HL Deb 05 February 1976 vol 367 cc1460-82

5.32 p.m.

Report of Amendments received.

Clause 1 [Rating of caravan sites in England and Wales]:

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 13, at end insert— ("( ) Where a valuation list has been altered by virtue of subsection (1) above so as to include an area of a caravan site as a single mixed hereditament and, by reason of a change in the value attributable to the domestic or the commercial part of the property, that area of that site ceases to qualify as a single mixed hereditament, then the valuation officer may, if, after consultation with the site operator, he thinks fit, alter the valuation list so as to treat each of the pitches in that area, together with the caravan sited thereon, as a separate hereditament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to deal with two matters on which we have briefly, and sometimes not so briefly, touched before. Your Lordships will recall that I was at some pains to explain that a situation could arise under the Bill as it is at present drafted whereby a sufficient number of caravan pitch occupiers decided to opt for individual assessment in a site which was globally assessed, to upset the balance between the domestic and the commercial values of the site to the extent that the commercial site would outweigh the value of the domestic site, and the site would no longer qualify as a mixed hereditament, thus attracting half of the domestic rate rebate. It was suggested to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Second Reading, in col. 31 of Hansard—and I interpreted what she said to mean—that this option would only he exercised by pitch occupiers who were suffering from some sort of handicap or disability which would entitle them to a greater level of rate rebate than they would attract as of a mixed hereditament.

However, on Committee stage the noble Baroness agreed that under the unenviable circumstances in which I hypothetically placed her she would have little other recourse but to opt to go "individual" if she felt herself being harassed by the site operator. If that is the case, it is possible there will be rather more numerous applications for treatment in this way than she envisaged when the Bill was drafted. It seemed to me wise to put in a provision whereby the valuation officer could reverse his original decision, the option which he has taken under Clause 1 of the Bill as at present drafted, to value the whole site as a single hereditament. It was not clear to me that under the Bill as it now stands there would be an opportunity for him to do so. It seemed to be something of a one-way process, and therefore we put down this Amendment to provide an opportunity for the process to be reversed, and also to produce some sort of protection for those on the mixed hereditament who remain assessed with the mixed hereditament when it became commercially rated, because their colleagues, having had a difference of opinion with the site owner, had opted to be rated as individuals. I beg to move.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is concerned about the situation where the value of the commercial part of the composite assessment is more than half the total value. I accept that this situation could arise, for example on sites where there are only a small number of leisure caravans, but very substantial common facilities. Where representations are made to them—and here I include representations by individual caravanners—valuation officers may, in the exercise of their discretion, take such action as may be necessary to ensure that the caravans are separately assessed. Thus, the separately occupied caravans will be rated separately, and classed as domestic. The parts of the site in the occupation of the owner will be classed as commercial. If, despite the commercial rating, the caravanners still thought they would be better off as part of a single assessment, it would be open to them to approach the valuation officer and ask him to reconsider the position.

The noble Lord was also concerned about how domestic relief affects the caravanners. To underline what I said on Committee, I would say that in the majority of cases the sites will qualify as mixed by virtue of the fact that the domestic portion will be larger than the commercial. In these cases, the total rates payable on the site and the caravans may be up to 20 per cent. less than they otherwise would have been. In some cases, it is possible that the reduction may be even greater than this. We think that most sites will qualify as mixed, and there will be little incentive for them to opt for separate assessment, thereby tipping the balance in favour of commercial. In those cases which are commercial it is still likely that in most cases the caravanner will none the less be better off as part of the single assessment. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, Iam much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said. It is perhaps worth commenting at this stage that we are not here a Chamber of revision, and that this Bill is going on to another place. Therefore, I think it would be proper to accept what the noble Baroness has said, to consider it, and if necessary to ask for it to be considered elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, with the permission of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 7. The purpose of these Amendments is to shift the burden of presumption when considering whether, for the purpose of this Bill, a caravan is rateable along with the pitch on which it stands. These Amendments are in place of Amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. On that occasion I said we were quite agreeable to the change of emphasis, but that for drafting purposes I would prefer to bring forward two Amendments. These are the Amendments.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, we have discussed the reasoning behind this. It only remains for me to say we are grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting us in this manner.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 6, leave out ("1976") and insert ("1977").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, another point which ought to be looked at at this stage is the question of timing. A great deal is being asked of valuation officers to get their valuation lists out in time to be effective in the next rating year, and a fortiori a great deal is being asked of the site operators to catch up with any ground which the valuation officers may lose in the matter of timing. As your Lordships will notice, the valuation officers have a month in which to give their notice after they have made their assessment. We felt that this would be an opportunity for the Government to give some reassurance to those concerned with the operation of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, about what they propose shall happen when there is not enough time for the equitable operation of the Act at the date proposed, and for that purpose I have put down Amendment No. 3, putting back by a year the effective operation of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his purpose in moving this Amendment, and also giving me an opportunity to clarify again this slightly difficult point. On the point he raised. I still emphasise that I am quite sure that the vast majority of site operators who have already entered into agreements will be in a position to pass on the additional rate charge. The agreement that I read out during Committee was quite typical. However, I accept—as was pointed out on Com- mittee, and as I have written to the noble Lord—that there may be a few site operators who for some reason have committed themselves to fixed price contracts for the coming season. I think this is the crunch of the noble Lord's argument.

If a site operator makes this fact known to the valuation officer, he will be sympathetic to the situation and can be expected to delay the exercise of his discretion to create the single assessment. I hope this answers the noble Lord's point, because, although I wrote to him along these lines, he said, quite naturally, that he would prefer to have this point on the record. That is all I want to say at this stage.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. If she could assure me that what she has said amounts to an authority for the valuation officers to take such steps, or that such authority already exists, I think there would be no purpose in my pursuing the Amendment. I take it that is what she intends.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, it would be quite wrong and misleading if I made out anything that was a hard and fast rule, because what we have here is a statutory discretion given to a statutory officer, and while it is a discretion I cannot make it mandatory on him to exercise it. But the discretion is there. The fact that this has been discussed and will now be on the record, that this is the intention behind the legislation, that the valuation officer should use this discretion where he feels that it needs to be used, is all that is necessary. He has that. It is a statutory discretion. If that is what the noble Lord means by "authority", he has the authority. I think this has now made it quite clear that we would expect him to use it in the circumstances he thinks proper. Leaving this flexibility is extremely important, as I think the noble Lord would agree.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. She has clarified the matter. I am sure that interested parties will be able to direct the attention of the valuation officers to the record. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.48 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

Information for caravanners about first proposal under s. 1 as to caravan sites

.—(1) Where the valuation officer makes a proposal under section 1 above in the case of a caravan site, he shall within one month after the date on which the proposal is made give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans included in the hereditament proposed to be entered in the valuation list.

(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

  1. (a) the part of the site included in the proposed hereditament (or that the whole site is so included), the number of caravans so included and the rateable value proposed for that hereditament; and
  2. (b) the rate in the pound at which the general rate for the rating area is charged under the General Rate Act 1967 in respect of the period during which the proposal is made.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the proposed hereditament, and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.

(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the proposal is made, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.

(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsection (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the result of a consensus of minds; my concern about what seemed to me to be a vacuum in the Bill and the contributions of various noble Lords at Committee stage. I explained then that I wanted to introduce my own Amendment which would provide that caravanners should be given certain information to enable them to judge the average rateable value accorded to each caravan included in the new single assessment. This is the purpose of this Amendment. I also explained during Committee that there were tremendous difficulties involved in this, and this has certainly proved to be the case. As always, one thinks one has a very simple point in mind and knows exactly what one wants until the lawyers get hold of it, and then one finds it is not so simple and the difficulties are enormous. To be fair to them, I should say that the difficulties are extremely real. I hoped that one would be able just to state the rate ingredient on the site charge notice, but as the whole point of the exercise is that the rating should be of a single unit or hereditament that made it practically impossible. So we have done as well as we could.

Noble Lords also, quite rightly, pressed me not to make it a complicated requirement, and I have, joyfully, so far as I could, borne this very much in mind, because I could not agree more that so many things get rather cancelled out when they are made more complicated. We have also kept in mind the need not to add unnecessarily to the information which the rating authority and the valuation officer have to provide to the site operator, because having cut down the work and expense of the local authority it would not make much sense if we then burdened them again the other way.

Where the valuation officer exercises his discretion to value the site as a single unit he will be required within one month after the date on which the proposal is made to give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans he took into account in making the assessment. The site operator will then be required to display a notice showing the part of the site included in the assessment; if it is the whole of the site he must say so; the number of caravans included in the assessment; the assessment itself, which is the rateable value; and the rate poundage levied by the local authority.

I am afraid, trying to cut it down, these seem to me to be the essential ingredients to have. I cannot see any way of cutting down this number of statements, which in fact comes only to four anyhow.

The notice is to be displayed in a prominent place for four months. As I understand it, there are usually central offices, or a place where people collect mail, on most of the sites. The caravanner can also ask the site operator for the information in writing. This is not only for those people who may not see the board or may not find it, but to safeguard those caravanners who may not visit the site before they take up residence there. If the site operator fails without reasonable excuse to comply with these requirements, he will be liable on conviction to a fine.

I hope noble Lords will agree with me that this goes a considerable way towards the goal we have in mind. I am equally sure it will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that, in the clause as drafted, this requirement applies only in the year in which the valuation officer first values the site as a single unit, because clearly the problem for caravanners will be very much greater in the first year.

There is one other point I should like to add. It may be possible for the valuation officers to identify for the site operators the proportion of the total assessment attributable to the caravans and pitches in the occupation of the caravanner. This is a point which I, so far, have not included and it is not in the clause, because this is something we are still working on in the Department. If this is possible—we are not yet sure on this point but I am feeling a little more optimistic about it today—we would wish to introduce an Amendment in another place requiring the site operator to put this information on the notice, which then makes it even more specific.

Finally, I should briefly mention that the Scottish position on the question is broadly similar, which is why it is down as two Amendments, given the differences between two codes which, as noble Lords know, we are constantly encountering. That being so, I have put down a corresponding Scottish new clause to which I have now spoken, and I hope I shall just have to move it formally when we come to the appropriate point. I beg to move

5.52 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, although the noble Baroness alluded to this, as indeed did several of us at the Committee stage, this is new material to the Bill, and she has rightly explained it in some detail. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I shall speak to it with a certain hesitation, because I have not had the opportunity to examine it as closely as I should like, or with the depth of advice that I should like. My immediate reaction is to say that we sympathise with her desire for equity on the site. My second reaction is that I am not certain that she has fully justified the inclusion of subsection (4) of the Amendment, though she has gone a considerable way to do so.

She has told us that there are people who will be subject to new assessments as a result of the exercise of an option under Clause 1(1) of the Bill when it comes into effect, who will not be in residence at the time when this takes place. It occurs to me to wonder how they will know that the assessment has taken place, since they will not have seen the notice posted on the notice board or to the lamp post at the entrance to the site, which has to be displayed according to the regulations listed in the earlier subsection. One also wonders how long after the assessment is made is the site operator still liable to a fine of £50, if he does not comply with the request, and similar matters. These would be Committee points. I am not raising them now because this Bill will go through a Committee stage in another place and the noble Baroness has already given warning that it may contain further Amendments when it gets there.

It occurs to me also to ask the noble Baroness once more, not contentiously, whether she does not feel that having displayed to the site occupiers, the pitch occupiers, the very grounds upon which the assessments of their portion of the rates are made upon them by the site operator, she is still quite confident that there will not be great feelings of injustice among some of them, whether rightly or wrongly held, and whether it is altogether right to leave aside some form of appeal. Then one reflects that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce, as she put it, the work and expense of running the rating system. Her objections (which we share) are to burdening them up again, as she put it. These are matters to reflect upon, and we are at the point where, if legislation is drawn too precisely in the new clause, we may once more come up against the paradox that by doing something which we hope will reduce the burden of administrative duties on the local authorities and the inland revenue, we may be increasing them.

Last time we were almost in the position where the noble Baroness advocated a free market economy on the site and I was advocating a regulated economy. I think now we are in the process of approaching each other in the opposite direction. I do not wish to confuse the House with such philosophic reflections. This is a point to be pursued in another place. It would be wrong of us to resist the Amendment here, since the other place has been alerted by what the noble Baroness has said of her intentions for that stage.

5.55 p.m.

Lord WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, this new clause is useful and desirable because it enables the pitch occupiers and caravan owners to know the reasons for the rate charges being made upon them. It also provides the site operator with reasons and justification for the extra charges which the caravan owner or occupier will be required to pay. However, it is not so simple and straightforward as may appear at first sight.

As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out at Committee stage, the site owner on his site may have some pitches which, because of convenience and amenity value, are much sought after and therefore can command a much higher rental than other pitches which, because of their position, are not worth anything like as much. If, upon a best pitch a large modern caravan costing several thousands of pounds is positioned, then the rating of such a pitch and caravan would obviously be very much higher than a small and aged caravan upon a poorly placed pitch. What then is the site owner to do? If he divides the total amount of rate payable equally among all the caravan occupiers or owners, some will feel aggrieved. Indeed, the caravan owner occupying a poor site with a small and ancient caravan might seek an individual rating and find that the amount he has to pay is less than had been demanded of him by the site owner; others could follow suit, and what would happen then? Indeed, it may well be the kind of situation which my noble friend Lord Elton has warned may arise.

Again, if the site owner tries to charge varying amounts to different caravan owners and occupants, there is bound to be discontent and disagreement. In any case, he is not a valuation officer and ought not to be required to do his job. Surely it must be apparent, therefore, that this Amendment, which looks such an obvious and simple solution, is really nothing of the kind, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out at Committee stage.

The work that ought to be done by the rating authority will now have to be done by the site owner at considerable extra administrative cost, and all the basic difficulties of frequently changing ownership and occupation of the caravans will continue as well as the replacement changes of new for old caravans, or the shifting of caravans from an inferior to a better pitch according to availability. Such changes, which are continual and normal, must lead in some cases to disagreement and dispute. Is it proposed that there should be any method of arbitration to settle disputes of this kind, which, inevitably, are likely to arise? Or should the dispute be taken to the courts, and, if so, on what grounds?

It seems to me that further clarification is needed upon all these points for obvious reasons. If it is not possible now for the Minister to make any further statement, at any rate these points having been raised here, I hope that perhaps some clarification may be made upon them in another place to make it easier for both the caravan site owner and the occupants than will be possible at the moment.

In conclusion, I wonder whether the Minister could state what will happen about the present position that has arisen as a result of the intensification of efforts by valuation officers last year to rate individual caravans and their pitches. I understand that there are about a quarter of a million caravans and pitches to be rated and the work of assessing them was almost completed at the end of 1975. But in the meantime many caravans will have changed pitches; some new ones will have replaced old ones and even where caravans have been assessed it has been found to be difficult, and indeed impossible in many cases, to identify the owners and, due to a variety of circumstances, to collect the money due. Also, I believe that there are 90,000 appeals, objections, still to be heard. This Bill will not alter such a situation. What is then going to happen? It would be helpful if we could have some idea how this chaotic state of affairs is to be cleared up.

Presumably all the work done last year by the valuation officers will have to be done again to meet the requirements of this Bill. It would seem sensible therefore to start afresh when this Bill has become an Act and not to go to any further expense and trouble in trying to sort out a state of affairs which is about to be changed in the immediate future and, in consequence, will have no lasting result. If the Minister could give some guidance about what is intended, I believe it would be greatly appreciated by all concerned. I hope that the present uncertainty may be resolved by a Statement, if not here at any rate in another place.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

My Lords, since my noble friend has drawn me back into this controversy, perhaps I might say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this Amendment. It goes quite a long way towards that objection which we had earlier; notably, how a pitch user, a caravan owner, would know what was being levied upon him and whether there was a share apportionment for him. However, I share the views of my noble friend on the Front Bench with regard to the four months' time during which the notice has to be exhibited. Many site owners may not be around the site at the appropriate time. It would seem to me that it may be necessary to ensure that the notice is displayed either for a longer period or for a period during which the normal season operates. One is concerned here not only with leisure caravans but with caravans used on a more permanent or residential basis.

Regarding the deeper points which the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has raised, surely these do not come into the area of this Amendment. These are points which we raised outside the notification of the pitch users as to what is to be levied by the site operator and which go more into the general realms of the fairness and apportionment of the whole assessment breakdown. The noble Lord is quite right. Some pitches are more valuable than others, some caravans are more valuable, and at some stage—or it might have been in conversation with the noble Baroness—I intimated that some site owners may very well have a letting clause prohibiting a particular type of van on the site.

It may well be that, in order to get his rate more evenly distributed, he insists on a particular type of van being put on the site, one which may be outside the normal paying ability of his customer over the past five, six or seven years. He may specify that a particular van may be on the site for only a particular time; he may specify that the van may be purchased only through himself. He may do all sorts of things to enhance the pitch value which enables him to spread that amount of rate. I quite accept that these are not points which are taken care of in this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, has raised them and I feel obliged to join with him in seeking clarification at some time on these points.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent which the noble Baroness suggested for convenience should be discussed with Amendment No. 4. I am very conscious that the noble Baroness has undertaken the task of piloting Scottish as well as English legislation through your Lordships' House, because half of this Bill refers to the situation in Scotland. Amendment No. 11 is the Scottish new clause equivalent to Amendment No. 4. I appreciate the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with the Scottish part of the Bill and I hope that the Scottish Office Ministers are grateful to her for what she has been doing.

As regards Amendment No. 11, I have been able to have only a few hours of consultation with those concerned in Scotland, but I understand that the Assessors Association has been in touch with the Scottish Office about this. They were a little surprised by the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b) and it might help those concerned if I said now what they would prefer in that part of the new clause. Instead of paragraph (a) they would prefer the wording: …the number of pitches at present separately entered in the 1975–76 valuation roll and the cumulo rateable value of those pitches I do not know whether the word "cumulo" appears in English legislation, but I am quite used to it in Scottish legislation. I think it might be helpful for those who are looking at the record of this Report stage to know that that is the suggestion, otherwise the clause is one which they expected and which I agree with my noble friends should be added to the Bill. These points can be considered in detail and no doubt will be considered at Committee stage in another place.

I have had the opportunity of making one point which officials and Ministers might be able to consider before that stage is reached. I am well aware that the Government are trying to get the Bill through quickly, because they want to meet a deadline and the Third Reading will probably come quite soon, and therefore these points must be left to another place.

6.9 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, if I may, I will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, which are slightly outside this clause. It is better to clear up the point about the present assessment and the appeals against them. I can only repeat what I said on Second Reading: it would be quite wrong to make the Bill retrospective to 1975/76. It follows from that that the appeals must be allowed to go forward, so that people pay no more or no less than the proper amount. This does not mean that every one of the appeals will go to hearing. Ordinarily only a very small proportion get as far as a court hearing because settlements between the valuation officers and the appellants are reached beforehand. We would expect the same to happen on these appeals. Moreover, given the change that is being brought about by the Bill, there will probably be a greater disposition on both sides to reach a settlement, so I do not think that the noble Lord need worry on that point. Everybody is aware that we are going into a new situation and, as I understand it, there is likely to be give and take on both sides.

On the clause itself, I can appreciate the points which noble Lords have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked how people will know that the assessment has taken place. There are many ways. First, the people who are most interested in the Bill will be caravanners and site operators themselves. It will be reported and they will know about it. They will also know through the various associations and they will also be able to find out, once they know that a Bill has been passed, by writing to the locality. They will then be told what is the procedure.

The noble Lord raised the point of the length of time during which the notice will be displayed. It will be up for four months.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. I was wondering how long the liability of supplying information to the caravanners (rendering him liable to a line of £50 if he does not discharge it) will rest upon the site operator. As I said, this is a Committee point and I do not wish to make much of it but, technically, the chap could be written to three years after the reassessment and still be required to deliver it. However, it is not a matter which need detain the House at this moment.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I believe I can answer that point straight off without a lawyer at my elbow. As the provision applies only to the first year, it would not make any sense for anybody to write to the site operator after that season. The point which I should like to clear up in order to place it on the record relates to the four months. We could have made the time longer but, since it will not go up until the assessment which is usually finalised in about April and since the operator is then given a month, that brings the start to about May. As the season generally finishes around September we felt that it would be unfair to put the operator in a position of committing an offence at a time when it was really no longer necessary to have the notice up because nobody was there.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised questions regarding the fact that some pitches were more valuable than others and about possible feelings of injustice. I am grateful for the welcome given by noble Lords to this new clause, but I would point out that differences apply now in any case. If one is on a better site, one will be charged more and, since the site charges already include a variety of things, this will be just another ingredient. I was quite frank with noble Lords when I said that because of the difficulties all round it was rather a rough yardstick, but the clause will ensure that a firm indication is given to the caravanners, who will know whether their charges seem to have gone up disproportionately, and the site operator will be covered because he will be able to show something when, if necessary, he has to put the charge up.

As regards the differences between pitches and the differences in charges, the principle will be exactly the same as that which is operating at the present time. I believe that this is a question of disagreement and dispute. We cannot, in this Bill, bring in a question of methods of arbitration because the site operator, for the purposes of the Bill, is the ratepayer anyhow and he will distribute the rate. There are all sorts of ways in which people can express themselves. I am sure that there must be caravanners' site associations, like tenants' associations; we have a great deal of investigative newspaper reporting which takes up this type of case; and, no doubt, if anyone steps out of line as in some of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, people will write to That's Life and we shall have Esther Rantzen bringing shame on the heads of the operators and justice to the people concerned.

Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Assessors' Association spokesman did not at all disagree with the new clause when he was hastily consulted. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's view will be taken into account in another place and that his suggestion will be looked at. Taking a terrible jump into Scottish waters with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears, I suggest that it sounded as if the noble Lord was trying to bring this back to the previous year's level rather than basing it on a forward proposal. However, I feel that he is quite right and I do not intend to delve into the matter any further. I shall leave it to be dealt with in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) Any alteration in the valuation roll under subsection (1) above shall have effect as from the beginning of the year in which the alteration is made or as from the date on which the caravan site becomes a site to which this Act applies, whichever is the later.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment covers the special case of the site which comes within the scope of the Bill after 1st April 1976 by making the valuation roll alteration effective from the date on which the site becomes liable to comprehensive assessment. I feel that I should reassure the House that there is no element of retrospection and that these timing rules are closely related to those which apply to other classes of property. I am sure that noble Lords who are interested—especially the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—are very well versed in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 and will be very clear as to what I am talking about.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, what I said just now about the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with Clause 2 referred to this and subsequent Amendments because, following our debate a week ago, it was clear that the noble Baroness and her advisers had decided that some changes and additions should be made to the Scottish part of the Bill. We have no reason to dissent from the present Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.18 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage and to which the Government indicated that they would give attention. I thought it sounded as though it might be acceptable and I put it down again in the hope that the Government would accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 3, line 25, leave out ("(and any area comprising it)").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I am very happy to accept the Amendment and to say that not only are the words unnecessary but that, on looking again at the provision, it appeared that they added confusion. We appear to have enough of that without adding to it gratuitously, so I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the point to our attention and I accept the Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for accepting the Amendment which, as she said, will help to make the Bill clearer?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,"). —(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 40 and insert—

  1. (" a) the references to the rateable value to be determined thereunder and to the occupier of the premises were references respectively to the rateable value of all the said pitches as a single sum and to the site operator;
  2. (b) the words "gross annual value and" were omitted.
")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 2(1) of the Bill calls for valuation direct to net annual value and not, as is usual for non-industrial premises, a gross annual value which is subject to a statutory deduction. The Amendment ensures that Section 7(4) will not call for the determination of a gross annual value which in the context of these caravan sites would, I am sure noble Lords, will agree, be quite meaningless. The Amendment also removes the need to notify to individual caravanners details of any determination of rateable value. It is only the site operator who has an interest in knowing how much of the assessment will enjoy the domestic poundage reduction. In short, this links up with the ascertainment of domestic element which is determined in gross terms in Scotland and which would be quite unsuitable for this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, this appears to have been an improvement to the Bill, which we commend to the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 3, line 43, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 44 and insert—

  1. ("(a) after the word "effect" there were inserted the word "a)";
  2. (b) after the words "so included" there were inserted the words "or

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection (7) is a protection to the individual caravanner. The Bill requires the assessor to make a comprehensive assessment on the site and leisure caravan pitches together, but the assessor might be mistaken in his view of a particular caravan and pitch, or the caravanner simply may not agree with him. Subsection (7) affirms the right of the caravanner to complain—to the courts if necessary—about the omission from the valuation roll of his caravan as a separate entry in its own right. He might wish to do this if, for example, the absence of a separate entry made it difficult to pursue a claim for rate rebate.

The Scottish Assessors' Association has pointed out that subsection (7) is drafted so widely that the extended right of complaint which it affords may have unintended and undesirable effects on property other than caravans, and it is in order to make the desired limitation that I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, again this is an Amendment which is welcome to the Scottish clause, and I commend it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.23 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 4, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) In this section "rate" includes a domestic water rate and "rateing" shall be construed accordingly".)

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make clear that the provision of Clause 2 will apply to the levying of any domestic water rate which may be payable on caravan sites, as well as to regional, district and general rates. This applies only to Scotland where water supply is the responsibility of the regional councils and the islands councils and their net expenditure on water supply is met partly out of the ordinary rate. Domestic water rate is calculated on the net annual value of the premises. This rate is payable by most occupiers of premises supplied with water for domestic purposes by the water authority, but for some people the supply is metered and they pay according to the water consumed.

Caravan sites will, in general, have metered supplies and will therefore be exempt from domestic water rate; but in any case where supplies to a caravan site are not metered, domestic water rate will be payable and will have to be based on the valuation of the caravan site as a unit in the occupation of the site operator, provided for under Clause 2. The Amendment now makes it clear that this is what is intended. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind and I am sure that the Government were right to put it in. Again, it illustrates how different the system is, as the noble Baroness has described it, in Scotland from that in England. I should like to take the opportunity of this last Amendment on the Scottish Part of the Bill to say that because of the short time between the Committee and Report stages—and we understand the reason for that; namely, that the Government wished to get the Bill through quickly—it has not been possible for me to receive in time all the comments I should have liked in consultation, following an examination of Hansard of the Committee stage a week ago. I received some points only today, when it was too late to put down Amendments. I think that it would be helpful if I gave notice, bearing in mind that the Third Reading will be quite soon, I understand, that I will not try to put down Amendments on Third Reading, because that would give very little time for your Lordships' House. However, there will be two or three points which will be found to come up in another place on the Scottish Part of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness and those who advise her on the Scottish clause will be glad to have this notice that I myself do not intend to put down these Amendments for consideration at Third Reading.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, as we leave the Scottish part of the Bill I should say that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself were of one mind on one point. I was concerned, as he was, to prevent the Bill from affecting the caravanner who is disabled. While we have covered this point for England and Wales, we have not yet covered it for Scotland. I said that I would hope to bring forward an Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will probably be aware that your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity considered the case of Mr. Vandyk, which turned on this very question of the rating position of structures for a disabled person. This happened very recently and was a matter of extreme complexity. Unfortunately, in the time available I have not been able to table a suitable Amendment but I hope that I shall be able to bring one forward on Third Reading. I think the noble Lord will agree that if we can bring it forward there will not be much dispute, and I hope that it will be fairly straightforward.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down. I wish to say that I was aware of that fact. I have here an extract from The Times recording the case of the disabled person concerned. I understood that, in the light of that, the Government would not have been able to take action in time for today. I am glad that the noble Baroness has taken this opportunity of making that clear.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 2 insert the following new clause—

Information for caravanners about rating of caravan sites mentioned in section 2

.—(1) Where the assessor alters the valuation roll under section 2(1) above, he shall send to the site operator, along with the notice which he is required to send to the site operator under section 3(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, a statement of the number of pitches for leisure caravans which he has included in the single unit of lands and heritages by virtue of the said section 2(1).

(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

  1. (a) the number of pitches included in the said single unit, and the rateable value of that unit; and
  2. (b) the rate in the pound at which rates are levied in respect of that unit.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the said single unit and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.

(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the valuation roll is altered under section 2(1) above, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.

(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsections (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) above after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.—(Baroness Birk.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Interpretation and application]:

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 16, after ("if") insert ("paragraph 4 and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together because they are linked. The purposes of these Amendments are to include within the provisions of the Bill additionally those sites which may be exempted from holding a site licence under the terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. These are sites which are used by an organisation for the purposes of recreation, and are both occupied and supervised by that organisation. Those who have gained such an exemption include such bodies as the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and the Caravan Club. As noble Lords will probably recall, these Amendments were originally moved, in a slightly different form, in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I undertook then to bring them back as Government Amendments. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I must again thank the noble Baroness for having put down the Amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage—No. 12. I am grateful to her for having looked into this question and reached agreement.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 formally.

Amendment moved — Page 4, line 17, after ("exemption") insert ("of certain land occupied and supervised by organisations concerned with recreational activities and").—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.