrant is issued").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 73. The matter has been debated in Committee. There are two, I hope good, reasons why we should return to the issue now. The first is that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—with such an array of Ministers facing me I have to specify which Minister—was good enough to agree at Committee stage that she would speak to colleagues in the Home Office about the direction of warrants from the courts to the police.
In Committee I made a deplorably lengthy speech in which I cited a number of cases from local authorities, and indeed from police forces around the

1163
country, in which it was clear that, although there is a general duty on the police to enforce warrants if they are asked to do so, a number of police forces are not doing so when it comes to poll tax warrants. I gave examples where they were flatly refusing to do so and examples where they said, "We'd like to do so but under present circumstances, with present manning levels and so on, it is impossible for us to get involved". In response to that amendment, Ministers said that they would indeed consider the matter and that they would talk to colleagues in the Home Office. I hope to hear the results of those talks in a minute.
There was also criticism of the wording of the amendment, with some justification. It was pointed out that it would not be desirable to direct warrants solely to the police; there ought to be greater flexibility. Therefore the amendment that we have put down for debate today allows that warrants should be directed to the constables in the police area in which the warrant is issued but also, as already exists in the text of the Bill, to the authority concerned or to any such others as may be specified. We are simply adding the power for warrants to be directed to the police as well as to those to whom they are directed at present.
I await with interest to see what Ministers say. I very much hope that they will not make the remarks that they made in Committee when I was assured that in general the police would accept the direction of warrants to them. I was assured that no extra power was required and that the only matter in dispute was the priorities of chief constables in this matter. I am sorry to say that experience has shown that the situation does not work. Unless there is a specific power for magistrates to direct a warrant to the police, it will not necessarily be directed to the police. The police will not in practice accept it.
I hope that the discussions with the Home Office will result in some more positive response from Ministers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, since Amendment No. 72 is grouped with Amendment No. 73, does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, intend that the words in the Bill "England and Wales" shall be substituted by "Great Britain" to allow provision for authorities in England to apply across the Border in Scotland? I have the feeling that that is his intention. Otherwise the enforcement procedures for Scotland are in Schedule 8. The legal provisions in Scotland in civil law are quite different from those of England. I believe that there is confusion with regard to Amendment No. 73. I am not quite certain what the noble Lord is driving at.
Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment No. 72 seeks to emphasise that a committal warrant can be directed to the local police to execute. Amendment No. 73 seeks to ensure that a warrant can be executed in Scotland for a debt due in England and Wales.
I understand that some authorities are concerned about the execution of arrest warrants. Under domestic rates and the community charge it has been possible for the courts to direct a committal warrant to the local authority concerned, to the police or to any other person. The fact that the police are not
1164
specifically mentioned in the legislation makes no difference. However, in the large majority of cases we would not expect it to be necessary for the police to become involved in the process and that it should be for the local authority to execute the warrant or to employ agents to do so on its behalf. Of course there are bound to be particularly difficult cases. As to those, I am sure that the best course is for local authorities to consult with their local police about arrangements for handling those matters. I can say that my department is currently discussing those questions with the Home Office to see whether it would be helpful to provide some general guidance to those involved.
Amendment No. 73 proposes the extension of jurisdiction to Scotland, but I am not aware of any significant problems in this area. The amendment covers a wider question than merely enforcement of the council tax and, therefore, we do not believe that it is appropriate to deal with it in this Bill. In the light of my comments, which were intended to be helpful, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister's comments were intended to be helpful and I am grateful for them.
Perhaps I may first deal with the more limited issue of Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was right in saying that the intention of the amendment was to allow pursuit into Scotland. In tabling the amendment I relied on the statement which the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made in Committee. It appears at col. 1260 of the Official Report and the noble Earl has repeated it. The noble Baroness said that she was not aware of any problem in extending jurisdiction to Scotland. However, one can read that statement in two ways: either that there is no problem now because jurisdiction can be extended to Scotland or that it will not cause any problem to extend jurisdiction to Scotland. I am not sure which of the two versions the noble Earl intended. Since he is now in charge of this amendment, perhaps he will be good enough to enlighten me on that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of a general problem involving debtors in England and Wales escaping arrest simply by crossing the Border into Scotland. That is what I intended by the remark.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again that remark is ambiguous. I am still unclear about the position, but I shall not pursue the matter by asking the noble Earl to respond again. I do not know whether the lack of a problem is because there already are powers to pursue a debtor across the Border or because it does not happen. However, I shall leave that matter.
The noble Earl's response to the principal point of the amendment is, I am afraid, still disappointing. He confirmed that I was right in saying that the previous existing law for both domestic rates and the poll tax is that a warrant may be directed to the authority, to a constable or to others. It is now proposed that the power to direct a warrant to the constable—to the

1165
police—should be removed. The noble Earl gave no good explanation or justification for that. Instead he gave a most temporary and interim report of the discussions with the Home Office. I had hoped that those discussions would have taken place and reached some kind of conclusion before this stage of the Bill.
If we are to be satisfied on the matter, the minimum requirement is that the Home Office should agree to issue guidance to all police forces indicating that where warrants are directed to them (as they can be under the power to direct warrants to any others) police forces shall make serious efforts to implement them. I do not imply that any but a small minority of warrants should be directed to the police. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the normal procedure should be that warrants should be directed to the local authority and that it should seek to implement them. That is the less burdensome and threatening way to deal with a warrant. However, as the noble Earl acknowledged, there are cases in which it is necessary because trouble can properly be anticipated.
Before I give an undertaking not to return to the matter at a later stage I hope that the noble Earl will be able to repeat rather more forcefully that it is likely that guidance will be issued by the Home Office to police forces indicating that they should comply with warrants when addressed to them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we believe that the way forward is to agree guidance. However, I can give no specific undertaking about the timing or when that will be achieved. Certainly the discussions that are now taking place between my department and the Home Office have that aim in view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is clear that timing is significant but we have at least a year before the guidance needs to be brought into effect. The power to address warrants to the police exists in respect of the poll tax and that will continue till 31st March 1993. I am grateful for the Minister's reply, which was slightly more helpful. I shall not return to the matter at Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 102, line 31, at end insert:
("Reduction or remission of liability
11A.—(1) For the avoidance of doubt, a billing authority may, whether under provision of its standing orders or otherwise, reduce or remit any amount of council tax which a person would otherwise be liable to pay.
(2) An authority may not act under this paragraph unless it is satisfied that—

(a) the person would sustain hardship if the authority did not do so; and

(b) it is reasonable for the authority to do so, having regard to the interests of persons subject to council tax in its area.

1166
(3) Where any maximum amount is prescribed in the standing orders of an authority in relation to the reduction or remission of liability for local taxation, the relevant committee of the authority may approve a reduction or remission up to the full amount of the liability.
(4) Any reduction or remission made under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be subject to the approval of the Chief financial officer or head of the paid service in the relevant authority.
(5) Any reduction or remission made under this paragraph shall be subjected to the scrutiny of the auditor, and the chief financial officer shall record the amount and reason for the reduction or recession.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the issue of reduction or remission of liability for the council tax. We are attempting to specify the powers of local authorities to reduce or to remit the payment of council tax on grounds of hardship. The amendment relates to a subject which was discussed in Committee and has been revised to take account of the comments that were then made. In particular, some noble Lords and Ministers objected to the idea of reduction or remission on grounds of poverty. It was said that poverty was presumed to be an imprecise concept, although poverty has been well established by statisticians. It is a reasonably well-understood concept which could have a place in legislation, even though it does not do so at the moment.
In Committee we moved an amendment which would have allowed billing authorities to reduce or to remit the payment of council tax on account of the poverty of the person liable to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who I assume will respond to the amendment, called that an archaic concept. He said that in any case authorities had the power to write off small amounts. I raise the matter again because the noble Lord repeated those remarks yesterday. He said:
"In Committee I dealt in some detail with the policy which local authorities have in pursuing debts".
I assume that he meant the powers rather than the policy. He continued:
"In their standing orders they can have a rule that debts below a certain amount need not be pursued but if they are above a certain amount, the authority must go through its finance and general purposes committee. As I understand it, if a larger debt is written off, that must he brought to the attention of the district auditor".—[Official Report, 17/2/92; col. 1074.]
That statement has puzzled the local authority associations. It would be helpful if in reply the Minister indicated the statutory authority for debt write-off.
It is not simply a technical point because the write-off of debt is a potentially explosive issue. The reason why there are restraints on the ability of local authorities to write off debts is not a matter merely of financial management, although it is that too. The restraints exist because the Government still retain not so much in the back but in the forefront of their mind the idea that there is a large number of loony authorities around the country which are only too willing and ready to write off debts.
I can assure the noble Lord that the accusation, which was made frequently in the early 1980s and even at the beginning of the introduction of the poll tax, has no foundation whatever. Local authorities of all political persuasions have no incentive whatever to seek to write off debts which they should not write off.
They have no incentive to use revenue which they desperately need in order to balance their accounts. They have no incentive to charge their poll tax payers or council tax payers amounts any greater than are absolutely necessary to compensate for non-collection. The evidence of the extent to which councils have been pursuing non-payers through the country—the number of summonses that have been issued, the burdens that there have been on the courts and the whole issue of the extensive use of bailiffs which has been recognised in recent amendments —lends support to my argument.
Local authorities do not wish to write-off debts if it is to their financial disadvantage to do so. They want the power to write off relatively small debts where the cost of collection will outweigh the return from pursuing the debt. That is what the previous amendments were about. The present amendment is more satisfactory in its drafting. I should be grateful for the Minister's response as to what powers local authorities currently have and whether they can be applied practically, without breach of fiduciary duty, to the collection of relatively small poll tax debts and, for the future, council tax debts. On the basis of what the Minister says, I shall consider whether I should test the view of the House on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I speak in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hamwee who has had to leave in order to attend another engagement. I support this amendment. In the year ending 31st December 1991 there were 80,000 mortgage repossessions. It seems to me that local authorities must play some part in trying to help people who face problems as regards the payment of mortgages and obviously future possible payment of rates—what is at present the poll tax.
The amendment is sensibly worded because it gives protection from abuse. It may be that Ministers feel that some councils are too easy going and are prepared to remit far too easily payments which are due. However, the amendment states that any reduction or remission must be:
"subject to the approval of the chief financial officer or head of the paid service in the relevant authority".
My experience of local government is that we used to try and help small businesses, particularly in 1981–82 when there were similar problems to those which exist today. We never provided any finance without the approval of the financial officers of the county council. We took their views into account very strongly. The amendment gives that protection. I have an extremely high regard for county treasurers and paid-up members of local authorities who are involved with finance of one kind or another. One would not normally act as an elected member without confirmation that there was genuine hardship.
I give the Government credit for trying very hard, as they have done, to persuade building societies and others to come forward with schemes to delay or resist some of the enormous number of repossessions which are in the pipeline. If local authorities are to play their part in that, then this kind of amendment is highly desirable. I hope that the Government will accept it.
1168
Despite the fact that local authorities have the ability to help small businesses, that has not happened in many cases. Local authorities should look at some of their smaller shopkeepers to see whether or not, in cases of genuine hardship, they can help them rather more than they have done in the past. Figures quoted in Committee showed that very little has happened despite the local authorities' ability to provide that help. Perhaps the Government will say that they will consider this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we consider all amendments and we have looked at this very carefully, as I said we would on a previous occasion. However, I do not believe that the case has been made for bringing in such a power.
As I have already explained on two occasions, there are procedures already in place designed to waive payment where the debt is positively irrecoverable or would involve disproportionate collection costs. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked by what authority local authorities could do that. I understand that it is a matter for the standing orders of local authorities. It is not a statutory matter but is a matter of prudent financial management. Local authorities have provision in their standing orders or their financial regulations to enable small amounts to be written off. As I explained on an earlier occasion, there would be a ceiling on that amount which would be subject to the approval of the chief financial officer or chief executive. For audit purposes, the details of the amount and the reason that the debt is regarded as irrecoverable must be recorded. If a sum exceeds the authority's ceiling, as I explained yesterday, the authority's general purposes committee, or equivalent, may approve write-off, and that sum would be written off at the end of the year by the auditor as part of his accounting adjustments.
The amendment appears to go no further than the existing procedures. I welcome the fact that it is tighter than the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. For example, paragraph (4) provides that there must be the approval of the chief financial officer or head of the paid service. However, it goes further. Instead of using the criteria of irrecoverability or excessive cost, it seeks to allow write-off or reduction in cases of hardship.
I accept the fact that under the rates local authorities had discretion to waive payment in cases of extreme hardship. However, as I explained in Committee, that provision stemmed from the time before the development of a comprehensive benefit system. Under the council tax people on low incomes will be protected in a number of ways. The benefit system will ensure that they can claim rebates of up to 100 per cent. of their liability for council tax. Under those circumstances there would clearly be no need to write off or reduce liability on the grounds of hardship. People who live on their own or others who benefit from the status discounts will receive help through the discount system in addition to any benefits to which they may be entitled.
I believe it would be wholly undesirable if those sensible procedures were undermined by local authority decisions based on the authority's subjective

1169
view of a person's means. Under current procedures, if the decision to write off a debt is challenged, local authorities will be required to demonstrate why the amount was irrecoverable or uneconomic to collect. It is right to retain those as the criteria for write-offs rather than to have the subjective view of a person's ability to pay as a basis for audit scrutiny.
We believe that local authorities already have the necessary powers to deal fairly and effectively with cases of this kind. In addition, the system of discounts and benefits will provide help for those on low incomes. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised by that answer. I wonder whether it is based on an adequate analysis of the powers which local authorities have under local government legislation.
Of course the standing orders of local authorities are their own standing orders. They draw them up. However, there are severe restrictions in legislation on what local authorities can do in their standing orders. In particular, when it comes to financial matters of this kind, those restrictions are reinforced by the powers of the district auditor. If a local authority were to grant itself wide powers of writing off debts, the district auditor would be the first to come down upon it like a ton of bricks and say, "You are not controlling your income and expenditure properly". Indeed, it may go so far that a ratepayer or poll tax payer questions whether the council was acting in accordance with its fiduciary duty.
I realise that it is the third time the Minister has given this response. However, I still find it imprecise. I am surprised that he should say that no statutory authority is required for the provision in the standing orders of local authorities, which he described in some detail. I am surprised also that it should be thought possible for the Audit Commission to give advice on the matter. I would not have thought that that was the Audit Commission's function.
I shall be interested to know whether, on reflection, the Minister feels that that is his final word on the matter. Clearly it is not something we can pursue ad infinitum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 103, line 6, at end insert:
("Admissibility of evidence
.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Schedule—

(a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and

(b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall be admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

(2) In this paragraph—
1170
"document of record" means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;
"responsible person" means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;
"statement" includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 and part of Amendment No. 107, which was held over with the agreement of your Lordships, in essence provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations to do two things.
First, the regulations will make computer evidence admissible in community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax hearings in the magistrates' courts. That may apply to any aspect of the enforcement process under Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act and Schedule 4 to the Bill. Secondly, in presenting computer evidence the local authority will be required to provide a certificate signed by a responsible person, for instance the computer manager, stating that the computer which produced the documents in question was in proper working order to carry out the required task.
We propose to make regulations under these provisions immediately this Bill receives Royal Assent. We have placed a copy of the draft regulations in the Library to give noble Lords the background. They are, of course, subject to the possibility of some amendment before making. The provisions will provide local authorities with the certainty they need without a new and elaborate set of procedures. The requirement to provide a certificate signed by the responsible person will, at the same time, provide a necessary safeguard for the chargepayer, ratepayer and council tax payer.
My department has today discussed the amendment before us and the draft regulations with the local authority associations, and in particular how the proposed new procedures will work in practice. The associations put forward a range of points about the draft regulations and, more generally, about the approach and requirements of local authorities in giving evidence in magistrates' courts on all local taxation matters. My department agreed to consider those matters and meet the local authority associations again for further discussion in a few days' time. At this stage I cannot say how we will respond to the points made. But should we be persuaded that some change is necessary to the amendments before us in response to what they say, I shall bring forward proposals at Third Reading.
As noble Lords will appreciate the amendments do not have retrospective effect, but they will apply in proceedings to enforce payment of the community charge and the non-domestic rate whenever the liability arose, including in cases where a summons was issued before the Local Government Finance Bill and the regulations take effect. Perhaps it will help the House if I explain why we do not think retrospection is necessary.
Our understanding in relation to liability orders which have been made under existing powers is as follows. The new provisions will not invalidate any order previously made. Local authorities can continue

1171
to act on orders which the magistrates' courts have granted. An individual may, of course, apply to challenge the liability order in a higher court—for instance by applying for leave to apply for judicial review if the order was granted within the past three months. Each case would need to be looked at separately and on its merits. If the only ground on which an individual sought relief was the inadmissibility of computer evidence, and he had not raised that issue in a lower court, it seems unlikely that a court in the exercise of its discretion would entertain an application. If it came to a hearing, I understand it is equally unlikely that a court in the exercise of its discretion would quash a liability order solely on the ground of a procedural defect if no injustice had been done and the community charge remained unpaid.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it was necessary to end the uncertainty on the matter of computer evidence. We believe that these provisions will do that in a straightforward and practical manner which does not interfere with the rights of charge payers and tax payers. As we have continually made clear, we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to collect the community charge and to recover from those who do not pay. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is an amendment of great importance and deserves the full consideration of the House. Indeed, when the matter was first raised there was talk that it may be the subject of a separate urgent Bill. At that stage the Opposition in another place indicated that they would support such an urgent Bill if it were felt desirable.
I confess that this is one of those occasions when my lack of legal training places me at a disadvantage. I am not sure that I understand all the legal complexities of the debate and I shall therefore preface my remarks about what I see as being the political and practical issues by saying that we shall not oppose the amendment. We welcome the statement that the Minister has just made. If there are further changes to be made as a result of the negotiations taking place with local authority associations which produce further amendments at Third Reading, that would be extremely helpful. It may give us an opportunity to consider further amendments which, after all, we saw for the first time only last Friday.
The matter is of importance because of the large amounts of money involved. It is only because of the quantity of enforcement action in the courts which has taken place as a result of the poll tax that we have reached this state. It began to become clear last summer that some legal supporters of poll tax rebels—I believe that to be the correct description—were starting to complain that computer records were not valid as evidence in court. That did not matter too much in the magistrates' courts but when conflicting views began to be given by stipendiary magistrates it became clear that urgent action was required. I understand that two different stipendiary magistrates gave differing views about differing cases both relating to the London Borough of Camden. Local authorities
1172
and my honourable friends in another place took action as soon as they could to encourage the Government to act on the matter.
With regard to the issue of retrospection I can only accept what the Minister says and accept her advice that orders which have already been obtained will be valid. However, in responding perhaps the Minister can say what advice she would give to local authorities about the action they should take between now and Royal Assent when the provision comes into force. Should local authorities avoid producing computer evidence in the knowledge that the law will be changed but has not yet been changed? What effect will that have on the way in which they treat applications for liability orders?
I return to the issue of retrospection. Around 5 million orders of this kind have been made during the past few years. Perhaps the Minister can say why the clause does not specify, as has happened in the recent past, that the provision should come into effect from midnight tonight rather than from the date of Royal Assent. If it had been proposed that it should come into effect from midnight tonight in order to avoid any difficulty between now and Royal Assent, we would have supported such a provision and local authorities would have been relieved.
It is also clearly a matter where justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. I am not in favour of government advertising campaigns, particularly just before a general election, but on this occasion I urge the Minister to consider what publicity should be given to this matter in order to ensure that everyone understands that there is no escape from paying the poll tax because of the use of computer evidence. It is particularly important because the Government have continued to resist our attempts to abolish the minimum 20 per cent. payment from the end of March this year.
Another question for the Minister is this: why should not this provision apply to pre-1990 rates cases? As the Government well know, a number of these cases are outstanding. The problem with computer evidence has existed for a number of years. I believe it proper that this measure should apply also to the older cases. The Audit Commission has recommended to local authorities that where they have large numbers of cases coming before the courts they should have computer terminals available in the courts so that the accuracy of the information supplied can be verified. In her opening remarks the Minister referred to safeguards that the computer system is operating properly. Can she can give noble Lords and local authorities any advice about whether the Government are encouraging local authorities to provide computer terminals in the courts in order to expedite the cases concerned?
The Minister has referred to evidence in liability orders. Is there not a question about the evidence which is valid in committal hearings as well? Would the Minister care to comment on whether the new provisions which are being made apply to committal hearings? I understand that, at a meeting which took place between the local authority associations and the department earlier today, local authorities indicated

1173
that they prefer something like the powers under Section 10 of the General Rate Act 1967, which provides that an officer of the authority could certify a statement of account, the posting of documents and so forth. That would seem to cover the wider issues of which computerised records are only one part. It would be a pity if we dealt only with computer evidence and left other gaps in the provision in law. Perhaps that is a matter which will be debated with the local authorities between now and Third Reading. It may be that that is a matter which will have to be referred to in further government amendments at Third Reading.
In general, with those rather wide-ranging questions—and we are bound to question something of this importance which comes to us at such a late stage of the Bill—we welcome the purpose behind the amendments. We believe that it is necessary to plug any loopholes which make it more difficult for local authorities to secure that people obey the law. We support the principle behind the amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said what he did. In view of what he said I wonder whether some provision can be made as regards the admissibility of computer evidence. Perhaps such a provision can be introduced into Schedule 8 of the Bill, which deals with Scotland, between now and Third Reading. This is such a very important legal matter. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has brought up a very important point. I am no lawyer either. It should be so arranged that legal brains from perhaps opposite political parties put their heads together in order to make certain that this provision is legally correct in the first place and that it will work.
Equally, as the noble Lord has said, an indication should be written onto the face of the Bill as to when the measure will come into force. The noble Lord made a very good point in that respect. If that is not done there will be considerable doubt as regards local authorities as to when they can bring forward the relevant cases, whether they should hold them back or what will be the intervening period. The noble Lord was absolutely right and I wholeheartedly support him.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was not going to enter into this discussion, but for the fact that I heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that this was an important amendment and I heard my noble friend say that he agreed with him. The amendment is of no importance at all, but it is absolutely urgent. It is an illustration of the idiocy of some of our laws of evidence that apply the best evidence and hearsay rules to matters of this kind. The measure should be made part of the general law at once, although that would not be possible in this Bill.
Some years ago we had to legislate about another idiotic offshoot of this foolish and obsolete rule. We got into trouble over the numbers stamped on the engines of motorcars. It was held by some legal pundit
1174
on the Bench—and rightly so—that in order to prove the issue one had to call the actual workman who hammered the number onto the engine of the motorcar. Now we have this case about computers which is equally silly. It is high time that we had some rationality in our rules of evidence.
As regards retrospection, that is rubbish. The rule should never have been the law at all; everyone of commonsense realises that computer evidence should be admissible. It should not be admissible only in these cases. The matter is only urgent because of the number of outstanding cases, so let us get on with the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that the matter is important because of the amount of money concerned. I understand that local authorities are losing approximately £3 million a week because of the delay in action on this matter. As I understand it, the reason there has not been more comprehensive legislation, as the noble and learned Lord is rightly urging, is that there has been no agreement between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office on the matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not believe that I and the noble Lord have any difference of opinion about this. The amount of money involved makes the matter urgent and makes it necessary to deal with the issue in this Bill, but it is of no other importance at all.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I very much welcome this amendment. I hope that it will now make the provision legally foolproof. In the meantime local authorities are on the horns of a dilemma. Once in a while the government Benches should recognise such a fact. We always hear about the enormous amounts of money which are due but local authorities are not taking action to bring in that money. When they do so and then find that the courts are throwing out the cases through the inadmissibility of computer evidence, it is very hard on them. I hope that this measure works and that it works very soon.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was asked what happens between now and Royal Assent. In the short period before the Bill will be enacted authorities should consult the Clerk to the Justices about how to proceed. There is nothing to prevent a court issuing summonses for non-payment of the community charge and many are doing that. Many local authorities are getting on with the work of enforcement. I am very attracted by the comments of my noble and learned friend. I am reminded of the Dickensian phrase that the law is an ass in these matters.
It is a matter for each local authority to decide how to continue with enforcement action during this period. There is no obstacle to authorities continuing to apply for liability orders where they believe that their present procedures for the presentation of cases meet the requirements of the existing law. I understand that a number of local authorities are continuing to do so.

1175
As regards retrospection, I believe I addressed that point in my opening comments. We were encouraged by the decision in the High Court yesterday. We know that there is another decision pending. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked why the provision is not made effective tonight. The regulations will not be laid until Royal Assent. At Royal Assent we will lay the regulations immediately, with immediate effect. To choose tonight as a date would be no different from taking the principle of retrospection right back. The noble Lord proposes an impossibility. We are having useful discussions with—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is plenty of evidence. The Department of the Environment has done it very often. The point is that when people know that new provisions will be introduced into the law they very often seek the gap between the time when they are announced and the time when they are introduced in order to flout the law. I should have thought it highly desirable to make sure that the provisions are introduced straight away. This confirms the noble and learned Lord's point about urgency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in speaking earlier I referred to some useful discussions that we are having with the local authority associations on the draft regulations. I can confirm to the noble Lord that on the agenda are matters of drafting, the nature of the computer documents referred to, the contents of the certificate which a responsible officer is to sign, procedures which the regulations should cover and indeed the very point that the noble Lord raised about physically having a computer terminal at the court. Those issues are being discussed with the local authorities. They are useful and where we believe it appropriate we will of course use an opportunity at Third Reading to do something about it. I think that I have addressed most of the points that were raised during the course of the debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 103, line 23, leave out ("person to whom") and insert ("authority to which").
Page 103, line 25, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Valuations for purposes of lists]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.78:
Page 13, line 26, at end insert:
("(2A) For the purposes of the valuation under this section of a dwelling occupied by a person who is employed in agricultural operations on the land in the service of an occupier of an agricultural holding and is entitled so to use the dwelling only while so employed, it shall be assumed that such a dwelling forms part of the composite hereditament represented by the agricultural holding.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I raised the question of how a cottage that is part of a farm will be valued for council tax, and I received a reply from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde which I am afraid I could not understand. I have tabled this
1176
amendment to make it quite clear that dwellings that are part of the farm are part of the composite hereditament of that holding.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is so, for if he does not it may mean rewriting every agricultural tenancy agreement in the country. Indeed it would almost certainly mean altering the agricultural holdings Acts. If, therefore, the farm cottage is part of the composite hereditament it should be valued as such and be similar to the farmhouse, which is dealt with as follows. I now quote from a letter to my honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith from my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. The letter, which was written in December, states:
"Farmhouses will normally continue to comprise composite hereditaments. As such they will not be valued in isolation from the rest of the farm but rather as domestic accommodation forming part of the farm. This will mean that in areas where there is a demand for farmhouses by people who are not farmers, any increase in the value of a farmhouse over what a farmer might expect to pay in the context of his ownership of the entire farm will be ignored".
If, as the letter states, there is a demand for farmhouses by non-farmers, there is a far greater demand for farm cottages from non-farm-workers. So the equitable solution is to make sure that for the purposes of the council tax they are valued similarly as part of the composite hereditament. I am sorry about that word. I always get into a muddle with it. Indeed this difference in valuation between a dwelling that is within a composite hereditament, or outside it, is acknowledged in Amendment No. 82 that will be proposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch. If my amendment is unnecessary, my noble friend will no doubt say so. But in saying so I hope that he will accept my argument that they should be so valued for it will avoid a good many unnecessary appeals.
To sum up, as the Government have accepted that farmhouses will be valued as a composite hereditament, I should like an assurance that provided the farm cottage is part of the composite hereditament it will be similarly valued. If this is accepted, I wonder whether it should be put on the face of the Bill or perhaps in the regulations. Of course I realise that there may be borderline cases as to whether the cottage is or is not in the composite hereditament. Can my noble friend give an assurance that marginal cases could be heard on appeal by the valuation tribunal? I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I have great support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will probably agree with me that farmers who have surplus cottages have probably sold them off already. There may be a few left as holiday cottages which should obviously be valued separately. Presumably, if research is done on this point, those will come to light. However, there are still cottages within agricultural holdings which are essential to the working of those holdings and should be valued as such. They should not be valued as free standing dwellings. I hope very much that the Minister can give that assurance. A later amendment may cover this, but

1177
I cannot believe that many farms in this country today have surplus cottages. They have almost certainly been sold off.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord's amendment. Perhaps he can explain when he replies why retired farm-workers have not been catered for. It appears that a worker who continues to live in one of the cottages after his retirement would not be covered by the amendment as it stands and therefore might have to pay the council tax at a higher rate than he did when he was employed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation of the purpose of the amendment. He asked for clarification. I hope that I shall be able to give it to him. First, I believe that the amendment itself is unnecessary. For England and Wales, Clause 3 defines as "dwellings" properties which are composite hereditaments under the current non-domestic rating provisions. This means that properties with mixed domestic and business use would be subject to both non-domestic rating and the council tax. For non-domestic rating, the rateable value for such properties is based on the value attributable to non-domestic use. Regulations will provide a mirror image of this for the council tax; that is, the appropriate council tax band will be assessed depending on the extent of domestic use. This will ensure that the property is valued fairly for both non-domestic rates and the council tax, with no double taxation.
Agriculture does of course enjoy exemption from non-domestic rates. Dwellings which form part of a farm will, however, be subject to the council tax. Where those dwellings are composite properties they will be valued accordingly with only the value of the domestic use taken into account. In practice this means that where a tied cottage is part of a composite hereditament there is a factor which will properly be taken into account in the council tax valuation. If the effect of being part of the farm is to reduce the value attributable to that cottage, then the council tax band will be set accordingly. Any value over and above what would be paid for the dwelling as a part of the farm will be disregarded.
This amendment seeks to introduce a provision which defines agricultural cottages as composite hereditaments, regardless of the facts. I think that my noble friend would agree that that in itself would not necessarily be right but I can assure him that tied cottages will be valued as composites where the facts support that approach. I can confirm that appeals will be heard by the valuation tribunal where those facts are in doubt. I understand that there is precedent in that respect. Therefore, with that assurance, I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I should also say that I am grateful for the amount of time that he has given me since the
1178
Committee stage to discuss the matter. The issue is rather more complicated than I thought initially. I am not sure whether the provision needs to be put into the Bill, but perhaps we can discuss the matter between now and Third Reading.
So far as concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson—and I am sure that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—I believe that if a retired worker is living in a cottage which is part of the composite hereditament, then he will be all right; but, if he is not, I suspect, from listening to my noble friend's remarks, that he can always appeal to the tribunal to determine the matter. In the meantime, I must express my thanks for the support of noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Alteration of lists]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 15, line 1, after ("regulations") insert ("and, in the case of subsection (6) below, shall make regulations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee. My noble friend said then that she thought that I was right. I wonder whether she is now able to confirm that view. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, during the debate in Committee on identical amendments I agreed to seek assurance on my noble friend's behalf that the use of the term "may make regulations" was normal phraseology in legislation. I am pleased to be able to confirm that now. I can reiterate that we have every intention of making regulations under Clause 24. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely the Minister is not saying that in this case the word "may" means "shall"?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must say that I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But if my noble friend says that may means shall, then so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
7.2 p.m.

Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Still-Birth (Definition) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Traffic Calming Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
Fees and other amounts payable to Commissioners
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the payment to the Commissioners of such fees as may be prescribed in respect of—

(a) the discharge by the Commissioners of such functions under the enactments relating to charities as may be prescribed;

(b) the inspection of the register of charities or of other material kept by them under those enactments, or the furnishing of copies of or extracts from documents so kept.

(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) confer, or provide for the conferring of, exemptions from liability to pay a prescribed fee;

(b) provide for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or in part) in prescribed circumstances.

(3) A statutory instrument containing any regulations under this section which require the payment of a fee in respect of any matter for which no fee was previously payable shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) The Commissioners may impose charges of such amounts as they consider reasonable in respect of the supply of any publications produced by them.
(5) Any fees and other payments received by the Commissioners by virtue of this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(6) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 154. These amendments seek to reintroduce the provision which was removed by your Lordships in Committee enabling the commissioners to charge fees for certain of the services which they provide to charities and others. The services for which the fees may be charged, and the level of them, will be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The commissioners will also be empowered to charge for their publications. I am aware that that provision met some criticism in Committee. Before I deal with the main criticisms which were raised, I should like first to give the reasons why I think that the provision is desirable.
The Woodfield Report, and the White Paper which followed it, saw no reason in principle why the commissioners should not be empowered to levy modest charges for some of their services. Companies have to pay such charges for the services of the Registrar of Companies and, likewise, in the case of a
1180
charitable friendly society, the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Neither the Registrar of Companies nor the Registrar of Friendly Societies has experienced any difficulty in obtaining fees from such charitable bodies. There seems therefore to be no strong argument against the principle extending to other charities in relation to the Charity Commission.
The commissioners are already empowered under the 1960 Act to charge for photocopies of documents open to public inspection (the second part of subsection (1) (b) of the proposed new clause replaces that power, which is removed from the 1960 Act by Schedule 3, paragraph 3). However, the principle that the commission might charge fees was established as long ago as 1869. The Charitable Trusts Act of that year enabled the Treasury to prescribe a scale of fees for business which was done by the Charity Commissioners. The principle, therefore, that their services might not always be free has been long established.
From the responses which we received to the White Paper, it is clear that many charities would be quite willing to contribute in a tangible way to the cost of the commissioners' work, which they rightly acknowledge as very valuable. Trustees are accustomed to paying for the services of solicitors, accountants, surveyors, fund-raisers and other professionals. They realise that a charity cannot be properly run for nothing. I do not think that they will balk at paying a small contribution towards some of the professional services of the commissioners.
While I believe, in principle, that charges are appropriate in some areas, I believe equally that they should not prove to be either a burden or a deterrent for charities that wish to use the commissioners' services. Indeed, charges must not undermine the commissioners' regulatory functions or run counter to measures which are aimed at the greater accountability of trustees. To set any charge at a level which puts trustees off approaching the commission is obviously likely to be counter-productive. Advice will not be sought early enough; authority will not be sought when it ought to be and a simple problem may well be allowed to grow into a serious difficulty.
In my view, that is not an argument against the principle of charging for services, but rather a reminder that charges should be set at a reasonable level. That is why no regulations can be made under this clause before they have been approved by your Lordships' House and by another place.
I now turn to your Lordships' criticisms. There was great anxiety about what the total proceeds from the charges would be. We have carried out further investigation into the matter and we estimate that this will be at least £300,000 after the costs of administration. Concern was also expressed as to whether the costs of the administration which would be involved in collection and in accounting procedures would be disproportionate. Our aim is not to make the commission, or any of its functions, self-financing but to establish the principle that the commission provides services of value which are recognised by the charitable world and to which the charitable world should contribute in some small measure. We would

1181
not seek to pass regulations solely for the purpose of raising charges if the administrative costs outweighed the gains.
We have in mind initially to set charges in three areas: for registration, consent orders for the disposition of land and for access to the computerised register of charities. The commissioners will also have power to charge for publications. We are at present considering what should be the level of charges in each of those areas. Registration might attract a flat fee of about £50 which, if the fee has to be paid by one of the trustees out of his own pocket initially, could be reclaimed from the charity's funds later. Of course, the fee will only be paid by newly-registered charities; it will not be retrospective.
For consent orders—and charities will require few of these under the proposed new regime—we favour a sliding scale with fee levels related to the amount of sale proceeds which are received by the charity. The commissioners are also in the process of examining possibilities for exploitation of the charity database, which will be of much interest especially to researchers and commercial users.
We do not propose to require a fee for the annual filing of the report and the accounts, nor for the residual services of the official custodian. There will be no charge for the expert advice which is given every day by the commission to hundreds of trustees by telephone, by letter and in person —advice, I might add, for which the trustees would certainly have to pay if they were to secure it elsewhere. That is the reasoning behind the amendments tabled in my name. We believe that it is reasonable for the Charity Commissioners to be given the power to charge for certain items but that those charges should be subject to your Lordships' approval and the approval of another place. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to start the evening's proceedings on a slightly controversial note and I hope that they will not be too prolonged. I must confess that, whatever happened in 1869, I still remain uneasy about this proposal. When we discussed a similar clause in Committee and ended by deleting it, I said that I recognised that there was a case for making some charges, for example, for commercial use of the Charity Commission's database. I believe that that is what the Minister had in mind.
It is disappointing that the Government have simply reintroduced the old clause in precisely the same form, subject to one deletion of a particular absurdity, which they volunteered in Committee. It is still a clause that gives no clue about the amounts to be charged or the services for which charges are to be made. With all respect, the Minister has not cleared up that aspect this evening. He will recall that the White Paper stated that the initial fee for registration was to be £25 but estimated that the total intake would be £750,000. On Second Reading we were given figures that added up to £300,000, although the initial fee had doubled to £50. We are now told that in some mysterious way we shall end up with £300,000 net of all expenses.
1182
I realise that there is the safeguard of an affirmative resolution, but I do not set too much store on that because it would be against the tradition of this House to turn down regulations on such topics. I notice that the Charity Commission is to decide what it is reasonable to charge for publications. The Marshalled List of amendments retails at £3.20, so one wonders what figures will be regarded as reasonable.
Not that the clause seems a terribly good bargain for the Charity Commission. If I were the Treasury's accounting officer, I should look carefully at subsection (5) and would expect to receive the total amount of fees and charges without any deduction for expenses. It looks as though the Charity Commission will have to bear the full cost of administration and will not be able to keep a penny for itself.
I am still puzzled by why the Government want these general powers. It could hardly be for the money. Indeed, I do not think that the Minister suggested that it was. Looking at this from the point of view of the Government as a whole, it seems that the cost of collection will mean that the profit that is left will be tiny. Those who contribute to charities may feel some unease if they realise that they are being called upon to pay £300,000—or whatever the figure may be—straight into the pockets of Her Majesty's Treasury. I cannot help thinking that the staff of the Charity Commission would be better employed in helping to look after the accounts and reports that will come pouring in in their thousands.
Perhaps the Minister can give me some reassurance on four points. First, can he tell the House that there is no question of charging trustees for the information pack that is sent out on first registration or for the information that it will be necessary to issue to trustees about their responsibilities under the terms of this new legislation? If there were charges, the trustees most in need of advice would be the ones most reluctant to pay. Secondly, will the Government honour the proposal at paragraph 16 of Chapter 9 of the White Paper not to charge small charities for orders and schemes made by the Charity Commission? Thirdly, referring to paragraph 17 of Chapter 9 of the White Paper, is it also the intention to modify the charges for small charities that have to go to the Charity Commission for its consent to a transaction in land? Fourthly, will the Government think carefully before charging the public for access to the files, given that part of the object of the legislation is to encourage greater concern among the public and to obtain more help from them in finding out about things that may have gone wrong?
As I said at the beginning, I am uneasy about the clause, but I shall listen to any assurances that the Minister can give on the points that I have raised before deciding what line to take when the question is put.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with considerable temerity that I differ from my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale on anything to do with the Bill, especially as he has Treasury experience as well as distinguished service in the Home Office.

1183
However, subject to a satisfactory answer to the specific questions that he asked, it seems to me that what the Government are proposing is reasonable.
I should, however, like to raise two matters, but before doing so perhaps I may be allowed to refer mildly to the fact that it was past seven o'clock before we embarked on the consideration of some 118 effective amendments, the bulk of which are government amendments. Having merely registered that sad fact, I should like to draw attention to one point and then to ask a question. My first point relates to subsection 2 which begins,
"Regulations under this section may".
When your Lordships last considered the Bill on Report, I drew attention to a similar clause that contained the words "in particular". I argued that those words showed that that subsection was unnecessary. That view had general support. I have since received a letter, for which I am grateful, from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to which I have replied. I have also written to the Minister, but I do not suppose he has yet received that letter. I do not propose to go into that except to point out the absence from the new clause of the words "in particular" which, in my respectful submission, make all the difference to the interpretation.
My question relates to a matter to which my noble friend Lord Allen has already referred. I refer to subsection (3) and to the question of affirmative resolutions. My noble friend is almost certainly right that your Lordships should observe the convention of not challenging an affirmative resolution when it relates to finance, as in this case. In other cases, however, that seems a weak convention and there is no reason why your Lordships should be bound by convention not to question a regulation that is subject to an affirmative resolution. The analogy of the Parliament Act is that your Lordships would be entitled to hold up such provisions for a year.
The affirmative resolution procedure is required if the regulations require a fee where no fee was previously payable. Suppose a fee was previously payable but is now to be increased, should not that also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? That may be taken care of by previous legislation, but I should like to be reassured on that point. If the matter cannot be answered now, perhaps the Minister will write to me before Third Reading.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in saying that I am unhappy with the clause for a number of reasons. First, it introduces a system of payment in relation to charities which does not exist at the moment. That will act as a deterrent to some extent on the use charities make of the commission. Secondly, I read the clause, and I hear the Minister. If the Minister's words were the clause, I should be happier with the clause, because if one reads the clause one sees that it is drafted widely. It provides:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations require the payment to the Commissioners of such fees as may be prescribed in respect of—the inspection of the register of charities".
Does that become, in the Minister's words, access to the commission's database? If it does, at least part of
1184
my disquiet will be stilled. But so long as the words remain as large as they do in the clause, it is understandable that those of us who are not enamoured of the idea of charging charities, or indeed charging anyone, for access to the commission should remain uneasy about it.
The Government seem to be in somewhat of a dilemma over the clause. With his natural humanity, the Minister will rightly say that he wishes to relieve smaller charities from any burden imposed by the clause. If he does, the scope of the clause will become increasingly narrow. If that happens, presumably the amount of money that will be raised will be correspondingly reduced. One almost reaches the stage of extinction and of wondering whether it is worth going to the trouble of putting this clause into the Bill in this way.
I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says when he replies. Although he has gone some way towards reinterpreting the starkness of the original clause, he has not yet gone far enough.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question about small charities, to which the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Richard, referred. My noble friend was good enough to agree that a charity with an income of less than £25,000 a year—as opposed to £10,000— would be exempt from certain provisions of the Bill that we discussed earlier. With regard to this clause, consideration might be given to exempting charities with an income of less than £25,000 a year from complying with subsection (1) (a) and (b), although I see that in subsection (2) it is possible for regulations to be introduced allowing for exemptions from liability to pay a prescribed fee. That provision is vague. I wonder whether my noble friend will consider a more definitive amendment which would provide that charities with an income of less than £25,000 a year are exempted from the principal provisions of the clause.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for saying that on the whole he agrees with the Government on this point. That is always cheerful news for the Government. I am always worried when the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who knows so much about these matters, remains, as he puts it, uneasy. I should like to try to clear his unease, if that is possible.
Obviously, no one likes to pay for something when they have not had to pay for it in the past. It is understandable that the noble Lord should say that it would be much easier if no charges were made. Everyone likes to have something for nothing. There is a reason for the provision. The Charity Commission spends a great deal of time, effort and expense providing a number of services for the public and for charities. The majority of them will not be charged for. The noble Lord asked why there was a change from the £750,000 mentioned in the White Paper. That figure included charges for filing accounts and for the

1185
making of schemes by the commissioners. We no longer propose to make charges in those areas. That is one of the reasons why the figure is lower.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but am I not right in thinking that when we had the figure of £300,000 it at that stage included a provision covering the filing of accounts? That was the part that was struck out of the clause in Committee. We had the figure of £300,000 quoted when the provision was still in.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always difficult to try to predict what is likely to happen in the future when no one knows. We have tried to give a reasonable estimate. The noble Lord said that I had given no clues as to what is to be charged for or how much. I thought that I had tried to tell your Lordships what we intended to charge for. That was in the three areas of registration, for consent orders and for access to the computerised register of charities. The commissioners will also have power to charge for publications.
It is not the commissioners' intention to charge for information as to what charity trustees should do—one of the points the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned. He asked for answers to four questions. The first was whether the Charity Commissioners would charge for the information pack or information as to the responsibility of trustees. The answer to that is no, they will not be charged for. He then asked whether there would be a charge to small charities for orders and schemes made by the Charity Commissioners. The White Paper proposed that power should be given to the commission to waive charges for small charities. If the noble Lord were to read subsection (2) (a) of the new clause he would see that it gives power for regulations to allow a waiver to small charities. That is also the answer to his third question about small charities in relation to land transactions. In that case it is slightly different because there will be a sliding scale for land transactions. Small charities would, therefore, by their nature not be charged. Again, that would come under the power of the waiver.
The noble Lord's fourth question related to whether there would be a charge to the public for access to the database. It is not intended that there should be a charge for access to the database unless it is by commercial bodies or large numbers of researchers who go into a great deal of detail. There will be no charge to the casual person who seeks information.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but if research is undertaken by a charity which may well wish to seek information from the database, will the charity be charged? As part of their fund-raising, charities frequently research grant-making trusts which are registered with the Charity Commission.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe I am correct in telling my noble friend that individual applications for access to the database will not be charged for, but mass applications will be. In other words, if, on the
1186
one hand, a charity says to the Charity Commissioners that it wants information about such-and-such a charity, there will be no charge. If, on the other hand, it is carrying out research and requires information from several hundred charities, there will be a charge.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the affirmative resolution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, also said that one cannot refuse a resolution. That is a fairly bland statement. As the noble Lord knows only too well, a great deal of legislation goes through as a result of resolutions which are passed by both Houses of Parliament. There is nothing novel about it. From my own experience I remember statutory instruments being withdrawn because there was likely to be a vote against them in your Lordships' House. I am thinking particularly of the Stansted Airport Bill some years ago. Rather than suffer a vote against it, the Government of the day removed the statutory instrument and did not put it to the vote. Thus there is a distinct incentive for the Government to get it right.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was concerned that if a fee was chargeable, that fact should form part of the resolution which would come to your Lordships' House. Of course it would do so, and if the regulations were to permit the fee to be increased, that would form part of the statutory instrument.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked about an amendment to the effect that all charities with under £25,000 should be exempted. Frankly, I do not favour that. I believe that it is much better to leave it to the regulations. After the concern which has been expressed by your Lordships, great care would be taken to ensure that when the regulations are made they are reasonable. I would not like to suggest whether or not a figure of £25,000 would be right, but it would be wrong to put it in the Bill.
I had forgotten that it was my amendment, but if your Lordships are content with the explanation that I have given, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 55 [Restriction on institution of proceedings for certain offences]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 55A:
Leave out Clause 55.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment proposes to leave out Clause 55 on page 46. The clause requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of certain offences under the Bill.
The proposal was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom I am grateful. However, it did not receive the approbation of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and that naturally gave me pause for thought. It seems to me important that we should vindicate the right of private prosecution, even when the director is available,

1187
because it is an ancient right and a personal liberty that the private citizen can set the law in motion without seeking the favour of any official.
We must face the fact that, useful though the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been, it is a bureaucratic invasion of the ancient right of private prosecution. Perhaps that is still more so since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service, although I believe that all or most of us approved of that extension on the ground that it was undesirable for the police to be concerned with the prosecution process.
As your Lordships know, the ancient method of prosecuting offences in this country was to bind over the individual complainant to prosecute. That worked well under a localised agricultural society. It broke down once one had an urban industrial society. The private prosecutor was then inefficient, he did not know how to prosecute and the burden on him was frequently irksome and financially onerous. However, what was much more serious was that it was open to corruption and blackmail, particularly with the offences of perjury and conspiracy.
Thus in the middle of the last century there was a strong movement to establish what became the public prosecutor's office. However, all the principal proponents were adamant that although we needed a Director of Public Prosecutions, nevertheless the ancient liberty of private prosecution should still be maintained. That was the view of Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, who was the Chief Justice and Sir Arthur Cockburn, the Attorney-General. They were all in favour but all wished to see the retention of the right of private prosecutions, as was the view of Bentham earlier.
There is no real hardship in allowing the private prosecution to subsist alongside the activities of the director, because if the private prosecution is in any way onerous to the accused, it is always open to the Attorney-General, through the director, to take over the prosecution and to abandon it; in the technical term, to enter a nolle prosequi.
Moreover, there is an important lesson here from Scotland. For one-and-a-half centuries private prosecutions were unknown in Scotland. I remember when your Lordships' Appellate Committee was considering an attempt to revive the ancient Scottish remedy of assythment. Both sides assured us that private prosecutions were no longer available in Scotland. However what then occurred and supervened was the terrible Glasgow rape case. The Lord Advocate, for good reason, decided not to prosecute, but in the end the complainant went to the High Court of Justiciary and established the right of private prosecution, even after a lapse of 150 years.
No one reading that terrible story could doubt for a moment that justice was thereby done and would not have been done unless there had been a private prosecution. That is the general background: the need to preserve an individual and ancient liberty which cannot do harm as a result of the right of the Attorney-General to intervene, and which may be valuable. It is only to be abandoned when the type of offence is such that there is likely to be abuse if it is
1188
prosecuted. I mentioned perjury as a particular example, but if one looks at the four cases enumerated in this clause, one sees that none falls into that class.
On the contrary, what we are doing in most cases is to provide a bureaucratic method of prosecution over and above the bureaucracy of the Charity Commissioners, who can in most cases perfectly well be trusted with the prosecution. Paragraph (a) concerns a provision that your Lordships examined closely on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. It is the provision that concerns certain administrative bureaucratic requirements which on the whole commended themselves to your Lordships. The measure concerns the provision of various documents such as cheques, invoices, receipts and so on to signify that a charity is a registered charity. The universal view was that the failure to observe that provision ought not to be a criminal offence and, if it were, it should certainly not be an offence of strict liability whereby a trustee who had nothing to do with the failure to fill in a form properly was to be criminalised.
A further provision to which your Lordships objected was the reversal of the onus of proof. It must evidently be felt that that provision is liable to cause hardship and injustice to trustees. Therefore it is proposed that prosecutions should be undertaken only with the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But surely the answer is to modify the clause to which your Lordships took exception on a previous occasion. I shall not go into that matter further because I received a letter only today from the office of the noble Earl saying that it was under consideration. But whatever is done about this matter, surely there can be no argument that, if there is a failure to comply with such an administrative requirement, it is not a subject for the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the disciplinary supervision of the Charity Commissioners is not sufficient, they are the persons to decide whether it is a case for prosecution.
Paragraph (b) refers to Section 20 of the 1960 Act as amended by Clause 8 of this Bill. Clause 8 concerns the Charity Commissioners' power to act for the protection of trustees. Again, if some offence is committed in this area, it is surely for the commissioners to decide whether to prosecute. There is absolutely no reason to involve another official body. That merely duplicates the work and increases the expense. Paragraph (c) concerns Clause 27 on page 24 of the Bill which refers to annual reports transmitted to the commissioners and the provision of the most recent accounts to any member of the public on request. Again, that is surely a matter for the disciplinary supervision of the Charity Commissioners. If they need to prosecute, they are the people to decide that.
Paragraph (d) concerns the offence of acting as a charity trustee while disqualified. That case is more arguable as the offence is triable both ways, in other words on indictment as well as summarily. Even then, surely it is the commissioners who are the right people to determine on a prosecution. Paragraph (e) concerns the supply of false or misleading information to the

1189
commissioners. This offence is again triable both ways, but as it is the commissioners who are the subject of the offence they are the people to prosecute. In trying to vindicate the preservation of an ancient individual right, I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on his proposal that Clause 55 should be left out of the Bill. I must confess that in Committee I attempted to get the clause left out but I received no support whatever. However, I hope that on mature reflection your Lordships will consider that the noble and learned Lord has made out a very powerful case for not requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to give his consent for the prosecutions listed which the noble and learned Lord has enumerated. They mostly concern not very great offences. Where the maximum sentence has been specified for these offences, it generally amounts to a fine of a moderate amount and no more than six months' imprisonment.
However, my principle objection to the clause is this. It would mean that one branch of the Civil Service which is concerned with the administration of this branch of the law —namely, the Charity Commissioners who are a branch of the Civil Service—should require the consent of another department involved in the law.
One has only to look at the third subparagraph of the first schedule to the 1960 Act which states that the chief commissioner and the other commissioners,
"shall be deemed for all purposes to be employed in the civil service of the Crown".
The Director of Public Prosecutions is also a civil servant. The idea that one body of civil servants concerned with the administration of a branch of the law in which they are supposed to be experts, and generally are, should require the consent of another department involved in the law—in that case the criminal law—seems to be unnecessary and quite absurd. Without elaborating further the powerful case the noble and learned Lord has made, I hope his proposal will receive very sympathetic consideration.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say that I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sorry to say that as I normally find him a redoubtable ally. But on this occasion I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I fear I cannot agree either with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He and I debated this matter in the Public Bill Committee.
There is a series of reasons why the Government are right in their drafting of the Bill on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be aware, many of us have expressed serious disquiet at the new criminal penalties which trustees risk incurring in carrying out their duties as trustees. This matter was discussed extensively in the Public Bill Committee and I do not wish to go over all that ground again. However, given the fact that many trustees will for the first time face the risk of quite explicit criminal penalties, it seems to
1190
me right that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required before a prosecution is launched.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will be aware, the Charity Commission will not carry out the prosecutions itself. As I understand what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said during the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee, if there is an alleged offence, the Charity Commission will refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service which will normally determine what action will be taken.
I recognise the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the issues of principle. However, for the reasons I have indicated it seems to me that, in view of the formidable threat which now exists against the trustees of many thousands of charities in this country, those trustees should be protected from the risk of a frivolous prosecution by a private citizen. Therefore, I very much agree with what the noble Earl said on the previous occasion. The Bill should be left as it is.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, because he always tells me something that I do not know. We heard not only the history of prosecutions in English law but also of the innovation of private prosecution in 19th century Scottish law. I found myself better informed at the end of his speech than I was before the noble and learned Lord stood up. I am grateful to him for that.
It is not a question of whether or not a frivolous private prosecution can be brought by an individual. It is a question of whether or not the Charity Commissioners should do their own prosecuting. It seems to me that many of the offences which are set out in the Bill are minor. For example, subsection (2) (a) reads:
"section 4A(3) of the 1960 Act, as amended by section 3 above".
That refers to a minor offence and a minor infringement. If it comes to the notice of the Charity Commissioners for the life of me I do not see why they should not be the people to bring the prosecution in the magistrates' court.
In addition, to clutter up the Crown Prosecution Service with such minor offences will not make that organisation any more efficient than it is at present. Your Lordships will know that there are views as to the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service at present.
On balance, I can see no reason why the Charity Commissioners should not do their own prosecuting in respect of at least some of the offences which are referred to in the subsection. The blunt instrument of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required for some of those minor offences. I hope that the noble Earl can say that he will have another look at the matter at least in respect of subsection (2) (a), (b) and possibly (d).
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as noble Lords have pointed out, Clause 55 of the Bill provides that no proceedings for any criminal offence in Part I of the Bill shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does not like that restriction but I hope to explain to him why we consider it important to have that restriction.
The Bill creates a number of new and important duties and responsibilities for charity trustees, which are fundamental to the regulatory framework created by the Bill. For example, it is a central element of the accountability of trustees that they submit annual accounts to the commissioners. As your Lordships have been quick to point out, not many charities do that at the moment.
It is clearly necessary that those new responsibilities and duties are enforceable, that abuse is deterred and that the nature of trustees' responsibilities is highlighted. It was with some reluctance that we concluded that criminal offences were, in some areas, the most effective way of enforcing those new duties. As the White Paper suggested, we have examined carefully the alternatives to criminal sanctions, but concluded that the White Paper's proposal for default markings on the register of charities did not offer an effective means of ensuring compliance with the duties imposed by the Bill. It is difficult to see how such default would deter less than scrupulous trustees from breaching their statutory duties. They would also be likely to have undesirable effects on the funds of the charity by discouraging donors, rather than penalising dishonest trustees.
Those who administer charities are usually unpaid volunteers. Although charities range from national bodies with a large turnover to small parochial charities, their trustees have in common their willingness to give up their own time in the interests of serving the particular beneficiaries of their charity. Prosecution of offences under Part I of the Bill should not, therefore, be undertaken lightly.
Although those criminal offences are necessary, it is equally important that we put in place machinery to ensure that offences are prosecuted only where the transgression is serious and prosecution is warranted in the circumstances. It is for that reason that the Bill prevents a criminal prosecution under Part I except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Cases will be identified by the Charity Commissioners in the course of their work. Where they consider a prosecution both necessary and desirable they will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, either directly or through the police if that is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
The Crown Prosecution Service is trained and staffed to prosecute offences. That is its function. The Charity Commission is not trained or staffed to prosecute. Its expertise is in investigation. We believe that it is better to leave prosecution to the experts and let the Charity Commission staff investigate and monitor charity affairs. That is important. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, supported that view
1192
and I am grateful for his support. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not support that view. It is important that we do not burden the Charity Commissioners in this way.
Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions could consent to the bringing of a private prosecution. That is not precluded by the clause. The Charity Commissioners could also bring a prosecution, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not precluded. However, it is current government practice to centralise prosecutions.
It is important that we ensure that the severity of criminal sanction is brought to bear only in those circumstances in which it is in the public interest that a prosecution be brought. The Charity Commissioners will identify lapses and failures and deal with them. It will be only the important cases which will be passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service.
I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I recognise that the ancient individual right is somewhat eroded by the clause, but we believe that it is important that frivolous prosecutions should not take place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who took part in the debate. Perhaps I shall be understood with sympathy when I say that I found the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Richard, particularly convincing. I am always sorry when I find myself differing from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but what he said and what the noble Viscount said has done nothing to shake my conviction that the interposition of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not only unnecessary but positively injurious. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked, why could the Charity Commissioners not be allowed to do their own job? The nearest the noble Viscount came to answering that question was to say that the Crown Prosecution Service is expert at prosecution and the Charity Commissioners are not. That is true. But this clause does not say that all prosecutions must be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. It says that no prosecutions shall be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is very different.
Even in defence of an ancient and valuable personal right it would be absurd to try to divide noble Lords at this hour of the night and in a sparse House. I only hope that what has been said may have some effect on this Bill when it goes further. Perhaps I may add that I personally do not agree that any of the offences enumerated in this clause—except acting as a trustee when disqualified—are worthy of being criminalised. If they are, the people to deal with it, failing administrative discipline, are the Charity Commissioners. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 55B:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from provisions of the 1960 Act
The Commissioners may direct that any provision of the 1960 Act or of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any charity if they consider that its application would impose a disproportionate burden on the charity.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it was with some hesitation that I tabled this amendment in Committee. In general I do not like a dispensing power in the law, and I can hardly conceive of any circumstances in which I would gladly give it to a Minister. That would be a Henry VIII provision. But here that power is given to the Charity Commissioners, who are in closest touch with working out the provisions of the Bill on the 1960 Act so as to ensure the proper regulation of charities.
On Second Reading there was wide expression of apprehension that, although valuable work was being done, we were imposing too heavy an administrative burden on small charities in particular. This new clause seeks to give the Charity Commissioners power in appropriate cases to relieve the burden on the charity. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am grateful for that. It also commended itself to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Therefore, I had no hesitation in tabling it again for your Lordships' wider consideration.
Much depends on whether the measures in the Bill are sufficient to relieve the small charities of their administrative burden. When I wrote to explain the amendment, the noble Earl set out the reliefs that were being extended to small charities. They have gone further since then. I shall not trouble your Lordships with his letter. No doubt he himself will wish to mention the point. The question is: have they gone far enough? Even if they have gone a long way, there will remain charities where the administrative burden is disproportionate.
In Committee the noble Earl was inclined to quarrel with the word "disproportionate". He asked how one could show a disproportionate burden. That is not an entirely unknown phrase in the law. The word "disproportionate" may be new, but "proportionate" is not. If the law can make do with proportionate—as it can—it can well do with disproportionate.
It is the Charity Commissioners as laymen who have to use their commonsense in this matter. If I were asked what that phrase meant, I would say that it raises the question: does compliance with the provision in question, which will generally be administrative, do more harm than good, considering the nature of the charity in point? I fail to see why that is not a proper gloss and why it is not a test that the Charity Commissioners are well qualified to apply. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in what seems to be a signal act of corporal mercy, especially in the direction of small charities, which will have a great burden to bear when this Bill becomes an Act.
1194
They will be concerned with accounts, reports, audits and so on. A great deal of that will be new work for many of them. The very necessary checks and regulations of the Bill, which is both extensive and intensive in what it requires of the charities, will be particularly onerous to the small charities, especially where those charities have very few staff or untrained staff and perhaps, as is quite often the case, a relatively high staff turnover.
I realise that the amendment appears to give swingeing powers to the Charity Commissioners. It says that they:
"may direct that any provision of the 1960 Act or of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any charity".
I can see no other way of tempering the wind to the shorn lambs. It is supremely in the interests of the Charity Commissioners themselves to preserve the small charities and to ensure that they operate as efficiently as possible. Noble Lords may remember that when we considered the Criminal Justice Bill last year, one noble and learned Lord said that one has to trust someone—trust the judges. One might equally say about this amendment: one has to trust someone —trust the commissioners.
Any small charity which found itself the beneficiary of this amendment might very well say, "For this relief much thanks". I cannot believe that the commissioners would find it very difficult to draw the line between who should and who should not be relieved. If they cannot do so, no one can in this or any other matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. In our earlier debates on the Bill, there was much discussion about the burdens that its provisions may impose upon charities which had incomes of just under £25,000 a year or just under £10,000 a year. I am not so concerned with the problems of charities with incomes of, say, £24,750 a year or £9,975 a year; I am much more concerned with charities which have incomes in the region of £250 a year or £175 a year. Unless the amendment of my noble and learned friend is accepted, the burdens that are imposed by this Bill will virtually absorb 20 per cent. or more of the income of such charities at the expense of the poor beneficiaries. I use the word "poor" in both senses of the term.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that the amendment would have swingeing effect, I thought that he intended to agree with me and speak against the amendment. He is right; the amendment does have sweeping effect. It would enable the commissioners to:
"direct that any provision of the 1960 Act or of [Part I] of this Act shall not apply to any charity",
if that charity, in the commissioners' opinion, suffered a "disproportionate burden" in complying with the provisions in question.
As my noble friend said in Committee, we do not know what a disproportionate burden would be in the circumstances. I am sure that there are provisions of the Bill and of the 1960 Act which cannot be said to cause a burden to a charity. There are other provisions which may cause a burden to charities that are

1195
mismanaged or maladministered. Indeed, these provisions exist to do just that and it is right that they should do so.
Trustees of some charities might find it a burden to keep proper accounts, even though the regime that we have created is not unduly onerous. But keeping accounts is a proper and necessary duty. I do not wish to see charities relieved of it. Indeed, in my view the Bill does not place on trustees any duties or responsibilities which it is not right that they should shoulder.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to small charities. Where the provisions of the Bill might place an administrative burden on small charities we have provided for that burden to be mitigated. For example, charities with an income which does not exceed £1,000 a year do not have to register or submit an annual report. Charities with an income not exceeding £25,000 a year may prepare a simplified set of accounts. Charities with an income not exceeding £100,000 a year may have their accounts examined by an independent person. The Commissioners have power to dispense with the need to make an annual return in the case of any particular charity or class of charities.
We have gone a long way to accommodate the small charities, as I hope I have explained. I believe that we have gone far enough. I do not believe that the Bill would gain by accepting the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, again I am grateful for the contributions. I ought to have said one thing. The noble Viscount again repeated that he did not think that the word "disproportionate" was one which the Charity Commissioners could manage. However, he did not deal with my gloss upon it in which I posed the kind of question that they would ask themselves. In the hope that minds might still be open on the Bill, perhaps I may draw attention to a statutory provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 which stated that dependants "in part" had to have a "reasonable and proportionate" compensation for damages. The courts have had no difficulty in dealing with that. I ask that the matter may be the subject of open-minded consideration before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 48, line 8, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
Page 48, leave out lines 9 to 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 65, 82, 118 to 120, 124, 125 and 130.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, suggested during Committee that it was confusing and therefore unsatisfactory for the expression "charitable purposes" to have one meaning when used in Part I of the Bill and quite another when used in Parts II and III.
I am bound to say that I quite agree. I stated that we would consider the issue again to see whether we could make matters clearer. The amendments are the result.
In abandoning the use of "charitable purposes" as a shorthand, we have made the Bill a little longer. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the end result is clearer. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I promise that I shall not rise each time to say thank you. However, the amendments seem quite satisfactory and I am grateful.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful. I would not seek to inhibit the noble Lord in his expression of thanks. He may feel at liberty to do so whenever he wishes.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Earl for the amendments which we support. They extend the definitions of charitable institution and charitable purposes to cover benevolent and philanthropic institutions and purposes which might otherwise be thought by some to fall outside the scope of the 1960 Act. They close not only a possible loophole in the application of this legislation but also correct the confusion. We support the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 48, line 21, at end insert:
(""company" has the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1960;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59, 62 to 64 and 66 to 68.
A number of your Lordships and others have suggested that the definition of professional fundraiser in Clause 58 goes too wide. I saw the force of the arguments and I said during Committee that I would bring forward amendments to narrow its scope.
We have sought in Amendment No. 64 to deal with the problem of the paid volunteer working on behalf of charitable institutions in two ways. First, the new subsection (1A) (c) excludes anyone, other than a promoter, who acts as a collector in respect of a public charitable collection whether he is paid by a charitable institution or by a professional fund-raiser. The person paid £5 a day for rattling his tin in the street is not therefore a professional fund-raiser for the purposes of Part II. Secondly, the new subsection (1B) will exclude anyone paid a small honorarium for organising or undertaking other kinds of fund-raising events or activities for a charitable institution. The new subsection (1A) (a) excludes wholly-controlled subsidiaries of charitable institutions from the definition of professional fund-raiser.
In looking at the question of paid volunteers of charitable institutions, I have looked again at the position of paid collectors or other agents of professional fund-raisers. It seems to me that these people, too, should be excluded from the definition of professional fund-raiser and Amendment No. 63

1197
achieves this by excluding any person soliciting money or property in the course of a venture undertaken by a person carrying on a fund-raising business.
The provisions of Part II are intended to regulate the affairs of professional fund-raisers—the men who run fund-raising businesses—in relation to the appeals and campaigns they organise for charitable institutions. Amendments No. 63 and 64 together ensure that the provisions of Part II are more sharply focused on such people. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is the right way forward.
Some of your Lordships expressed concern about the effect of the Part II provisions as regards celebrities employed by professional fund-raisers or charitable institutions to make appeals on radio and television. It was felt that their position was uncertain and that the requirements on them were too onerous in comparison with the often modest sums they received in reward. I found those points persuasive too. The new subsection (1A) (d) together with the new subsection to be inserted by Amendment No. 67 will in effect exclude such persons from the definition of professional fund-raiser whether they are paid by the charitable institution or by a professional fund-raiser.
Amendment No. 58 attracts to Part II of the Bill the definition of "company" as it appears in the Charities Act 1960. By virtue of Section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, this means the definition which is inserted by Section 111(2) of the Companies Act 1989. In my view this covers the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, seeks to make in his Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hesitate to rise because noble Lords present today have made a tremendous contribution to the Bill. However, as will be realised, during my life I have been involved in the work of charities. It would be wrong to allow this moment to pass without referring to the tremendous relief that is felt among many charities throughout the country that the Government have seen fit to bring forward this amendment. I have been almost inundated by messages from friends and former colleagues who have stated that this is one of the most encouraging developments to have occurred. On their behalf and mine I thank the Government for their response. I also thank most sincerely those noble Lords who in the earlier stages of the Bill put the case so well.
Perhaps I may make one other observation. It could be made at other points in consideration of the Bill but it is pertinent now. There is a strong feeling in the charity world that it is important to have proper regulation of charities. Therefore, the Bill is welcomed in that sense and because public confidence is essential. However, people also believe that as the Bill is considered it is extremely important not to lose sight of the fact that so much of the life of charities, and the work that goes into their support, comes from the best people in British society. They wish to take responsibility and to do creative things on behalf of society. There was a danger that in some respects the Bill was too onerous, intimidating and frightening for
1198
people who were full of good will. The move that has now been made by the Government will be most encouraging in that context.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 dealing with the definition of "company". "Company" needs to be defined for the purpose of Part II of the Bill. Amendment No. 58 gives the noble Earl's definition of "company". It states:
"'company' has the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1960".
The reader will search in vain, as I did, for a definition of "company" in the Charities Act 1960. If he is fortunate, and after a prolonged search, the reader will find the definition in an Act of Parliament passed three years ago. It does not mention the Charities Act 1960 in its short title or in its long title. It is the Companies Act 1989 which amends Section 46 of the Charities Act 1960.
Amendment No. 59 gives my definition of "company". It advises the reader exactly where to look in order to find out what "company" means in the Charities Act 1960. It reads:
"'company' has the same meaning as in section 46 of the Charities Act 1960 as amended by section 111(2) of the Companies Act 1989".
I ask the noble Earl only one question. Whose definition is more helpful to the reader; his definition or mine?
I fully appreciate what the Interpretation Act allows the draftsman to do. My amendment adds only one line to the Bill and will save many charities a great deal of time. I oppose Amendment No. 58 in order to let in Amendment No. 59 in due course.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I appreciate the general changes which the Government have proposed and which seem to be most satisfactory. At the same time I support the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I too turned to the Charities Act to see how "company" was defined and I could not find that. After some research, not conducted by me personally, I discovered the answer. That I was able to explain to a Law Lord where to find the answer to the great puzzle which was presented was a moment of glory for me.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support in general the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I also support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. As the House knows, I work for a charity. Few charities employ lawyers. The laymen who work in charities cannot be expected to know the law as well as the noble and learned Lord. He had some difficulty in finding the proper definition of "company". I strongly recommend my noble friend Lord Ferrers not to move Amendment No. 58 but instead to accept Amendment No. 59. I can assure him that that will make life a great deal easier for those people who work in the charity field and who must make the Bill work when it becomes an Act.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to support the points made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I wish to support too the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I shall say only once that the

1199
Government's amendments to the Bill have on the whole been excellent. They have clarified all the points that were made in Committee. However, surely it must be obvious that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is required and not Amendment No. 58. I implore my noble friend to accept Amendment No. 59 and not to move his own amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to join the general chorus of congratulations and thanks to the Government for what they have done to the clause. I urge the noble Earl to support Amendment No. 59 and not to move Amendment No. 58. Finally, I wish to raise a difficulty that I have as regards the wording of some of the amendments.
Amendment No. 64 states:
"'professional fund-raiser' does not apply to …
(c) any person acting as a collector in respect of a public charitable collection".
I understand that provision. Presumably that person will not be a fund-raiser if he or she is paid as a collector in respect of a public charitable collection. So far so good. Subsection (1B) of the amendment states:
"In addition, paragraph (b) of the definition of `professional fund-raiser' does not apply to a person if he does not receive—

(a) more than —

(i) £5 per day, or

(ii) £500 per year,

by way of remuneration in connection with soliciting money or other property for the benefit of the charitable institution".
I am sure that I am fault but at first sight there appears to be a conflict between subsection (1A) (c) and subsection (1B) (a). I am sure that there is a perfectly simple explanation. The noble Earl's knowledge of the Bill is far greater than mine and no doubt he will be able to explain the matter as soon as the noble Viscount has finished his walk up and down the Chamber.
As I am on my feet, however, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl another question and give the noble Viscount a little more time. The provision "more than £5 per day, or £500 per year" puzzles me. Do I understand that a person who is paid £10 for one day will be covered by the provision but a person who is paid £5 per day for 99 days will not be covered? If that is correct the provision is a little strange.
I understand and appreciate everything that the noble Earl is trying to do in relation to this clause. Indeed, I join my noble friend Lord Judd in paying tribute to him and to the people who have made the collections and done all the soliciting. However, I am not sure whether that provision is too crude to avoid raising anomalies. I see that the noble Viscount returned to us but has gone again, so I shall sit down.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I presume to join in the thanks and congratulations offered to the noble Earl. I also join with noble Lords who have endorsed the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend. There is no question but that from a legal point of view his amendment is preferable. I cannot conceive that it is not also preferable, as the noble Viscount pointed out, from the point of view of the users of the statute book—the persons who are
1200
concerned with charity law. I hope that on this occasion the noble Earl will show some flexibility and accept the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was looking forward to moving these amendments which I thought would meet with your Lordships' approval. I did not realise that they had an Exocet attached to their tail.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his remarks. He said that these amendments have caused a sense of relief. If that is so, I am glad. If that has been the case, it is because, as he quite rightly said, the case was made so clearly and eloquently in Committee. Indeed, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in our discussions in Committee. One advantage of the passage of the Bill is that the arguments for the amendments which have been tabled have been put extremely clearly. We have tried to meet the points made wherever possible.
As usual, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, makes an eloquent case. As I listened to him, I became more and more persuaded by his argument. However, that is not surprising because I am always persuaded by the last person from whom I have heard.
In the time available I have looked at this matter and I have been given some fairly clear advice; that is, that to mention the amendment to the 1989 Act prejudices the operation of the Interpretation Act 1978 which provides that any reference to an enactment is that as amended by any other Act. We are in the realms of legal niceties and I am advised that that is the case. If your Lordships will accept my amendment, I shall consider the points made by the noble and learned Lord and, indeed, by other noble Lords. However, I am advised that it would be incorrect to accept the amendments, hut I am prepared to look at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was worried about subsections (1A) (c) and (1B) (a). Subsection (1A) (c) in Amendment No. 64 applies whether or not one is paid. Subsection (1B) (a) is additional. If one can come within the first, one is excepted whether or not one is paid. Subsection (1B) is not aimed at collectors.
The noble Lord was also anxious as regards £5 per day or £500 per year. A collector can be paid £5 per day up to £500 per year. That seems to be a fairly obvious answer but I hope that makes the position clear.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, is he saying that a collector does not solicit? If that is so, I understand him.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that a collector collects and does not solicit.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I can see that the noble Earl is sitting down, but —I use the conventional phrase—before he sits down finally, perhaps I may say that I cannot accept that my noble and learned friend's amendment throws any doubt at all upon the provisions of the Interpretation Act. Even if there were something in that, that can easily be

1201
avoided by the use of the common statutory phrase, "without prejudice to the Interpretation Act, section so and so".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that I shall consider the points which have been made and I shall consider the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I found appealing the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, but I am advised that the amendment is wrong in legal terms. However, if your Lordships will accept my amendment, I shall look at this matter.
I probably did not give the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a full answer to his question about collecting and soliciting. Collectors can solicit and others can solicit as well as collectors. That encompasses the point fairly roundly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 48, line 21, at end insert:
(" "company" has the same meaning as in section 46 of the Charities Act 1960 as amended by section 111(2) of the Companies Act 1989").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not believe that, even had I wished to do so, I should be able to move Amendment No. 59 as Amendment No. 58 has been accepted. Therefore, I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 48, line 30, leave out ("or otherwise procuring").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify that only fund-raising businesses directly soliciting money or property will be regulated under the Bill.
In Committee I represented a considerable anxiety throughout the charitable sector that the definition of a fund-raising business was so broad as to include under regulations activities by outside agencies in support of charitable fund-raising which would be detrimental to the generation of enormous sums of charitable income.
The House will agree that all of us accept that where an external agent makes direct solicitation to the general public regulations should apply. In Committee my noble friend Lord Ferrers clarified the Government's intention with respect to that aspect of the Bill. He indicated that outside agencies contracting services to charities and other voluntary organisations in the course of their fund-raising activities would not be regulated under the Bill. That clarification is extremely helpful.
In order to ensure that that intention is properly clarified on the face of the Bill and so as to allay the considerable anxiety which still exists within the charity sector in that respect, the amendment seeks to remove the words "or otherwise procuring" from the definition of the type of activity undertaken by fund-raising businesses.
When a fund-raising business solicits, it asks for money or other property. No other form of
1202
solicitation can achieve that. "To otherwise procure" may therefore confuse the scope of the Bill and lead some to interpret direct activity by outside agencies as being appropriate for regulation.
As the Minister said in Committee, this is an important part of the Bill and we must be seen to be absolutely clear as to what it is and is not our intention to regulate. I believe that my amendment achieves that end. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, reflects the considerable anxiety expressed throughout the charitable sector that organisations contracting fund-raising services to charities will be regulated by the Bill.
As I understand it, the amendment tries to make clear the expressed intention of the Government during Committee stage that only where direct solicitation of funds takes place should those outside agencies be regulated. If I am correct about that, it is an important amendment that clarifies a matter which has caused considerable anxiety throughout the charitable sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is right to say that a fund-raising business can do nothing but solicit for money or other property, if it solicits at all. That is its only form of solicitation. As he says, "to otherwise procure" may confuse the scope of the Bill and leave some people to interpret indirect activity by outside agencies as being appropriate for regulation. That may well deter outside agencies from acts of altruism which they would otherwise perform. I hope that the Government accept the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, he is not sure what the phrase "or otherwise procuring" means in the definition of "fund-raising business" in Clause 58. I shall endeavour to cast some light on the question. In particular, my noble friend may be anxious that the inclusion of those words in the definition of "fund-raising business" extends its application so as to catch the contractual arrangements between charities and commercial organisations for the provision of services such as writing fund-raising copy.
My noble friend need have no fears on that point. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made it clear in Committee that contractual arrangements of that kind will not be caught by Part II of the Bill and I am happy to repeat those assurances.
The words are intended to deal with a situation where, although an appeal or a campaign is undertaken solely by a professional fund-raiser, the appeal literature appears to come from the charity itself with the name and address of the fund-raiser appearing, sometimes inconspicuously, as the recipient of donations and so forth. The key factor is that the fund-raiser is the agent who makes the appeal and gathers in the funds. In such a case the reference to soliciting alone would probably be inadequate because the solicitation would appear to come from the charity even if, in reality, it was from the fund-raiser. The expression, "procuring" is used in preference to "obtaining" in order to make clear that

1203
the fund-raiser in question must actively achieve the obtaining of funds for charitable purposes and not simply be a passive recipient by accident.
I hope that that explanation addresses the anxieties of my noble friend as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not sure that it does. If I remember my training as a chartered surveyor—now many years ago—when studying the law of agency, the agent acted in the same capacity as the principal. What was undertaken by the agent was as though the principal had undertaken it. Therefore, I am not sure that my noble friend's argument is correct.
However, I shall take the matter away and look at it, but reserve my right to return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 48, line 31, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 64:
Page 48, line 33, leave out (", in relation to any charitable institution,").
Page 48, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert:
("(b) any other person (apart from a person excluded by virtue of subsection (1A) or (1B)) who for reward solicits money or other property for the benefit of a charitable institution, if he does so otherwise than in the course of any fund-raising venture undertaken by a person falling within paragraph (a) above;").
Page 48, line 48, at end insert:
("(1A) In subsection (1), paragraph (b) of the definition of "professional fund-raiser" does not apply to any of the following, namely—

(a) any charitable institution or any company connected with any such institution;

(b) any officer or employee of any such institution or company, or any trustee of any such institution, acting (in each case) in his capacity as such;

(c) any person acting as a collector in respect of a public charitable collection (apart from a person who is to be treated as a promoter of such a collection by virtue of section 65(3));

(d) any person who in the course of a relevant programme, that is to say a radio or television programme in the course of which a fund-raising venture is undertaken by—

(i) a charitable institution, or

(ii) a company connected with such an institution, makes any solicitation at the instance of that institution or company; or

(e) any commercial participator;

and for this purpose "collector" and "public charitable collection" have the same meaning as in Part III of this Act.
(1B) In addition, paragraph (b) of the definition of "professional fund-raiser" does not apply to a person if he does not receive—

(a) more than—

(i) £5 per day, or

(ii) £500 per year,

by way of remuneration in connection with soliciting money or other property for the benefit of the charitable institution referred to in that paragraph; or
1204
(b) more than £500 by way of remuneration in connection with any fund-raising venture in the course of which he solicits money or other property for the benefit of that institution.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 48, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) In this Part any reference to charitable purposes, where occurring in the context of a reference to charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, is a reference to charitable purposes whether or not the purposes are charitable within the meaning of any rule of law.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 68:
Page 48, line 48, at end insert:
("( )) For the purposes of this Part a company is connected with a charitable institution if—

(a) the institution, or

(b) the institution and one or more other charitable institutions, taken together,

is or are entitled (whether directly or through one or more nominees) to exercise, or control the exercise of, the whole of the voting power at any general meeting of the company.").
Page 49, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Where any fund-raising venture is undertaken by a professional fund-raiser in the course of a radio or television programme, any solicitation which is made by a person in the course of the programme at the instance of the fund-raiser shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as made by the fund-raiser and not by that person (and shall be so regarded whether or not the solicitation is made by that person for any reward).").
Page 49, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1B) by substituting a different sum for any sum for the time being specified there.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 59 [Prohibition on professional fund-raiser etc. raising funds for charity without an agreement in prescribed form]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 49, line 34, leave out ("charity") and insert ("charitable institution").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 and 112 to 116. Clause 59 as drafted requires a professional fund-raiser or a commercial participator to have a written agreement with the charity for which he is raising funds.
In Committee I accepted the argument that benevolent and philanthropic institutions which engaged professional fund-raisers or entered into an agreement with a commercial participator, should also be subject to those safeguards provided by Clause 59. The amendments therefore extend the requirement for a written agreement to professional fund-raisers and

1205
to commercial participators who are acting for benevolent or philanthropic institutions. I hope that they meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, those who breach the provisions of the Act in respect of the control of fund-raising should not be able to take advantage of a possible lacuna in the legislation which may exist if the meaning of "charity" in the 1960 Act were to be applied. The amendments close that lacuna. We are grateful to the Government for introducing them and give them our support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 78:
Page 49, line 35, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
Page 49, line 39, leave out ("charity") and insert ("charitable institution").
Page 49, line 40, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
Page 49, line 41, leave out ("charity") and insert ("charitable institution").
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
Page 50, line 4, leave out ("charity") and insert ("charitable institution").
Page 50, line 7, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
Page 50, line 10, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
Page 50, line 14, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Professional fund-raisers etc. required to specify institutions benefiting and arrangements for remuneration]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 50, line 30, leave out from ("a") to end of line 31 and insert ("statement clearly indicating—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 79 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 83 to 87. These amendments are designed to address anxieties expressed in Committee about the disclosure statements which, under Clause 60, are required to be made by professional fund-raisers and commercial participators.
It has been suggested that the present provisions requiring a clear and accurate statement, particularly as to the method by which the professional fund-raiser's remuneration in connection with the appeal is to be determined, set too rigid a formula given the variety of fund-raising appeals undertaken by professional fund-raisers and commercial participators, and the various different ways in which they can be remunerated.
The requirement for a clear and accurate statement appears to be a daunting one. Where there are uncertainties about how much an appeal might raise, it would be difficult for donors to be given accurate information in all the circumstances. The amendments
1206
ensure that the required statement regarding the method by which a professional fund-raiser's remuneration will be determined and so on need only be given in general terms and that the statement in regard to the names of the charities concerned and the proportion of the proceeds of an appeal undertaken by professional participators which will reach them needs only to indicate those matters clearly.
Amended in that way the requirements of Clause 60 will be flexible enough to enable professional fund-raisers and commercial participators to tailor the statement they make to the circumstances of the appeal in question. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for tabling these amendments and for the care that was taken in their drafting.
The Government amendments to Clause 60 seek to achieve two things. First, the consequential amendments to those tabled in Clause 58 seek to harmonise the definitions of "charity" and "other voluntary organisations". Secondly, the amendments are designed to address some of the worries raised in Committee that the precise wording of the "clear and accurate statement", which must be provided by outside agents to all potential donors, is too onerous.
While the amendments are designed to make the provisions more practical, it remains a matter of a little unease as to exactly what will be required. I find it difficult to formulate a question to the noble Earl in a way that does not sound silly. I tried to say, "What exactly does 'general terms' mean?" I thought that the noble Earl would be bound to say that it means in terms that are general and not specific. I would not be much further forward, but I would be well put down.
I thought, "When does a statement 'clearly indicate' and when does it not?" The noble Earl would reply that it clearly indicates when it indicates clearly and not in any unclear fashion. In the end I tried to think of what I wanted to achieve clarification on. The best way I can put it is this. Is there a way in which an outside agent will be able to test whether the proposed wording of a statement is sufficient to meet the demands of the law? If the answer is no, or it is an insignificant question, I shall be well satisfied. If the noble Earl can help my curiosity with that matter, I shall be grateful. We are happy to give these amendments a welcome although we see them as closely associated with the amendment brought to this clause by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which requires the Secretary of State to provide guidelines explaining the content of the statement to be made by outside agencies. It may be that if that amendment is in anyway acceptable, the guidelines will remove any residual anxiety that I may feel.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for having asked what he called his absurd questions and then answered them himself. I realise the difficulties in asking questions and trying to get the answers which one desires. As regards the statement, it will have to be

1207
true and correct. That is the first point. It need not go into the detail and precision that a test of accuracy would impose.
I accept that such a test would be too rigid given the variety of fund-raising methods used. That is why I introduced the element of flexibility which is contained in these amendments. I appreciate that Clause 60 places new duties on professional fund-raisers and commercial participators. They will be at the bottom of what one might call a fairly daunting learning curve. It is only right that the Government should help fund-raisers along that new curve. I am happy to undertake that we shall, in consultation with practitioners, give appropriate help and guidance to them so that they do not fall into any unfortunate traps.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply which I find very helpful indeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:
Page 50, line 32, after ("name") insert ("or names").
Page 50, line 35, after ("(c)") insert ("(in general terms)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 50, line 38, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 87:
Page 50, line 40, leave out from ("a") to end of line 41 and insert ("statement clearly indicating—").
Page 51, line 1, after ("(c)") insert ("(in general terms)").
Page 51, line 6, leave out from ("a") to end of line 7 and insert ("statement clearly indicating—").
Page 51, line 8, after ("name") insert ("or names").
Page 51, line 11, after ("(c)") insert ("(in general terms)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 51, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines as to the content of any statement required by virtue of subsections (1) to (3) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to provide practical guidance to outside agents soliciting funds or property when conforming to the regulations to be laid under the Bill. In response to concern expressed by many at Committee stage, my noble friend has brought forward amendments addressing the specific nature of the statement that must be made by outside agents to potential donors.
While I welcome those amendments, I, and also a large number of charities and voluntary organisations, and fund-raising businesses, remain concerned at the potential for confusion that still exists as to precisely what type of statement will be required. My noble friend said, when dealing with the last group of
1208
amendments, that guidance would be issued. Therefore, I hope that he can agree that this amendment should form part of the Bill. While doing so, perhaps he will give a general indication as to the type of guidance that he has in mind. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have already discussed Amendment No. 79 and others in my name which are designed to mitigate the effects of the disclosure requirements in Clause 60. I have said that the disclosure requirements in that clause should be flexible enough to enable the professional fund-raisers and the commercial participators to tailor the statement which they make to the circumstances of the appeal in question. I do not believe that statutory guidance from the Secretary of State would be helpful. If he were to issue statutory guidance in this kind of area it would have to deal with every contingency. Professional fund-raisers in fact raise funds in an enormous variety of ways and the nature of their remuneration can depend on a variety of factors, not least in some circumstances the total proceeds of the appeal.
I do not believe that statutory guidance could be formulated which could cover every eventuality. There would be other problems as regards statutory guidance, not least of which would be the question of what status the guidance would have in law. I understand the concerns that my noble friend has. I do not believe that statutory guidance is an approach which I can recommend. I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that Clause 60 places new duties on professional fund-raisers. They will have to learn what to do. It is only right that the Government should help them along this new route. As I explained, in consultation with the practitioners, we will give every help and guidance to them which we can and which will be appropriate.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply although in some respects it is a little disappointing. I would like to read what he has said. I may come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 51, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) If any such solicitation or representation as is mentioned in any of subsections (1) to (3) is made—

(a) in the course of a radio or television programme, and

(b) in association with an announcement to the effect that payment may be made, in response to the solicitation or representation, by means of a credit or debit card,

the statement required by virtue of subsection (1), (2) or (3) (as the case may be) shall include full details of the right to have refunded under section 61(1) any payment of £50 or more which is so made.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109 and 111.
In Committee we considered in some depth the provisions in Clauses 60 and 61 giving donors, in certain circumstances, the ability to obtain a refund of a donation or payment made to a professional fund-raiser or commercial participator. I have

1209
considered carefully the points made in Committee, and I accept that the balance of the argument is in favour of creating a lower limit on the availability of refunds. My consultations since Committee stage have revealed the fact that the costs of refunding a credit card payment do not fall far short of the £50 limit favoured by the Committee.
These amendments therefore retain the principle behind those moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and simply make a number of drafting improvements. Amendment No. 89 goes one step further. It expressly ties in the requirement to make a statement about the refund provisions in the context of radio or television broadcasting to those occasions where the facility to give by credit or debit card is offered. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no need for the statement to be made where no such facility exists. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I have been looking gift horses very carefully in the mouth ever since the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he was always persuaded by the person whom he last heard. I realise that, as regards this Bill, the last person whom he hears is always himself. In this case there does not appear any need to look carefully. I am extremely grateful to the Government for having accepted this amendment. The extra provision that they have put in about the statement being made concerning the rights of people who contribute, is acceptable. I am very grateful and so, I am sure, will be the various charities.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we are happy to welcome these amendments. They seem to be a constructive and helpful response to the very real unease and uncertainty which many of us felt at earlier stages of the Bill about the possibility of the power of the media being overpersuasive on impressionable people. They seem to give us everything for which we asked.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
Page 51, line 34, after ("payment") insert ("of £50 or more").
Page 51, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 37.
Page 51, line 41, after ("(ii)") insert ("including full details").
Page 51, line 43, leave out ("a payment") and insert ("any payment of £50 or more").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 52, line 10, after ("shall") insert ("if responsible for or privy to such act or default").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93B, 94A and 94B, though the two latter amendments fall if Amendment No. 94 is carried.
These amendments and the clause to which they relate raise much the same issue as the amendments moved to Clause 3, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, pointed out when dealing with the amendments to Clause 3. There are two differences. The administrative requirements laid on trustees by Clause 3 are different from the administrative requirements laid on professional fund-raisers by Clause 60. The other difference of course is that one deals with trustees; the other with professional fund-raisers.
In a letter from his office today the noble Viscount indicated that further consideration was being given to Clause 3. I apprehend that consideration will be given at the same time to Clause 60. As I said, there is a difference and no doubt some compunction is now being felt about larning trustees to be toads and perhaps not the same consideration would be paid to professional fund-raisers. But the juristic and constitutional issues are the same. If the noble Viscount who is to reply would indicate that this clause will be considered along with Clause 3, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, before the noble Viscount answers the questions that have been put to him, perhaps I may say briefly that I hope he will feel it right to include these amendments in his consideration of those on Clause 3. They are important in that they make the person who was in fact responsible for failure to comply with Clause 60 liable for the consequences. They make sense, we would say, as a matter both of common sense and justice. I am bound to ask what is the point of criminalising the behaviour of those who have committed no offence themselves and who are not at fault. If the noble Viscount gives an indication in relation to Clause 3, I would ask him also to give consideration to these amendments in relation to Clause 60.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the provisions in Clause 60 are important. They ensure that, where a professional fund-raiser or commercial participator is acting on behalf of a charity, every potential donor is given the information he needs to make an informed decision about whether, and how, he should make a donation. It is right, therefore, that these new duties on fund-raisers should be enforceable, and I do not think that anyone disagrees that a criminal offence is the right way to do this.
The clause as drafted imposes a strict criminal liability on the professional fund-raiser or commercial participator concerned; that is to say, the professional fund-raiser or commercial participator making the solicitation or representation in relation to which the relevant requirement of subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 60 is not complied with. This liability is tempered by subsection (8) which provides a defence that the person charged took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. In order to avail himself of this defence, the person charged must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was not negligent in failing to avoid the commission of the offence.

1211
We have already had a good deal of discussion in another context about the reversal of the onus of proof. This is an important question—I do not dispute that—but I do not think it inappropriate to reverse the onus of proof in this instance.
I shall explain why and, I hope, to your Lordships' satisfaction. The purpose of the provisions in Clause 60 is to protect charitable institutions and donors to such institutions by ensuring that potential donors are given certain information before they decide whether or not to make a donation. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said in its 1986 report Malpractice in Fundraising for Charity that the key to protecting the interests of donors and charities was the provision of information. Clause 60 demonstrates the Government's agreement with that conclusion.
The duty to make the statement is a strict one and the responsibility for making it is placed on the professional fund-raiser or commercial participator concerned. The duty bites on him and no one else. It is his responsibility therefore to put in place a system which ensures that the necessary statement is made.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment would limit the commission of the offence under subsection (7) to those professional fund-raisers or commercial participators responsible for or privy to the default in question and consequentially removes the due diligence defence in subsection (8). I think that it could be very difficult to establish that a particular fund-raiser is responsible for, or indeed privy to, a default which may have been caused by the actions of one or more of the fund-raiser's employees.
In Clause 60 we are protecting donors in a way that is very similar to the protection given to consumers under other legislation. There are numerous precedents in that consumer protection legislation for strict liability offences of this kind. I have in mind the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Food Act 1984.
Subsection (9) of Clause 60 provides that where the commission of an offence is occasioned by the act or default of some other person, that other person is guilty of the offence and may be charged and convicted whether or not the professional fund-raiser or commercial participator is also prosecuted for the same offence; that is, failing to make the statement required by Clause 60.
The provision is designed to ensure that, where a professional fund-raiser's employees or agents go off on a frolic of their own and neglect to make the necessary disclosures, they are guilty of an offence whether or not the fund-raiser is also prosecuted. Of course, if the employer has taken steps to institute a proper system to ensure the making of the statement he will be able to rely on subsection (8).
It has been suggested that the wording of subsection (9) could catch solicitors or accountants who advise professional fund-raisers or commercial participators. We have looked at the matter again and I have to say that we do not see how that could be so. The duty placed on the professional fund-raiser is to
1212
disclose certain information when soliciting funds. The act or default relates to the failure to disclose that information when soliciting for funds.
Subsection (9) of Clause 60 cannot render solicitors liable to prosecution under this clause if they advise their client incorrectly about when the provisions of Clause 60 apply. They are under no duty to make any disclosures. The offence relates to the failure to make the required statements of disclosure.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward on the provision and to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. As I said, the duty is a strict one and it is placed on the professional fund-raiser. It does not bite on charity trustees or their employees. That is the important point. Such people are specifically precluded by Clause 58 from being professional fund-raisers and commercial participators. Of course I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords. But we are concerned, first and essentially, with protecting charities and benevolent and philanthropic institutions and, secondly, with protecting donors and potential donors. The Government believe that the clause as drafted gives appropriate protection to them, to professional fund-raisers and to commercial participators when exercising all due diligence.
As the noble and learned Lord said, we are looking again at Clause 3. However, I submit to him that Clause 60 is a much narrower clause. It defines a much smaller group of people. For those reasons, and in view of the rather lengthy explanation that I have given, I hope that noble and learned Lord will see the merit of the argument.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I absolutely despair of the Government. As regards Clause 3, I specifically asked the noble Viscount before he read out his completely negative brief whether the matter might be reconsidered. He said no. I cannot blame him because every brief to a Minister on an amendment ends with the word "Accept" (though very rarely); "Consider" (slightly less rarely); or "Reject". Quite obviously the brief that the noble Viscount has just read ended with the word "Reject". Therefore it was not open to him to say that the matter would be reconsidered.
However, it now appears that Clause 3 will be reconsidered. On Clause 3, the noble Viscount said that the amendments ran parallel and that the issues were similar to those raised on Clause 60. But he now reads a brief which must have been written at the same time as the completely negative brief that stated that Clause 3 could not be reconsidered.
He has really not addressed the constitutional argument put forward by three former Home Office Ministers. I refer to my noble friend Lord Allen, who was a most distinguished public servant and the most eminent Permanent Secretary of the Home Office of his generation, to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, whose grandfather was Home Secretary, whose father was a Conservative Minister and who is himself a leading solicitor in London, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who is the greatest expert, together with my noble friend Lord

1213
Allen, on charities in your Lordships' House. But not a word of that argument has been taken in and not an inch has been budged.
If now, as I must, I withdraw the amendment, there is still time for the noble Viscount, or the noble Earl preferably, to rise again to speak and say that the matter will be reconsidered; otherwise I shall certainly move the amendment again on Third Reading.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I must say that I believe he was slightly unfair to me. I took very seriously the arguments he put forward when we looked at Clause 3. I also looked at the speech that I was due to make tonight. I looked at it in great detail. I must tell the noble and learned Lord that the speech was revised considerably; indeed, we put much work into it—the explanation I gave was lengthy—and tried to address the issues which arose.
I said that we thought that Clause 60 was much narrower than Clause 3. I have tried as much as is possible to look at the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. Of course, in the light of what he has said, we shall look again at the matter. We cannot ignore such powerful arguments. I know that the noble and learned Lord will understand that I cannot agree to consider his amendment in terms of introducing something similar, but we shall nevertheless look carefully at it again between now and Third Reading.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I cannot possibly quarrel with the noble Viscount. His father and I were colleagues in another place, and his succession to the "Treasury Bench" therefore gives me particular pleasure. He has at any rate put a toe forward and has said that the matter will be considered before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93B to 94B not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Clause 61 [Cancellation of payments made to professional fund-raisers etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 52, line 31, after ("payment") insert ("of £50 or more").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this was taken with Amendment No. 89. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 52, line 33, leave out ("14") and insert ("seven").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 96, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 107. As presently drafted, Clause 61 gives donors in the circumstances specified up to 14 days to reconsider their donation and to obtain a refund. I said in Committee that I was considering whether the period of 14 days was too long and might cause unnecessary problems for professional fund-raisers and commercial participators. There is a balance to be struck between
1214
protecting the interests of donors and ensuring that the valuable work of professional fund-raisers is not subject to unnecessary checks.
I have concluded that the interests of donors and fund-raisers are best met by reducing to seven days the period in which the former may request a refund. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, does not Saint Paul advise us:
"let not the sun go down upon your wrath"?
In other words, "you ought to be able to control your passions by reason within a period of about 12 hours"; but perhaps that is a little too demanding for this secular society. As the noble Viscount said, we are faced with the problem of striking a balance between the necessary cooling-off period for rash, impetuous and subsequently regretted acts of charitable giving, and the rights of any charity to order its affairs efficiently, which it cannot do if it cannot say what its appeal has brought in until weeks after the appeal was made.
We are thinking of an appeal made in the course of a radio or television programme. In such a context, a cooling-off period of 14 days seems to have no merits that are not possessed by a seven-day period. Impetuosity—even generous impetuosity—can surely be reconsidered in a week of anybody's life, and the advantage to any charity of a reduced period is obvious. It was illustrated during our earlier consideration of the Bill. The balance now seems about right, and we welcome the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, down the theological path, but wish merely to thank the Government for giving this matter their consideration. I welcome all the Government amendments to this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 52, line 37, leave out ("the full amount of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 103, 108 and 110.
I undertook in Committee to table amendments that would enable professional fund-raisers and commercial participators to deduct their reasonable administrative expenses from the sum to be returned when refunding donations, or whatever. These amendments are the result, and I trust that they will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, once again we are presented with the problem of setting a just balance. Should the law penalise an act of rash generosity which is later repented or should the cost of repentance be borne by the charity as part of its unavoidable overheads? We on these Benches take the view that one must be responsible for one's rash actions, be they generous or not, and it seems proper that the costs of such repayment should not fall on the charity. I ask the noble Viscount for clarification on one point only. In Amendment No. 110 the phrase,

1215
"administrative expenses reasonably incurred by the relevant fund-raiser in connection with—
(i) the making of the refund",
seems imprecise. It may be deliberately imprecise. It could, after all, include everything from first-class stamps and the registered delivery of letters to a charge for one's employees' time or labour, plus heat and rent of the premises upon which the work was done. Is the proposed new wording for Clause 61(4) intended to allow wide discretion to the fund-raiser, or is this a matter upon which it is felt that common sense can be left to prevail? I should be grateful for any help that the noble Viscount can give.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the term "administrative expenses" is intended to cover the direct costs of refunding the payment for costs such as staff time, postage, bank charges and so forth. It will also cover the costs of dealing with any notice of cancellation of an agreement to make payment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 100:
Page 52, line 39, leave out from ("fund-raiser") to end of line 40.
Page 52, line 45, after ("payment") insert ("or payments").
Page 52, line 46, after ("fund-raiser") insert ("and the amount or aggregate amount which the donor is, or may be, liable to pay to him under the agreement is £50 or more").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 53, line 1, leave out ("14") and insert ("seven").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 53, line 8, after ("payment") insert ("or payments").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 53, line 9, leave out ("the full amount of")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 111:
Page 53, line 10, after ("payment") insert ("of £50 or more").
Page 53, line 11, leave out from ("fund-raiser") to end of line 13.
Page 53, line 16, after ("payment") insert ("of £50 or more").
Page 53, line 19, leave out ("14") and insert ("seven").
Page 53, line 24, leave out ("the full amount of").
Page 53, line 25, leave out from ("fund-raiser") to end of line 27.
Page 53, line 29, after ("above") insert:
("(a) is a right to have refunded to him the amount of the payment less any administrative expenses reasonably incurred by the relevant fund-raiser in connection with—

(i) the making of the refund, or

(ii) (in the case of a refund under subsection (2)) dealing with the notice of cancellation served by that person; and

(b)")
Page 53, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend any provision of this section by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there; and

1216

(b) make such consequential amendments in section 60 as he considers appropriate.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62 [Right of charitable institution to prevent unauthorised fund-raising]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 112 and 113:
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("charity") and insert ("charitable institution").
Page 55, line 4, leave out ("charity") and insert ("institution").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments which were taken with Amendment No. 69.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Regulations about fund-raising]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 116:
Page 55, line 25, leave out ("charities") and insert ("charitable institutions").
Page 55, line 26, leave out ("charities") and insert ("institutions").
Page 55, line 27, leave out ("charities") and insert ("institutions").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 55, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) provide for any provisions of section 60 or 61 having effect in relation to solicitations or representations made in the course of radio or television programmes to have effect, subject to any modifications specified in the regulations, in relation to solicitations or representations made in the course of such programmes—

(i) by charitable institutions, or

(ii) by companies connected with such institutions,

and, in that connection, provide for any other provisions of this Part to have effect for the purposes of the regulations subject to any modifications so specified;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I indicated in Committee that I would be giving further thought to whether the refund provisions in Clause 61 of the Bill should be extended to cover appeals undertaken by charitable institutions. Having consulted widely, in particular with a number of charities which undertake broadcast appeals and others, we have come to the conclusion that this is not necessary. Those consulted raised no objections to the principle of enabling donors to obtain a refund where they may have given injudiciously in response to a broadcast appeal; such refunds were given, if requested by donors, by the organisers of the major appeals—the ITV Telethon, Comic Relief etc. as a matter of good practice. But they were concerned that coupling their appeal message with a statement about the availability of a refund might prove confusing, lead to an increase in frivolous donations and undermine current initiatives for self-regulation of broadcast appeals by charities.
I see the weight of these arguments. The Home Office is currently giving financial support towards the development of a voluntary code of practice for broadcast appeals. The charities concerned have indicated their willingness to include in that voluntary code a requirement that donors of over a certain sum

1217
(the Bill sets the refund provision at £50, and we think this about right) should be informed in writing or by telephone that they may cancel the donation.
In the light of this, I have decided that there is no need to extend the refund provisions to broadcast appeals by charities or other charitable institutions at this time. I propose however that the Bill should give the Secretary of State a reserve power to extend those provisions in Part II of the Bill to broadcast appeals undertaken by charitable institutions or their wholly controlled subsidiaries if in the light of experience self-regulation proves inadequate. Hence my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am trying to follow this and I am not having much success at the moment. Can we try again? Then perhaps I may be able to understand what it is about. As I understand it, Amendment No. 64 to Clause 58 which was moved tonight—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are on Amendment No. 117.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me to explain the difficulty in my own way then no doubt he will be able to cast light on it. Amendment No. 64 proposed that the definition of "professional fund-raiser",
"does not apply to any of the following … any person who in the course of a relevant programme, that is to say a radio or television programme in the course of which a fund-raising venture is undertaken by—

(i) a charitable institution, or

(ii) a company connected with such an institution".

So the amendment says that a venture by a charitable institution which makes any solicitation is not a professional fund-raiser and therefore is not subject to the restrictions on professional fund-raisers which are set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 67 which we made to Clause 58 includes a reference to a "professional fund-raiser":
"Where any fund-raising venture is undertaken by a professional fund-raiser in the course of a radio or television programme, any solicitation",
then the restrictions on professional fund-raising seem to apply.
Amendment No. 117 proposed by the noble Viscount gives rise to my difficulty. Does it suggest that by regulation one can impose restrictions on a professional fund-raiser which we have set out in Amendment No. 64 on a venture by a charitable institution to which we referred in Amendment No. 67?
The noble Viscount presented the amendment as though somehow or other it was for the relief of charities. In other words, it lifted a burden on them. It seems to me that the danger of the amendment is that one is giving power to the Secretary of State not to lift the burden on charities but to impose additional burdens on charitable institutions while soliciting money by radio or television which, without the regulations, do not exist. If I am wrong, I quite accept that it is because I am a bear of small brain, particularly at half-past nine at night. If I am not
1218
wrong, I should be grateful to know why the Government need such sweeping powers which could include the eventuality which I had in mind.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, Clause 64 deals with regulations concerning fund raising. Amendment No. 117 adds to that clause. However, that still leaves the matter of paragraph (d) on line 33 of page 55 of the Bill. That is the sweep-up provision. I understand that provision gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations over all and sundry who might be making appeals for charitable donations.
Professional fund-raisers have been given a lot of space in this Bill. We even now know who they are. Companies and commercial interests have been defined. But what I have been looking for and have found no specific reference to are the broadcasting authorities which are the biggest fund raisers of all. I keep coming back to this matter. As the Bill deals so freely with generalities and particularises so rarely, I wonder therefore whether the television authorities are included in the words "or otherwise" at the end of line 35. Can this be so? What is our understanding of the position of the television authorities which are raising millions of pounds and do not appear to be clearly identified in this Bill? That is the matter on which I seek clarification. Where do I have to look in the Bill to obtain clarification on that matter?
I understand that some of the appeals for funds that take place on radio and television are now in the hands of subsidiary bodies which are registered charities and therefore come within the provisions of the charities Acts. Can that not be stated somewhere in the Bill, or is it left to the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the making of appeals by broadcasting authorities? What is the position?
Much is left unsaid as regards these sources of charitable funds in a Bill for which we have been waiting 30 years. The Bill should be comprehensive and should put the matter of fund-raising beyond doubt or difficulty. I hope the sweep-up powers of the Secretary of State that are provided in Clause 64 apply to the broadcasting authorities that make appeals on the radio or the television asking people to send money to them. They do not ask people to send money to any charity. The broadcasting authorities make the appeal on behalf of a cause and not on behalf of identified charities. The broadcasting authorities ask people to send money to them and thereafter the money is in their custody. All matters relating to accounting and accountability are in their hands. Where is it stated that the Secretary of State has the powers to make regulations governing these appeals? That is the question that I ask. I may be dense and dull about that, but it is a very difficult Bill to follow, as all will agree who have studied it carefully. So little explanation is offered as we go along. It makes one wonder whether this is the way to do the job.
We now see that the Committee stage could have been longer in order to deal with some matters which have been raised on Report. We finished after three and a half sessions and we have not met since. One

1219
difficulty about that is that one has to do one's homework all over again to find out where we were before Christmas when we finished the Committee stage. I sympathise with Ministers. The noble Earl does not know how much more sympathy I have with him than for almost any other Minister sitting on the Bench opposite. He bears a very heavy load in many ways. One can understand how wearisome that may become. Now we are on the job we have to do the best we can and finish it. I hope that my question can be answered so that I can be silenced for the rest of this sitting.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry if I confused the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with my explanation. As he said, Amendment No. 64 deals with persons appearing on behalf of professional fund-raisers or commercial participators, and Amendment No. 117 deals with appeals by charities. The noble Lord will remember that at Committee I said that we were considering whether the refund provisions in Part III of the Bill should be extended to cover appeals undertaken by charitable institutions in television and radio broadcasts. Following further discussions with representatives of the broadcasting authorities, charities and others, we concluded that that was not necessary, as I said earlier. Reliance will be placed instead on self-regulation by charitable institutions and broadcasters.
Further, the Secretary of State is being given a reserve power in the Bill to extend the refund and other provisions of Part II of the Bill to broadcast appeals by charities if self-regulation proves inadequate.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. It is not just a question of the power to extend the £50 issue, it is the power to impose regulations which regulate the way in which affairs are conducted if self-regulation does not work. As I understand it, the problem is that the Government agree to self-regulation; but if they do not like what people come up with, there will be sweeping powers, which are set out in the amendment, to impose whatever regulation the Government wish. If that is the position, all I am saying is that the powers are very much wider in reality than in appearance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the regulations which we would impose would be exactly the same as those under which professional fund-raisers or commercial participators operate.
I have said that we are helping to develop a voluntary code of practice covering broadcast appeals to be agreed with the charities and the broadcasting authorities. They are all happy with that approach and we feel that it is the best approach. The amendment provides a power in case that approach does not work. The code will be the same one as that which affects commercial participators and professional fund-raisers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 55, line 34, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 56, line 12, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if Amendment No. 120 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 121.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 56, line 17, leave out from ("charitable") to end of line 20 and insert (", benevolent or philanthropic purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it seems to me that my only course is to oppose this amendment since if it is agreed to, the amendment in my name cannot be called. Perhaps I should explain why I prefer my amendment to be considered rather than the one which the Minister has moved. My amendment is coupled with a great many others. However, the point at issue is very simple and need not take very long to explain.
The fact that it is necessary to propose the provision in Clause 65(1) (c), that "charitable purposes" as there defined should have an exception made for Section 72 strikes a warning note and indicates that something very odd lies ahead. Indeed it opens the way to achieving the rather remarkable result that "charitable purposes" in Clause 72 has a meaning there which differs from the definition applying to the whole of the rest of Parts II and III of the Bill. The reason is that Clause 72 contemplates that the power to give nationwide authority for collections covering street collections as well as house-to-house collections is to be transferred from the Home Office to the Charity Commission. Clearly the Charity Commission can deal only with charities and charitable purposes as defined in the 1960 Act.
It seems to me that unfortunately the problem is not solved by the Government's amendment. It would leave in the air, as it were, organisations which wished to make collections for benevolent or philanthropic purposes if they were not charities within the narrow definition. Hitherto they have been able to go to the Home Office for authority for house-to-house collections, but now they would have no means under Clause 72 of obtaining a nationwide authority.
The problem may be illustrated by the plight of Amnesty International, although the problem is not unique. Amnesty International has over 300 local branches. This clause would mean that each one would have to negotiate separately with the local authority concerned. In Committee the noble Earl said that it was all right because Amnesty International had two arms which were registered

1221
charities. However, I fear that it is not all right as those two arms are research bodies with a rather narrow remit.
I can well understand why the statute should not authorise the Charity Commission to deal with bodies which, strictly speaking, are not charities, but for the life of me I cannot see why other bodies with a benevolent or philanthropic purpose should be put to enormous inconvenience because the right to apply for a nationwide order has been taken away. Nor would the new arrangement have all that much appeal to local authorities which have not been in the habit of devoting much of their resources to local applications and will be more reluctant than ever, given other pressures on them, to cope with massive applications from bodies such as Amnesty International.
I do not want to widen the discussion further and encroach on later amendments. But it seems to me that there is also a problem about urgent appeals which are made nationwide following some major disaster. Such an appeal tends to be made immediately before there is any time to become registered as a charity even if the body organising the appeal wishes to become a charity. The problem of going to individual local authorities is not consistent with the need for an immediate appeal. There have been occasions when the Government have encouraged an immediate appeal. The only solution that would meet the problem would be for the new power to rest with the Home Office and not be transferred to the Charity Commission. The Home Office has experience in dealing with applications for house to house collections. It could consult the Charity Commission if need be. It is presumably already equipped to deal with those applications —they cannot be all that numerous—with its customary efficiency. If the Home Office continues to keep that responsibility it should spare a little more manpower for the Charity Commission to cope with its other new tasks.
I remind noble Lords that we are legislating not only for today but for some years to come. Who knows what problem will arise under that head? For those reasons, I much prefer, and recommend to your Lordships, the course suggested in my amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord said. The Government have moved a great deal on the Bill. I welcome the many amendments that have been brought before us today and on a previous occasion to take account of matters raised in Committee.
However, I am extremely disappointed that the Government do not appear to have dealt with this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale said, the Government are transferring the responsibility from the Home Office to the Charity Commission. They then say, as did the noble Earl in the Public Bill Committee, that, given the fact that the responsibility has been passed to the Charity Commission, only charities can be covered.
The facts are as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, stated. The effect of a change of procedure
1222
of the kind that he has described will be extremely damaging to a number of organisations. The most obvious example is Amnesty International. How can it possibly be sensible to make Amnesty International apply to 300 separate local authorities? The Government have rightly said that they want less bureaucracy in local government. I can think of no worse example to cite.
Apart from the issue of Amnesty International, there is the question of an emergency appeal. The matter was raised in Committee. One refers to the Armenian disaster and the Bangladesh disaster. If we keep the power to make those exemptions within the Home Office, the issue can be dealt with satisfactorily. No doubt the Home Office wishes to pass those general responsibilities on to the Charity Commission. But for the reasons that I and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have given, it seems prudent in all the circumstances to allow the Home Office to continue to grant those exemptions. Without that power a number of organisations will be seriously affected.
Lord Judd: My Lords, there may be a lack of understanding of what happens in a charity or other voluntary organistion when an emergency situation arises and the urgency is acute. At that stage the resources of the organisation are taxed to the limit. Everything is geared to make a success of the appeal in a special situation. To encumber the organisation at precisely that point with extra responsibilities in applying to a variety of authorities across the country creates a situation in which things will go wrong. There needs to be an understanding of how charities work under the pressure of the moment. It is important that regulations can be effectively applied. That is another reason why I believe what is now being argued is correct.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The Government need to rethink this part of the Bill and the amendments which they have moved to Clause 72. We have not yet reached that amendment but we are talking about emergency relief in the case of disasters in various parts of the world.
My Amendment No. 135 is grouped with government Amendment No. 133A. If that is agreed to I cannot move Amendment No. 135. My amendment is designed specifically to make it legal for organisations which are not charitable as the Bill stands to collect money in response to disasters. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned the Bangladeshi cyclone, earthquakes in Turkey, the Aberfan disaster and so forth. As the Bill is drafted, and with the amendments tabled by the Government, that will be impossible.
There is in this country a deep well of generosity which is being capped by my noble friends. They are doing so unintentionally, I am sure, but they need to look at the matter closely. If Amendment No. 120 is carried and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is not able to move his amendment, and if the government Amendment No. 133A is carried and I am not able to move my Amendment No. 135, the generosity of our

1223
fellow countrymen will not be able to give effect to prompt and proper relief for disasters in various parts of the world.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 is the last in a batch of amendments which changes the wording a little. It is not of itself important. However, it has the effect of removing part of the Bill which requires amendment in order to deal with a serious problem, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The problem was expanded on by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
I suggest that my noble friends should not move Amendment No. 120 at this stage. That would allow the argument to develop in respect of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. We have heard half the argument already and shall not need to cover that ground again. Perhaps my noble friends will take the same action in respect of Amendment No. 133A, although it is not nearly as important as the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. One wishes to have them properly debated, although not necessarily included in the Bill. They should be debated so that we can return to the matter on Third Reading when the Government can consider what to do about the small changes to the wording in respect of which Amendment No. 120 is the last.
I implore my noble friends to take a course of that nature. It will enable the important amendments, which I am sure they agree are important, to be handled properly. I am sure that in various ways we can tidy up the Bill at Third Reading.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I admire the procedural ingenuity which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has shown. It appears to be a good way of dealing with the problem. If the Government do not move Amendment No. 120 the debate on it can be attributed to Amendment No. 121. The issues being discussed are precisely the same.
The points made against the Bill as presently framed are unarguable. I shall be interested to hear what the Government say. I understand that the Bill as drafted means that in a national appeal a major charity must apply to perhaps 300 local authorities for permission to make an appeal. That is nonsense. I do not believe that anybody in this House would wish that to happen.
I wonder why, as a result of the Bill as it now stands, permission must be sought from the Charity Commissioners rather than the Home Office. It seems to me that the Home Office has done that job quite well over the years and is used to doing it. Why should we change that? There is an old American maxim, "If it works, don't fix it". I require some evidence before I accept the Government's position that there is benefit in transferring that responsibility from the Home Office to the Charity Commissioners. We have not heard such evidence.
I accept that the noble Earl has been generous in the way that he approached the Bill and the criticisms made about it. However, I urge him to look again at this issue and perhaps come back at Third Reading with a set of amendments to deal with the position as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before deciding what we should do, if anything, to change the law with regard to those matters, we should consider how matters are working at present. When an appeal is made on behalf of a registered charity there is no problem. However, at present many appeals are made for relief of disasters or misery of one kind or another all over the world. Those appeals are not made on behalf of a registered charity at all, but for the most part they work satisfactorily in that the money which leaves this country contains the greater part of the money subscribed in this country. Sometimes we know, alas, that the money is misspent when it arrives at the other end. However, the system has not worked too badly so far, as we all know.
If we are to change the system and put it on a basis of regulation, we must make quite sure that in doing so we do not diminish, as has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the generosity of the people of this country in trying to help those who are suffering abroad. That is a factor which it is worth bearing in mind before deciding to change the law at all.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the problems which your Lordships have expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, not to move Amendment No. 120 was ingenious. However, if we do not move the amendment, we shall leave what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would say was a lacuna in the Bill. Therefore, we cannot follow that suggestion.
I can see that if we move this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will not be able to move his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said we must discuss the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. In fact, we are doing that while discussing Amendment No. 120.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the case was unanswerable. I am always frightened when people say that. I believe that there is an answer. We discussed this in Committee and I said that I would look again at the matter. I have done so but I do not believe that I can advise your Lordships that the change which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, seeks to make is suitable. I shall endeavour to explain why.
Under the existing law (Section 3 of the House to House Collections Act 1939), an organisation may seek an exemption order from the Secretary of State where it pursues a charitable purpose throughout the whole or a substantial part of England and Wales. A charitable purpose, in this case, means any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose whether or not it is charitable within the meaning of any rule of law. The exemption order from the Secretary of State, if granted, allows the organisation to carry out house-to-house collections without obtaining a licence from the individual local authorities in whose areas it wishes to collect. There is no equivalent provision in respect of street collections.
As your Lordships will realise, Part III of the Bill introduces a single regime for all types of public charitable collection. So exemption orders will be

1225
available in respect of all types of collection for charitable purposes. That is an extension of the existing concession; it is not a constriction. However, our underlying aim is to provide a better supervisory regime for collections. The whole thrust of Part III, as elsewhere in the Bill, is to ensure greater accountability and better supervision.
The exemption order system is, as I said, a concession. It is discretionary. It will not be available to just anyone who applies. Given that the provision is designed to help charities collecting on a national scale, the potential sums which may be raised through collections authorised by such orders are substantial. It is right that those holding such orders should be subject to the closest possible scrutiny. We therefore think it right to transfer the responsibility for granting such orders from the Home Secretary to the Charity Commissioners; and at the same time to restrict the availability of such orders to charities, and not to extend it to benevolent and philanthropic institutions.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, said that we should leave the responsibility with the Home Office. But the Home Secretary has no means of policing the operations of those to whom he grants exemption orders. Nor does he have any power to investigate their suitability for this concession. So he cannot tell whether an applicant for an exemption order is likely to act responsibly. That has been a source of concern for some time. The Bill has given us the opportunity to tighten matters up.
It is true that the Home Secretary could obtain the audited accounts of benevolent and philanthropic institutions were he to grant an exemption order to such a body. He could do this by making that a condition of the order. But he could not go behind the accounts he then received. He has no powers to investigate the organisation in question, or to scrutinise its internal controls and administration or to remedy deficiencies should those be brought to his attention. The Charity Commissioners do have such powers but they are of course limited to charities.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I made it clear that I realised that the Home Office was responsible for house to house collections and that this was an extended power relating to street collections. Is the noble Earl saying that my department is inefficient and has not been doing its job properly in regard to applications for house to house collections?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether the department was inefficient when the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was in charge of it; I am sure that it was not. It is certainly not inefficient now. I am saying to the noble Lord that the Charity Commissioners will have certain powers of investigation over charities which at the moment my right honourable friend does not, whether that is over charities, philanthropic or benevolent institutions.
The Charity Commissioners will have those powers but they are limited to charities. They have no jurisdiction over benevolent and philanthropic bodies and therefore no means of calling them to account. To
1226
extend the commissioners' jurisdiction to such bodies would be to make a fundamental change in their role. I do not think your Lordships wish that, nor has it been suggested.
Equally, I do not believe that it would be right to give the Home Office supervisory powers in this area. I do not see that non-charitable bodies will be seriously disadvantaged by limiting the availability of exemption orders. They will still be able to carry out a national appeal. There are many ways in which money can be raised other than by a public collection for which a licence is necessary. We have in other contexts talked about coffee mornings, sponsored slims in people's offices, garden parties and all kinds of other things. All of these methods are open to the non-charitable appeal. Donations can also be invited via direct mail or telephone calls, or through the broadcast media. These are often the preferred methods and no permit is required for them.
At present all the existing exemption order holders are charities. One was held by a non-charitable body which, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, was Amnesty International, but it lapsed last year. So far as we can discover, that is the only non-charitable body which has had an exemption order in the past. So we are not actually withdrawing something which someone has eagerly sought; they have not sought it. Indeed, it has hardly been sought after at all. Therefore, it is not a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, that we shall be putting benevolent and philanthropic institutions to an enormous amount of trouble and having to advise them to go to all sorts of different local authorities.
Amnesty International is not a charity, but a philanthropic institution. Local groups raise funds locally. They have to obtain a licence for street collections to do so, apparently without much difficulty. I do not see that the position will be any different under the new legislation which we propose.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, and others, raised the question of disaster appeals. So far as I can discover, no applications for exemption orders have been received from those who have organised such appeals. My understanding is that such appeals are usually made by television, radio or through newspapers. People are invited to make donations through their bank, building society or by credit card. Since those appeals have to be organised quickly, I doubt whether a series of public charitable collections, held on a national scale, would have much appeal to their organisers.
A disaster appeal which was a charity could be eligible for an exemption order if it so wished. That is permitted by my Amendment No. 133A which we shall come to later on. Therefore, we are extending the existing concession. We are introducing a better system for supervision. I venture to suggest that that would not be obtainable if the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, were accepted. It would be a pity if we lost that point in trying to cater for what seems to be a very real problem.
I have tried to explain what I believe are genuine and real difficulties as regards the amendments of the

1227
noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. In that respect, I hope that noble Lords will approve Amendment No. 120 which is in my name.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can explain a rather crucial point. If a non-charitable body makes an appeal, which may be a very big public appeal, without obtaining an exemption order, what will happen? Will that be an illegal appeal? What will happen to the funds which the public subscribe in answer to that appeal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if a body wishes to make an appeal, and it is a charitable body, it would have to get an exemption order from the Charity Commissioners if it so wished. If it were a philanthropic or benevolent institution, if it wanted to make a national appeal it would have to apply to the various local authorities. If it did not apply, but made a national appeal without such an application, it would be infringing the law because the permission which the Home Secretary gives at the moment, would not be given because that right to give it would be removed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is a very clumsy arrangement.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am still puzzled and I should be grateful for some more help. Was Geldof,
1228
who made the appeal for Ethiopia, really expected to write to all the authorities in England over that appeal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always difficult to start taking into account individual cases. All I can tell my noble friend is that, when one appeals for something which is of a charitable nature, one has to have permission to do that nationally. A disaster appeal is different because an appeal is not a charity if it goes above giving the people what is required for their need. If the appeal is for something more than their need, it comes under a disaster appeal which can be for philanthropic purposes. GeldoEs appeal was of course made by way of the media and was not a house-to-house collection.
10.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 120 shall be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 56, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) is made—

(i) on land within a churchyard or burial ground contiguous or adjacent to a place of public worship, or

(ii) on other land occupied for the purposes of a place of public worship and contiguous or adjacent to it,

being (in each case) land which is enclosed or substantially enclosed (whether by any wall or building or otherwise); or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester moved an amendment to exclude collections in churchyards and similar areas from the need to obtain a local authority permit under Part III of the Bill. His amendment was technically defective; the present amendment is intended to give effect to its intentions. It excludes from the definition of "public charitable collection", and therefore from the need for a permit, and so on, under Part III of the Bill, any collection made in a churchyard or other similar place which is adjacent to any place of worship.
I accept the argument made in Committee that special considerations apply in respect of such places. For example, parishioners have certain rights of access to the churchyard of their church to tend the graves, and so on. It seems to me that the different church authorities exercise sufficient control over the conduct of collections on their property as to make the involvement of the local authority superfluous. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate may continue his ascents in his hot air balloon without any further anxiety. It is to be hoped that he is a good driver, because, if he were to land inadvertently in a public place and then exhort passers by to give to his cause, he would fall foul once again of the provisions of Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his speech. I am advised that the amendment fully meets the points made at an earlier stage of the Bill. I am very grateful for the attention that has been given to the points that were raised.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the amendment seems to meet everyone's requirements. It is nice to hear hot air mentioned, especially as we have expended so much of it in the Chamber tonight. We did, perhaps, in Committee lie down and roll over a little on the matter of churchyards and burial grounds. The present wording of the amendment seems to avoid any grave difficulty. We welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page 56, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) In this Part any reference to charitable purposes, where occurring in the context of a reference to charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, is a reference to charitable purposes whether or not the purposes are charitable within the meaning of any rule of law.").
Page 57, line 15, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to when Amendment No. 56 was moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 57, line 28, leave out ("or any other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should point out to the House that part of the wording has been left out. The wording on the Marshalled List reads:
"Page 57, line 28, leave out ('or any other').
The amendment should read:
"Page 57, line 28, leave out (`or any other similar public area').
However, having said that, I should say that this is a probing amendment designed to clarify what the Government mean by the words "other similar public area" and to identify who will decide what is, or is not, such an area.
In Committee, those who took part were concerned with the original breadth of definition given to public collections in this part of the Bill. I was especially pleased to welcome amendments put forward by the Government in Committee which genuinely addressed those concerns, and alleviated the fears of many within the charitable sector that their fund-raising activities would become overly bureaucratic and less cost effective.
The Government now indicate explicitly those areas where licences will be required before public collections can be undertaken lawfully. I am concerned here only with the definition of what will constitute a "similar public area" to a station, airport or shopping precinct which might require permission before a public collection can take place.
In the practical execution of their responsibilities, I am concerned as to how charities and other voluntary organisations will be able to decide what constitutes such a public area, prior to undertaking a collection, so that they avoid breaching the law. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. This is a practical, everyday matter that has caused concern to professional practitioners who are concerned with the practical problem of the collections. Charities and other voluntary organisations need to know what "any similar public area" could be. They must make a decision before they undertake a collection; otherwise they could be in breach of the law. I do not imagine that an offender against this part of the law will be dragged off in irons to languish in the Tower, but perhaps now is the best possible time for us to be as clear as we possibly can be on this point.
We would welcome clarification about whether those concerned should get their information from the licensing authority, the Home Office or the Charity Commission—or should they contact all three organisations? Where exactly does authority in this matter reside? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify what seems an important point.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if I understood my noble friend Lord Swinfen correctly, he wants to know exactly what we have in mind when we refer in the Bill

1231
to public areas that are similar to public areas within stations, airports or shopping precincts. My noble friend would also like to know who will tell him, in practice, whether an area is similar to one of the named places.
In general terms, the answer to my noble friend's first question is that the words in subsection (7) of Clause 65 are designed to ensure that collections in places which are buildings but to which the public has ready access are regulated by Part III of the Bill. These places include railway stations, airports or ports for ferries to which the public has access without the need for a ticket, covered and uncovered shopping precincts and so on. Places such as the interiors of shops or theatres would certainly be excluded.
As to the question of who will know whether an area is similar or not, I think that the specific examples in subsection (7) of the public areas within a station, airport or shopping precinct sufficiently indicate the types of areas which fall within subsection (7) (b) (ii). The characteristics of these areas are that, even though they are within buildings and are privately owned, the public has unrestricted access for much of the day.
It will of course be for the local authority to judge in the first instance whether the proposed site for a public collection falls within the scope of subsection (7) (b) (ii). If the promoter of a public collection has any doubts he should seek guidance from the relevant local authority.
I hope that that provides clarification on the questions put to me by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his support on this amendment. However, my noble friend Lord Astor has not clarified the situation to any great degree. The examples that he gave were those cited in the Bill, but I was after something a little more than that. I shall read what he has said and I hope that, having done so, I shall not need to return to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Prohibition on conducting public charitable collections without authorization]:
[Amendment No.127 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 57, line 42, at end insert ("or
(c) where regulations made by the Secretary of State provide for circumstances under which the need for a permit may be waived by a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by expressing my satisfaction at the fact that the Government have narrowed the definition of places where permits must be obtained for collections. However, various representations have been made to me that the provisions could still be a shade too bureaucratic and oppressive in relation to some types of fund-raising which are well accepted and perfectly harmless.
People undertaking all kinds of collections, whether for funds or goods, are required under the Bill to obtain licences. It seems that that could include people who call round to collect for a jumble sale for charity,
1232
groups singing carols for children's charities or scouts who are washing parked cars to raise funds. They could face the threat of criminal sanctions if no licence is obtained. It may be worth noting that the DPP's consent would not be required.
Some of the activities are probably caught by the present law, but hard-pressed local authorities are not all that energetic in enforcing it. I have always made it clear that I approve entirely of the general proposition that there should be controls over collectors who go around asking for good or money, but in the type of case that has been put to me and which I have been describing there is a dilemma. On the one hand, if the law is not enforced it is brought into disrepute and, on the other hand, if it is enforced strictly, and criminal proceedings are possibly taken, there will be a feeling that that is a heavy-handed way of dealing with activities that have long formed part of our tradition and are unlikely to harm anyone.
The wording of the amendment may be susceptible to improvement, but there is a case for giving some discretion over the need for permits for fund-raising activities. The Secretary of State should have the ability, perhaps after more detailed consultation than has so far been possible with local authorities and voluntary organisations, to prescribe circumstances under which some of the requirements for permits might be waived. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it seems to be a sensible amendment for dealing with a difficult situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, the law in this area is not being observed and neither is it being enforced. It is not being observed because people are, by and large, ignorant of it; it is not being enforced because no one can afford the resources to produce an effective enforcement of it.
Under the Bill as drafted, people undertaking all kinds of collections—bob-a-job weeks, or whatever they may be—are required to obtain a licence. Again, as the noble Lord pointed out, that requirement affects things that we encounter every day and every week—carol singing groups at Christmas and people coming around collecting jumble for all kinds of causes—and it would be unusual if your Lordships did not find, at least once every fortnight or three weeks, someone doing just that. Now that we know that they are probably not licensed, we may be aiding and abetting them in something that is illegal. The reality is that most people are unaware of the requirements and do not do anything about them.
We understand that the Government are concerned to maintain some control over collectors who go around asking for goods or money. That is at the heart of the Bill. Are we not faced with a genuine dilemma? We cannot enforce the law which is not being observed. The amendment offers a sensible way ahead —a way of striking a just balance as between regulating and controlling those collectors and deterring scouts and carol singers by strangling them with red tape. We shall be interested to hear the Government's response to the amendment, which seems to offer the most sensible and only possible way forward.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment. It would not be compulsory for the Secretary of State to make regulations if the amendment is included in the Bill. It would be a useful tool for the Secretary of State to have, bearing in mind that methods of fund-raising and ideas for fund-raising will be changing over the years. The amendment is a sensible addition to the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the other hand, I hope that my noble friend will not feel obliged to accept the amendment. One sympathises with the view that when there is a national charity or a charity which is making an appeal on a national basis it would be absurd to apply to every local authority before the appeal could be made.
However, Clause 72 covers the situation, in my view, satisfactorily. We are placing various obligations upon the Charity Commissioners rather than the Secretary of State.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but we are discussing Clause 66.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I quite realise that we are dealing with Clause 66, but in doing so we cannot ignore other provisions of the Bill. In any event, Clause 66(1) (b) refers to Clause 72 which states:
"Where the Charity Commissioners are satisfied, on the application of any charity, that that charity -
… pursues any charitable purposes throughout the whole or a substantial part of England and Wales, and
wishes to promote, or to authorise other persons to promote, public charitable collections in connection with those purposes,
they may make an order under this section in respect of that charity".
In those circumstances, I suggest that, first, it is best left to the Charity Commissioners; and, secondly, if we decide that it should be left to them, there is no need to give power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for a waiver by a local authority. That situation is covered by Clause 72 to which Clause 66 refers. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but the amendment which I propose relates only to relaxing the circumstances in which a permit may be given by a local authority. It does not bite in any way on the order made by the Charity Commissioners under Clause 72.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat myself but, with great respect to the noble Lord, one cannot separate the provisions of Clause 66 from those of Clause 72. We must decide whether we will place the main responsibility, as the Bill does as a whole, upon the Charity Commissioners in such matters or whether the Secretary of State should be brought in, unnecessarily, in my opinion. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will stand by the Bill as it is.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish to become involved in the discussion between my noble
1234
friend and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The remarks which my noble friend made at the end are pertinent when he said that he hoped we would not try to bring the Secretary of State into areas where it was not necessary.
The whole point of Part III of the Bill is to reform the regime by which we supervise public charitable collections. It replaces the existing law on house-to-house collections and street collections.
Under the existing law, local groups of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred are required to obtain permission for collections made in public. I appreciate that some local groups may well regard this as a chore, but I do not think it is wrong in principle that those who appeal to the public's charitable instincts should be subject to what is, after all, a pretty light form of regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he was concerned with small local groups and informal fund-raising activities. But his amendment does not confine the regulation-making power in that or any other way. I think it would be difficult to define the kind of activities which the noble Lord has in mind without opening up the possibility of letting much more substantial collecting activities off the hook.
The effect of the Secretary of State's regulations under the noble Lord's amendment would only be to allow a local authority to waive the need for a permit. One wonders how that would be done. Is it intended that it should be on application to the local authority by the charity concerned, or will local authorities make some general announcement? Differences in practice between local authorities would be bound to create confusion and inconsistency.
The aim of Part III (which I think we all share) is that there should be a proper system for supervision. I appreciate the anxieties of some noble Lords, but there is a balance to be struck here between public accountability and private inconvenience. I do not think that the need to obtain a permit is an onerous one for small local groups. They are collecting from local people, and I see no reason why they should not be accountable locally for the moneys which they raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to jumble sales. He said people are always conducting house-to-house jumble collections. That is perfectly true and bags are left outside people's houses and people are invited to put all kinds of things in the bags which are to be sold for the benefit of the charity involved. A rag and bone merchant may then sell the items collected on behalf of a charity. However, a rag and bone merchant, or whoever it may be, may retain 95 per cent. of the proceeds and send the charity concerned only a small percentage of the proceeds. That is precisely the kind of thing that we wish to stop.
The noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to carol singers. If I wished to collect for a charity in a street, I would need a permit. I would feel fairly miffed if all someone else did was to go down a street and sing a carol outside someone's door and that obviated the need for a permit. It is important that the same regulations apply in every case. The responsibility we

1235
are discussing is not an onerous one and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, appreciates that.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that explanation. I repeat this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with Clause 72 and orders made by the Charity Commissioners. All it is concerned with are the powers of local authorities where an application is made to them for a permit. Although the noble Earl makes this matter sound so reasonable, the fact is the law is just not observed, nor will it be observed when this Bill has been passed and we shall again have the situation in which there are detailed provisions creating criminal offences which are not enforced. We are back to the old, old problem on which one or two of us have had to speak at earlier stages of the Bill.
I recognise the difficulty of prescribing in regulations the kind of activity I have in mind, but I still feel there is a dilemma on the one hand of having a law which is not enforced and on the other of having laws which are enforced in a way as to cause great concern and anxiety—and incidentally which will place extra burdens on local authorities notwithstanding the undertakings given when this Bill was introduced that it would not involve any extra expenditure for local authorities. However, I have made my point and I cannot pursue it further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 57, line 47, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 3 on page 58.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, subsection (2) (b) of Clause 66 currently makes it an offence for a person to act as a collector in an unauthorised public charitable collection. In Committee Members were concerned that this offence could catch unfairly those persons asked by others to collect on behalf of a charity and who assumed in good faith that the requisite permission for the collection had been obtained.
I said in Committee I would seek to mitigate the effects of the offence by introducing an element of knowledge. I must say however that I find it difficult to formulate a defence which refers to the absence of knowledge that something is wrong on the part of the collector and which would not be difficult to prove in practice. However, I have concluded that it is the promoter who has failed to obtain the necessary permit. It is he who should be prosecuted for failure to comply with the provisions of that permit rather than collectors. The amendment therefore removes the offence relating to collectors. In such circumstances promoters are already caught by the offence in Section 66(2) (a). Where collectors act fraudulently and obtain money dishonestly from the public there remains the option of prosecution under the Theft Act. Therefore the amendment will not create a loophole in protection to donors provided by Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may briefly welcome the amendment. It makes sense. It is obviously right
1236
that the promoter should be responsible and not a collector. Indeed, it would impose an intolerable burden on volunteer charity workers if the position were to be otherwise.
In welcoming the amendment I say simply that it appears that the noble Viscount has struggled successfully with the concept of vicarious liability in relation to this clause. I hope that his struggle will be successful also in relation to Clauses 3 and 60.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Applications for permits to conduct public charitable collections]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 58, line 24, leave out from ("area") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short amendment intended to leave out some unnecessary words at the end of Section 67(4) on page 58 of the Bill.
Clause 67 is concerned with applications to a local authority for permission to make a collection. Subsection (4) says that:
"Before determining any application duly made to them under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief officer of police for the police area which comprises or includes their area",
and continues with the words which are unnecessary—
"and make any such other inquiries as they think fit".
Of course local authorities can make other inquiries. It is absurd to suggest that they cannot. It is quite unnecessary to write that into the statute. The Bill refers to:
"the chief officer of police of the police area which comprises or includes their area".
Supposing the clerk of the council rang up the clerk of a neighbouring council whose area was also comprised. Could it possibly be said that that was beyond the powers of the local authority and that their handling of the application would be illegal and might be invalidated? Anybody who suggested that would be hooted out of any court with derision. It is with some confidence this time that I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I most earnestly hope that the confidence of the noble and learned Lord is well justified. It is ridiculous to suggest that a local authority cannot make any inquiries which it jolly well pleases. I am astonished at the words and moderation that I use.
To keep those words in the Bill could be positively damaging. If they are included in the Bill some over-zealous person might say in the context of another Act of Parliament that "the words which appear in the Charities Act 1992:
'and may make such other inquiries as they think fit',
are not included in this Act". In other words, if we keep the words we should be creating a ridiculous precedent. I hope that we shall leave them out.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, again it falls to me to answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. This amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Renton at Committee stage. I attempted to answer it then and I shall attempt to do so again.
Subsection (4) of this clause makes it clear that local authorities may, when deciding whether or not to issue a permit for a collection, make such inquiries, in addition to consulting the police, as they think fit in the circumstances.
We thought that it would be helpful to spell that out. The inclusion of a specific duty to consult the police might be taken to exclude a discretion to consult other persons or bodies. It would be undesirable if a local authority felt inhibited from consulting widely, in view of the provisions in Clause 65, about conditions which may be included in a permit and the provisions in Clause 69 about the grounds for refusal. Inevitably, therefore, local authorities will make inquiries before taking a decision on an application.
We thought it was sensible to make that clear because this part of the Bill will not be read just by solicitors or professional fund-raisers, or indeed by noble Lords who have much greater knowledge of the law than either I or others. It will be read by trustees and others organising local appeals. We are trying to ensure that the Bill is clear to the layman as well as to the professional. Therefore we thought that it was important to have all the words in this clause.
It is a Bill which will be read by people involved in charities, very often in small charities. They will not have a great deal of professional expertise. We are trying to make life as easy for them as we can. I take note of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble and learned Lord. I shall look again to make sure that our words are clear; but I have to say that at the moment I think that they are.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt. He has addressed your Lordships on the proposition that it is the charity trustees who have to take cognisance of this clause. But the point is that it is the local authority who will have to do so. The charity trustees will simply have to rely upon the local authority. We are not concerned here with the inquiries which the charity trustees have to make.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I fully accept the point made by my noble friend. The local authorities are obviously the ones who will do the consulting. My point - perhaps I did not explain it as well as I should have done - is that we want to make it clear to those people reading the Bill that this will happen, as well as making it clear to the local authority. I hope that that goes some way to answer the question put by my noble friend.
However, as I said, we shall look again at the point. I cannot give any commitment to bring forward any amendment. I believe that it is the intention of us all to make the Bill as clear as possible.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may congratulate him on saying that this is a Bill to be read by non-lawyers and is to be understood by the ordinary person. Will he bear that in mind when he comes to consider the earlier amendment put forward by my noble and learned friend?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that I shall bear that in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount said valiantly that the words are clear. So they are. Nobody has gainsaid that. The point is that they are completely unnecessary. It does not need a lawyer or a layman to read these words, leave out the part that is sought to be left out and say, "Good gracious me‡ We have made inquiries of the chief officer of police. Obviously, we must not make inquiries of anybody else." I suggest that any such submission is too ridiculous for words. I hope that the noble Viscount will consider the matter much more seriously than he indicated.
One refers back to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I have pointed out on occasions. In 1975 when the Renton Committee reported the statute book ran to three volumes. Ten years later, with fewer statutes, it ran to five volumes. It was pure verbiage inflation. The format was then enlarged but within two years the statute book again ran to five volumes. I ask the Government to consider much more seriously not whether the words are clear but whether they are strictly necessary. Could anyone possibly be led astray if the words I seek to leave out were left out? Leaving it at that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 129B:
Page 59, line 7, leave out from ("section") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("71").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another attempt to shorten the Bill. I hope that we shall be more successful.
The end of Clause 68 states,
"and that notice shall also state the right of appeal conferred by section 71(1) or (as the case may be) section 71(2)".
The amendment seeks to leave out,
"[subsection] (1) or (as the case may be) section 71(2)".
The reason is quite simple. The clause referred to has only two rights of appeal. Those are set out in subsections (1) and (2). The remaining subsections are ancillary to those two rights of appeal. All that is necessary is to refer to the rights of appeal conferred by Clause 71. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should again be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Perhaps I may say with the deepest respect and in the kindest way possible that Ministers are responsible for the drafting of Bills. They are not bound to accept the advice of draftsmen or pass the buck to them. Ministers must take the responsibility themselves.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Renton on behalf of the noble and learned Lord in Committee. I attempted to answer it then. I shall attempt to answer it again.
The present wording of Clause 68(4) is intended to he helpful. Clause 71 gives a right of appeal in two clearly defined sets of circumstances, first, under subsection (I) where a permit is refused by a local authority and, secondly, under subsection (2) where the local authority attaches conditions to the permit, varies any such conditions or withdraws the permit.
With the Government's wording of the provision, the applicant would have to be pointed by the local authority to the precise subsection where his right of appeal is to be found. Under the noble and learned Lord's amendment, the provision would simply require a reference to Clause 71 without further precision. In my view that would be less helpful than what we have proposed in Clause 71 as drafted.
I understand the anxieties about cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary words. However, we do not believe that these nine or 10 words will do so much damage as to warrant their deletion. That is so, particularly bearing in mind the help which they are designed to give the promoters of collections by revealing the two important and differing situations in which the right of appeal is exercisable. That is important because it shows specifically the two cases.
As always, I take seriously what the noble and learned Lord says and I respect his views. Obviously, we shall look at what he has said tonight. We are trying to make the Bill clear and the words which appear there make it clear. I do not see the great benefit in removing them. I hope that I shall not be attacked too much by the noble and learned Lord if I say that those few extra words will make a positive difference in helping people to understand Clause 68.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount has repeated in mellifluous tones and almost with conviction the argument that he put forward in Committee. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that, unlike fine port, his argument has not improved with age. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Refusals to issue permits]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 59, line 24, after ("charitable") insert (", benevolent or philanthropic").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Orders made by Charity Commissioners]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 133 and 133A appear in the wrong order on the Marshalled List.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 62, line 39, leave out from second ("charity") to end of line 44 and insert ("proposes—
(a) to promote public charitable collections—

(i) throughout England and Wales, or

1240

(ii) throughout a substantial part of England and Wales,

in connection with any charitable purposes pursued by the charity, or
(b) to authorise other persons to promote public charitable collections as mentioned in paragraph (a), the Commissioners may make an order under this subsection in respect of the charity.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141A. These amendments alter slightly the criteria which a charity must meet in order to be able to apply for an exemption order under Clause 72.
As the clause stands, two conditions need to be satisfied before an exemption order can be considered. Those conditions are that the charity pursues charitable purposes throughout the whole or a substantial part of England and Wales and that it wishes to promote collections for those purposes. The question is whether the clause as drafted will allow the commissioners to grant an exemption order to a charity which is or is intended to be active in fund-raising across all or a substantial part of England and Wales, albeit that its purposes were not so directed. I have in mind, for example, charities whose purposes are directed overseas or to a specific area of England and Wales, but which raise funds nationally.
These amendments, therefore, make it clear that the commissioners will be able to grant an exemption order to a charity which wishes to promote public charitable collections throughout all or a substantial part of England and Wales. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 134 to 139 inclusive.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as I referred to Clause 72 when we were discussing Clause 66 and an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, it is only right that I should say that I was referring to Clause 72 as it then appeared in the Bill because there was no certainty that your Lordships would accept the amendment now moved. However, as the amendment has been moved, I should say that I am content also with that just as I was with Clause 72 in its original form. Indeed, there seems to be no great change of substance and the amendment now moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench seems to be admirable.
11 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it would be churlish not to put on record my appreciation for the move which has been made in this direction because there had been alarm at the fact that charities concentrating on work overseas or dealing with specific disasters—Hillsborough or a specific disaster at sea and so on —had been excluded under the previous drafting. People are extremely grateful and that should be on record.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand Amendment No. 133A, the Charity Commissioners can—I am not sure that the right word is "authorise" —permit public charitable collections throughout a

1241
substantial part of England and Wales. Therefore, the charity does not have to ask the permission of every local authority.
Subsection (2) states:
"Such an order shall have the effect of authorising public charitable collections … to be conducted in such area or areas as may be specified in the order".
What happens if the local authority does not agree to the collection? Can it stop it, even though authorisation has been given by the Charity Commission? It may not like the purposes for which the national appeal, under Clause 72, will be made. I am not sure what is the relationship between the two authorities.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am grateful for the movement made by my noble friend on the clause. Perhaps he will clarify what the Government understand by the words:
"a substantial part of England and Wales".
I know that my Amendment No. 136, which I do not believe we shall now be able to discuss, contains similar words but I should like to know what is intended by those words.
The amendment supersedes Amendment No. 136 and I welcome it. However, I am not sure that it deals with the kind of disasters which were intended to be covered by my Amendment No. 135 unless—and I rather doubt it—paragraph (b),
"to authorise other persons to promote public charitable collections as mentioned in paragraph (a)",
would cover that point. I shall be interested in my noble friend's response.
I should advise him that if the disaster is not covered by the Bill as amended on Report, I hope that he will bring forward a government amendment to cover it. If that is not done, I must move an amendment on Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is an inherent flexibility in the phrase:
"a substantial part of England and Wales".
In the first instance it will be for the Charity Commissioners and ultimately for the courts to decide whether a proposed public charitable collection covers a substantial part of England and Wales. That is an alternative to a collection throughout England and Wales. I suggest that the collection would need to take place in a majority of the districts in England and Wales. For example, collections in association with a long-distance sponsored walk would be unlikely to cover a substantial part of England and Wales. To do so, the walk would have to pass through at least the majority of districts of England and Wales. A walk around the coastline of England and Wales would probably just about satisfy the requirement; a walk across the Pennines would not.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was worried about exemption orders for a disaster appeal. The amendment will allow disaster appeals which are established for charitable purposes to apply for an exemption order under this clause. They would be eligible for such an order whether they were concerned with a disaster in this country or abroad. The amendment would not allow disaster appeals
1242
established for benevolent or philanthropic purposes to obtain an exemption order for the reasons we heard on earlier amendments.
For those reasons the Government do not think it appropriate to extend the concession which the order represents to benevolent and philanthropic appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was worried—
Lord Richard: I was not worried; I just asked.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord was not worried; he just asked what the position was in regard to exemption orders. If an exemption order is given to a charity, it does not have to apply to every local authority for a new exemption order. However, it is obliged to consult the local authorities, inform them of its intentions and ask whether they are content. If the local authorities said that they were not content, the charity could not carry out its collections in that area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 63, line 5, leave out ("pursuit or) and insert ("connection with").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 141A was spoken to with Amendment No. 133A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 63, line 8, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 144 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. Clause 72 gives the commissioners powers in certain circumstances to grant an order to a charity removing the need to obtain individual permits for charitable collections from local authorities. Those are exemption orders.
Anxiety was expressed in Committee that the powers given to the commissioners to revoke such an order or to vary the conditions which might be attached to it were not tempered by a requirement on them to give the charity concerned notice of the reasons for their taking the action in question. It is only right that the commissioners should give reasons for revoking or varying an order and the amendments ensure that they do. However, there does not seem to be a strong argument for such notice to be given where the effect of the variation is, for example, to remove an existing condition. The amendment, therefore, only requires notice to be given where the effect of the variation is to make the conditions in an order more onerous than they were before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos. 146 and 147:
Page 63, line 12, at end insert ("of the Commissioners.").
Page 63, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Where the Commissioners, having made an order under subsection (1) in respect of a charity, make any further order revoking or varying that order, they shall serve on the

1243
charity written notice of their reasons for making the further order, unless it appears to them that the interests of the charity would not be prejudiced by the further order.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 144. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Regulations]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 149 is agreed to, it pre-empts Amendment No. 150.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 63, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("occupier") in line 34 and insert:
("(c) with respect to the use by collectors of badges and certificates of authority, or badges incorporating such certificates, and to other matters relating to such badges and certificates, including, in particular, provision—

(i) prescribing the form of such badges and certificates;

(ii) requiring a collector, on request, to permit his badge, or any certificate of authority held by him for the purposes of the collection, to be inspected by a constable or a duly authorised officer of a local authority, or by an").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee doubts were raised about whether the regulation-making powers given to the Secretary of State were sufficient to enable him to make provision for the use by collectors of a combined badge and certificate of authority. I indicated then that they were and that therefore there was no need to make specific provision in the Bill. However, in the light of your Lordships' thoughts on the matter I have looked again at it and the amendment is the result. On reflection, in our view it is best that, as regards the wording of Clause 74, we should spell out that badges and certificates can be combined. In the process I have altered the regulation-making powers to make them more general and therefore more comprehensive. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the debate at Committee stage was very constructive and practical. It has obviously had extremely good results. It is a simple matter of a badge which incorporates a certificate and that is a very sensible proposal. I am very happy that the Government have been able to accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find Clause 73(2) (c) (i) a little over-zealous in that there should be a regulation to prescribe the form of badges and certificates. In our free society I should have thought that we could tolerate a great deal of flexibility in the form of such badges and certificates. My imagination does not allow me to anticipate the kind of regulation that would have to be made to prescribe the form of such badges and certificates. Therefore, perhaps between now and Third Reading my noble friends will consider whether it is really necessary to include what is tabled in the amendment and what is in the Bill in subsection (2) (c) (i).
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sure that the prescription of the form would mean the wording and the information that would be on the badge and the
1244
certificate, not its shape, colour or texture. That is what I gathered was meant, but I may be mistaken in that. I feel that the expiry date should be on the badge and the certificate. That would mean that a person could quickly see whether or not there was fraudulent use of such a badge or certificate by someone continuing after the ending of the collection. It would also save charities the cost of recovering badges and certificates once the collection was over.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in the last point that he made. The Spastics Society tells me that to collect its money it needs about 350,000 volunteers. If there were an expiry date and the society did not have to go to the expense of recovering certificates, it would save a great deal of money. All we seek to know is that the regulation-making power will be wide enough to cover that possibility and to ask that that possibility is fully considered when the regulations are made.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend is yes. My amendment makes it clear that regulations will be able to cover the point of the expiry date which is referred to in the next amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Perhaps I may refer to that amendment, because it could only be moved if I did not move my amendment. We agree with the noble Lord that we thought it unnecessary to put everything on the face of the Bill. This matter is certainly one that will be covered by the regulations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved].
Clause 74 [Offences in connection with the conduct of a collection]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 151 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 151A.
11.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 64, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a number of your Lordships expressed concern during Committee that the offence in this provision was unfair to disabled collectors, heavy handed and somewhat policeman ploddish. I accept that these concerns are justified and I therefore propose that the subsection be deleted. If a constable has doubts about a collector, he can ask to see his badge and certificate of authority to see whether he is an authorised collector. He can also ask the person to give his name and address and if the person fails to give a satisfactory name and address, the constable may exercise the power of arrest conferred under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where the general arrest conditions are satisfied. The offence in Clause 74(3) is therefore unnecessary. I hope that the amendment will alleviate the concerns that were expressed in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal, and in particular the disappearance of the offence of being unable to sign one's name.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we are delighted to welcome this government amendment. It rectifies a situation about which many of us were worried in Committee. Our concern focused on a person who might be a useful collector but who for a whole variety of good and sufficient reasons was unable to sign his name. That would have been an offence. Such a person would have been guilty of an offence and would be liable to obtain a criminal record for his inability. Now, he or she will not, and that seems to us to be a notable improvement to the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too welcome this excision of subsection (3). The Bill creates a whole number of unnecessary and undesirable offences. It is extremely welcome to find one being removed and my own amendment thereby being obviated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 151A not moved.]
Clause 75 [Offences by bodies corporate]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 151B:
Page 64, line 29, after ("any") insert ("culpable").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a short amendment. "Culpable" means blameworthy and it seems to me desirable that any neglect whatever should be qualified and should require a degree of blameworthiness in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, on these Benches we support the noble and learned Lord in his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish only to add that we are here creating a criminal offence. Therefore the neglect should be a culpable neglect and not just any kind of neglect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is with a certain amount of apprehension that I come to answer the noble and learned Lord's amendment. He is in fairly robust form this evening. I hope that he will not seek to wipe me across the floor as he has done, unsuccessfully I might say, with my noble friend Lord Astor. In an earlier amendment the noble and learned Lord gave us fairly good strictures about how the Bill ought to be shorter. He thought that that was a good thing. But here he seeks to make the Bill longer. This clause is a standard form of provision; other examples include Section 12(7) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and Section 36(8) of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. Those provisions all refer to "neglect" without the addition of the word "culpable".
A corporate body cannot in practice commit an offence except through the agency of some person or persons whose actions or omissions must have led to the commission of the offence. If any officer of the company neglects to do something which leads to the conviction of the company for an offence, then clearly that person is blameworthy.
In this context it is worth noting that the liability imposed by Clause 75 falls on either a company's directors or on a manager, secretary or other similar officer. The expression "similar officer" would not
1246
include junior clerks or the tea lady. The point is that the offence by the company must be attributable to a person's neglect, if that person is to be guilty of an offence by virtue of Clause 75. It could only be so attributable if that peron is in a position of authority, so that particular duties fall on him. If he is in such a position and fails to discharge the duties which the law requires the company to comply with, his failure to ensure compliance must constitute a "culpable" neglect. Accordingly I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the additional word proposed by the noble and learned Lord is unnecessary as it is inherent in both Clause 75 and also in other legislation which makes the same provision.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, again, despite the rejection of my amendment, I must express thanks to the noble Lords who have supported me. The noble Earl twitted me with wanting to add a word to the statute. But if he looked through all my amendments he would find that I have moved amendments to leave out 25 words and sought to add but one word. Therefore, that argument really does not get him very far.
The noble Earl then went on to quote precedents. Of course there are precedents. Indeed, last century a poet could confidently say that freedom was broadening down from precedent to precedent. In these bureaucratic days, I fear that we find invasions of freedom broadening down from precedent to precedent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 151C:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of undertakings
A charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic institution shall be an undertaking in relation to rights and obligations relating to employers and employees on the transfer or merger of undertakings, business or parts of business.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Richard. I should begin by pointing out that the amendment relates to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 SI 1981/1794 which is the UK Government's response to the Acquired Rights Directive (Directive No. 77/187/EEC).
The directive applies,
"to the transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business to another employer as a result of a legal transfer or merger".
The term "undertaking" is not defined in the directive, but it would seem that it was intended, together with the terms "business" and "part of a business", to provide a broad scope of application for the directive; in other words, if an organisation is not a business or part of a business, it would presumably be an undertaking.
The word "undertaking" is defined in the 1981 regulations to include,
"any trade or business but does not include any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is not in the nature of a commercial venture".
That means that the regulations explicitly exclude non-commercial undertakings.
In the area covered by the transfer of undertakings regulations—for example, commercial ventures—the following effects are applied. First, when an employer proposes to transfer his or her business or part of it to another employer, then both employers should consult with the relevant trade unions about the proposed transfer. Secondly, if and when the transfer takes place, the contracts of employment of the employees concerned are transferred automatically from one employee to another. Thirdly, the acquired rights of employees in terms of service-related entitlements—such as, the rights to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy pay—are carried forward from the transferee to the transferee employer. Fourthly, union recognition follows the employees.
None of the above rights applies to the employees of charities and voluntary organisations falling outside the scope of the legislation. At present, there are some 250,000 employees in voluntary organisations. That number is way in excess of the numbers so employed in any other member state. Most, if not all, are excluded from the protection of the transfer of undertakings regulations. In recent years, parts of some charities have been transferred to others, and in a few cases entire charities have merged. The Save the Children Fund has, for example, passed parts of its operations to the National Children's Home, and the Methodist Church has similarly transferred part of its operations to the National Children's Home. Many charities are similar—or very close to each other—such as the National Association of Widows and the Widows Advisory Trust. They may very well seek further rationalisation at some future date.
Surely charity workers deserve the same protection as workers in other spheres. They give a great deal of commitment to their work and often accept much lower pay and conditions to perform tasks that they believe to be in the interests of society and of the clients who rely on the charities concerned.
I apologise for raising a matter of this complexity at this late stage and at this hour of the night. It is a difficult matter but it needs to be addressed by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on this matter, but there are two technical reasons why I think that this amendment will not work. First, it would do no more than define a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution as an undertaking. It would not in fact define it as a commercial undertaking, which is what it would need to do to be consistent with the 1981 regulations on the transfer of undertakings. It would not therefore have the effect which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would like. It would not bring charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions within the scope of the 1981 regulations.
The second problem is that if the noble Lord wants to include charities within the scope of the 1981 regulations, it would be necessary to amend the regulations themselves. This amendment would not do that.
Any attempt to define all charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions as undertakings, as opposed to simply putting them within the scope of the
1248
regulations, could well cut across existing case law definitions of what constitutes an undertaking with all the problems that would entail.
This amendment raises new and fairly important issues which we have not had the time to consider before in the context of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will also understand that I have not had as long as one might wish to consider fully all of the implications of what he has proposed as the amendment has been on the Order Paper for only 24 hours.
Given that this amendment raises issues which touch on matters, such as employment law, which lie outside of what we have considered in the context of this Bill up to now, I believe that the issues involved would be better considered elsewhere than in the context of this Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask him one question. This is an important issue and, prima facie at any rate, there is no reason why employees of charities should not have the same rights as employees of any other undertaking if and when that undertaking is transferred, acquired, partially taken over or whatever. I should like the Minister to recognise that there is a substantial point that has to be considered carefully. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will consider it carefully and return with his preliminary thoughts on this matter on Third Reading?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly consider the matter, but I cannot guarantee to return to it on Third Reading because that is in only one week's time and the complexities of the problem go a good deal wider than I anticipate can be resolved in a week. However, we shall look carefully to ensure that there is no conflict between the regulations and the directive. I shall certainly look into the matter.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, having heard what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Regulations and orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 152 and 153:
Page 65, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) to an order under section (Relaxation of restrictions on wider-range investments);").
Page 65, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) to any regulations under section (Extension of powers of investment);").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 65, line 21, leave out ("49(3)") and insert ("(Fees and other amounts payable to Commissioners)(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 65, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) Before making any regulations under section 20, 22, 23, 64 or 73 the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, anxiety was expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State should make certain regulations under the Bill only after he has consulted those charities and others who will be directly affected by them in practice. We share those anxieties. We readily undertake to ensure that regulations will be drawn up only after broad consultation. That is the only way to get them right.
The amendment will put the commitment to consultation beyond doubt. It will require the Secretary of State to consult whoever he considers appropriate before making any regulations about charity accounts, including auditing, fund-raising and public charitable collections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 158:
Page 65, line 41, after ("(4)") insert (", (4A)").
Page 66, line 1, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and this section extend").
Page 66, line 1, at end insert:
("(4A) Sections (Relaxation of restrictions on wider-range investments) and (Extension of powers of investment), and so much of section 77 as relates to those sections, extend to England and Wales and Scotland.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 66, line 2, leave out from ("6") to end of line 3 and insert:
("and (subject to subsection (6)) the repeals in Schedule 7 have the same extent as the enactments to which they refer and section 78 extends accordingly.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 160. These are drafting amendments. They make it clear that Schedules 6 and 7 have the same extent as the enactments to which they refer; that is to say, where the enactments have effect only in England and Wales or Scotland, the amendment or repeals will have effect there. Similarly, amendments or repeals which affect enactments which have effect in Great Britain or the United Kingdom will have a similar effect in those areas. An exception is made for the Police, Factories &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 which will continue to have effect in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 66, line 3 at end insert:
("(6) The repeal in Schedule 7 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Section 20 of the Charities Act 1960, As Amended]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 67, line 3, at end insert:
("Section 4
The register of charities
4.—(1) The Commissioners shall continue to keep a register of charities, which shall be kept by them in such manner as they think fit.
(2) There shall be entered in the register every charity not excepted by subsection (4) below; and a charity so excepted may be entered in the register at the request of the charity, but (whether or not it was excepted at the time of registration) may at any time, and shall at the request of the charity, be removed from the register.
(2A) The register shall contain—

(a) the name of every registered charity; and

(b) such other particulars of, and such other information relating to, every such charity as the Commissioners think fit.

(3) Any institution which no longer appears to the Commissioners to be a charity shall be removed from the register, with effect, where the removal is due to any change in its purposes or trusts, from the date of that change; and there shall also be removed from the register any charity which ceases to exist or does not operate.
(4) The following charities are not required to be registered, that is to say,—

(a) any charity comprised in the Second Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as an "exempt charity");

(b) any charity which is excepted by order or regulations;

(c) any charity which has neither—

(i) any permanent endowment, nor

(ii) the use or occupation of any land, and whose income from all sources does not in aggregate amount to more than £1,000 a year;

and no charity is required to be registered in respect of any registered place of worship.
(5) With any application for a charity to be registered there shall be supplied to the Commissioners copies of its trusts (or, if they are not set out in any extant document, particulars of them), and such other documents or information as may be prescribed or as the Commissioners may require for the purpose of the application.
(6) It shall be the duty—

(a) of the charity trustees of any charity which is not registered nor excepted from registration to apply for it to be registered, and to supply the documents and information required by subsection (5) above; and

(b) of the charity trustees (or last charity trustees) of any institution which is for the time being registered to notify the Commissioners if it ceases to exist, or if there is any change in its trusts, or in the particulars of it entered in the register, and to supply to the Commissioners particulars of any such change and copies of any new trusts or alterations of the trusts.

(7) The register (including the entries cancelled when institutions are removed from the register) shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times; and copies (or particulars) of the trusts of any registered charity as supplied to the Commissioners under this section shall, so long as it remains on the register, be kept by them and be open to public inspection at all reasonable times, except in so far as regulations otherwise provide.
(7A) Where any information contained in the register is not in documentary form, subsection (7) above shall be construed as requiring the information to be available for public inspection in legible form at all reasonable times.
(7B) If the Commissioners so determine, that subsection shall not apply to any particular information contained in the register and specified in their determination.
(8) Nothing in the foregoing subsections shall require any person to supply the Commissioners with copies of schemes for the administration of a charity made otherwise than by the court, or to notify the Commissioners of any change made with respect to a registered charity by such a scheme, or require a person, if he refers the Commissioners to a document or copy already in the possession of the Commissioners, to supply a further copy of the document;

1251
but where by virtue of this subsection a copy of any document need not be supplied to the Commissioners, a copy of it, if it relates to a registered charity, shall be open to inspection under subsection (7) above as if supplied to the Commissioners under this section.
(8A) If he thinks it expedient to do so—

(a) in consequence of changes in the value of money, or

(b) with a view to extending the scope of the exception provided for by subsection (4) (c) above,

the Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) (c) by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there.
(8B) Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) In this section "registered place of worship" means any land or building falling within section nine of the Places of Worship Registration Act, 1855, as amended by this Act (that is to say, the land and buildings which, if this Act had not been passed, would by virtue of that section as amended by subsequent enactments be partially exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853), and for the purposes of this subsection "building" includes part of a building.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Meaning of "connected person" for purposes of section 32(2)]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 69, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) a person who is the donor of any land to the charity (whether the gift was made on or after the establishment of the charity);").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163 to 165. The amendments owe much to the foresight of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
Schedule 2 to the Bill contains a list of persons who are to be regarded as "connected persons" for the purposes of Clause 32 (2). A "connected person" is a person or an institution to whom the trustees of a charity may not dispose of charity land without first obtaining the consent of the commissioners. The purpose of requiring the commissioners' consent to dispositions of land in those circumstances is to prevent trustees disposing of property to a close associate for less than its true value with a view to profiting personally thereafter.
A person who has donated land to a charity is not at present a "connected person". The amendments will make a donor and a close relative of a donor a "connected person". Where a person has donated land to a charity either at the time the charity was established or later, the trustees of that charity will not be able to dispose of any of that charity's land to the donor without first obtaining the commissioners' consent. Some people may find it convenient for tax avoidance reasons to give a property to a charity or to settle it on new charitable trusts, then lease it back for their own personal use at a ludicrously small rent. The charity is thus deprived of the true value of the property. This would be much easier to achieve were the commissioners not involved in approving the transaction. These amendments will require the commissioners' involvement and consent, and arrangements of the sort I have just described will be thwarted.
Perhaps I may mention one other point. In looking again at the relevant provisions of Clause 32(2) and
1252
Schedule 2, I now realise that the provisions relating to "connected persons" should also cover someone who is a trustee for or nominee of a connected person. I shall come forward with proposals to stop this loophole at the next stage of the Bill, together with any necessary consequential drafting changes in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his foresight. The intention of these three amendments is clear. They seem helpful to the purposes of the Bill and we support them.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wish to say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nathan how grateful he is for the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 69, line 44, after ("trustee") insert ("or donor").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872]:
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 82, line 17, at end insert:
("Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)
. In section 119(6) (d) (grounds for refusal of permission for public charitable collection in Scotland)—

(a) after "under", where secondly occurring, insert "this section or"; and

(b) after "section", where secondly occurring, insert "or under Part III of the Charities Act 1992 or regulations made under section 73 of that Act".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 168. This is a minor drafting amendment to Section 119(6) (d) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as this is the last amendment tonight, I hope I may not be considered out of order if I make a plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench with regard to the tabling of amendments for Third Reading. I understand that it is agreed between the usual channels that the Third Reading should take place next Tuesday, 25th February. The Government have been so good as to say that they will consider some of the matters raised at Report stage this evening. It would be helpful if all the government amendments could be tabled by Friday morning so that our own amendments which are bound to be starred can appear on the Marshalled List on Monday. Otherwise, we may not have time to prepare them.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may say something about the amendment before us. It would be as curmudgeonly of me to oppose or question any proposal in the amendment as it would be otiose for me to say anything whatever about it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure where that leaves us. In reply to my noble friend Lord Renton, I

1253
believe he will realise that we have only just completed the Report stage. I quite see that it would be convenient to him if we were able to put our amendments down for the Third Reading tomorrow morning. However, we are only human beings and we must have time to consider the matters which have been raised. I can only assure him that we shall put the amendments down as soon as we can, but I could not give an undertaking on exactly when.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not suggest tomorrow morning to my noble friend. I said Friday morning.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that. I am one ahead of my noble friend in suggesting that it would be even more convenient to him if the amendments were put down tomorrow morning. I shall see that they are put down as quickly as possible. I cannot give a better undertaking than that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.