Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 07 April 1987 vol 486 cc984-1015

8.50 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 11.

[Amendments Nos. 164A to 170 not moved.]

Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 170ZA:

Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ("(6) The collective community charge due to a local authority in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year shall be the precise sum collected in respect of the collective community charge received by the owner of premises in respect of which the collective charge is payable, less any management fee prescribed.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170ZA with which it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.

Lord Glenarthur

Will the noble and learned Lord repeat the grouping that he gave so that I do not get into a muddle? There may have been a slight change.

Lord Wilson of Langside

I hope that I am not in error. According to my grouping, it is Amendments Nos. 170ZA, 170A, 170B, 170C, 174A and 174B.

Lord Glenarthur

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. There has been a certain amount of paper flying around and I wanted to ensure that I was dealing with the right bit.

Lord Wilson of Langside

I am conscious of the paper myself. The idea behind this group of amendments derives from the view of those of us on these Benches that the collective community multiplier is unworkable and unfair as currently defined. The effect of the amendment would be to move away from the idea of the multiplier. The logic behind the amendment is that if landlords are obliged to keep a detailed record of the amounts received by them in collective community charge contributions from residents, they should merely pay that precise amount to the levying authority.

The multiplier reflects a broad brush approach which may well lead to one of two situations, or perhaps both. Some landlords may lose money because their occupancy rate is lower than the multiplier assumes, and some landlords may profit from contributions by residents if their multiplier is too low. As how frequently the multiplier is to be reviewed by the registration officer is not specified, it is unlikely that unscrupulous landlords would draw the registration officer's attention to the fact that their multiplier is too low. We present these amendments against that background.

The Committee will see that Amendment No. 174 provides: The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to a management fee amounting to four per cent. (or such other proportion as may be prescribed) of the collective community charge contributions collected in respect of these premises.". I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

I think that the noble and learned Lord referred to Amendment No. 174, which I do not think is included in this group. I think that he meant to refer to Amendment No. 174A. Amendment No. 174 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and myself. I did not understand it to be in this group. If the noble and learned Lord was speaking to Amendment No. 174 and not No. 174A, I shall continue my argument in favour of Amendment No. 174, but I hope not at this stage.

Lord Wilson of Langside

According to the grouping which I have, it includes Amendment No. 174A.

Lord Morton of Shuna

The noble and learned Lord mentioned Amendment No. 174, which is why I got to my feet. If it is not in the group, I shall sit down again quickly.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

In that case I shall rise. I shall speak to the group mentioned by my noble and learned friend. I shall not repeat it. I would not object to this tax if it were called a tax. It is a sales tax. I am sorry to pain the Minister, but it is extraordinarily annoying to call it a community charge. It is probably true that transient people passing through an area taking advantage of services should pay tax, but this is a straight sales tax levied on boarding-house keepers and others who have transient people staying with them and from whom they make a living. It has nothing to do with accountability, which is the Bill's great central theme.

The charge has some virtue as a sales tax which is collected from people who would not otherwise pay anything towards the services they use, but accountability there is none and fairness there is little. It will place a tremendous burden on the chap who keeps an establishment. We have already spoken about that. We tabled an amendment saying that he should receive a payment of 4 per cent. That may even encourage him to collect more, because there will be great trouble collecting this tax. It is complex. It is unfair as a community charge but not as a sales tax.

We have tabled this group of amendments to draw attention to the way the tax is misnamed, to the way it places an unfair burden on the people who must collect it and because it has nothing to do with accountability or making people face up to the need to control the expenditure of their local authority. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I do not suggest that they are all perfect but they express a point of view which needs to be expressed and understood.

9 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

I think I indicated earlier the basic purpose of the collective community charge. It may help if I go further and explain the purpose of the multiplier. In dealing with this fairly broad group of amendments, it may be helpful if I give a general explanation of how it works. I shall try to keep it as short as I can.

The multiplier aims to reflect the typical occupancy rate of the premises when multiplied by the level of the personal community charge payable in the area to provide income to the local authority broadly equivalent to what it would have received if it had been possible to register all the residents individually and charge them the personal community charge.

Subsection (7), which would be deleted by Amendment No. 170A, provides that if the collective community charge multiplier changes in the course of the financial year, it shall be assumed that the new multiplier shall remain in effect until the end of that financial year. The purpose of this provision is simply to allow for the calculation and billing of the collective community charge. In many cases the multiplier will change in the course of a financial year as the person liable for the charge agrees with the registration officer that it should go up or down to reflect the changes in the number of people generally resident in the premises.

In order that bills may be issued and schedules of instalments established, however, it is necessary to make an assumption both at the beginning of the year and when the collective community charge multiplier is changed that the multiplier (or, as the case may be, the new multiplier) will remain in force for the remainder of the year. I could give an instance but I hope that I may be able to develop the theme a little further and come back if the noble Lord would like an example.

Subsection (8) of the clause simply provides that the collective community charge multiplier is a number to be determined by the registration officer. This is qualified by subsection (9) which sets out the criteria on which the registration officer will determine the multiplier in any given case. The main element in his determination will be the number of people who are solely or mainly resident in the premises and who would, but for the exemption provided for by Clause 8(7)(b), be liable to pay personal community charge. This means, for instance, that people under the age of 18 are not taken into account in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. The effect of the calculation will be to produce broadly the same revenue from those living in the premises as would be produced if those liable for the personal community charge were registered for it.

Subsection (9) also provides that in determining the collective community charge multiplier the registration officer should have regard to such other factors as may be prescribed. The factors to be prescribed will in due course be the subject of consultation with registration officers and other interested bodies. We envisage, however, that such factors as likely fluctuations in the number of people solely or mainly in the residence and the difficulty of collection of the collective community charge contributions may be prescribed as considerations to be taken into account in the calculation of the multiplier.

In place of this clear and precise procedure for the assessment of liability, these amendments propose a system whereby the amount of collective community charge due would depend entirely on the word of the person due to pay it, subject only to checking from a record which would not be difficult to falsify. That would leave scope for large-scale evasion of the collective community charge by unscrupulous landlords. I do not think that that can be fair to the local authority, to the residents who would be required to pay the collective community charge contributions, or indeed to community charge payers as a whole. The provisions that we propose make for certainty as to the collective community charge liability due in respect of any premises as opposed to the inevitable uncertainty which would arise if these amendments were accepted.

If a management fee were to be provided for, as Amendment No. 174A proposes, it would be more appropriate for it to be expressed as a deduction from the collective community charge liability of the landlord. We consider that it is reasonable that landlords should be allowed some consideration for the work that they will have to undertake in collecting collective community charge contributions. To that extent I am sympathetic to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord in principle. But we consider that a better mechanism for achieving this would be to build into the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier an element taking account of that consideration. We shall therefore consider this matter carefully in the course of discussions about the factors which should be prescribed under Clause 11(9)(b). I consider, however, that the basic mechanism of the collective community charge multiplier is flexible and sound. I hope, with that detailed explanation of what the multiplier is, the noble Lord will feel that some explanation has been helpful and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

Can the noble Lord clear my mind? Does he mean that there will be a fixed charge on the establishment based on the capacity of the establishment, or that he would calculate on the numbers there? I have not been sure on this point.

Lord Glenarthur

I ought to have the answer to a technical question such as this at my fingertips. That may be a point on which I shall have to elucidate the noble Lord. Perhaps I ought to study this question. I may well mislead the noble Lord if I were to answer him directly. I fear that I may be giving him inaccurate information.

Lord Ross of Marnock

We are including in this group Amendment No. 170Z13—which is in the names of myself and my colleagues—and also Amendments Nos. 170AA and 174B. We have to face up to the difficulties for the owner of the establishment which contains these people who are to be subject to the strange procedure of being there for two or three nights and having to pay an amount which we do not yet know. The calculation is to be made in this case by the registration officer without much guidance from the Government by prescription. The registration officer is the man who makes the decision about what the multiplier is to be. That is a difficult decision, especially when one considers the changes that take place.

In Amendment No. 170ZB I suggest that the liability calculation will be restricted to the amount collected. This point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. However, we go a little further and say that any amount that was expected but was not received will be made good by the Secretary of State making an appropriate grant payment to the relevant local authority.

Regarding Amendment No. 170AA, if we wish to keep the situation up to date and as accurate as possible, the register has to be kept up to date. At page 10, line 40, we suggest a new sub-paragraph which reads: The collective community multiplier specified in relation to any premises in the register shall be subject to a monthly reassessment by the registration officer". This is necessary because the registration officer could be widely wrong either to the advantage or disadvantage of the owner of the premsies. That situation requires looking at and something needs to be done.

Amendment No. 174B states: The person liable under this section to pay a collective community charge in respect of any premises shall be entitled to receive a central government grant equivalent to the administrative expenses incurred in collecting the community charge contribution from persons resident". There is no doubt that this is a very easy way to collect taxes, to say "you will do it". It is one thing for someone to do it personally—and there will be some questions about that matter—but to ask someone to become an unpaid tax collector is too much.

Before we finish with the Bill, which will be some time yet, I should like the Minister to give his views more clearly in respect of the percentage of the calculations and work that has to be done by the person responsible for the payment of the collective community charge to the levying authority. Then we will have an idea whether or not he is being reasonably fair to the people concerned.

We cannot spend too much time discussing these matters at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill. When I consider the time which was lost earlier before we were able to start, and the time that was taken up by the interruption by other legislation, no doubt the Scots will get the blame for keeping the Chamber up. It has nothing to do with us at all. There were two introductions and then another Bill which went way beyond the time expected. I am emphasising that as usual we are silent, efficient, and as brief as we possibly can be.

Lord Glenarthur

Before the noble Lord sits down—

Lord Ross of Marnock

I have not even sat down, but if the noble Lord wishes to intervene then I shall be delighted to sit down for a minute.

Lord Glenarthur

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I know he is keen to hear some answers to the points which he raised concerning Amendments Nos. 170ZB and 170AA. Perhaps I may say, without repeating the explanation which I have given concerning the question of the basic purpose of the collective community charge multiplier, that Amendment No. 170ZB is similar to Amendment 170ZA with the difference that the Secretary of State has to make good any shortfall between the sum collected by the owner of premises subject to the collective community charge, and what is described as the invoiced liability.

I have already explained, although maybe not entirely to the noble Lord's satisfaction, why the procedure for assessing liability as set out in the Bill is to be preferred, and the disadvantages inherent in relying on the word of the landlord in regard to the number of residents, and why I must resist this amendment as well as the earlier one.

Amendment No. 170AA runs counter to the specific provisions in Clause 15(1)(b), which states: no amendment of the collective community charge multiplier in respect of any premises shall be made or take effect until three months, or such other period as may be prescribed after the date when the current entry in the register is made or takes effect". It is recognised that there may well be a need to adjust the multiplier from time to time to take account of changes in occupancy rates or in accommodation available. There is also need to guard against persons liable for the collective community charge making unreasonably frequent requests for changes to the multiplier and thereby wasting the registration officer's time. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that as far as concerns monthly reassessment of the multiplier, I believe that is unnecessary because the setting of the multiplier is subject to appeal under Clause 16. In many cases the multiplier will not significantly change and it would be unduly onerous to require the frequent reassessment for which the noble Lord asks.

As for guidance from the Government to try to help pave the way for such a situation, I think the factors to be used in calculating the multiplier, and the fact that they are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, will help because we intend that there will be full consultation with the interested parties concerned before the regulations are made. Perhaps I may end by clarifying a point which I was unable to clear with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on the point he raised concerning the last amendment and say that actual use for residential periods is the criterion which he was concerned about.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I thought that the Minister was just interrupting me. May I say to him that if the Secretary of State had to pay £2.40 for every "prescription" that is in this Bill, to which he refers sometimes two or three times within a single paragraph, I think we should be pretty well off and he would be able to reduce the community charge very considerably.

I listened to what the Minister said. I did not learn very much and certainly did not agree with many of the things he said about preferring this and preferring that. He did not quite say why he preferred it, although I know he did; otherwise it would not be in the Bill at all. But I shall not press my amendments at this stage.

Lord Wilson of Langside

I am not sure that the Minister has convinced me that certainty, in the context of these amendments, will be achieved by the provisions of the Bill as they stand, but I am most grateful to him for the very careful and detailed reply which he has presented to the Committee. I will not say that I shall read it with pleasure because I get less and less pleasure out of reading anything to do with this Bill, but I shall certainly read it with interest and come back on these matters only if I think there is no escape from doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 170ZB, 170A, 170AA, 170E and 170C not moved.]

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 171: Page II, line 15, leave out (", apart from this subsection,")

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.

My Amendment No. 171 seeks to improve the drafting of subsection (10) paragraph (b) by removing the words "apart from this subsection". These words imply that subsection (10) creates a form of liability for the collective community charge. That is not the case, and, since the words are not essential, it is preferable that they should be removed. However, it is necessary to retain the provision of subsection (10)(b) that a person who is liable for the collective community charge itself should not also be liable for a collective community charge contribution.

Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would delete that provision and replace it by something rather different aimed at ensuring that someone who was liable to pay the personal community charge should not find himself in the position of being liable to pay also a contribution towards the collective community charge. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that the present paragraph (c) of subsection (10) has precisely that effect. In case there were any doubt on this point, any overpayment made in these circumstances where misunderstanding had arisen would be repayable under subsection (16) of the clause. It is therefore impossible for one person to be liable to pay both a personal community charge and a contribution towards the collective community charge in respect of the same period.

These provisions provide a satisfactory protection for those who may find themselves in difficulty in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept my amendment and that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 172.

Lord Ross of Marnock

It is giving a hostage to fortune when a Minister says it is impossible to do something under this Bill. Anything can happen under this Bill, and I dare say somebody will find himself down to pay twice. The Minister's confidence in the system which has been worked out and which has caused us some headaches today is rather misplaced. I thought he was going to accept my amendment when I saw that he was leaving out the words "apart from this subsection", as was I, but I then went on to say something much more constructive which I knew would not do at all. However, I shall not argue with him at this time today.

I think my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has something to say. Depending on what that is, I shall make up my mind as to whether I continue with my amendment or defer to the noble Lord.

Lord Morton of Shuna

I was going to ask this. How does the person in charge of the collective community establishment know whether somebody is liable to pay a personal community charge? Is it just because some character turns up and says, "I have been thrown out of the house by my spouse. I need a bed for the night. I am registered to pay a personal community charge and therefore I do not need to pay my collective community charge contribution for the night"? Alternatively, is somebody to give him a certificate showing that he is registered for the personal community charge somewhere in Scotland; or is the housekeeper of the establishment to keep a register of the whole of Scotland showing who is liable to pay a personal community charge and where? How is one to know whether somebody who turns up at night for a bed at somewhere such as the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is liable to pay a personal community charge or has paid it?

Lord Glenarthur

Presumably the answer lies in the fact that the appropriate register will contain details of the person's previous address. If someone turns up for a very short period in the way that the noble Lord suggests, that will be taken account of because it will be possible to trace it through the address given and see what that place was. That is a way of verifying it.

Lord Morton of Shuna

The noble Lord's answer implies that everybody in charge of a homeless persons' establishment has a complete register of people who pay the personal charge throughout Scotland. It also implies that at 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night he has the ability to check whether somebody, who may not be totally sober at the time he turns up for a bed, is giving the right address and whether he has paid the personal community charge before he knows whether he is liable to charge him that night for his 365th personal community charge. It seems to me to be a ludicrous system, and I do not understand how it is supposed to work.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not think I can go much further than to say that the individual paying the personal community charge will presumably have a receipt. The noble Lord must not interrupt me, as he looks as though he is about to do, before I have explained what it is he has asked me to explain. He will have a receipt, and if he is wrongly charged he has a right to reclaim that amount under subsection (16). It seems to me that both those conditions (subsection (16) and the fact that he will have that receipt) are designed to protect the individual concerned in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting should be done by another means.

Lord Morton of Shuna

With all respect, will the Minister look at subsection (16)? It reads: A person to whom there has been paid". That is not the person who has wrongly paid a collective community charge. That is the recipient of it; the landlord. He has a duty to repay that sum. I was going to ask, when we come to consider this clause, how the poor landlord will be able to trace half of the wanderers who move about the countryside and may or may not carry with them their receipts for their personal community charge.

This is a new concept. I do not carry with me my receipt for rates. I must learn the habit, but so must the whole of Scotland apparently in case we suddenly become homeless because of a fire in the house, or whatever, and go into one of these establishments and have to satisfy the keeper that we have paid our personal community charge. How are we to do that? Do we have a tag around our neck which is stamped by the local authority? This illustrates the complete stupidity of the whole scheme as regards people who go in and out of such establishments.

Subsection (16) is absolutely weird. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister has any conception of what these establishments are like. How do you trace some of the people who choose to wander about the countryside and say, "I am terribly sorry, but on the 23rd March I took a collective community charge off you and I have to give it you back"? How do you find him? There is some element of idiocy at large in working this out. It is completely unworkable.

Lord Glenarthur

I hear what the noble Lord says. The landlord can consult the public register. That is the first point. Nor need this particular matter—the noble Lord is always very ready to hear half an argument, or half an answer, without hearing the whole thing. Perhaps if he bore with me for a moment or two—I will come back to the general point in a moment—he would understand that it is not necessary for this sort of issue, which I understand he is concerned about, to be sorted out immediately someone arrives at the collective community charge premises. Indeed that seems to me to be largely the purpose of subsection (16) which the noble Lord writes off as not being relevant.

I accept that a system which is new, and which many people need to understand, will not be achieved necessarily overnight. I shall certainly note the noble Lord's points and the concerns he raises. No doubt he will study what I have said in the same way that I shall study what he has said. If we both do that, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

In this case I have a certain sympathy with the Minister. If the floater or drifter goes along and does not have his little bit of paper, he will be charged the community charge, and either the community will gain or the landlord will gain. I should have thought that very soon any chap who was drifting around these places, if he has paid the community charge, will carry his little bit of paper. In this case, in this miserable one little instance, the Minister may be right and they would actually carry the receipt around with them.

Lord Glenarthur

I think it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Morton, to decide whether it is a miserable little issue or not. It is not a matter for me.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I think we can solve this quite easily. We are going into the Recess on Thursday. It is quite a lengthy Recess. There are plenty of Salvation Army hostels in Glasgow. The Government will be able to talk to the people there, to the owner of the place, and go to some of the other places. The Great Eastern was mentioned. The Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow is still open. Quite a number of Americans have turned up at the Great Eastern Hotel not realising that it was a model lodging house.

We take it that the Minister will report back to us at the next stage of the Bill just how simple all this is going to be and how people carry around these receipts. These drifters will probably carry their American Express receipts, because they will pay for this. How much is it per night? It will amount to 50p, or something or other. You do not take risks carrying too much money around certain places, and they will probably pay by American Express. This will show how easy it is in that respect. I am sure that one of the Ministers of the Scottish Office will undertake the duty to go there.

The Minister had his turn and went to see the nurses yesterday. So somebody can go to the model lodging house and these establishments next week and duly report back to us how easy it is going to be to do all this kind of thing about registering people, seeing the receipts, and how they are able to do this without a register. I do not know who is going to have this complete register. We shall come to registers later. That is going to be another interesting part of the proceedings. I find it difficult to understand, knowing something about these places. Many of these places had voters so you discovered what they were like and how people moved around. Therefore one realises how unrealistic an awful lot of this is in respect of the collective charge.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 172 not moved]

9.30 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 173: Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 26 and insert (", for each day of his residence in the premises, pay to the person liable under this section for that collective community charge an amount equal to the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) below divided by the number in paragraph (b) below— (a) the amount in this paragraph is—

1. (i) the sum of the personal community charges determined in respect of that year by each local authority; or
994
2. (ii) (in the case of an islands council) the amount of the personal community charge determined in respect of that year by the local authority in the area of which the premises are situated;

b) the number of days in that year, (and such a payment is referred to in this section as a "collective community charge contribution".)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 160 on Clause 10, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 174: Page 12, line 7, at end insert ("if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment.").

The noble Lord said: I understand noble Lords opposite are very keen that I should move this amendment, and I shall do so. It is another attempt to help the Government over their difficulties on this matter. Dealing with the wanderers, it seems impossible that these poor landlords should have to hunt about Scotland or elsewhere to find them and repay them their 50p, or whatever they have paid overnight. The amendment that I am moving would add at the end the words: if the person to whom that sum is due claims repayment within three months of the payment". I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not always intend to indicate that what the noble Lord is suggesting in his amendments is not beyond the realms of possibility and that perhaps every single corner he turns to in the Bill is not one which we could look at. I can say that I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment. I also have to say to him that I am a little concerned that the drafting may not make it exactly clear that it is the person to whom repayment of the sum is due who must claim repayment within three months of the date of payment. If the noble Lord is happy to take it away on the understanding that Y accept the point he makes, I would hope to be able to come forward with something on these lines later.

Lord Morton of Shuna

On the understanding that my English is going to be improved by the Government, that is something I shall look forward to seeing. I thought it was fairly clear that what I meant was that the person to whom the repayment was due had to claim it back within three months. If that is not clear, I shall be delighted to see how the Government in six lines can make it clearer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend replies on that further point, I wonder whether I may point out that a limitation period of three months for the establishment of a civil action is a very short period indeed. When my noble friend is looking further at this matter will he bear in mind that much longer periods of limitation for the claiming of money are acknowledged by the law generally?

Lord Glenarthur

I shall certainly bear my noble friend's point in mind. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I sincerely hope that six lines will not be necessary to encompass what he believes is required.

Lord Morton of Shuna

If I have not sat down by begging leave to withdraw this amendment, if I may I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are dealing with, so to speak, one night's community charge, which is one three-hundred-and-sixty-fifth of, say, £250. The landlord, if that is the right word, will have paid that at some point to the local authority—probably monthly. There is a good deal of bookkeeping involved. If at the end of three years, which is the normal limit of civil liability, there is a liability to repay, I should have thought it could become far too complicated. However, I again beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Renton

I am not suggesting that the normal limitation period of three years would be appropriate in these circumstances. What I am saying is that a period of three months appears to be disproportionately short in the particular circumstances which arise here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 174A and 174B not moved.]

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12[Community Charges Registration Officer]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 175: Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges").

The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple amendment and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it Amendments Nos. 177, 181 and 184A. The purpose of the amendment is to give flexibility to a local authority in order that it may itself decide whom to appoint as community charges registration officer. Certain authorities may wish the registration and collection functions to be controlled by the same official—for example, the director of finance—so that there is potential for a speedier and more effective flow of information to improve the follow-up of arrears. As I said, it is a fairly simple amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I hope the noble Lord will understand that it is important that the registration officer should have, and should be seen to have, a considerable degree of independence from the local authority. He will be responsible for establishing and keeping up to date the register which will be the basis of the new system, and it must be clear that he should be able to do so in terms of the general duty set out in subsection (4)—which I think we shall discuss on the next group of amendments—without any suggestion that the local authority should be able to interfere with his exercise of that duty.

Against that background, a number of very strong arguments point towards the designation of the assessor as registration officer for community charges purposes. The assessor is already statutorily responsible for drawing up the valuation roll. His appointment as community charges registration officer therefore recognises the importance of the relationship between the valuation roll and the new register. In establishing the basis for the new system, the twin tasks of identifying domestic subjects and part residential subjects in the valuation roll and registering those resident in them or otherwise liable to pay one of the community charges must go hand in hand if the system is to operate satisfactorily. It is therefore only common sense that the assessor, who will in any case have responsibility for the first of these functions, should also have responsibility for the second.

The appointment of the assessor as community charges registration officer ensures automatically that the degree of independence from the local authority already enjoyed by the assessor will be carried over, as is necessary, to the appointment of the community charges registration officer. A further argument for the appointment of the assessor is that, although he is not statutorily required to be so, he is at present in all cases the electoral registration officer for the area and will have registration expertise, albeit, as we shall see later, of a rather different kind from that which will be required for operating the rolling community charges register. All these arguments point to the conclusion that it is right in principle and sensible in practice to give the functions of community charges registration officer to the assessor.

I turn now to Amendment No. 184A, which would delete the provision whereby a regional or islands council is required to secure the provision of sufficient staff, accommodation and other resources to enable the registration officer to perform his functions under the Bill. It is quite clear that that provision is an essential matter to go hand in hand with the establishment of the independent post of community charges registration officer, as I have described it. To accept this amendment would not be in the interests of the connection between those two roles. I hope that with that speedy explanation of what is entailed the noble Lord will feel somewhat reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I have only one point to make. We had a very interesting discussion on Clause 11. The registration officer is mentioned three times in that clause. He is given certain powers. He has to determine in respect of premises whether or not they are collective premises. Having given him those powers we then proceed to appoint him. He is not mentioned before. Suddenly in Clause 12 it says, There shall be a Community Charges Registration Officer". It is nice to know that in Clause 12, when we have been talking about him in Clause 11 without any definition. It is a haywire and, as we might say in Scotland, a Highland way of doing things. I am thinking of the broken-down computer under which they are labouring in the Highlands according to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Having talked about the officer and given him duties in Clause 11, it is nonsensical then to say, "We had better appoint him".

Lord Glenarthur

I do not wish to prolong the discussion. However, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 26 under "Interpretation" he will see that where it refers to registration officer in Clause 11 it: means a Community Charges Registration Officer within the meaning of section 12".

Lord Ross of Marnock

That is even better.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not think that that is too complicated. I accept that it might not be as simple as having a separate interpretation clause for Clause 11. However, that takes us back to the whole interpretation argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Gray, today and last week.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Then we had better include an instruction saying, "To understand this Bill in respect of the registration officer, begin at the end and not at the beginning". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176: Page 12, line 9, leave out ("Community Charges") and insert ("Local Taxation").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee also to discuss Amendments Nos. 178 to 180, 183 and 185. The effect of the amendment would be to establish a national registration office in Scotland financed by central government. I see difficulties with this amendment and I am not all that enthusiastic. However, the Law Society of Scotland in asking that the amendment be put forward raised a number of points which I believe are worth looking at in considering how we can get round the problem.

It has been suggested that if there is no central appeal procedure, sheriff courts can then decide appeals against registration decisions. The possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions could easily arise. There might be a situation in which an individual was found by two separate sheriff courts to be resident in two different regions and thus liable to pay dual community charges. For example, a family in Glasgow or Edinburgh could have a house in Dumfriesshire or in the Border region and could decide, on the basis of what the community charge was likely to be, where it was most advantageous to claim a main residence. If such a matter went to a sheriff court in Dumfries, a decision might be made that the main residence was there; on the other hand, an appeal to a sheriff court in the Lothians or Strathclyde might result in a decision that the main residence was there.

I do not like the idea of a central register. However, how does one solve a problem such as this? The problem of dual registration would not arise if there was a central register. While I believe that there are political objections to the amendment, I wonder what other practical system the Minister can suggest. Under the system of the single register, the registrar would make the decision as to where an individual's sole or main residence was. Many things about it worry me but it highlights a problem that could arise if the different houses were in two distinct regions. There must be many people in mid-Scotland who have houses in the Highlands. It could be difficult to decide which was their pied-à-terre and which was their main residence. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

The community charge is of course a form of local taxation, like domestic rates, although it will be much more visibly linked with the level of local services provided. It is natural therefore to assume that all arrangements for its collection ought to be locally based and the arguments for not doing so would have to be very compelling indeed before centralised arrangements could be considered a viable alternative. I have not heard such arguments put forward in an acceptable way.

In whatever way a single registration officer for the whole of Scotland carried out his duties, there would be little doubt that he would be seen as operating a national registration system. I do not think that I need dwell on this point. I shall only say that there is absolutely no need for such a system in order to run the community charge system efficiently, and the Bill does not provide for one. To do so, and to do what the noble Lord suggests, would really go well beyond the necessary scope of our proposals.

As to the concern that there may be an element of double registration, I can only say to the noble Lord that the appeal system in Clause 16(3) provides for just that kind of problem—for appeals in these circumstances to be heard by a single sheriff. I should have thought that that is the way to deal with the problem. As a matter of principle, I would expect local authorities themselves to wish to see the work to establish that base being done locally as well.

The arguments are quite straightforward. I hope the noble Lord will accept that what he is proposing would neither be practicable nor sensible.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

This was a probing amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 177 to 181 not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 182: Page 12, line 19, after ("perform") insert ("adequately").

The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment and will, I am sure, commend itself to the Government, who are determined to make this organisation efficient, and so on.

We have now appointed the electoral registration officer, who is also the assessor—the valuer—to the position of registration officer for the community charges. Now we are asking the regional and islands councils to appoint an additional number of deputy registration officers as they consider necessary to enable the registration officer to perform his functions. I suggest that the provision should read, to enable the registration officer to perform adequately his functions". This is a reasonable amendment because he can perform his functions well or otherwise. It may depend on how many deputies are appointed. I am waiting for someone from the other side of the Committee to get up and ask how much will be paid because of all this extra work and how many extra staff will be involved. We seek an assurance that it will not be called excessive expenditure. There will be additional expenditure and no doubt it will be construed as excessive.

So far as I can see, there is nothing that limits the regional or islands councils, who are the levying authorities, from going a dinger on this one! They do not even need the permission of the Secretary of State. They are given the power to do it. They are not even asked to conform to something laid down by the Treasury. My concern is that their remit shall not be just to perform their function but to perform their function adequately; and that will relate to the number of staff they appoint. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I listened with interest to the noble Lord's explanation of Amendment No. 182. The noble Lord may feel that, as Amendment No. 184 is connected with this amendment under the grouping list that was agreed, it may be relevant to speak to it. If he feels otherwise, I can shorten my remarks.

Lord Ross of Marnock

It is not only relevant, but I am referring to the strange drafting. It is otiose. Having appointed a man and told him what is his function, we have the words: The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register for his registration area"— I think we all knew that— so that it is as comprehensive as possible. What do those words mean? We can do without them. Therefore, if the noble Lord the Minister wishes to do so he can take the two amendments together. I shall not lose any sleep so long as he accepts them.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not think I can necessarily go that far. What I hope to do is simply to shorten our consideration by taking the two amendments in the way I thought had been agreed; but perhaps that was somehow missed out.

When I first read Amendment No. 182 it occurred to me that there are two possible interpretations of the word "adequately" in this context. There is the obvious interpretation that the intention is that the regional or islands council should provide a sufficient number of deputes to allow the registration officer to carry out properly his duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible. However, since the noble Lord's Amendment No. 184 would take away the duty of keeping the register as comprehensive as possible—and this is why I brought up this point—I was forced to conclude that "adequately" was intended to bear the meaning of achieving a tolerable standard of performance but some way short of excellence.

As I said, Amendment No. 184 would alter the general duty in Clause 12(3) on the registration officer to prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register so that the register is at all times as comprehensive as possible. That duty is necessary in the interests of the local authority and its residents to ensure that as many persons as possible who are solely or mainly resident in the local authority's area are registered. It also ensures that as many as possible of the addresses of properties in respect of which liability for the standard or collective community charges arise are also entered on the register.

The need for, and the benefit of, this provision is clear. The greater the numbers registered, the wider will be the spread of those who will be liable for the charges; and the less will be the amounts of the individual charges determined by the local authority and payable by the local authority residents, or in respect of the services provided to property within the local authority area.

The specific requirement which this amendment seeks to remove is that registers be kept at all times in as comprehensive as possible a state. This requirement recognises the reality of the situation that there will always be cases which escape registration so the nature of the duty on the registration officer is not unreasonably onerous. These words are necessary also as clear guidance to the registration officer, in addition to that contained in Clause 17(1) as to the ultimate objective of his duties in relation to the register.

I must confess that there is perhaps just a little irony in these amendments, because the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and his noble friends and indeed those on the Alliance Benches have forecast that the proposals for registration will prove very difficult to operate in practice. It appears to me that these amendments may be designed to fulfil that prophecy by encouraging the registration officer not to try very hard to keep the register up-to-date.

Anyway, with the explanation which I have given, I hope the noble Lord will see that it is essential for the words under discussion to remain in subsection (4) and that it is undesirable for the word "adequately" to be inserted in subsection (3). I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Burton

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I do not want to cause difficulties to my noble friend but with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, we have one Highland problem. I understand that there is a large house in Inverness, in and out of which flit a fairly large number of "winos". I gather it would be extremely difficult to keep the register up-to-date and that they would virtually require a registration officer of their own.

Lord Glenarthur

In response to my noble friend, I should say that it is all very well to produce particular instances of places in Inverness or anywhere else. If the noble Lord feels that there is a problem in a particular locality, that is something which he could take up with the registration officer. If he wanted to raise it with me, I should be happy to look at it but I cannot answer that point at the moment.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

I should like to make a totally unhelpful remark at this time of night. So often in the statutes we have words which are subject to wide dispute. What is reasonable and what is not reasonable is so often disputed that I would say with total assurance that what we on this side of the Committee, my noble friend or any of his successors, consider to be adequate, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will almost certainly consider to be totally inadequate.

Lord Underhill

Before my noble friend Lord Ross tell us what he proposes to do with his amendment, in the light of what the Minister has said—although it may not be wise for some noble Lords—I think reference ought to be made to the English newspaper, the Guardian and a report that it carried on Friday, 3rd April. Reference was made briefly this afternoon to the Home Office survey on the register of electors. Bearing in mind that the register of electors is supposed to be a thorough-going register of people voting, we find that newspaper stating prominently: Inadequate funding blamed, as one in six youths face loss of general election rights". My noble friend Lord Ross asked who would fund the work in connection with registration and the study which was commissioned by the Home Office. I have no doubt that the same features will be found in Scotland as in the Home Office report. For, according to a new study commissioned by the Home Office, 2½million people are likely to be denied the vote at the next general election because they have been left off the electoral register. The article goes on to say that a further 2.6 million who have died or moved house will be wrongly included. That is 5 million.

In the light of this, as regards a register to deal with payment of community charges, there is surely something in what my noble friend has said about funding and also about having a full staff to enable the work to be done adequately.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not really think it would be right to debate the question of funding which the noble Lord raises in relation to an article in the Guardian which I confess I have not seen. The article refers to a different register, albeit one which I freely confess I have used as a vehicle for explaining the work of the registration officer and responding to points which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made in relation to this amendment.

On Amendment No. 182 and the question of "adequately," I find this a very difficult concept, for the reasons I have given. I hope the noble Lord will study what I have said when he sees Hansard. On the question of Amendment No. 184, I must confess that I find the noble Lord's argument much more telling. If he feels that this is something particularly which ought to be looked at again, I am perfectly prepared to do that. I cannot undertake to look at Amendment No. 182 but I should be prepared to consider Amendment No. 184.

10 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I did not intend these amendments to be taken together, because they concern different points. In the first case the amendment refers to appointment of additional assistants to enable the registrar to do his job. He will not appoint the staff; it is the council who does that. I think that it is not just to enable him to perform his job but to perform it adequately. If the Minister does not like the word "adequate" I can think of many others.

When we come to the other point, after having all this rubbish about subsections (1), (2) and (3), we come to subsection (4) and what I thought ought to have been the first duty of the registrar; namely: The registration officer shall prepare, maintain and keep up-to-date the register". If we trust this man and he is appointed to do a job, must we add: so that it is as comprehensive as possible"? I do not think that those words add anything to the sense. The man is appointed to do the job; he is told to do the job and then he is asked to go and do it as well as he can. Those words that I have quoted do not mean anything and they ought to be deleted. I hope that they will be deleted. That was my only intention in respect of that amendment.

As for standards, it may well be that I shall never be satisfied with the standards that I receive from a Scottish Office in which the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, features, or even the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. My standards are a little higher than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 183 to 185 not moved.]

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Community Charges Register]:

[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 187: Page 13, line 4, leave out ("natural").

The noble Lord said: I know that the question has been asked before and indeed I myself have asked it. Do we need this word "natural"? I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

Before embarking upon a reply which I fear will be almost but not quite as short as the speech of the noble Lord who has moved the amendment, I think that he may be expecting the Committee to deal with the amendment together with Amendments Nos. 188, 189 and 190.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I did not.

Lord Glenarthur

The noble Lord says that he did not. However, that was an agreed grouping, unless it has been changed. Perhaps I may take Amendment No. 187 as it stands and refer to those other amendments as well. They will change or delete the provision whereby the register is to include the date of birth of each natural person registered in it. It may help if I explain the reason for this provision, which was inserted by means of a government amendment in the course of the Report stage of the Bill in another place.

First of all, it is necessary to restrict the provision to natural persons for the simple, technical reason that if it were not made clear it might be thought that the intention was to include corporate persons such as companies in the provision. The names of companies and indeed local authorities will appear on the register since in some cases they will be the owners who are liable for the standard or collective community charges. However, in relation to corporate persons the concept of date of birth is obviously meaningless and it would not be right to leave any doubt as to what the provision meant by omitting the word "natural", which makes it clear that the persons in question are individual human beings.

I could embark upon a further explanation about the provision generally and I could go into further detail on the other amendments, but I hope that with that explanation of why we had to add it in another place, the noble Lord will be satisfied.

Lord Ross of Marnock

At this moment I should not seek to encourage the Minister to make another long, extensive speech. The Minister should quit when he is winning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 189: Page 13, line 4, leave out ("his date of birth").

The noble Lord said: The question of date of birth has caused considerable concern in terms of what questions will be asked for the register. Certain people are worried about the date of birth going on to a register which may be open to the implications raised in respect of an earlier amendment; that is, that this would be readily available to anyone who went, say, into a Salvation Army home or the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow. This could be quite dangerous if it were made available to anyone who liked to look up the ages of people.

I am increasingly troubled about the availability of lists of people and of computers to churn them out. One joins an organisation and then discovers that one's address, with the addresses of all the other members of the organisation, has been sold to certain agencies. One then starts getting through the letter-box all sorts of unwanted invitations to do this, that and the other. We have therefore to be chary about new lists of people and new registers. The inclusion of ages causes considerable concern in that an individual can look up a register and discover, for example, an old person living at home aged 80.

Why the person's age is required for entry I do not know. All one needs is the fact that a person is 18 or over. I do not know whether sufficient attention has been paid to this. Many people are afraid to reveal their age. We in this place and those in another place have only to lift a newspaper and we are told our age when we are trying to forget it. There can also be a measure of falsification of age by certain people. If people give the wrong date of birth, they will be subject to penalties in this case. Have all these matters been thought out?

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point. For a good many ladies who are middle-aged or even less to have their ages revealed would be distressing. There are ladies who are in a position to conceal their age and who take great trouble to do so. I do not see that it is necessary for ages to be revealed in this instance.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I am sure that this is right. Oscar Wilde, as Members of the Committee will know, said that a woman who would reveal her age would reveal anything.

Lord Morton of Shuna

From his previous ministerial responsibility, the Minister may recollect the habit of police statements in England giving the date of birth of people if they are under 21 but if they are 21 or over they just say "over 21". I should have thought that or something similar is the answer.

Lord Glenarthur

I hope that I can reassure the Committee. By way of preface I should say that it was after considering the views of the Rating and Valuation Association's rating forum that we undertook to include this point. I think that the burden of the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, let alone Oscar Wilde, relate to dates of birth being available to the public. I should make it clear that we do not propose that dates of birth should be included in the part of the register that is made available for public inspection. That could lead to the type of embarrassment about which we have heard.

As provided in Clause 20, dates of birth will be made available only to registration officers and local authorities which need the information for registration purposes or for levying or collecting the community charge. The availability of dates of birth will greatly assist the smooth operation of the registration system. They will not be available to the public in the way that the Committee may have feared. I hope that with that the noble Lord will feel reassured.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I do not think that that is enough. Dates of birth will be made available to local authorities. I presume that everyone in the local authority—council members, officers and the rest—can go and see them. Suppose someone is 65. What good will that do with regard to this Bill? I can understand the need to know that someone is over 18. But the age does not matter at any other point unless something is coming along about which we know nothing; perhaps that everyone over the age of 70 will not pay the charge. I shall not do any special pleading on my behalf and say that everyone over 75 or 76 should not pay the charge. It is not good enough to say that the date of birth will not be made public and then say that it will be shown to the levying authority. Why?

Lord Glenarthur

I shall answer the noble Lord since he asks me.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I trust that the noble Lord will answer when I sit down, in keeping with the rules of this place. I shall be glad to sit down.

Lord Glenarthur

I am trying to assist the noble Lord. I endeavoured to answer the point about privacy which he, supported by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, rightly and understandably makes about those who do not want their age to be disclosed. As I said to the noble Lord, there is a point in this. It was raised by the rating forum. There is also another point. It was pointed out that to assist in the identification of individuals it would be desirable for the register to record in all cases the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the simplest example it would allow people at an address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. For example, there may be, and there probably will be, three John Smiths—father, son and grandson—liable for the personal community charge at a single address. For billing and collection purposes it would have to be clear which was which.

More generally, however, the inclusion of dates of birth on the register will be useful when an individual's identity has to be checked when he moves from one local authority area to another, or it would be difficult for the registration officer in the new area to be sure that the John Smith who was recorded as having arrived in his area on a particular date was the same John Smith who had left another area on the same date. In checking with his opposite number from the local authority from which the individual had come, he would have to have some further form of identification or he could not be sure that the person who was claiming to have arrived in the new area on a certain date had not been resident there and liable for the community charge for some considerable time beforehand. If, however, dates of birth are available it will be much easier for such checking to be carried out.

Notwithstanding the point about privacy, which I entirely take, as I hope I have made clear, all we are trying to do is to help local authority practitioners, which judging by the burden of the noble Lord's remarks earlier this afternoon is something that he is only too keen to do.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

In the electoral register we can have any number of John Smiths. We should be quite pleased to have as many as possible considering the right honourable Member in another place. However, in the electoral register we do not have dates of birth except for people who attain the age of 18 during the year of the register. Why is it necessary in this case if it is quite easy to identify who is voting?

Lord Burton

Anyone who has canvassed in the Highlands will know that it would be easier if the dates of birth were there. I have been to houses where there are three or four John Macdonalds next door to each other. I believe that the same can apply to Anne Macdonalds. I cannot see why the noble Lord opposite is making such a fuss about this quite simple matter. It would be much easier; the registration office has said that it would be easier.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I thought that it was only horses that one identified by their teeth. It is ludicrous to think that people should be identified by their age. One can have three John Macdonalds in the same village all of the same age. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has a point here.

Lord Glenarthur

I do not know whether I am right but I suspect that I may be. Perhaps one may compare this with a driving licence, for example, although it may not be an exactly similar point. The code number which appears is simply a number in relation to a date of birth, which may apply to an individual whom the noble Lord opposite feels ought not to have the date of birth exposed, but is a kind of cryptographic means of transmitting the same date for the purposes of checking the register. I should have thought that there was nothing harmful in that. It does not compromise the concerns which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has expressed on this point. I should have thought that it was entirely helpful. That seems to me to be very much the burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Burton, who seems to have some experience of meeting this problem.

Lord Wilson of Langside

If this debate is not going to come to an end soon, perhaps there should be a provision that if one has a conscientious objection to disclosing one's age one does not disclose it. Then we could have a tribunal—to add to the bureaucracy—to certify whether the objections were conscientious or not.

Lord Ross of Marnock

We have all had this difficulty in respect of two names which are similar, or the same, in a particular household. But I remember an election in Wales where there were about four candidates all with the same name. Believe it or not the electors were evidently very much more far seeing than the officers who are to be appointed to this job—at a very big salary—because they managed to understand the situation without any debate.

I still think that there is concern about the age being shown. This provision is aimed at ease of administration. The question arose in respect of driving licences. The dates are on driving licences but in code. I think I am right in suggesting that.

Noble Lords

Yes.

Lord Ross of Marnock

And they are not available to anyone else. Another helpful point was raised in respect of the electoral registration officer. He has been appointed because he has some experience of this kind. On the electoral register there is a number. If people are going to report that someone has moved south of the Border or elsewhere that number will be sufficient. In this case it may be that there will be no numbers. But I believe that it will be discovered later that there ought to be a number for ease of issuing these notices that are going out to people. The simplest way of all is to put a number in respect of all the various people who are on the register as paying these community charges.

I hope that the Minister will have another look at the matter. Now that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has looked at his driving licence and managed to discard all the strange marks on it telling him that he cannot drive because of some driving misdemeanour and put it away carefully in his pocket, maybe we shall return to this question. I am sure there is sufficient ingenuity among the people who are discussing this at the present time to enable us to see our way around it. We do not need to include a person's age. However, if the Minister is adamant we shall leave the matter for consideration at another time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

Before calling Amendment No. 191, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 191A.

[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]

Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 191A: Page 13, line 10, at end insert— ("( ) No regulation shall be made under subsection (1)(f) of this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I can be brief. I believe that there should be careful control over the information to be included in the community charge register. I cannot see that any information other than that already mentioned in Clause 13(1) will be at all necessary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important that a person's privacy is not invaded any more than is absolutely essential—a point which has been touched upon earlier. For that simple but very important reason and one which does not need elaboration, I beg to move the amendment.

The Earl of Dundee

The matters to appear in the entries in the register are confined to those considered necessary so that the register will provide a sufficient basis for the effective collection of the community charge. Amendment No. 191A, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, concerns power to prescribe these details. We shall shortly be consulting assessors and other interested parties about the exact requirements. But there is nothing particularly complex or difficult about them. Therefore, there is no good reason why these regulations, alone of the regulations to be made under the Bill, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In the light of that explanation, I wonder whether the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kirkhill

It is now 25 minutes past ten. The Committee has had a long session today and I am not going to begin a serious argument now. However, I give the Government due warning that I intend to return to this very important matter at a later stage of the Bill.

I could discuss at great length Clause 13 and the various paragraphs in subsection (1)—(a) to (0—which pertain to that clause. I cannot imagine what on earth more anyone would want to know about a person's individual position. I feel strongly about this matter and give due warning that I am totally dissatisfied with the reply. I intend to return to it at a more appropriate time and at a different stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 191B to 193 not moved.]

Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 194: Page 13, line 14, leave out ("(which need not be documentary form) as may be prescribed") and insert ("as to facilitate reasonable access by any person liable to pay the community charge")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we should like to know what is meant by the words: which need not be documentary form". This information will be on tablets of stone; it will be fed into a computer. What form will it take? It is very important that the register is accessible, readable and understandable, and I await the explanation of the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

It appears to me that this amendment rests on a misunderstanding. The form of the register has no direct connection with the question of access to it by persons liable to pay a community charge. The inspection of a register is dealt with in some detail in Clause 20. Nor is the access affected by whether the register is kept in documentary form or on computer. The provisions of Clause 20, which we shall be able to discuss in due course, apply in either case. Therefore I do not think that what the noble Lord is trying to do here would improve the terms of subsection (3). I hope that he will accept that and be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I gather from the result of my probe that it will either be in documentary form or on the computer. I trust that people will know how to extract the information from the computer. I presume it will be in documentary form when the printout is produced. With that comment, I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 194A not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 194B: Page 13, line 24, leave out from ("register") to end of line 25 and insert ("no later than 31st August 1988, at which date the register will come into force").

The noble Lord said: This is quite important because when we get to the point of fixing dates and times we have to bear in mind that the register is to come into force on 1st April. One must remember that this concerns the Scottish Office. Earlier today we heard about the difficulties, so we really should put down a time for the work and preparation of this register to be completed.

Although my amendment uses the words "will come into force" I am not sure that that is exactly the right phrase because the register does not really come into force until 1st April. That is therefore a point which will need to be taken up at another time, but I am suggesting that it should say "no later than 31st August 1988" because 1st April 1989 is the starting date. To assist local authorities who have to introduce this and work on the sums of money which are available, we should have it in force by about 31st August.

Anybody who knows anything about rate support grant and the work that has to be done between the Government and the Scottish Office knows it will be necessary to advise by several months the timetable in respect of the rate support grant negotiations. A local authority must know what is coming in before it can even begin in the early part of the year to lay down what is to be the personal community charge and what is to be the collective community charge. There is also the work to be done on non-domestic rating, which continues. It is going to be very difficult. It is not good enough just to say "prepare the register by such date as may be prescribed as the date of coming into force of the register". That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

I have sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the need to be working towards a particular date, but this amendment would set a firm date of 31st August 1988 rather than a date to be prescribed as the date for the coming into force of the register. I am reluctant to embody in the Bill a firm date by which the register should come into force. The Bill provides that this date should be prescribed. It may indeed be prescribed as 31st August 1988, but as we see things at present that might be a little early. I should prefer to leave open the actual date until we have had further consultations with the Scottish Assessors' Association and other interested bodies so that we can be sure that the date chosen will be the correct and practicable one.

I appreciate of course that it is desirable that the date should be known as soon as possible. We have already met the Scottish Assessors' Association of preliminary discussions on the timetable for the preparation of the registers, and I had hoped that agreement could be reached and the necessary regulations on this point laid very soon after the enactment of the Bill. In view of the general explanation, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I can understand that the Government like to have a free hand. However, it will be troublesome from the point of view of the assessors—we now call them registration officers—unless they are given some information about when they can expect to commence this work. It depends entirely on when the Government give us a date. It is all very well for them to say that it will be soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that they could give some prior information as regards that matter. It is not clear whether they will be able to commence it even then.

Whether we like it or not, we know—I always knew—that there could not be a general election in May because the Government have to pass this Bill. If they are so determined, they could not hold a general election in May and give the notice required. I do not know whether or not they will be able to hold a general election in June because this Bill must go back to another place. As I understand the matter, proceedings on House of Lords' amendments in another place are not covered by the guillotine Motion which was passed earlier, unless, of course, they pass another Motion—and nothing would surprise me in respect of this matter.

What happens next? Whether it is June or October, a general election means work for the man in charge, the community charge registration officer, who in Scotland is also the electoral registration officer. Therefore he will have his hands full drawing up that register and sending out correspondence in respect of it. It will not be easy. He will have to be pushed if the local authority is to get the statistics it will require to make decisions in respect of standard charge and collective charge. It will also have to consider non-domestic rates. Somebody will have to be a slave-driver if the Government are to stick to their original date of 1st April 1989. I think that they will come to regret that. We have tried hard, and will probably try harder when we come to the next stage of the Bill, to give them some flexibility and leeway in respect of this.

In view of the explanation given by the Minister, however, I shall not proceed with the amendment tonight. When they are looking at this matter, though, will they look at the accuracy of the words "come into force"? I doubt if the Bill can come into force before 1st April 1989. The registers can be drawn up, but whether the legislation can be construed as "in force" simply because it is completed is worth looking at from the point of view of accuracy in relation to statute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]

Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 195A: Page 13, line 29, after ("notice") insert ("in plain language")

The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendment No. 195A, and linked with it is Amendment No. 201. I am concerned that the Government are proposing that everyone should be liable to pay something towards the community charge and that, as a consequence of that, many people will be brought into liability having no past experience of such circumstance in this particular area of their lives. I therefore consider it important that any statutory notices which are sent to a person entered in the community charges register, or affected by an amendment of the register, should be in plain language so that they are made aware of their rights and obligations in relation to the Act.

Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland pointed out in its observations to the Scottish Office consultation paper, at paragraph 12, that if the sheriff courts are to decide appeals about registration decisions the possibility of parallel actions and conflicting decisions will arise. For example, there does not seem to be anything to stop an appellant appealing to all the registration areas in which he is registered. The Law Society took the view that there should be an independent tribunal set up to deal with appeals and to determine disputes. I do not feel able to take a view on that, but I certainly think that this is further evidence of how badly the Bill is drafted. That point has been made much of in recent hours.

Quite clearly the possibility of multiple appeals has not even been considered, nor has the effect of the decision of a sheriff on other registration areas. But be that as it may, I suggest that any notice which is drafted in plain rather than otiose language can only be of help to all concerned. I beg to move.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I should not like to delay the Committee at this late hour, but I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says. We are dealing with a large number of people—I think the figure is 3.85 million—and there are a lot of people who will not understand some of the forms that come across their table. I instance the new Home Office directive on the form you have to fill in for postal votes. It is not exactly an improvement on the old one, in my view. It just shows what can happen when some departments get hold of an idea and they go on and on and produce the most incredible forms in the end.

If this whole system is going to succeed I do not know whether "in plain language" is the right wording for it, but I very much applaud Lord Kirkhill's sense in that people who are going to be reading forms of this sort for the first time ought to understand in plain language what they are about.

Lord Gray

This amendment raises a valid point for the reasons that have already been given. I notice that Clause 14(2) provides for two prescriptions. I hope that in addition to the other points we have mentioned the Government will be careful to try to ensure that throughout Scotland the forms are the same.

Lord Glenarthur

I certainly take on board my noble friend's last point. Certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, wants to achieve is laudable. I am the first to agree with that. But where I hope he and indeed my noble friend Lord Sanderson will feel reassured is that we want to achieve precisely what the noble Lord is looking for but in prescribing the form of the notice.

As Clause 14(2) makes clear, there is certain basic information to be included in the notice. The first matter is the effect of the entry in the register, which is, broadly speaking, that the individual will be liable to pay the community charge from 1st April 1989 and may expect to receive a bill in due course. The second element calls for an explanation of the rights of appeal under Clause 16, and the third relates to the requirement under Clause 18(2) to notify changes.

We envisage that the power to prescribe the form of notice will be used to require a sufficiently clear statement on all these matters, together with other important details such as where appeals should be made and in what form, and how notification of changes should be made. There will have to be consultations about the prescribed form to ensure that the layout and contents are compatible with local authorities' computer and printing systems. But I assure the Committee that it will certainly be our objective to ensure that the end product is clear and comprehensible, "in plain language", as the noble Lord would have it, in the terms of the amendment.

I completely understand what my noble friend Lord Sanderson meant when he referred to the notice about postal votes. I had to read it more than once myself; but I hope that what we shall achieve here meets through the form of the prescription the aims put forward. I hope that is of some reassurance.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I think we should be reasonably assured of what we are going to get; but I should like to know what the plainer language is going to be. One thing we must not do is to have this suddenly thrust upon people so that they ask, "What's this?". We should be starting fairly early after the Bill is passed to let people know what is coming to them. Even though it is in the middle of an election period, I think you have to take time to let people know the present that is coming to them of the benefits of paying these charges—particularly the 18 year-olds. Since they are not paying any rates, the sooner they are told that the Government think that they should all pay equally about £250 a year the better. They can be told "Don't worry: it is subject to certain rebates if you haven't got the money and you will not get it all but you'll get some".

The one thing I would lay down is that we keep the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, away from this. He will finish up giving them the impression that they are all going to get £250. The way he massages the unemployment figures, if he takes charge of the advertising and the publicising of this charge it will be very, very wrong. I do not know how my noble friend feels about that.

Lord Kirkhill

I accept that the Minister has given me something of an assurance. I should have been more pleased had he felt able to accept my amendment, because it is clearly drafted and has significant impact in its language. He will have noticed what some of his noble friends have said. I for my part will study carefully his remarks. I do not say that I shall not return to this point, but I shall at least consider seriously what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 195B not moved.]

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Amendment of register:]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 196: Page 13, line 39, leave out ("years") and insert ("months").

The noble Lord said: We are giving the power to the registration officer to amend the register at any time, and then we say, amendments may be made with retrospective, immediate or prospective effect". Nothing could be more comprehensive than that. It goes on: except that— (a) the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect is three years". This is becoming just as good as the Inland Revenue. This is a bit much, especially when we are starting away with it for the first year: indeed the retrospective effect could obviously be only one year.

The decision to amend the register in this way might mean that somebody is liable to pay three years' personal community charge if he has been omitted from the register for some reason or other. Three months is a more reasonable period. After all, if a mistake has been made, it may well be that the staff has not been adequate. In common sense, we should eliminate the retrospective effect of three years and make the period three months. I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

It may help if I explain the purpose of subsection (1) of Clause 15. In the normal case, we would expect that the length of the retrospective or prospective period will be no more than a few days. Circumstances will, however, arise from time to time in which someone has been resident in a local authority's area for some time without having been registered. In terms of Clause 18(1), such a person will be required in that case to notify the registration officer of his arrival within one month. There is no specific sanction for late notification, but in that case the community charge will become payable with interest, and if the period before the registration officer is notified is of more than three months a surcharge becomes payable.

We will have the opportunity to debate these provisions in detail when we consider Amendments Nos. 220–224, relating to Clause 18. At this stage, I need only say that it is right that the registration officer should be able to make entries with retrospective effect for an appreciable period, since there will undoubtedly be cases in which people attempt to ensure that their names are not included on the register.

The point was, however, made during the Committee stage in another place that an entirely open-ended retrospective period might be considered to be unnecessary and possibly unjust, if, for instance, someone's name had been left off the register for an extended period because of a mistake by the registration officer. Clause 15(1)(a) was therefore inserted into the Bill at Report stage in another place. This restricts the maximum retrospective period to three years. I must say, however, that the period of three months suggested by this amendment would be quite inadequate. It would encourage those moving into an area to seek to avoid registration in the knowledge that when their names were registered (as a result of the registration officer receiving information through a subsequent canvass or by other means) their liability for arrears of personal community charge would in practice be limited to three months. On the other hand, the Bill's provision of three years is a reasonable maximum. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I do not think that is at all a reasonable compromise. There is a very considerable difference between three years and three months. It must be borne in mind that the Act will come into force on 1st April 1989, and it will be three years after that before there can be what is, admittedly, the maximum figure, which is far too high. I hope that the Government will look at this again to see whether or not they can reduce the maximum. Common sense should make them do it, especially in relation to the likelihood of someone paying the maximum fine for a three years' lapse of community charge. Maybe we shall return to this at another time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Committees

The next amendment is Amendment No. 197. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.

[Amendments Nos. 197 to 199A not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 200: Page 14, line 7, leave out ("not")

The noble Lord said: This is an interesting point.

The Bill states: The registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered before making any amendment". I suggest that we leave out the word "not" and in a further amendment I suggest changing the word "but" to "and". I think that reasonable. It is not world-shattering. But it is an interesting matter from the point of view of personal freedom in that something is being done which may affect someone retrospectively over three years. Therefore, I think we should get rid of the word "not". I believe that the person registered or to be registered should be consulted. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

As I see it, the burden of the amendment would make it incumbent upon the registration officer to consult the person registered or to be registered before he made any amendment to the register. Amendment No. 200 would achieve this by the simple expedient of deleting the word "not" from the provision in subsection (5) of Clause 15 that the registration officer shall not be obliged to consult the person registered or to be registered, and would make a consequential grammatical change. I shall study the point made by the noble Lord to see whether there is merit in the change in grammar suggested. However, we should be tangling ourselves in knots.

In many cases an amendment would be made as a result of information received by the registration officer from the person to whom the entry relates in accordance with the duty placed on that person to notify the registration officer of his liability under Clause 18(1) or to notify changes in his registration details under Clause 18(2). In those circumstances the person would be fully aware of the fact that an amendment is to be made before it is made. I therefore do not think that the amendment is necessary in the first place. Nevertheless, I shall study it and if I can see merit in it, I shall return to it myself. However, I do not believe that it is necessary, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be moderately satisfied.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I hope that the Minister will study the point. The very fact that the wording is included in the Bill will encourage the registration officer not to consult the person involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, it may mean a back-payment of an enormous amount of money, and I think that the word "not" should come out and it should be an obligation to consult the person before an amendment is made which may seriously affect him. I trust that the Minister will consider the matter seriously.

Lord Ross of Marnock

If the Minister does not want to get tied in knots, here is a knot he can get rid of, in view of the fact that he will spend the whole of the Easter Recess looking at these matters again. Let us not forget that when people such as the Government Chief Whip and others are having a nice easy time, we shall have to prepare for the next stage of this Bill which must take place the day after we come back. He is a hard, hard man; he is the hammer of the Scots and we shall not forget it! I hope that the Minister will study the amendment. Five minutes may lead him to the conclusion that the word "not" should be removed and the word "but" should be changed to "and". However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 201 and 201A not moved.]

Clause 15 agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee

The Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.