Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 30 April 1987 vol 486 cc1683-711

8.41 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 8.

[Amendments Nos. 99 to 110 not moved.]

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 111:

Page 8, line 22, at end insert— ("(8) In subsection (7)(aa) above, "persons who are severely mentally handicapped" has the following meaning, that is to say, persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or such other meaning as may, in substitution, be prescribed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 98. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 8, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) Any loss of income to the local authority arising from exceptions under (7) above shall be made good by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 112 I beg leave to take Nos. 113, 114A and 114B. This is a matter of growing importance in view of the relaxed mood of the Government in making further exceptions and also in making certain remissions under subsection (7) of this particular clause. Any exception that is made, any remission that is made, is automatically a loss of revenue to the levying authority.

The question was asked more than once, and we were not entirely happy with the answers that we got from the Minister of State, as to the loss of revenue to the levying authority from these exceptions. What we suggest is that it should be made up directly to the authority from the Scottish Office, and not left to the business of "taking into account" when it is a matter not of the rate support grant but of the new RSG, the revenue support grant as it is going to be known.

When you take the remissions that were to be granted to students, for instance, where instead of paying 100 per cent. they now will have to pay only one-fifth of that, that is a loss of four-fifths of each of the personal liabilities that were going to fall on students. There are to my calculations, and it may be many more, at least 100,000 students who will be covered by this. Taking the sum that will now have to be paid as against what should have been paid, £60 as against about £300, it will be a loss of over £10 million to the Scottish levying authorities.

But when you take the student population, knowing that they are concentrated in Glasgow with its two universities, its technical colleges, commercial colleges and the rest, and when you take Edinburgh with its considerable number of students, St. Andrew's, Aberdeen, Stirling, the loss is going to fall not on a great many particular areas but a definite number of particular areas. We suggest that this should be made up not through purely rate support grant, or revenue support grant as it is going to be called, but directly to the authorities affected—I think it is sensible to appreciate that—otherwise it means that the same expenditures are going to fall on many fewer people. The fewer people who pay the personal charge, the higher that personal charge will be.

It is bad enough in relation to the normal growth of expenditures with the limitations being put on the levying powers of the local authorities in respect of non-domestic rates, limiting it to a base plus a rather fictitious index of retail prices which bear no relation to the expenditures of local authorities. Very soon—and I have said this before—the personal charge is going to be as big a thorn in the flesh of people in Scotland as ever rates were.

It will depend on how this is made up to a considerable extent, and we insist that it should be made up by the Scottish Office. The suggestion has been made that there ought to be a special grant in respect of this kind of thing, but certainly it should be made up directly to those most affected. It is not good enough just to say, "It is all right, we will make this up through calculations on the need support". These are special expenditures, special levies, replacing what they could rightly estimate in respect of rates, when any rebates which they gave they gave knowing what the result would be. This is going to be much more difficult to estimate.

I admit that the word "remission" is not in the amendment but it virtually follows from our limiting this to what the Government have said and where they actually put the amendment in relation to students as an addition to subsection (7) of this particular clause. These specific authorities are going to suffer the heaviest of all, and they should be given the satisfaction of knowing that it is the Government who are paying for the exceptions and remissions and not the local people. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, at Committee we discussed similar amendments to those which the noble Lord has moved and referred to. I made it clear that under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grant it will—even if the noble Lord does not like the words—be possible to take account of reliefs and exemptions from the personal community charge. The mechanism will be the subject of consultation in due course with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I cannot accept, however, the proposition in the amendment that there should be some form of specific compensatory payment. The approach followed under successive governments has been that general support for local authorities should be provided through the rate support grant mechanism. It therefore seems sensible to continue this in relation to exemptions from the community charge. It would however be premature to go into the details of the procedures by which account should be taken of exemptions in the distribution of revenue support grant. Basically, however, exemptions represent a reduction in the number of tax paying units and the eventual mechanism will have to ensure that that is taken into account in the calculations in a way which produces fair and reasonable results.

I should have thought that not only does fairness take account of the particular areas—a point which the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, raised—but students come into this matter in the way in which I think he hoped they would. So pending the detailed development of the system in consultation with CoSLA, it would be wrong to say more than that at this stage.

I hope that in the light of that further information, and with the explanation that students come into the category which would have the effect which the noble Lord has described, he will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I sympathise with the Minister in his wish not to pre-empt discussions on the mechanism for the way in which these sums are repaid. I should like him to assure us, however, that there is every intention that they should be repaid in full in the sense that the decisions which give rise to the rebates are being made by central government and not by the local authorities. They are imposed upon the local authorities, they are totally different from the constraints and considerations which control the rate support grant.

The rate support grant is supposed to take into account the differences between local authorities, but in this case there is no difference between one local authority and another, except in the amount of the rebates. The effect of the rebate is the same, whatever the local authority. If there are students within your local authority area who are rebated, they will automatically qualify for rebate. You will automatically get the 20 per cent., or whatever it is. If you have mentally handicapped people, they will automatically qualify for 100 per cent. and the local authority will automatically get nothing on their behalf.

It is important that we should know whether it is the intention of the Government, where the burden of rebating falls heavily on the local authority, that it should not unduly disadvantage that local authority in being able to cut its coat according to its cloth. That is surely what the Government intended that local authorities should do. I should like to receive that assurance if that is what the Minister means.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that the noble Viscount will accept that the point which he has made is surely encompassed by the words which I used when I said that the eventual mechanism will have to ensure that that—the concerns which have been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—is taken into account in the calculations in a way which produces fair and reasonable results. I cannot conceive for a moment that the concern which the noble Viscount raises and indeed the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, are not exactly the matters which go towards achieving those results.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I said earlier when we spoke about this that it is all very well to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the concerns will be taken into account. It is the Secretary of State who makes all the decisions. He can have all the discussions he likes with the local authorities, but when they come down to the business of the revenue support grant, the aggregate expense of the local authority is determined by the Secretary of State. I have never known the local authorities in recent years to accept as fair what the Government have decided.

A second point arises as to what percentage the Government will pay. Once again, there is no discussion about this; it is just laid down by the Secretary of State. Then the other important matter from this point of view, and where the university area is being directly affected to a great extent, is the allocation system. I have never known local authorities be satisfied with changes which were made—and they could be made every year. You decide that the figure will be 56.6 per cent. (which is what it is now) but Strathclyde does not get 56.6 per cent. Strathclyde gets only 49 per cent. There are other areas which get far, far more. There was a time when Orkney and Shetland received very considerable sums; but they do not do so now for the very simple reason that the resources of Orkney and Shetland increased very considerably as a result of oil. But that is not so this year; things are slightly different.

This power of flexibility and variation has been used in surprising ways by the Scottish Office in recent years. I have heard them accused of gerrymandering; they can hit a local authority by a formula which they dream up or they can help a local authority. Here is something which we have decided today, and we want to ensure fairness.

Quite apart from all these calculations and possibilities in the revenue support grant, we could do it virtually by a specific grant where it will go directly to the areas affected. It is easy to know where the university towns are and the areas which will be affected. Surely it is fair to ensure that they will be recompensed by decisions which were not taken by them but by Parliament itself, guided of course by the Secretary of State.

It is my concern, that we shall not get that. People have for a long time stopped believing in the fairness of the Scottish Office in relation to grants to local authorities. It has spread even to doubts about their fairness in respect of the allocation of those grants. We shall now have a new system of allocation this time and I think it is all the more important. We have not come to it yet and I shall not say very much about it when we do so. I shall just point out the difficulties which will arise. We are going to try and see that it is fair. There are enough questions about this Bill and its fairness without getting into doubts which are being thrown on the credibility of the Government being fair in relation to grants and to the allocation of these grants.

However, this crowded House is not in the mood to hear very much more from me tonight. The House will hear more, but not on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I trust that probably at the next stage—it is never too late for repentance—the Government will change their mind again. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Home, is still with us. He can use his influence. I hope he has reflected on what I told him about his presence at the Scottish Grand Committee and has checked up on it. It is quite right; it was perfectly true.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 114A and 114B not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 115 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 115A.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 115: Page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (1)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, It would be disastrous, would it not, if there were acceptance by the Government of such an amendment. It would have such a terrible effect that I had better not move it.

[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]

9 p.m.

Clause 9 [Determination of amount of personal charge]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115A:

Page 8, line 25, after ("prescribed") insert ("being not earlier than three months after the Secretary of State announces the Rate Support Grant settlement").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is merely to give the local authorities a little more time before they actually set the rate. Subsection (1) directs the estimating of the personal community charge before the beginning of the financial year in the same way as rates are presently determined. If, later, it is found that the yield is insufficient or that reliefs are inadequate, what happens under this subsection of Clause 9? This is especially true in the early years before trends have become apparent, or experience of variations has been gained.

In the case of rates, most local authority officials have long experience and understand the system fairly well. There is a relatively stable property base and a stable domestic rate base. I understand that in 1985 in Fife there was only a 4.8 per cent. appeal rate against rates. That is very good indeed and shows how accurate the local authority assessors have been.

As regards the adjustment of rates, a fraction of 1 per cent. becomes easy if one knows the system which is being operated. But this is all new, and relatively minor decisions to increase rebates or abatements, or to regulate exempted or included classes, could greatly alter the yield. I hope the Minister will agree that it should be possible to prescribe in good time and certainly not earlier than three months before the rate must be made. I hope that he will so prescribe and announce the rate support grant settlement in order to allow the local authorities some degree of freedom at the beginning of the operation of the Act in settling their community charge. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, we debated at the Committee stage a previous incarnation of the rather more specific amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. This seeks again to probe the timetable on which the revenue support grant settlement, which will of course replace the rate support grant settlement, is to be announced. As I have said on numerous occasions, these arrangements will of course be discussed with CoSLA and its views on the amount of time necessary between the announcement of the revenue support grant settlement and the determination of the personal community charge will be taken very carefully into account.

I can repeat the assurance which I gave at Committee stage that the procedures for announcement of decisions on revenue support grant, like those for rate support grant, will allow adequate time for local authorities to make their expenditure decisions. We are convinced that the present degree of flexibility in that timetable, which will be carried over into the new system, will enable a workable system to be set up leaving room for late adjustments when circumstances warrant these, as was the case for 1987–88 when the Rate Support Grant Order was revised early in February to provide extra expenditure provision and grant for the teachers' pay settlement reached in January.

With that example and in the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I cannot say that I am overwhelmed, but I take at least some comfort from what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Liability for and calculation of standard community charge]:

[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]

Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 9, line 4, leave out ("and") and insert— ("(bb) part-residential subjects: or")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment because, not for the first time, I encountered a crisis of understanding when confronted with the not altogether easily understood working of this piece of legislation. I am surprised that part-residential premises have been excluded from this clause. I am unable to understand whether this is deliberate government policy. If it is, I am surprised. If not, then, surely, if part-residential property is excluded, many people will escape what the Government wish them to pay—the community charge. If the draftsman does not consider that such a dwelling can exist, I am happy to invite him to spend this coming week-end with me. I shall introduce him to premises where there is a place of business on the ground floor and where upstairs there are premises which the proprietor of the business lets to someone for a year, 18 months or more. I should have thought that the exclusion of part-residential premises from this clause is a mistake. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for that explanation and for the useful work which he is undertaking in connection with this Bill.

However, I do not feel able to accept this amendment. I think that it is unnecessary. I believe that the answer to my noble friend's problem is to be found in Clause 4 which, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur explained at Committee stage, deals with premises which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, perhaps has in mind, part occupied as a dwelling house and part used for business purposes. The typical example is a shop with a flat above.

Under Clause 4 the dwelling house part and the shop part will be regarded as separate subjects. The shop, as the non-domestic subject, will be entered in the valuation roll and non-domestic rates will be levied on it. The flat will be a domestic subject. It will be removed from the valuation roll and if it does not constitute the sole or main residence of any person the standard community charge will be payable in respect of it. Therefore it seems unnecessary to introduce an amendment on its account. In the light of that explanation, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gray

My Lords, I patently have no support from any part of the House. I am surprised that I have to make this journey back to Clause 4. However, I have confidence in my noble friend Lord Dundee and am prepared to accept his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 9, line 13, leave out ("have been let for a continuous") and insert ("are let for a").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, it may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 119 and also to related Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134 on Clause 11. I should like to say one thing in connection with Clause 11, which is that there is a misprint: there are two sets of paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (10). I am advised that this will be corrected on the next print of the Bill.

We discussed in Committee the circumstances in which, in accordance with subsection (4) of Clause 10, a tenant rather than the owner of premises should be liable to pay the standard community charge. The Government's policy is that liability should shift from the owner to the tenant only in cases where the tenancy is for a substantial period. Twelve months is the figure we have taken, and I do not think there was any serious challenge to that. I have to acknowledge, however, that there has been some difficulty in getting the drafting of the relevant provisions quite right.

At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, drew attention to the fact that the words that appeared in subsection (4)— renewals of a lease (or sub-lease) shall for the purposes of this subsection, count towards its period"— could mean that the simple act of renewing a lease and thereby taking its total period over 12 months could produce a retrospective liability. The Government accepted that point and the noble Lord's amendment. The purpose of Amendment No. 134, which comes at the end of this group I have described, is to make the comparable change in Clause 11.

But in looking at the relevant provisions we have decided that they are in need of further improvement. At present. paragraph (b) states that liability should shift to the tenant if the premises, have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more". It is not necessary for the lease to have existed for 12 months before it becomes appropriate for the tenant to be liable: merely that the tenant should have a lease which lasts for a period of at least 12 months. It is the purpose of Amendment No. 118 to achieve that.

If a lease is renewed and thereby its total period exceeds 12 months the tenant thereupon would become liable to pay the standard community charge rather than the owner, but with the deletion made by the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 10 at the Committee stage and the corresponding deletion in Clause 11 which is proposed by Amendment No. 134, there would be no question of retrospective liability arising. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 9, line 15, leave out ("have been sub-let") and insert ("are sub-let").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 9, line 20, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 21.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple probing amendment and I make no defence of the drafting. I put it down because I and certain people I have consulted would be grateful to the Government for an explanation of exactly what subsection (5) means. Subsection (4) tells us who is liable to pay the standard community charge and subsection (5) tells us to whom the charge will be due. I am not sure that any equivalent subsection appears in relation to the other charges, and that makes me think there is something about the recipient authority of this charge which differs in some way from the other charges.

The subsection reads: The standard community charge shall be due to— (a) each local authority".

That seems fair enough. In fact, it seems so obvious that at first reading I am not quite certain why it is necessary to put it in the Bill. The reason presumably—and I ask the Government to confirm it—is that in most of Scotland two authorities are concerned.

I live in an island area in which there is a single purpose authority but I take it that the reason for these words may be that on the mainland of Scotland there is the region and the district. However, am I right in thinking that even so only one payment of rates is made and the rate is then divided or set between the region and the district? Does this mean that part of the charge will be payable directly to each local authority? That is what it might be taken to mean but I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.

The subsection continues with paragraph (b): (in the case of an islands council)"— I am not quite certain why that phrase is in brackets but no doubt there is some reason for it— the local authority in the area of which the premises in respect of which it is payable are situated".

Again, that would seem to be so fair as to be obvious and I am not quite certain why it is necessary to put it in the Bill. I should find it very peculiar if I were told that I had to pay my charge to the Outer Hebrides or Glasgow. No doubt the Government will be able to explain. Further, as there are two paragraphs (a) and (b) presumably there is some difference in the methods of payment between islands council areas and other areas. Apart from the fact that islands council areas are single authorities, I cannot see what the difference can be. I should therefore be most grateful if the Government will clear up these small but no doubt very obvious points. I beg to move.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as it stands this amendment will simply leave in doubt the position of the islands councils in relation to the standard community charge. It provides that the standard community charge should be due to each local authority in the area of which the premises in respect of which it is payable are situated. That implies that there are two local authorities in all areas, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has accurately described, is not the case in the islands.

I cannot accept the proposition that certainly lies within the amendment, even if it does not lie behind the noble Lord's concern, that the standard community charge in some way is not applicable to the islands. That is not the case. Both at Committee and earlier in our discussions today we have considered in some detail the principle and justification for the standard community charge and those considerations apply to the circumstances of the islands in the same way as they apply elsewhere in Scotland.

The intention is that the standard community charge should be payable to all local authorities in the two-tier areas; that will be the regional and district councils. In the island areas it will be the islands council alone. The drafting of subsection (5) simply reflects that intention. The noble Lord may not feel that it is particularly elegant but I would argue that the wording is clear.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that in Caithness I have to pay Inverness and Wick? Surely "each" implies two. I am resident within the highland region where the headquarters are in Inverness and in Caithness district where the headquarters are in Wick. If I pay each local authority then I pay the region and the district and so I pay twice, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who in his wisdom lives in Orkney pays Kirkwall only once.

Lord Gray

My Lords, I think that if the noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, takes a little exploratory trip through the Bill he will find that the authority to whom he will pay will be the regional authority and that the district council will be absorbed into the charge which is levied on him. He has to pay only one authority.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, surely it would be easier to put it back in something like the words of Clause 8, in which it is quite clear that the person has to pay the community charge to the authority in whose area he is resident. That is quite a simple concept. One could reword this clause to make it fairly clear that it meant the same whether there were one local authority for that area or two. That is surely the point.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, indulges in redrafting at the Dispatch Box with beguiling simplicity. I shall not attempt to follow him down that road. However, in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I think that perhaps he has failed to appreciate one or two other elements of the Bill. The arrangement for setting and paying the standard charges are that each tier sets its own charge but that the charges are payable together to one or other authority. That is provided for by Schedule 2 to the Bill, with which no doubt the noble Viscount is familiar.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I come back on this point? It is a question of the use of English. One or other cannot be each. "Each" surely means both.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with leave of the House again, I beg to differ with the noble Viscount. Without going on at very great length about this amendment, I do not think the noble Viscount is right. I think it stems from a misappreciation, for which I do not blame him one little bit, about the way the charge is to be set and the way it will be paid, which, as I have said, is set out in the Bill and again in Schedule 2. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Viscount; but I can assure him that what I have said, and what my noble friend Lord Gray suggested, describes accurately the circumstances. I am also quite content with the drafting, although I have to admit that while it provides clarity it certainly does not provide elegance.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I doubt whether it provides clarity. The subsection reads: The standard community charge shall be due to— (a) each local authority". That is more than one. We all know that there are two tiers, but I understood that there was only one levying authority and that was the upper tier. I should have thought that the charge was due to the levying authority. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has given us something at which we should ask the Government to have another look. The English is not at all good. If we cannot understand it—and we have been dealing with this Bill for weeks—and if the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, cannot understand it, then nobody can understand it. There is no sharper mind than hers.

Now I see the cavalry have arrived!

Lord Morton of Shuna

It's the crocodile.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, that is a lawyer, with no sense of humour, suggesting that it is not the cavalry but the crocodile! I thought it was America that the crocodile went to, not the House of Lords.

To my mind, there is a case for taking the clause back. Is there to be a district charge and a regional charge? Will they each claim on the owner of the premises within this area or will the charge be paid and then divided? Is there to be just the one charge and later on, when it is levied, will it be taken by the authority which receives the money and paid down to the other authority? The clause is very badly drafted. I can understand what it means because I have been looking at so many papers telling me what the district standard charge will be and what the regional standard charge will be and then the two come together. I do not need to do that now because there is only one authority. But these words do not properly and adequately describe the position, so I suggest that the noble Lord takes this back and has a look at it, without the noble Lord, Lord Home, telling him to do it.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, if I may contribute to these hilarious exchanges, there is of course a legal statutory construction. If Parliament in its wisdom passes a Bill which is open to two constructions, the courts will interpret it in accordance with that interpretation which is most consistent with common sense. I do not think the draftsman would want to put the courts in that position too often and perhaps another look would be advisable.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may have one more shot at explaining to the noble Lord what this means. Of course I shall take the matter away and look at it. However, I am not going to give any commitment as to any sort of changes, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel—although he may well not—after my further explanation that it makes sense.

Clause 10(5) refers to, Standard community charge shall be due". That is to say that each local authority gets the standard charge it determines but it is payable only to the regional council in the case of regions or districts in the case of others—

Lord Ross of Marnock

What others?

Lord Glenarthur

—or rather in the case of the island authorities. That introduces two different concepts. Further explanations are being showered upon me. I think that the best thing I can do is to write to the noble Lord with a lengthy explanation. However, I do not feel that it will be possible to change this. I am happy to look at it constructively and seriously. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord will be happy.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, not only for struggling with this serpent but for saying that he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and indeed that he will think about it again. However, I must say that I think we all understand what is meant and that there is all-party agreement about it—including the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The point is that the Bill does not say it. That is the difficulty we are in. When the attention of the Minister is drawn to this by such eminent grammarians as my noble friend Viscount Thurso and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I hope that he will consider the point. I assure him that the officials of my local authority were puzzled as to why it is put in this particular way in this particular part of the Bill and nowhere else.

The noble Lord has been given a loophole by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. In that connection, I must make a general apology to the House. For some time I have been referring to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, as learned. It has been drawn to my attention that he is not learned at all! That comes as a blow to me and I assure the House that I shall regard him as learned but in pectore in future and not in public. However, he was supported by my genuinely learned friend Lord Wilson of Langside. Surely, when two such eminent lawyers, learned or not, agree that the wording could be improved, it is up to the Government to put it in simple English. I hope that that will be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 9, line 30, leave out from ("number") to ("as") in line 31.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that there is any doubt about what this amendment means. Subsection (7) deals with the question of the multiplier. It lays down that the standard community charge multiplier means, such number, being neither smaller than 1 nor greater than 2, as the local authority which determines the personal community charge to which the multiplier is applied shall … determine". The charge may be standard. The premises to which it applies are not standard. We can take the example of a cottage in Argyll which is probably worth about £100 with a rateable value of £20, or we can take a mansion, only three miles away from it and owned by somebody who lives in the stockbroker belt, or anywhere else for that matter. They both have to pay the same amount. It just is not right that they should all pay between one and two. The discretion of local authorities lies only between one and two. That means that the discretion lies between £200 and £400 and that it must be standard for all. If the amount is £200, that is too high for the small cottage but not high enough for the mansion, which may be owned or let. The rates the owners are presently paying are probably three times that amount. In one case it is too dear and in the other case too cheap.

In the amendment I suggest it should be left to the discretion of the local authority as to what shall be put, and they should also be given power to vary the multiplier in respect of the premises concerned. We can take the business of standardisation of charge too far and we then get into difficulty. Certainly there is no justification in respect of this matter, be it a second home or a place that is rented for five years.

I do not know what it is going to mean in respect of the actual rent in the future. The rent will increase and the personal charge will be very much lower than the rates. In the case of the small house it will be very much more than it is worth; in fact, owners will probably pay as much in standard community charge as would be the capital value of one small cottage—and an uncomfortable one at that. I do not think it is fair or right. It is wrong to tie the multiplier down to between one and two for all properties and give no further latitude to the local authorities. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, on a point of information can the Minister say whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is right when he says that the figure has to be standard at, for example, 1.5 for all cottages or big houses right across Strathclyde; or is there any discretion between a small house and a large house? I have not studied the point and so I do not fully understand. I thought there might be some discretion between one and two, but does it have to be the same for each particular property?

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, if that is not so, then it is not standard.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, this amendment was originally to be connected with Amendments Nos. 116 and 122. The effect of the amendments would presumably be to make the standard charge what the Opposition have always claimed it is; namely, a property tax. I am in complete disagreement with the proposition that a standard charge is a property tax, and I have to go further and say that I am wholly opposed to the proposition that it should be made one by the mechanism of the amendments.

As the Green Paper explained, the standard charge is intended to recognise the fact that, with the abolition of domestic rates, the owners of second homes or other domestic property which does not have a registered resident would have a substantial windfall. The intention of the standard charge is therefore broadly to replace the income which local authorities would otherwise lose. The proposal originally contained in the Green Paper was that the standard charge should be set at two units of the personal community charge, but on consideration the Government decided that local authorities should have discretion—and this I think is the answer to my noble friend Lord Sanderson—to set the multiplier in the range from one to two units, allowing a measure of local flexibility.

In the course of the Committee stage noble Lords opposite argued that the standard charge was a property tax. I could not accept that then, and I cannot accept it now. I think it should more properly be viewed as a contribution towards the cost of the local services enjoyed by the owner of the property in question. Some of these will undoubtedy be what might be described as property-based services, such as the fire service, but others will not. When a second homeowner is in residence there he uses local services such as roads, street lighting, cleansing or sewerage, and has access to the local library and the protection of the local police, for example—all of which are services which are not related to his property, be it large or small. There is no question but that the contribution he makes towards these services is a property tax. Nor is there any justification for varying that contribution according to the size or value of his property, or whatever other factors in relation to his property the noble Lord has in mind.

It may be that this amendment will reveal something which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and those supporting him have not addressed in any great detail during our debates, although they have referred to it. That is their attachment to the concept of a property tax. I notice that the noble Lord referred to capital value, which is one of the points that his party has raised from time to time in suggesting alternatives to the community charge. In the same way, the Alliance has addressed its attachment to a local income tax.

If the noble Lord is arguing for the retention of the present rating system in some form, I hope he will develop that theme rather more; he has not yet done so. In any case, I find the proposals unacceptable and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, the noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that we are dealing with the same multiplier, one or two or anywhere between, whether it is for something of the size of Inveraray Castle or a room and kitchen cottage in Inveraray. Both are assumed to be used as a second home. The allegation made by the noble Lord is that they use the services equally.

I recollect that Inveraray Castle caught fire some years ago. The cost to the local authority of bringing fire appliances from Dumbarton, Glasgow and elsewhere, was rather higher than might be involved for a room and kitchen cottage. Surely that is something to be looked at again.

Lord Gray

My Lords, living very close to Inveraray, I must take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on behalf of my most noble friend the Duke of Argyll about the fire. The noble Lord has produced a red herring which is simply not appropriate tonight or at any time.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, at least we have learned something. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, learned something. I was right. The size of the house does not matter. It relates purely to the house, even if it is a second home which presently has rates of £3,000. In future it will incur a charge based on a multiplier of between one and two. There is no power to vary it either up or down. It is a standard charge. It will be welcomed by some; it will not be understood by another who has an uncomfortable but enjoyable little cottage in Argyll.

It could be someone in another part of Scotland who is already paying personal charges in respect of himself, his wife and family. They are already paying for the country cottage even when they are not there. They will be paying an amount that is far more than they are presently paying in rates for that country cottage. The Minister cannot justify a country cottage costing the same as a palace, a castle or a mansion house. Mansion houses are let out. I have come across surprising people in certain parts of the Highlands of Scotland I have been touring who have taken out the let on a place. There is no justification of fairness. The point that we make is that there is as little fairness in this as there was in respect of the personal charge. It would be far better to take such properties out of the personal charge and not call them domestic subjects but make them liable to the non-domestic charges which will continue.

Once again we have shown the unfairness and the inequity of this monstrous Bill. If people do not know that now, they will know it soon enough. The smiles on the faces of some people at present at what they will gain from the Bill will disappear when they realise how many people will lose from it in surprising ways. This proposal will not affect the working people of the Gorbals. They do not have second homes in the country. A great many honest-to-goodness people who have managed to save for or rent something within their means will now discover that they will pay as much for that property as someone from the well-heeled parts of England who has let out his spare castle.

There is no fairness in that. It may be a mistake to try to persuade the Government of that. It might be just as well if we let them go on their way and gave them no time for repentance. This provision is unfair. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, now realises what "standard" means in respect of this proposal. I gained the impression that he was rather surprised to find that the discretion relates solely to the amount to be levied no matter the state of the property, provided it is occupied and furnished.

However, at this late stage when I can almost hear the trains leaving Euston I think that I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 9, line 40, leave out ("subsections (9) and (10)") and insert ("subsection (9)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we had of course an extensive discussion in Committee on the proposition that the standard community charge should not be payable for three months on property which becomes unoccupied and unfurnished. This was put forward in order to avoid properties becoming liable for the standard community charge for very short periods; for instance, they were being sold but the new owner had not yet moved in. During the debate we had on this point in Committee a number of strong arguments were put that in particular circumstances the period of three months might not be sufficient and might cause hardship. In particular, this was argued in relation to changes of property ownership, where the owner might have difficulty in selling his property, or in the case of agricultural tied houses which cannot be let to anyone but an agricultural worker.

I have to say that on consideration the Government find these arguments persuasive. The amendments which I have put down therefore allow for the levying authority to have discretion to extend the period of grace to any period longer than three months. This will allow levying authorities to take fully into account particular local conditions and particular individual circumstances, while providing for a minimum period of grace of three months (or the period for which the property is actually unoccupied and furnished, if it is shorter). This, as I understand it, is exactly the intention of the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and, I think, of Amendments Nos. 123A and 124A in the name of the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. However, we have adopted a slightly different drafting approach. I therefore commend the government amendments to the House and hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, although I have not been here very long, I learnt long ago that even if one proposed an amendment that was acceptable in principle to the Government it was necessary that the Government reword it in some way or another. That basic rule is inflexible. Of course I accept that the Government's word must always be better—it is the natural rule of things—and that any amendment suggested by any other Peer must always be worse. Again, that is the natural rule.

I am very pleased that my argument at Committee stage is acceptable in principle even though the amendment had to be reworded. I am pleased to accept the amendment. I shall in due course withdrawn those in my name.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 123A not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale)

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 124 I have to say that if it is agreed to I cannot call the next amendment.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 9, line 41, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 43 and insert ("whichever is the shorter of the following—

1. (i) the period for which the premises are unoccupied and unfurnished;
2. (ii) a period of 3 months or such longer period as the local authority to which it is due may determine").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 124A not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 9, line 47, leave out subsection (10).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]

Clause 11 [Liability for and calculation of collective community charge]:

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 128 I have to say that if it is agreed to I cannot call the next amendment.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 128:

Page 10, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) This section applies to—

1. (a) premises which are not subject to non-domestic rates and either are designated by the registration officer under subsection (2A) below or fall within such class or classes of premises as may be prescribed;
2. (b) premises which are part residential subjects and either are so designated or fall within such class or classes of premises as may be prescribed.

(2A) Premises may be designated under this subsection if, in the opinion of the registration officer—

1. (a) in the case of premises not subject to non-domestic rates, they are used; or
2. (b) in the case of part residential subjects, the residential use made of them is

wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods.").

The noble Earl said: These are technical drafting amendments to correct a flaw in the Bill which was pointed out at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Gray. I am most grateful to my noble friend for having pointed out this drafting flaw. I commend the amendment to the House.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, no doubt knows what this is about but he is not here. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, can explain to those of us who are here what it is about.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I shall certainly be delighted to provide the noble Lord, Lord Morton, with further details. The amendment relates to the provisions whereby, in certain circumstances, part residential subjects might be designated as suitable for the collective community charge. This might arise, for instance, in cases where premises housed both a hostel and an associated day centre providing a service for people other than its residents. In that case, the premises would be part residential subjects as defined in Clause 26, and the assessor would be required to apportion the net annual and rateable value as between the day centre and the residential use made of the subjects.

If, however, the registration officer wished to designate the residential part of the premises as suitable for the collective community charge, the difficulty pointed out by my noble friend Lord Gray arises; namely, as presently drafted subsection (2) of Clause 11 requires such premises to be designated as premises which are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons, but under the definition of part residential subject in Clause 26 the premises would be used only partly as a sole or main residence. There is therefore a mismatch between the two provisions.

Therefore these amendments correct that fault by providing that in the case of part residential subjects, it is the residential use made of them which the registration officer would have to look at in considering whether to designate the premises. If that residential use was wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods, he could designate the premises as suitable for collective community charge treatment. This gets round the problem.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I cannot say I am grateful for the efforts the Minister has made in trying to explain the amendment that he moved; and I am afraid that I shall need to give this considerable thought and have it examined very carefully. I am concerned that because he has moved Amendment No. 128—the part that Amendment No. 128A changes or amends—that means that this simple amendment I thought I had, which dealt with houses of refuge, is not able to be applied. Therefore, unless the Minister can assure me that the substance of Amendment No. 128A will in some way be accepted by the Government, I shall not oppose it; but I wish to look at Amendment No. 128 very carefully and will try to find an amendment for Third Reading that will bring in the meaning and reach the same purpose as Amendment No. 128A which seeks to include homes of refuge in the collective community charge.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, having heard the explanation, I thought I heard the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, say that "part residential subjects" meant "part" in the sense of a physical part rather than a time part that was used for residence. That seems to be inconsistent with the position of university residences. His noble friend the Minister told us about university residences, which are used during term time as residences and during vacations for commercial, holiday or conference purposes, where one took the part to be a time part rather than a physical part. It seems to me that the two explanations, in so far as I understood them, were inconsistent. I wonder whether the noble Earl can clear that up.

Are we talking about time, like a university residence which for 26 weeks of the year is used as a residence for students and for the rest of the year is used for commercial purposes? Or are we talking about part of a subject, the bedroom area of the subject which is being used, or are we talking about both?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is that the reference to residential use is that it can be both for time or physical.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I should have said that Amendment No. 128 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 129.

[Amendments Nos. 128A, 129 and 129A not moved].

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 130, I have to say that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call the next amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 130:

Page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) The Secretary of State shall prescribe factors to be considered in determining whether premises are to be designated under subsection (2) above, including the definition of what is to be considered a "short period" and the registration officer shall have regard to such factors in determining whether to designate any such premises.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, one of the troubles in respect of this is the matter of definition. We have asked about and drawn attention to this before. This concerns the definition of "reside there for only short periods", which arose in Amendment No. 129A. We suggest in the amendment: The Secretary of State shall prescribe factors to be considered in determining whether premises are to be designated under subsection (2) above, including the definition of what is to be considered a 'short period' and the registration officer shall have regard to such factors in determining whether to designate any such premises". We started off saying not only here but in another place that collective community charge would he used very rarely. It was going to be very restricted indeed. But as we have gone along discussing these matters I have heard it applied to hostels and to various other establishments and I have even heard it applied to students in respect of the flats they share. Those of us who have had children at university and know how students group together with five or six of them sharing a flat will appreciate just what this means.

We want to be absolutely clear what are the factors to be considered in determining whether premises are to be used in this respect. It is a simple question. We have made our suggestion here that it should be done by regulation. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Unfortunately, he was probably anxious to get back to Aberdeen and see bow they get on with Rangers on Saturday. It would be a delight if, as well as Aberdeen scoring a few goals, we were able to convey to him the good news that the Government had seen fit to accept his amendment in his absence. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, one of the main criteria for application of the collective community charge will be that individual registration of the residents of particular premises would be not practicable. One of the other amendments which was originally grouped with this one—Amendment No. 129, which has not been moved—would have sought to include that criterion on the face of the Bill. That would not, however, have been appropriate. The words on the face of the Bill—that the collective community charge will apply to premises which are used solely or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods—provide a more precise description of the circumstances in which the collective community charge is to be applied.

In prescribing under subsection (3) the factors to which the registration officer is to have regard in designating premises, we will bear in mind the question of the practicability of individual registration and this may be supplemented by guidance issued by the Secretary of State. But I cannot agree that the criterion should appear as such on the face of the Bill.

Amendment No. 130 would seek to expand subsection (3) to include the provision that the meaning of "short periods" would be prescribed, and Amendment No. 129A would require such definitions to be prescribed within 14 days of enactment of the Bill. I can confirm that the regulations will in effect provide guidance on what is to be considered as a "short period". It might indeed make sense to set some limits on the frequency of moves with which the registration system would be expected to keep up on the basis of individual registration. That would have regard to practical factors like the time it would take to make an entry in the register, notify the individual concerned and send him a bill: that process is bound to take several working days. These provisions will be the subject of consultation with interested bodies in due course. I must say, however, that the form of drafting of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is not necessary since the point is covered by the more concise form of the present subsection (3); and that it would be quite impracticable, and unnecessary, to bring forward regulations on the timescale suggested by Amendment No. 129A.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, did the Minister say that it would be undesirable or impracticable to bring forward the regulations within this timescale? I appreciate that it will be impracticable within 14 days of the passing of the Act. We are now within about a week of the passing of the Act, somewhere around 12th May. If we allow 14 days after that I think Ministers will be preoccupied with other matters and they would not be able to bring forward the regulations as we probably would suggest.

I accept that in the circumstances it would not be practicable, even though it may be desirable, to do this within 14 days of the passing of the Act, but I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 10, line 37, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 128. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 134:

Page 10, line 43, leave out ("have been let for a continuous") and insert ("are let for a").

Page 10, line 45, leave out ("have been sub-let") and insert ("are sub-let").

Page 11, leave out lines 1 and 2.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134 with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 134A I have to say that if it is agreed to I cannot call No. 135.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 134A:

Page 11, line 15, leave out subsection (7) and insert—. ("( ) The collective community multiplier specified in relation to any premises in the register shall be subject to a monthly re-assessment by the Registration Officer.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 134A. It is to inquire of the Minister how often the collective community charge can be changed. It is suggested in the amendment that it would be possible to do a monthly reassessment. For many premises this may seem rather too frequent, but on the other hand at least in the beginning until some sort of pattern has been established there are certain types of premises—I think particularly of lodging houses—where the occupancy will vary greatly according to the weather and the season of the year.

I know that in certain lodging houses in Glasgow in the winter people queue up as early as four o'clock in the afternoon to get a bed, whereas I understand that in the summer it is relatively simple to get a bed. At least in the early stages there will be no pattern and there will be great difficulty in establishing the numbers who are going to be in the lodging house or the community premises. I wonder whether monthly would be too frequent, and if so what would the Minister suggest? Will he take it away and perhaps look at the possibility of even varying it between one type of property and another? I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 138A and 138C relate to the mechanics of collective community charge arrangements which we have already discussed in detail in Committee. Amendment No. 134A would provide that the collective community charge multiplier should be subject to a monthly reassessment by the registration officer. But this amendment of course goes against the specific provision in Clause 15(1)(b) that, no amendment of the collective community charge multiplier … 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". We recognise 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 the accommodation available. However, there is also a 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. We believe that a restriction of three months is a sensible one and more reasonable than the monthly review which the noble Lord suggests. By making a monthly reassessment of all premises subject to the collective community charge mandatory, the amendent would also require the registration officer to spend large amounts of time checking on information which was in any case unlikely to have changed. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

The other two amendments, Nos. 138A and 138C, would, in slightly different ways, provide for the reimbursement of the administrative expenses incurred by landlords in gathering collective community charge contributions. We have already discussed the question of whether some form of management fee or its equivalent should be made available to those liable for the collective community charge. Our view is that it would be more appropriate for such a fee to be expressed as a deduction from the actual collective community charge liability of the landlord than that an inevitably cumbersome system of reimbursement should be set up. We consider that it is indeed reasonable that landlords should be allowed some consideration for the work they will have to undertake in collecting collective community charge contributions, and to that extent I am sympathetic to the amendments 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 will therefore consider this matter carefully in the course of discussions about the factors which should be prescribed under Clause 11(9)(b).

In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation, and particularly for the flexibility shown on the other two amendments. On Amendment No. 134A on the frequency and possible frequency of assessing the collective community charge multiplier, I accept that perhaps for the first time three months is reasonable. Thereafter, the local people in the assessor's office will soon get to know the managers they are dealing with and will be able to make some assessment of their rectitude.

At this late hour I hope that the Minister would think over whether there is enough flexibility in the Bill. For instance, it struck me that there could be a particular reason for a lodging house (I am thinking mainly in terms of lodging houses) being almost empty for a short period. Would it be possible for the multiplier to be changed if there were some specific problem, an illness or a fever, which went right through the lodging house? Some of these lodging houses have many rooms. I know of one with a couple of hundred rooms and it could be very serious for the management if they were suddenly paying the multiplier on about 150 rooms, if they were using only about 50. I am asking the Minister if he will take this suggestion away without any commitment, and think in terms of whether there is enough flexibility in this part of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 135:

Page 11, line 19, leave out third ("the") and insert ("that").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with a sense of great anticlimax that I move this very insignificant drafting amendment which merely brings the phrase affected into line with every other similar phrase in the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, as with the similar amendment to Clause 8 by my noble friend Lord Gray, I am happy to accept this amendment. It clarifies the matter and I see that noble Lords are satisfied with the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 136 I have to say that if this is agreed to I cannot call either of the next two amendments.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 136:

Page 12, line 29, leave out subsection (15) and insert— ("(15) Without prejudice to any rule of law, where a person—

1. (a) in respect of his residence in any premises, pays, by way of collective community charge contribution, any sum which (for whatever reason) is not due; and
2. (b) within 3 months of that payment, claims reimbursement of the sum from the person who, at the time of the payment, was liable to pay the collective community charge in respect of the premises,

the person so liable shall reimburse the other in that sum.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I should like to refer to Amendments Nos. 137 and 138. They seek to address the same issue.

It was argued at Committee stage that the present provisions of subsection (15) of Clause 11 might be unduly onerous on landlords of collective community charge premises. Under those provisions a person to whom there has been paid by way of collective community charge contribution any sum which is not due is required, without limit of time, to repay that sum. The amendments therefore have the same effect: of requiring the person who had paid the contribution in error to reclaim payment from the person to whom he had paid it within three months of the incorrect payment. The only difference between my approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, of Shuna, is—as he will have guessed—a question of drafting, and I hope therefore that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment in the light of mine. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I am delighted to accept it. This is the usual situation. I tried to put the amendment into two lines but the Government draftsman managed it in nine lines. No doubt nine lines are far clearer, shorter and easily understood. However, I am perfectly prepared to accept it.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I hope that the Government will explain why their amendment is considered superior to the two lines of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. We must look at these Bills from the point of view of ordinary people and not lawyers.

I hope that the Government will tell us what is meant by: Without prejudice to any rule of law". No doubt it is a phrase well known to lawyers, but I suspect that it is a matter seldom discussed in the pubs of Orkney. As I am doubtful about the effects of both these community charges, I think that what has been said about them is all too true. We should look very carefully at them because I think they will have extraordinary effects.

I should like to know what is meant by: Without prejudice to any rule of law". I should like further to know why the rather long and complicated government amendment is preferred to the short and, I should have thought, intelligible amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that part of the difficulty is that this is not a case where the words must be interpreted by the people at large. It is a fact that they are required to be accurately interpreted by lawyers, as is so often the case. It is very often the case that in legislation we spell out matters with very great accuracy to put them beyond doubt.

I accept that there will always be a difference of view on the drafting of issues such as this. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will accept from me that we have looked at this matter particularly carefully and we have found it necessary to use the form of words which we have used.

On the question of the term: Without prejudice to any rule of law", I can say that these words were included to ensure that the common law remedy available in respect of money paid in error is preserved. Therefore, broadly speaking, money paid in error of law would be capable of recovery, whereas money paid in error of fact would not. People will of course be free to use the common law remedy if they wish. That is the effect of the opening words. They may have to do so if their case would be time-barred by the three-month period. However, I imagine that the statutory remedy which we are providing will be sufficient in most cases.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 138A:

Page 12, line 31, at end insert— ("( ) 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.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, many people object to becoming unpaid taxgatherers for the Government. This amendment seeks to give them a claim for the administrative costs incurred in collecting these sums for the Government and passing them on. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, this amendment, in a slightly different way, would have approached the matter that I believe we discussed on Amendment No. 134A. It would provide for the reimbursement of the administrative expenses incurred by landlords in the collective community charge arrangements. I do not think I can add to what I have already said but if the noble Lord wishes I can repeat my remarks. We have discussed the question of whether some form of management fee should be made available to those liable for the collective community charge. Our view is that it would be more appropriate for such a fee to be expressed as a deduction from the collective community charge liability of the landlord than that an inevitably cumbersome system of reimbursement should be set up.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, in view of that very clear explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 138B, 138C and 138D not moved.]

Clause 12 [Community Charges Registration Officer]:

[Amendments Nos. 138E. 138F, 138G, 138H and 138I not moved].

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 139.

Page 12, line 47, leave out from ("area") to end of line 48.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and I are obviously of one mind on this point. There was considerable discussion about the phrase, so that it is as comprehensive as possible at Committee stage. We originally intended that the phrase should make it quite clear that it was the registration officer's duty to maintain a comprehensive register. On consideration, however, and in the light of discussions, we take the view that the simple duty to prepare, maintain and keep the register up to date is sufficiently clear, straightforward and comprehensive without the added gloss of a phrase that attracted some criticism on the grounds of lack of clarity. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 139A not moved.]

Clause 13 [Community Charges Register]:

The Deputy Speaker

In calling Amendment No. 140, I have to tell your Lordships that if this is agreed to, I cannot call either of the next two amendments.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140:

Page 13, line 27, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are naturally concerned about the information that is to be put on any form which is thereafter to be the property not merely of the registrar, and which will be put on the register, but which can also be seen by members of the public. We are told later on the local authority could sell it. I do not know how many people have been watching certain programmes on television about what is done with registers, rolls and the like, and the amount of information that can be acquired about people.

That is the reason for the amendment. It is very late at night to be discussing this important issue. But I am concerned, for instance, about dates of birth. Some people are rather chary about letting the world know what their date of birth is. Politicians do not need to worry: the newspapers have a habit of telling us and reminding us every year that so-and-so is a year older. My birthday was on the 7th, a day when I think we were discussing this issue. I could think of happier days to read that I am a year older. However, there are many people who are a little more coy. Surely, from the point of view of paying this new charge, all that is needed to be known is that the person is over 18 years of age. I could say a lot more but I think that your Lordships have the gist of my concern which has also been expressed elsewhere.

Paragraph (e) refers to: the date (which may be before, on, or after the date on which the entry is made) from which he is liable to pay any of these community charges; and paragraph (f) continues: such other matters as may be prescribed". That gives a very wide power to probe into the personal lives of quite a lot of people—in fact every single individual over the age of 18. I wonder whether the Government have given any thought to how they will circumscribe the kind of question that will be asked in relation to the personal community charge, the standard community charge and the collective community charge. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 which are connected relate to the requirements that dates of birth and dates of liability should appear in the register. The provision that dates of birth should appear in the register was brought forward after consideration of the views of local authority practitioners as expressed through the Rating and Valuation Association's rating forum. In order to assist the identification of individuals, it is desirable for the register in all cases to record the date of birth of people who are liable to pay any of the community charges. In the simplest instance that would allow people at one address who shared the same name to be clearly distinguished. More generally, however, the inclusion of dates of birth will be useful when the identity of an individual has to be checked when he moves from one local authority area to another.

I suggest therefore that the inclusion of dates of birth in the register is a sensible provision. I should make it clear that dates of birth will not appear upon the publicly available part of the register so there is no difficulty about breach of confidentiality in that area. The proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in Amendment No. 141 to enter dates of birth only for people under the age of 20 would seriously limit the usefulness of the information for the purposes that I have mentioned, and I cannot accept that amendment.

As for the question of "such other matters" about which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was concerned, examples of that would be whether someone was a student or was in receipt of child benefit. There may be others as the system develops. That is why there is a need for the power of prescription.

Turning to the provision in Clause 13(1)(e) whereby the dates of a person's liability to pay any of the community charges are recorded in the register, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would delete this provision. The main function of the register is to record the liabilities that people have for the various community charges and there is no point in these liabilities being recorded if the dates from which they start are not also recorded so that for billing and collection purposes the exact nature of any person's liability can clearly be established.

Should the noble Lord wish to move his Amendment No. 142, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I must say that I find that amendment rather easier to accept.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned, Amendment No. 141 is in my name. The reason for that figure being put in is that, as I understand, it is the general practice with the electoral register that one has the date of birth only for somebody who becomes 18 during the year. It was to take that into account. If the electoral register has, for example, two John Smiths living in the same house—father and son, perhaps—and no difficulty is encountered in working out which one is voting, I cannot see that it will cause insuperable difficulty for the registrar of community charges, who might even think of putting "junior" after the younger one if he is thinking hard.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Lord said about my next amendment, I think I had better withdraw this one quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 13, line 29, leave out ("in the register").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 142 formally. I am dying to hear what the Minister has to say.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I was going to say that I recognise that the words in the register are not absolutely essential and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I hope that the hour, the date and the year will be noted and marked down. I express my thanks to the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]

Clause 14 [Setting up of register]:

[Amendments Nos. 142B, 142C and 142D not moved.]

Clause 15 [Amendment of register]:

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 143 on the Marshalled List, I have to say that if it were agreed to I could not call Amendment No. 144.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 143:

Page 14, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we recognise, in view of the arguments put forward in Committee, that the period of three years might be considered too long for the purposes of the maximum period for which an amendment can be made with retrospective effect. I have to say, however, that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 144 suggesting a period of one year still seems too short. While it is likely to be very rare that someone should succeed in keeping his name off the register for more than one year, it is not inconceivable.

If, as we envisage, registration officers will as a normal rule carry out annual canvasses of the roll of their district, the noble Lord's amendment would imply that each annual canvass should pick up all those who are resident but have not declared their liability under the provisions of Clause 18. I think it might be possible that someone who was determined to avoid registration could equally succeed in avoiding being registered as a result of one annual canvass. For that reason, my amendment proposes that the maximum period should be two years. I think that this is a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 144 and 144A not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 145:

Page 14, line 21, leave out from first ("any") to ("entry") and insert ("entry which does not conform to the original intention of the").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Government will look at this amendment. It is well intended and it will be appreciated if, having looked at it, the noble Lord accepts it. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand what is meant by the words, "the original intention of the entry". At the time an entry is made, both the registration officer and the person to whom the entry relates will have some idea of its intention. If a person to whom it relates thinks that it misrepresents that intention, he can appeal to the registration officer and, if necessary, to the sheriff against the entry and the matter can be sorted out in that way.

However, under the proposal of the noble Lord I take it that it would be for the registration officer to make a judgment of the original intention of the entry and amend the register accordingly. In that case, he would not be required to notify the person affected, so that that person would not necessarily know about the alteration and would not therefore be able to exercise his right of appeal if he disagreed. I fear that the wording of this amendment is dangerously wide.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I shall not argue with the noble Lord at this time of night. However, the amendment was well intended and worthwhile. If he had any sense he would have accepted it. Since he has not, and since he has taken so many words to say no, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 146:

Page 14, line 21, leave out from ("and") to ("subsections") in line 22 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) above and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 147:

Page 14, line 26, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

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