HL Deb 05 May 1987 vol 487 cc13-85

3.11 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report—(Lord Glenarthur.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 16 [Registration appeals]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 151: Page 15, line 15, leave out from ("have") to end of line 16 and insert ("allowed the request")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 16 deals with registration appeals. Registration means that one is liable for the personal community charge, which may be anything up to £300 at the present time, or for the standard community charge—that is the second home charge—which will be anything between one and two times the personal community charge. It is important in relation to the efficiency and fairness of the whole matter that the register be accurate. In dealing with appeals, we have these surprising words: Where a person requests the registration officer to make or amend an entry in the register relating to him and the registration officer fails to notify the person of the determination of the request within such period as may be prescribed, he shall be deemed to have refused the request".

That is a bit much is it not, my Lords? One asks an official to amend or change some entry in the register applying to oneself; the registrar does nothing; and, after a certain time, he is deemed to have refused one's request.

The position should be the other way round. If the register is concerned about the accuracy of his register, he should take steps right away to get in touch with the person and make a decision. Indeed, if he does not do so timeously, he should be deemed to have allowed the request.

I know this makes it a little more difficult for the registrar. Although convenient for the registrar that he should be allowed to forget about an application and by doing nothing, thus refuse it, that is not fair. This amendment would correct the situation with regard to the rights of the individual. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I said in Committee, this amendment—which was also discussed then—challenges the logic, the fairness, or both, of providing that if the registration officer has failed to give a determination on a request to make or amend the register entry he shall be deemed to have refused it and that an appeal shall then lie to the sheriff against that deemed refusal. The logic of the amendment would turn this presumption on its head and deem it that the registration officer had allowed the request. However, there is a very simple objection to that approach. The provision would not of itself achieve anything since, unless a change were made in the entry, the register would remain in its original condition and the individual's liability for the charge would be governed accordingly. Therefore, even if it were thought attractive to use this mechanism to provide an incentive to registration officers to give their determinations promptly, the amendment of the noble Lord would not work.

At Committee stage, it was suggested that the provision in the Bill would in some sense protect the registration officer. That is not the case. The registration officer will be required to notify the person who has requested an amendment of his determination of that request within a prescribed period which we envisage as being no longer than a month. As I said then, we have no reason to suppose that registration officers will fail to give determinations timeously in the vast majority of cases.

However, there has to be some presumption in order to protect the position of the person who has made the request about what should happen if, by any chance, the registration officer does not respond within that period. As I said, a presumption that the request should be taken to be granted would have no practical effect since it is only the registration officer who can amend the register. Where the registration officer has not responded to the request therefore, it must be assumed that there is some difficulty in the case which requires the appeal mechanism to be triggered. The deemed refusal is simply a device to achieve that end. It is a safeguard for the individual and in no way for the registration officer.

The logic of the approach which provides for appeal against a deemed refusal makes good, straightforward sense, and I must hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, the explanation is anything but straightforward. It does anything but make sense. The registration officer would know that if he did not comply with the request by a certain time then he would have to allow it. There is no gap in amending the register. However, it is obvious that the Government are not going to make any change in this respect. I am anxious to save time. We do not have a lot of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move the next amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 151A not moved.]

Clause 17 [Duties in relation to registration]:

[Amendment No. 152 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 153: Page 16, line 13, leave out ("has") and insert ("may have").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather strange measure in relation to obtaining information. We give very considerable powers to the registration officer. We protect him in many ways. At page 16, line 13, the Bill is very mandatory. It states: Subject to subsection (4) below, the registration officer may require the regional or islands council or any district council in his registration area, to supply him with such information as he may reasonably require". It may be information that the council does not have. The presumption is that he is applying for information that is there.

My next two amendments, which should be taken together, are to say that the councils can give the information only if they have it. It is commonsense. We are not saying that they shall give information, only to discover thereafter that they do not have it. I therefore put in the words "may have"; and later on instead of "comply" I propose that they shall "if they have the information" provide it. It is sensible drafting. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I fully appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to make it clear that registration officers can require from registration officers of other registration areas or of local authorities within their own area only such information as these other authorities actually hold. I can give the noble Lord an unequivocal assurance on that point. Local authorities and other registration officers will in no case be required to collect information which they would not otherwise collect. The provision allows the registration officer to acquire access only to information which these authorities actually have. As a matter of drafting the present provisions are quite clear. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment which the noble Lord proposes.

However, Amendment No. 154A, which I thought we agreed would be spoken to with these amendments, I am prepared to take separately if that is what the noble Lord wishes.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, they should be taken separately. That is a different point altogether. It is rather stupid to have a mandatory phrase such as they "shall comply with such a requirement". They may be asking for information which the regional or islands council does not have. Why the word "shall" is. there I do not know. It is asking for trouble. However, we shall not get any joy from the Government so I shall gladly withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 154A: Page 16, line 16, at end insert ("except where such information as requested has been acquired previously on a voluntary and confidential basis").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that this amendment is being taken separately. I raised the matter at Committee stage and the reply I received from the Minister was not totally reassuring, particularly to some of the officers of Strathclyde Regional Council. As I said then, the Strathclyde Regional Council and other councils have been making voluntary population surveys which include information about age, status, occupation, etc. of the people in the region to help in forward planning. But the data were collected specifically on the strict understanding that they would be confidential and would not be divulged for any other purpose.

As I said, again at Committee stage, the council was required because of the Data Protection Act to register the holding of this information and the purposes for which it was obtained. I am sure the Government would not wish an organisation such as Strathclyde Regional Council or any other region not to gather information to facilitate the planning of schools, housing and various other functions that they have to carry out. They believe that if they are to collect information of real value it must be gathered on a confidential basis. They know that the information will be able to be collected more easily from citizens if it is collected confidentially.

The idea that they must divulge information to the registration officer would jeopardise that, and they would be breaking the law, having made a promise that it would not be divulged and having had to divulge it. I hope that the Minister, having dealt with it last time and having seen the amendment on the Marshalled List, will have a more satisfactory answer for the officers of some of the Scottish regions and particularly Strathclyde. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern which has been expressed on this point. Again, I must say that I think it is unnecessary. The information which registration officers will require for checking purposes will usually be simply lists of names and addresses. Where any question of confidentiality may arise, however, it will be possible under Clause 17(4) to prescribe information which should not be made available to registration officers under the clause. We have already undertaken that confidential information held by social work departments or the police should be prescribed under that power.

I shall consider very carefully the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is certainly not our intention that confidential information should be made available under these provisions. I hope that in the light of that further reassurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

Yes, my Lords. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 155: Page 16, line 33, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to leave out Clause 17(6)(c), which deals with responsible persons.

The phrase "responsible person" means, (a) … the owner or … a tenant where they occupy the premises, or, (b) …where the premises are not occupied by the owner or by a tenant … for a period of 12 months or more". and then, (C) in any case not in any other case, but in any case at all, such other person as the registration officer considers it appropriate to designate, any district council, or any housing body as the responsible person".

The duties on the responsible person are, as I understand it, to tell the registration authority who is living in the house. How on earth that duty can be landed on a district council or on a housing body which is not basically interested in who is living in the house, but who is liable to pay the rent of the house or otherwise pay for occupying the house, seems to me quite absurd. It is odd that these obligations should land on a district council, a housing body or anybody else who does not appear to be the person in the house. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it may be helpful if I quickly run over the arrangements provided for by this clause to ensure that there will be a responsible person to provide information about the residence in each set of premises. In the vast majority of cases it will be obvious who the responsible person should be. He will be the present rateable occupier or, in the old-fashioned phrase in the Green Paper which has been much criticised, the head of household. He will therefore usually be the owner-occupier or tenant-occupier as provided for in Clause 17(6)(a), but there may be circumstances in which there is neither owner-occupier nor tenant-occupier on the premises. In those circumstances it has to be considered who should be the responsible person.

It seems reasonable to provide, as does subsection (6)(b), that in those circumstances the owner or a tenant whose lease is for a period of 12 months or more should be the responsible person, since that person will normally have sufficient interest in the property to know who lives there and to be able to provide information for registration purposes. I fully accept, however, that that will not be appropriate in all cases, for example, when an owner is abroad. That is why subsection (6)(c) provides that in any case a registration officer may designate another person as the responsible person. This provision could come into play where there is a resident owner or tenant; for example, if a person lived with and cared for his elderly parents and who might own the property but might not wish to take on the responsibility of being the responsible person. It would then be open to the registration officer to designate the son or daughter as the responsible person instead.

I hope that from what I have said it will be obvious that in the vast majority of cases the responsible person is identified, but it is conceivable that in some cases he will not be. For example, in the case of a housing association providing accommodation as a half-way house for people coming out of hospital or other institutional care it might be appropriate to designate an officer of the housing association who would deal with many of the business affairs of the house but who would not himself be resident there as the responsible person.

The other kind of case in which a non-resident might be designated as a responsible person would be where the manager of a property subject to a collective community charge would be designated as the responsible person for the purpose of providing the registration officer with information to enable him to calculate the collective community charge multiplier.

I should perhaps clarify one point for the noble Lord, Lord Morton. The reference in Clause 17(6)(c) to "district council" or "housing body" is a printing error in this part of the Bill. As I understand it, this was an amendment in Committee which was not printed at the time and will have been corrected in the next draft. It appears on a supplementary list in green entitled "(120-corrections)", which I think the noble Lord may have.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, it was very interesting to discuss subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b) which my amendment did not intend to alter in any way at all. I have no objection to those, otherwise there would have been an amendment down. The difficulty is subsection (6)(c) which talks about designating first of all such other person as the registration officer", which may or may not be suitable. But then it does not talk about designating a responsible officer of a housing body or a council or whatever the word is, but "the body", which seems to be a difficulty, at least according to what the Minister was reading out to us.

I certainly see some difficulty in the idea that, for example, a person who is acting, whether as estate agent, solicitor or whatever for a person who owns a house and goes abroad should be responsible not, only for telling the registration officer to whom he has leased or let the house or whatever but who is living in it. That seems to be putting an extraordinary burden on somebody who otherwise has no duty at all to go to the house and inspect whomever is living in it. It is the duty on the responsible officer to say who is occupying the house as a main residence and who is over 18. Does the Minister expect estate agents to do this all the time? That seems to me quite extraordinary. But as we are trying to get the Bill through to allow other matters, and having pointed out the difficulties, no doubt we shall not be accused of having let them pass without pointing them out. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 156:

Page 16, line 47, leave out from ("appeal") to end of line 48 and insert— ("(a) against his designation, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, to the registration officer who shall determine that appeal in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed; and (b) against such a determination by the registration officer of an appeal by that person, to the sheriff of any sheriffdom which wholly or partly falls within the registration area.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, tabled an amendment to give the person designated as the responsible person the right to object formally to the registration officer against that designation with a subsequent right of appeal to the sheriff against the registration officer's determination.

We then said that we would consider the need to change the Bill on this point to meet the concerns expressed at Committee stage in relation to designation as the responsible person. We now propose that it would be fitting to bring the appeal provisions in relation to designation as responsible person into line with the general appeal provisions relating to registration under Clause 16(1) of the Bill.

The amendment does that and in commending it to your Lordships, I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for having made the change. Noble Lords should appreciate that being named, even against your will, as the responsible person brings with it possible penalties. You may be fined £50 on the say-so of the registration officer (not any court of law) because you have given false information or because you say, "I am not going to give that information; it wouldn't be right for me to give it". If you do that, having been appointed to this position which you did not want, you can be fined £50 in the first instance. You are not fined, because it is a civil debt—a strange new idea that you empower a registration officer carrying out the task which Parliament has laid on him by this, if he does not get the right information, or gets false information, or no information at all, to fine the person whom he has appointed £50. Furthermore, if that person still does not provide the information, it is a matter of £200.

That is why I am concerned about who is to be the responsible officer. I think it is more than a bit much, but I am glad we have at least got this appeal business sorted out in part by the acceptance of the suggestions which have been made. I thank the Government for having done what they have done here.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 156A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 157 and 158.

[Amendments Nos. 156A, 157 and 158 not moved.]

Clause 18 [Obtaining of information from individual residents]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 159: Page 17, line 31, leave out ("notify") and insert ("be notified by").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly different amendment. We are up against the rights of the individual or the rights of the democracy. Every person will be liable on 1st April 1989 or becomes liable; that is to say, every person who becomes 18 has a birthday present from the Government on his eighteenth birthday. Whether he is working or unemployed—it does not matter what his status is, be he duke, duke's son or dustman's son—he is liable to pay the personal community charge. If he has a second home somewhere—and that will not apply to many of the unemployed, I am sure—it may be anything over £300 a year. He is not liable for anything at the moment, he is not liable to pay rates but this is the new obligation on everyone of 18 and over.

There is more than that obligation. He has to notify the registrar. It is not for the registrar to find him from his register on completion of the register; it is for him to notify the registration officer. I should have thought it would be the other way round and it would be the registration officer who should notify him.

It is a simple matter which I am dealing with here. The registrar is paid handsomely. He is already the electoral registration officer and he is already the assessor; that is the valuation officer in Scotland at the moment. Now he has this new task of drawing up the register.

We do not write saying "I am now 18. May I have a vote?". That is found out by the electoral registration officer. Now you are bringing a new tax upon yourself and to whom you pay it will depend on the area in which you are resident. If a person moved from one area to another, I could understand the necessity for notification—of the responsible person telling the CCRO, the community charge registration officer. How these new initials will slip off our tongues by the time we come to the election after this coming one. I think it is a matter for the registration officer to draw up his own register and not for the people who will pay this new tax to notify him. Therefore I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I wish to point out that as a householder I am normally sent a form to fill in for the electoral register. In that form I am asked to say who lives in my house and whether they are over 18. I am asked to give the names of anybody over 18 who is resident in the house. So it is not the electoral registrar's job to find out; it is up to the householder, probably the parents of the young people, to tell the electoral registration officer.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I wish to raise much the same point as the noble Lady. Is it not the duty of the householder to give the electoral registration officer all the particulars which he needs before he comes to levy the charges? Am I wrong in thinking that in Committee the Government looked favourably upon dealing with the difficulties which they were going to impose on students and people like them who move—and they are not the only people who will do that—for part of the year and who, as I understand it, will be responsible for notifying any registration officer into whose area they come, over and above what may be sent on their behalf by their householder? Are the Government certain that it is reasonable to call upon students and suchlike to do this?

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I must come to the support of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. Surely there is a distinction here. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is quite right. We put young people down on the electoral register before they reach the age of 18. However, the difference—and it is a serious one—is that when their names are put down on the register they are claiming a right, which is not quite the same thing as claiming a liability. People can decently be asked to claim a right but I am not quite so sure that they can be decently asked to claim a liability. It is not the same thing.

My noble friend Lord Ross is surely right. Once a person has made a claim for the right to vote, it then becomes the duty of the registration officer to say that that right to vote is granted, in the same way as, drawing on the electoral register, he could say that the right to the liability is granted as well. As usual, my noble friend Lord Ross is correct.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said in support of the amendment but it seems to me that the amendment would be entirely impracticable since subsection (1) of Clause 18 applies only to people who are not already registered and of whose liability the registration officer will be, by definition, unaware. There are separate provisions in Clauses 14 and 15 for the registration officer to notify individuals who are the subject of register entries and of whose liability or prospective liability he is aware. But when a person arrives in an area and is not yet registered on the community charges register it is obviously impracticable for the registration officer to notify him of his liability. For the life of me I cannot understand how he is to find out that the person has arrived. That is the practical difficulty.

As for students, they will be liable for a prescribed percentage of the personal community charge and will be registered at their term-time address. Student flats will therefore be in no different a position from other shared flats. In the normal case one of the residents will generally by agreement be designated as the responsible person and will provide for registration purposes information on the residents of the flat. I do not think this will be an onerous duty. I am sure it will not and I am confident that the provisions of the Bill will allow the system to work smoothly.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, did not refer to Amendments Nos. 160 and 160A specifically although I think he will agree with me that, because of the requirement in them for the notice to be in writing, they are closely connected with this amendment. It seems to me to be unduly restrictive to require the notices to be in writing. At present there is nothing to prevent an individual who becomes liable from simply telephoning or going to the registration officer's office and informing him or his staff of the fact that he has become liable. Under Clause 18(1)(b)(ii) he will then be required to supply the registration officer with appropriate information so that the register entry can be made up. For those purposes he will normally be required to fill in a form, but I do not think it would be necessary to require that the notification itself should always be in writing. That would perhaps add to any bureaucracy which the noble Lord has felt applies in any other case in this piece of legislation.

The arguments turn on practicability. That is the main reason why I hope that with my further explanation the noble Lord will feel happy about this proposal in the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I have heard the explanation before more than once. The difficulty is in relation to the whole business. It is easy enough for rating purposes to know that there is a house in a particular area. That house is valued by the assessor, who in Scotland is the same person as the electoral registration officer. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, filled in a form. That form was sent to her. But no form is being sent to anyone here. That is what I want.

How will it be known that the person is 18? The electoral registration officer has the right to check and there is also the responsible person. This amounts to penalties by inertia. The man who will apply the penalty does nothing, but the person who will be taxed up to £300 a year has to notify the registration officer that he is now 18 or that he has now come to the area. The latter point does not matter so much because the chances are that if he has moved into the area he is already paying the community charge somewhere else; and if he is not removed from that register then he is paying at least once.

These are the difficulties that arise from the change of moving from rates which are levied on houses. Houses do not move. People come and go but the rates remain attached to houses as people move in. This is the unfairness of the whole thing and no doubt one of the difficulties that the registration officer will face. We have troubles at the moment in respect of the electoral register not being complete because of mistakes. From that point of view it will be much more worth while for a person not to register. We shall find that the register is very incomplete. We shall not have as complete a register when it means, "Right, you've been nailed, you're there. Now pay £300 a year". This is one of the difficulties. The difficulty is not of my creation but arises from the Government's change.

We already know that this registration will be costly. It will cost far more than the existing system of rates and the valuation roll although the same person will draw up the register. There will be a considerable element of chaos and a certain amount of unfairness if you expect people to do it themselves. The Government are having it both ways. In this clause the person is liable. In the previous clause the responsible person is liable. What I have tried to show all along is the considerable and almost impossible burden being placed on the registration officer and what the cost will be if he is to have an efficient register.

I do not remember ever filling in a form in respect of my household although I live in a town. Canvassers are sent out. Canvassers come to the door and ask questions. Remember this: there is no penalty for giving the wrong information. If my two daughters had been rabid communists at the age of 18, while I would not have done it some people might have been content not to put their names on the electoral register. There is no penalty for giving the wrong information in respect of the electoral register but there is in respect of the community charges register.

It is a difficult problem but it stems from what we are doing—taxing people instead of levying rates on households. I do not think that we shall get anywhere on this matter but I want to point out and keep pointing out the difficulties the Government have got themselves into. I hope that English Members of the House will remember that it is coming to them in due course. It may well be that they will change their minds before that and remember some of the warnings that we have given them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, if Amendment No. 161A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 162.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 161A: Page 17, line 49, leave out from ("period") to end of line 17 on page 18.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to question the whole definition of "backdated period". The provision is rather confusing as it stands. it seems to be worded so that any period prior to the date on which the entry is made in the register for which the taxpayer has been resident could be classed as a backdated period. It seems rather confusing. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it more clearly. Perhaps he has had second thoughts since Committee stage and will be able to clear up this point. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I think I should emphasise first that there is no question of any penalty attaching to someone whose liability for one of the community charges is properly registered but who has simply fallen into arrears. Recovery of arrears is dealt with separately under Clause 21 and Schedule 2 to the Bill.

The provisions in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 18 are directed at the circumstances where someone was under a duty to notify the registration officer of his liability for one of the community charges but has not done so and is therefore not registered as liable. That is why subsection (3) refers to an entry in the register recording a liability commencing on a date prior to the date on which the entry is made.

The main circumstances covered by that provision will be those where an individual should have informed the registration officer of his liability but has not in fact done so. He has therefore evaded the community charge and it is right that a civil penalty should be imposed. The penalties provided for by the clause are similar to those provided for in relation to VAT evasion under the Finance Act 1985, and involve the imposition of a surcharge related to the amount of community charge which has been evaded subject to a minimum amount of £50.

I must strongly defend the principle of the provisions. There are ample safeguards in the clause for people whose absence from the register may be a result of ignorance or carelessness. First, the penalty may only be imposed if the period for which the person has not been registered is three months or more. People who are simply dilatory in notifying the registration officer of their liability will not therefore be caught.

Secondly, the penalty need not be imposed if the local authority is satisfied that the person has a resonable excuse for not having been registered. What constitutes a reasonable excuse will be a matter for interpretation by the courts, but the provision is precedented in other taxation legislation and will allow local authorities to take into account any special circumstances of cases where a person has not been registered for three months or more.

Thirdly, an appeal to the sheriff against the surcharge is provided for by subsection (5). Subsection (4) provides that the amounts of the surcharge and the rates of interest which may be applied to tax for the backdated period may be varied by regulations made by the Secretary of State. This is necessary in order to allow periodically for changes in the value of money and the general level of rates of interest prevailing.

These provisions are clearly necessary to deal with deliberate evasion of registration for the purpose of avoiding payment of the community charge. The amendment does nothing to deal with such evasion because it seeks merely to require the person concerned to repay the arrears without penalty or interest. I hope that the noble Lord will feel further enlightened.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the Minister has made a full explanation. I shall read it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 162: Page 18, line 6, leave out ("them") and insert ("the registration officer").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple matter of drafting. The person who draws up the register is the person who is responsible for its accuracy and for saying whether or not it is complete. I rather think that it is up to him to be satisfied that there has been a reasonable excuse for not having been registered, and not up to the levying authority. The levying authority just levies. It is not responsible for the register at all.

It would be far better to make this change. The paragraph says: if the backdated period is three months or more the levying authority, unless the person satisfies them". That is the levying authority. I think he should satisfy the registration officer, who has the responsibility and all the facts in relation to that kind of thing. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment. Since, when there is any question of a surcharge being imposed on an individual, the matter will relate to his registration, it seems logical at first glance that it is the registration officer who should be satisfied as to whether or not the person concerned has a reasonable excuse for not having been registered. I expect that in practice the levying authority will wish to take advice from the registration officer when it is contemplating imposing a surcharge. But I have to say that the provisions of the Bill are necessary.

It is the levying authority to whom the community charge, including the arrears, is payable. Since the surcharge is related to the amount of community charge payable it is for the levying authority to impose it. It is therefore right that it should be the levying authority in the last analysis which decides whether or not it should be imposed. It is therefore for the authority to satisfy itself whether or not the person in question has a reasonable excuse. As I have said, in this context the authority is likely to wish to seek advice from the registration officer, but I am satisfied that the arrangements set out in the Bill are nevertheless correct.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, what happens if the registration officer says, "This is a reasonable excuse", and the levying authority says, "No, it is not"? Does the levying authority then put in a surcharge although the registration officer says, "Well, this is a reasonable excuse", or even "This was my mistake"?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I should have thought that on that sort of occasion, if that were to arise, it would be a matter for consultation between the two to start with; but ultimately the levying authority should be the final arbiter since the surcharge is due to it along with the community charge itself. Beyond that, I should have thought that it would be a question of appeal to the sheriff against the surcharge in that particular case.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we could have avoided all this nonsense with the person who knows about registration. The person who is subject to all the regulations in respect of registration is the CCRO—the community charge registration officer. It is far easier to say "CCRO" than "community charge registration officer". Really they should satisfy him about reasonableness or otherwise.

I am sorry that the Government even at this late stage do not recognise how hastily this Bill has been drafted. There are tremendous gaps of logic. When a Minister says, "It would be logical to do this, but", he should stop and make it logical. You could easily put a phrase in there to ensure that the question of reasonableness was properly assigned to the person who knows all about registration, and that is the registration officer. But if the Government are determined not to be logical who am I to save them from the troubles that may well arise? If the thing is careless, then let them blame it on themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 162A not moved.]

Clause 19 [Effect of register]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 163:

Page 18, line 35, at end insert— ("(d) the address at which liability is incurred").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a piece of information that is absolutely necessary from the point of view of doing what we want to do, and that is to put in the address at which the liability is incurred. I beg to move.

4 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, Clause 19 provides that the register should be conclusive on the question of the liability of persons registered to pay any community charge, on the date as from which such a charge is payable and on the collective community charge mutiplier in respect of premises registered for the collective community charge. All of these points relate directly to the principle or the amount of a person's liability. The amendment would add to these provisions the provision that the register is to be conclusive as to the address at which liability is incurred. Liability flows from residence in a local authority's area and not residence at a particular address, and while the register will of course record the addresses of the persons who are liable, the fact or the amount of their liability will not strictly speaking depend on whether they are resident at one address in the local authority's area rather than in another. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, surely it is appreciated that the address may not itself be in the area of that CCRO. From that point of view it is essential that the factual information be there. If you are going to charge somebody for at least three months you need to know where the liability was incurred; and it may be more than one address. From the point of view of the individual who is being levied with this civil debt, the address or addresses should be there.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the address will appear on the register but the register will not be conclusive as to that address. I cannot see that there is need for the amendment in the way that the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am not convinced of that. If you are going to charge someone for three months backdated you want the address at which the liability was incurred and not paid. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Inspection of register]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 164: Page 19, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we come to the business of inspecting the register. The inspecting of registers by the public is a matter of considerable concern, especially as most of the registers will probably be drawn up and maintained by computer. I have seen a few programmes on television recently which show that people can, without the authority of the registrar, key in to computers and get quite a lot of information from them.

I am concerned that paragraph (d) says: such other person as may be prescribed"— what other person, other than those mentioned in (a), (b) and (c)? shall be entitled to inspect the register to such an extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed". Paragraph (d) is a mine of non-information. Nobody knows what it means. The Government have not yet told us. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to shine and tell us the persons who are going to be prescribed, the extent to which they inspect the register and for purposes such as may be prescribed again. Could we have some information about the kind of person, the extent and the purposes? I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, this is an area where the Government ought to be specific. In the first three paragraphs of that subsection they are specific. They indicate a number of people who are entitled to inspect and examine the register, and all of them seem to have a specific, precise and, indeed, defensible reason for inspecting the register. Then the clause seems to fall to pieces. It appears to say that another nameless, nebulous body of people who might be prescribed in some particular way might then be entitled to examine the register. I wonder why that last part is there and why paragraph (d) should exist at all. In a clause which is mainly precise, why should there be an imprecision introduced at the end? I think we are entitled to a fairly detailed explanation.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I should say straight away that paragraph (d) is a contingency provision. At the moment we do not envisage circumstances in which persons other than those listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) should have the right to inspect the register, but it might be that in future a need for such a right of inspection will arise, and where this was clearly demonstrated it would obviously be highly desirable if the change could be made by regulations rather than by primary legislation. In any case, the extension of the rights of inspection under this provision would be carefully limited to the extent and the purposes necessary to meet the future circumstances which had arisen.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he recognise that he has not told us anything at all? He said that this is a contingency, which it clearly is, and it is a contingency to deal with certain nameless circumstances which might arise at some unspecified future time and for wholly unspecified purposes. Surely it is not sufficient for him to say it is a contingency, which we know already, without telling us for what it is a contingency. Surely some hint of the kind of event or occurrence which might give rise to this contingency should be given to us. It is not enough merely to say that something might arise some time in the future without giving us some hint of the kind of thing which that something might be.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the Minister perhaps thinking of some property developer who may come into an area and find it useful to inspect the register to see what sort of people he was coping with?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I do not think subsection (2) is at all unreasonable. It lays down who will have the specific right. "Contingency" is a real concept. Contingencies arise in all spheres, and it is just as well not to be caught out, if we want a certain thing to be done eventually, as we have got the statute so narrow that discretion cannot be used by people with the authority to use it.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, with supporters like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who needs an opposition? Surely we need to be more specific than this. The register could be used by malevolent people. After all, I suppose that the Bill will be on the statute book for some time and we cannot open the books to anybody who wants to come to look at them. We must have much more specific information as to who is going to be allowed to have access to this material.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness says. The purpose of the provision is to provide for contingencies. Things may change in time. That is why the paragraph is written in. I cannot crystal-ball gaze in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, invited me to. Obviously there is a strong sense that despite the fact that it is a contingency provision and that it adds flexibility, it is flexibility which in your Lordships' eyes goes rather too far, so on this occasion I am willing to bow to those strong feelings and to accept the amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I hope that the Minister has not lost the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, by doing that, he having explained how right the Government were and indeed always and, no matter how stupid are the proposals put forward. He has been let down, and I may say it serves him right. He should have been a little more hesitant The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not rise to this one. He probably realised that there was something in the amendment. What the Government meant by their reply was, "We don't really know", and they have done the sensible thing. They can do without this, and I thank the Government.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I intervene at this stage to say how delighted I was to hear the Minister refer to my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie as a crystal-ball gazer. On this occasion he has been right.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 165: Page 19, line 26, leave out from ("inspection") to end of line 28.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another matter which worries me. We are now told that the register, or parts of it, may be sold. The subsection reads: on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for sale by the regional or islands council at such places as may be prescribed". The register, or parts of it, is to be sold.

I object very strongly to that. My name will be on one of the registers. I am sick and tired of receiving all kinds of information or invitations to do this or that which I do not want to do, be it from Reader's Digest or somewhere else. I do not want to be bothered. I know that organisations that have their own lists of subscribers or members sell those lists, but here we are to have a local authority empowered to sell such things. I am worried about this matter and for that reason I have moved the amendment and kept it on the Marshalled List. I withdrew it previously for the purpose of getting on with the business. However, I now beg to move the amendment and I hope that we shall have a sensible reply from the Government.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I cannot see that there is any harm in the provision which the amendment would remove. It is no more than a provision whereby persons who could have obtained information from the register by inspecting it will be able to buy that information in a more convenient form. There is a similar provision under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 enabling the electoral registration officer to sell copies of electors lists or the electoral registers. Those are frequently bought by commercial organisations to which they are very useful. As the community charge register will be more up to date than the electoral register, and because the provision allows only for the sale of information which is publicly available anyway, I expect that the community charge register will be even more useful to commercial interests than the electoral register. However, I hope that in the light of that explanation, and the precedent for it, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, makes up his mind, I should like to point out that there is a clear distinction between the electoral register and this register. People want to buy the electoral register in order to take part in elections. Anyone who has taken part in an election will know that one would be greatly hampered if one could not obtain copies of the register except by inspecting it. As the Minister said, those who will want to buy this register will wish to do so for commercial reasons.

I am far from being certain that it is good that people should be able to buy the register for purely commercial reasons; for instance, so that they can pester those on the register to take part in their enterprise or buy their goods. I do not say that there may be other reasons for selling this register but I think that the reason given by the Minister is a bad one. There is a clear distinction between the electoral register and this register.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister regards it as very important that local authorities should be in a position to offer the register for sale. Does it mean a great deal to local authorities in terms of income? The dangers involved, as has been outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Ross of Marnock, indicate that this is a somewhat uneasy situation. If the Bill passes I think that it should encourage and place no impediment in the way of people registering in order that they may exercise their votes. However, I do not think that a hint that the register may be sold for commercial purposes to property developers or salesmen of one kind or another is an encouragement for people to register. I wonder why the Minister insists on this provision, having conceded the first point, that the register should not be available indiscriminately. I wonder why he does not follow on logically and accept this amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords who have expressed their abhorrence of the sale of the register for commercial purposes. However, that is precisely what happens at the moment. With respect, it is a large question which is beyond this clause of the Bill. It merely perpetuates what can be done at the moment. I do not agree with it and I do not think that noble Lords on various sides of the House agree with it. The question is whether this amendment is the place to carry it.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, the Minister was good enough to join us on this side of the House in respect of the last amendment. I am inclined to join him from this side of the House in respect of this amendment. I take that view because, as I read it, subsection (2) of this clause provides that any member of the public shall be entitled to inspect the register. That means that anybody can get his hands on the names and addresses. What the Minister is saying is: "Okay, let them have the names and addresses but let us have the money too". It is a little sordid but not unduly so, and I must say that I am on his side.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I note what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, and the purposes for which commercial organisations might use the information which they obtain from either the electoral register—which I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is the case at the moment—or from the register proposed here. It is a matter which goes rather wide of this particular piece of legislation.

However, we must remember that when it comes to people obtaining this kind of information staff must be employed to make it available, to supervise the office and such matters. It seems to me, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that it is not unreasonable on occasions such as this, when there may be a demand to obtain such information, that the costs of doing so shall be borne by the individual rather than the authority itself. Indeed, during the passage of the Bill it has often been said that extra costs would accrue to local authorities in one form or another in any event. This is a simple case of applying the same rules to one set of registers as to another. I hope that the noble Lords will feel that that is a valid argument.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised. If only the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, had spoken in favour of the Government we might have had a chance. There will need to be in existance two or three registers; there must be one which is complete and one which gives only certain information. The existence of a complete register holds the danger that other people will obtain it in some way or another. The names, addresses and ages of people are to be shown on the register.

The dangers of age being shown have again been pointed out. I know that the Government will say that that is the one matter which they will not disclose in order to assure the ladies in the community that their ages will not be known. It may be available to people whose intentions are not good and they will find that in certain areas there are people aged 75, 76 or 81, and there are old ladies living alone. That is very dangerous information to have anywhere, especially if in some way and by some chance the code could be broken and the information on the register obtained.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I should like to say as an old lady living alone that I entirely agree.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I was not speaking of anyone as young as the noble Baroness. I believe that she appreciates the difficulties when information is given to some people but not to others. It can fall into the wrong hands. I have always argued that the fact that one appears on the register makes it unnecessary for the age to be shown; one is obviously over 18 years of age. That is all that people need to know from the point of view of liability for this tax. However, I do not think we are going to get anything from the Government by way of this and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment, having sounded the warning about the difficulty of these registers, about limiting them and safeguarding them as far as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Levy, collection, payment and recovery of community charges]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 166: Page 32, line 38, leave out ("standard").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this amendment is associated with Amendment No. 167. If my memory is right, I am concerned about the use of this word "standard". It occurs on lines 38 and 44 of page 32 and it is a wonderful thing. We already have "standard" in the "standard community charge". Now we have the word again when people are going to be called upon to pay this community charge monthly. What are we going to call the monthly instalment?—"the standard monthly instalment". So we are going to have the standard monthly payment of the standard charge. They are different things, and I think it is quite nonsensical.

You do not require to define the standard monthly charge at all: it is just a monthly payment. Reading sub-paragraph (4), it says: Instalments (except the first) of the personal community charge and standard community charge payable in accordance with subparagraph (3)(a) above shall, subject to this paragraph, be equal to the standard monthly amount of the personal community charge or, as the case may be, of the standard community charge". That is the standard monthly payment of the standard community charge.

I do not know whether the draftsman had got rather fed up by this time. If he had given any of us here a ring, refreshed as we are by the constant lively debates we have here, particularly on this Bill, we could have redrafted that passage and got rid of at least one of the "standards". If this goes on, the Standard and the Braes of Mar will be raised again. It is rubbish. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the purpose of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is to set out the normal standard arrangements for the payment of community charges by 12 monthly instalments. This represents a change from the rating system where the basic arrangement involves 10 monthly instalments. The fundamental reason for the difference is that under the rating system liability is determined at the beginning of each year and the precise timetable on which payments are recovered has less significance. By contrast, the concept underlying the community charge is a continuous liability, as recorded in a rolling register kept continuously up to date, and it therefore seems more simple to spread the payments throughout the year and to organise them so that equal amounts are due each month.

We recognise that some people have taken the view that continuation of arrangements for 10 monthly instalments would have provided a fallow period, such as exists at present, during which local authorities can complete the book-keeping for one year and prepare and issue bills for the next. It is quite clear, however, that the lack of such a fallow period does not represent a serious objection to the Government's proposals and that, provided the processes of determining the community charge can happen sufficiently far in advance of the beginning of each financial year, as is the Government's intention, there will be no problem about completing the necessary paperwork. In the course of consultations on the Green Paper the Scottish branch of CIPFA came down in favour of the approach enshrined in the Bill, of 12 equal monthly instalments.

Against that background it seems to me that the present provisions in the Bill are perfectly satisfactory and that these amendments, which would delete the term "Standard monthly amount" are unnecessary and unhelpful. It may seem as though leaving paragraph 4(4) to refer simply to the "monthly amount" would provide an added measure of flexibility. In practice it would mean nothing different from what is there at present but would carry the risk of leaving important terms undefined. The provisions of paragraph 4 already leave sufficient flexibility to cope with a variety of other circumstances: for example, the need to round off the payments in broken months when an individual becomes, or ceases to be, liable for the community charge in the course of a financial year; the need to round off the amount payable in one of the 12 months—for convenience the first month—in order to produce exactly the right total of payments for the year; as well as providing the opportunity for local authorities to agree with individual community charge payers a different schedule of payments, if they wish to do so, by virtue of subparagraph (10).

I am confident that these provisions as they stand provide a sensible basis under which the bulk of the individuals in each local authority area will know what they are due to pay each month—the standard monthly amount—and I think that this makes sense as well as simplifying the work of local authorities, banks handling standing orders and so on. In the light of this explanation, setting it in context, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I apologise to the House: one of the penalties of putting down even a drafting amendment is that we have to endure a Scottish Office explanation.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Ross of Marnock

Did anybody understand it? Did anybody understand why we have to have the word "standard" added to the words "monthly payment" or "monthly instalment"? All that needed to be said was "a monthly instalment". That is one meaning of standard. It is not only the personal charge: you have a standard community charge and so you have a standard monthly payment of a standard community charge. It is rather ridiculous. The Scottish Office is getting worse. Bring back the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield: that is what I say. However, I am not going to risk another explanation from the Minister, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

[Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 not moved.]

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 169: Page 33, line 46, leave out ("a person is") and insert ("tenants and any spouses residing in dwelling houses let by it are").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the arrangement whereby housing authorities, which may be the local authority housing authority, or indeed the Scottish Special Housing Association or some similar body, have to collect the personal and collective standard charges instead of the levying authority. It seems quite right. They are used to going into the house and collecting both the rent and rates at the same time. But when they do that they collect only from the householder who is the tenant.

They are used to doing that kind of thing, but why should they have to collect from somebody who is not the tenant or the spouse of the tenant? It may be somebody who is lodging at the house; it may be part of their own family; but surely it should not be the responsibility of the housing authority, which has no idea who else is in that house, because its officers have not been asking about that sort of thing, and I think the limit of their collection or recovery should be to the tenant or his spouse and not to other people in the house. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as it stands, the amendment seems to me to be focused on a fairly narrow point and I am not quite sure that I follow the logic of it. If the arrangements which may be made between housing bodies can cover community charge payments by all persons and not just tenants and spouses, why should these additional sums, which are closely tied to community charge liability, not be payable on a similar basis?

A more general issue is whether arrangements made between housing bodies and levying authorities should apply only to persons who are housing body tenants and their spouses or should cover a wider range of community charge payers.

The amendments moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Carnegy were intended to provide the greatest possible flexibility in the arrangements which could be made between housing bodies and levying authorities. These amendments were a response to representations made by what is, I believe, one of the key professional bodies in this area, the Rating and Valuation Association and, I understand, reflected the wishes of the Scottish branch of CIPFA. Both these organisations have made it clear that the most sensible approach is to provide the greatest degree of flexibility so that local authorities can make arrangements between themselves which provide for the optimum use of resources of manpower, equipment and local offices to make the most efficient and economical job of levying and collecting community charges.

There is a wide range of such arrangements at present as regards rates. In some areas district councils collect rates only from their tenants; in others, they collect rates from everyone. The case for flexibility having been accepted, it would be quite unreasonable, I think, to restrict matters in the way that the amendment would bring about.

As it stands, paragraph 5 provides considerable flexibility for sensible arrangements to be made locally. I should be reluctant to see that flexibility reduced.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, in view of the fact that there is flexibility and that it is not mandatory for the housing local authority to collect from people from whom it does not normally collect, this will make easier the method by which the charges will be collected. It is easier to collect the rates with the rents—so much so that people in some areas do not know the rents of their houses and talk about rent when they mean rent and rates, because they make one payment. However, the local authority never collects from people other than the tenant or spouse. Therefore I am not very happy about this way of doing it. It is true that "may" rather than "shall" provides a certain measure of flexibility. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 [Reduction of community charges]:

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 169A: Leave out Clause 22.

The noble Lord said: The amendment has been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and myself to find the Government's response to the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee on 9th April, at col. 1173 of Hansard. This appalling clause says: Schedule 3 to this Act has effect. Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State power to control the community charges if he considers that the expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. I am not raising at this time the question whether it is proper that he should have the power. The question I wish to raise is whether that power should be in the main part of the Bill or in a schedule.

In Committee on 9th April there was a powerful expression of views from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Stallard, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, and others that it would be much better to follow the precedent of the previous legislation, which puts this power of the Secretary of State in relation to rates into clauses of the Bill, rather than what, from my slight knowledge of drafting, seems an appalling way of doing it; namely, in a clause stating that schedule blank to the Act has effect, followed by the inclusion of whatever one likes of principle.

As the Minister undertook to consider this issue, the amendment is tabled to ascertain the result of his consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I must admit that I am a little disappointed that it is necessary for the amendment to be tabled at all. My noble friend the Minister will recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has reminded us, that we had considerable discussion in Committee, not on the merits or demerits of the schedule but on the question of whether it is good or even acceptable parliamentary drafting to put the considerable and important powers that the Minister is to be given in the clause and in the schedule and rely on that being legitimised by a single, one-line clause.

I think that my noble friend the Minister will recall that in the dicussion he sought to quote the precedent of the 1965 legislation, which precedent appears to be wholly against him because in that case the powers, as I recall, were put in the clause in the Bill. From the point of view of practicality and propriety, it seems a better practice to do that than to do what has been done in this schedule.

First, as regards any person who required to study the Bill and to know the law—and under the Bill there is no question that it will be very important for many people to study and be aware of the provisions of the Bill—it makes it less easy for him to find a one-line clause and then have to burrow into the schedule to discover what it is all about.

Secondly, I think that a certain measure of propriety is involved—I agree that it is a difficult matter of judgment—for Parliament when enacting important things to put them in the clauses of the Bill clearly and openly enacted, and to stow away in the schedules only the complicated but less important aspects of the legislation. I still hope that my noble friend, who appeared to be not unimpressed by the arguments poured on him from all sides in Committee, will have something to say on the Government's attitude. Meanwhile, he puts some of us in a difficult position. It would be silly to accept the amendment, which would simply have the effect of knocking out of the Bill a very important provision contained in the schedule. On the other hand, many of us are very unhappy that the Bill should go forward with this kind of drafting apparently approved by Parliament.

There have been comments lately—I do not want to generalise—that the standard of parliamentary draftsmen today is not quite what it used to be. This example certainly seems to render some force to that criticism. I therefore hope that, even at this stage, my noble friend will be able to say something to encourage those of us who wish this important measure to be drafted in appropriate, traditional, conventional and accurate terms.

Lord Campbell of Alloway; My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I took this point very strongly on the last occasion. Without repeating anything that has been said before, it is surely right that the Government—any government—accept as a matter of principle that the principles governing the operation of a statute go in primary legislation, and the implementing machinery goes in the schedule. That is the problem to which we shall come. It keeps hiding its face, but we shall come to it later today under Clause 24. Where are the governing principles? There are none in the Bill. The problem is the same.

The Bill is lamentably drafted. The drafting is sloppy. It does not face up to the cardinal importance of putting principles in primary legislation. We are entitled to ask for that as a matter of the exercise of our advisory role. I agree that there is nothing that we can do about it, but we can go on asking.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I pray in aid the recommendations of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, which said what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said; namely, that principles should be stated in clauses and that when a great deal of detail is needed to be set out to apply those principles to particular circumstances, it should be contained in a schedule or, if temporary, for example, in statutory instruments or Orders in Council.

Applying that concept to this schedule, I think that most of what is in the schedule should be in a schedule. It is desirable, and it would not involve substantial repetition, that the principles underlying the schedule should have been stated in Clause 22, instead of having in Clause 22, which I think is most unusual, and in Clause 21 for that matter, the mere statement that the schedule should have effect. As my noble friend has said, it is too late for us to have this put right. In this short discussion I hope that we are laying down guidelines for a better future.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I should not like the discussion to finish merely on the point of where the provisions should be without saying that in Committee I pointed out the illogicality of the schedule itself, in that, as I understand it, the whole point of the Bill is to get rid of rates and put in a system which will restore responsibility to local authorities. We have the whole Bill for that and then there is this important point of principle; that the Government have contingency plans in case the Bill does not work. Contingency planning is probably right because the Bill is such a mess that it will not work. I wanted to point out that many of the points contained in the schedule are objectionable in themselves.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, what has gone wrong here is that the schedule refers to parliamentary proceedings, and parliamentary proceedings would of course be appropriate matters for a schedule. However, the body of the schedule does not deal solely with proceedings; it deals with the Secretary of State's powers. The Secretary of State's powers should be in the Bill. They should be clearly stated in Clause 22, and that clause should refer to Schedule 3 for the proceedings.

I am not sure whether it is too late to make a change. Is not this the kind of change which would be suitable and appropriate for Third Reading? I know that we do not want too many changes on Third Reading of any Bill. I agree entirely with that. This proposal is so inept and mistaken that surely it can be put right at a later stage.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I have listened with care to the points that have been raised, as I did to the points that were raised in Committee. I studied those remarks with care. I shall not deal with the merits of the matter because they have not been dealt with by any of your Lordships. The burden of my remarks will be addressed to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and whether the principles should have appeared in the clause.

It is no easier to change the contents of a schedule than the contents of a main clause because primary legislation is needed in both cases. In this case, all the contents of Schedule 3 deal with the mechanics or the exercise of the Secretary of State's power to propose a reduction in a community charge, and there is no real issue of substance on that. With the benefit of hindsight, I willingly concede that it would have been better, and would certainly have looked better, if we had provided something more substantial in the clause.

The question that I have had to consider over the past few days is whether it would be prudent to propose changes in this part of the Bill at this stage. There has been considerable scrutiny of the points that have been raised and no fundamental issue of principle is at stake. One problem is that there would be no unanimity of view as to what, among the present contents of Schedule 3, constitutes issues of principle. I dare say that it would be possible to draw them out. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said it would be reasonably simple to do that, but I do not think that it would be simple. We could end with a fairly substantial gutting of Schedule 3. That would lead to another difficulty. It would not be prudent to attempt major redrafting at this late stage unless there were the most persuasive reasons. The danger is that we may get it wrong, and there would be little opportunity, if any, to put it right.

For those reasons, bearing sincerely in mind all the points which have been raised, I do not think we should attempt an amendment at this stage. I hope that your Lordships will accept that point. I intend that we shall take careful note of the general point which has been raised by your Lordships when considering future legislation. I said earlier that I thought that with the benefit of hindsight this could have been better done. That is a serious point which I fully acknowledge. I hope that with the understanding of the enormous complexities of trying to gut the schedule and to put its contents into the Bill at this stage when we may not get it right in time to leave your Lordships—

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, why?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked why. The simple reason is that we have only today and Monday and I do not see how we can possibly redraft a schedule and put part of its contents into the Bill and leave part in the schedule in time for it to leave your Lordships' House.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, may I remind the Minister that the Government have a year of their time to run?

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he try to get it right in the English Bill?

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I should have thought that as this Session has a certain period of time to run, this matter could have been got right. It could have been got right, with little trouble, over the Easter Recess. The Government have had some experience of drafting these clauses because they took what I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to as Section 5 of the 1965 Act—I think it is the 1966 Act—in 1980 or 1981 and altered it.

They know how to do it. They have had experience of altering the powers of the Secretary of State to control local authority expenditure. I should have thought it was quite easy to insert in Clause 22 something on the lines of: If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the total estimated expenses". Those words can be found in the first paragraph of Schedule 3. That is the principle and that is what should be in the Bill.

The following could also be inserted: The Secretary of State may follow the procedure in Schedule 3". That is quite easy to do. The difficulty is that, in spite of the Minister's assertions, we are leaving a precedent for that type of drafting. In the absence of any satisfactory answer and because I see no reason why that kind of amendment cannot be brought forward before next Monday—because parliamentary draftsmen can do that—I seek the opinion of the House.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, before we take advantage of the chance to vote on the clause and in order to give the Minister and the noble Baroness a chance to have a little more fun, I cannot see anything wrong with taking that course now. I well understand the reaction of the purists that things should be done absolutely the same as they have been done in the past, but a schedule is just as much a part of a Bill as a clause. Because of all the intricacies involved in this instance, one can see the good sense of having all the intricate details as regards the application inserted in the schedule.

On this occasion we should not give the impression that we think that a schedule is not an integral part of a Bill. The fact that it does not have more words by way of introduction does not interfere with the general effect.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I have never seen a noble Lord more definitely sit down than did the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, with the phrase that he used.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, vote away.

4.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 169A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Gallacher, L.
Ardwick, L. Galpern, L.
Attlee, E. Gladwyn, L.
Aylestone, L. Glenamara, L.
Banks, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Birk, B. Grey, E.
Blackstone, B. Grimond, L.
Blease, L. Hampton, L.
Blyton, L. Hanworth, V.
Bonham-Carter, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Henniker, L.
Bottomley, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Briginshaw, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Broadbridge, L. Hunt, L.
Brockway, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Irving of Dartford, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Jeger, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. John-Mackie, L.
Carter, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Chitnis, L. Listowel, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
David, B. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Lockwood, B.
Dean of Beswick, L. Longford, E.
Diamond, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. McNair, L.
Donoughue, L. Monkswell, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Ennals, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Nicol, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Oram, L.
Phillips, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller] Strabolgi, L. [Teller]
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Prys-Davies, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Rea, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Ritchie of Dundee, L. Tordoff, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Rochester, L. Underhill, L.
Ross of Marnock, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Seear, B. Wigoder, L.
Sefton of Garston, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Stallard, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Stedman, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Killearn, L.
Allerton, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Ampthill, L. Kinnaird, L.
Atholl, D. Lane-Fox, B.
Auckland, L. Lauderdale, E.
Bauer, L. Layton, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Long, V.
Beloff, L. Lyell, L.
Belstead, L. McFadzean, L.
Bessborough, E. Macleod of Borve, B.
Blake, L. Marley, L.
Blyth, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Brookes, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Broxbourne, L. Melville, V.
Burton, L. Merrivale, L.
Butterworth, L. Mersey, V.
Caithness, E. Middleton, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Molson, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Mottistone, L.
Carnock, L. Munster, E.
Chelmer, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Chelwood, L. Norfolk, D.
Colville of Culross, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Cross, V. Pender, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Penrhyn, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller] Plummer of St Marylebone, L.
De La Warr, E. Plummer of St Marylebone, L.
Deedes, L. Porritt, L.
Denham, L. [Teller] Portland, D.
Denning, L. Quinton, L.
Dilhorne, V. Radnor, E.
Dundee, E. Rankeillour, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Reigate, L.
Elibank, L. Renton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Rochdale, V.
Erroll of Hale, L. Romney, E.
Faithfull, B. St. Davids, V.
Ferrers, E. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Fortescue, E. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Sandford, L.
Gisborough, L. Sempill, Ly.
Glanusk, L. Sharpies, B.
Glenarthur, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Goold, L. Slim, V.
Gray, L. Somers, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Stockton, E.
Greenway, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Gridley, L. Strange, B.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Strathspey, L.
Hayter, L. Sudeley, L.
Hesketh, L. Terrington, L.
Hives, L. Teviot, L.
Hooper, B. Teynham, L.
Hunter of Newington, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Torrington, V.
Ilchester, E. Trafford, L.
Trumpington, B. Wigram, L.
Vaux of Harrowden, L. Wolfson, L.
Vickers, B. Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Whitelaw, V. Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5 p.m.

Schedule 3 [Reduction of community charges]:

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone) .

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 170, I should say that if the amendment is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 171.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 170: Page 36, line 22, leave out ("or a summary of these representations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. It removes the power of the Secretary of State to present to Parliament, when he decides that he does not approve of the proposal of a local authority for setting the community charge, a summary, rather than giving the entire case of the local authority. This is a very important point. When I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage I said that the Secretary of State would be not only prosecutor and judge, as is now the case, but under the new power he would be able to present to Parliament the case for the defence. He would have the power to summarise, exclude and emphasise any particular point as he might wish. In such quasi-judicial proceedings a council putting forward proposals must be allowed to make representations without editing or summarising. I do not think that there should be any objection, as is always the case with a statutory instrument, that there is a brief note in plain English which usually appears at the back and which informs those taking part of the intended meaning. Nevertheless, there should always be available to the House of Commons, which will deal with this particular problem, the full case as laid out by a council.

This is a very important point which must be given due consideration. I do not think it will affect the Government's case, since they will almost certainly say that the Secretary of State will be completely honest in his presentation. He may well be. However, he will have a particular slant on matters and he may see things in a slightly different way from that in which the local authority sees them. I think therefore that there should be available the total and unabridged version of the representations made by a local authority. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, as we are aware in the context of this amendment, the Bill introduces a slight change to current arrangements for presenting reports to Parliament. It will enable, but not require, the Secretary of State to put a summary of the representations of an authority to Parliament instead of the full representation. The purpose of this change is to help Parliament. Clearly the Secretary of State would go to the trouble of summarising reports only where they were vexatiously long, repetitious and irrelevant. There can be no question of the Secretary of State distorting representations in the course of summarising them. It would not be in his interests to alter the representations of an authority in any material respect since the authority concerned would then be able to challenge the summary in court. That could jeopardise the Government's entire action. The power to summarise representations is not in any way sinister. It may well never be used. But it could be helpful to Parliament for the Secretary of State to have it available.

In any case, the power does not prevent authorities from putting their entire representations to Parliament themselves. As your Lordships will be aware, public bodies and other interest groups are not slow to let Parliament know what they think. I do not think that the amendment addresses a real problem and in the light of that explanation, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I feel that the amendment was reasonably innocuous. As the Minister has said, the Secretary of State would find it difficult to make a summary that was not faithful to that submitted by the council. I also suggested that there would be no harm in having a summary as long as the full representation was available to Members of Parliament. I do not think it is enough to say that councils and local authorities have ways of letting Members of Parliament know how they feel about matters. Of course they do, and it is quite right that they should. However, when some matter comes up, particularly with the heavy load of business in Parliament, I believe that there would be no harm in having the full text available to Members of Parliament. However, this matter has been raised before and we have got no further with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 171: Page 36, line 22, leave out ("a") and insert ("an agreed"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, if we cannot have the full text of the representation of the local authority, perhaps the Minister will agree that it should be inserted in the schedule that when a summary is made it should be agreed between the local authority and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, this amendment is clearly closely related to the one which we have just been discussing. It requires the Secretary of State to seek agreement to any summary of an authority's representations which he intends to put before Parliament. The question is, whose agreement is required? Presumably the intention is that it should be the agreement of the authority. However, that is not specified by the amendment.

Setting aside the drafting defect, the amendment would completely undermine the purpose of the power to summarise representations. As I said in the context of the last amendment, the power to summarise is designed to help Parliament. If the Secretary of State must seek the agreement of the authority to any summary of their representations, an authority presumably will simply use the opportunity to delay presentation of the report to Parliament. The Secretary of State could not accept that, because delay could ultimately jeopardise the entire community charge reduction which he was proposing. He would therefore be driven back to presenting all the representations, however vexatiously long, repetitious or irrelevant. That would not help Parliament at all.

I think that the amendment is defective and appears to seek to undermine the useful power which has already been discussed. It does not significantly improve the position of authorities. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will feel able not to press the amendment.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, surely the Minister's answer to the amendment is somewhat outrageous. In the first case, the drafting point is technically valid. However, it is perfectly obvious that what is intended by the amendment is to have an agreed version. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable in the whole of the circumstances. Surely if there is to be a summary, it should be an agreed summary. I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that perhaps the authority will use that as an opportunity to delay the matter. Equally, one could say, if one were so tempted, that the Minister might present a summary somewhat biased in his favour.

However, in this context, I do not think there is any room for such allegations between local and central government. A clue to the circumstances, referred to in our debates on the Bill, is the present state of open warfare between local and central government, which is very much to be deprecated. It has been suggested that central government feel unable to trust anyone in local government to reach a sensible agreement about an appropriate summary. However, that is something done by lawyers every day in the course of proceedings in the law courts, however much they may be at issue on the merits of a particular point. I am surprised that the Minister will not accept the amendment.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I take on board the anxieties expressed by the noble and learned Lord. I should be very happy to give the undertaking that, as and when the Secretary of State sees fit to produce summaries in the way outlined, the complete text of such summaries would be made available in the Library of the House.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, that is a concession which I am only too pleased to accept at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 172: Page 36, line 34, after ("are") insert ("closely").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns a more important point which I am sure the Minister will explain fully. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the new arrangements embodied in the Bill into line with the wording of existing arrangements for determining excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The words "closely comparable" appear where other local authorities are to be used as a yardstick. However, for some reason the word "closely" has been omitted from the Bill. Therefore, only the word "comparable" appears, which seems rather wide. I think it is legitimate to ask the Minister to explain why the word "closely" has been omitted. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, we considered carefully whether the word "closely" added anything substantive to the legislation and concluded that it did not. The word implies a degree of closeness which can in some way be measured, and that beyond some unspecified limit an authority is no longer "closely" comparable to another one, while still being comparable. Although we believe it is quite possible to compare one authority with another we do not think that the comparisons can be made against a yardstick which permits the kind of test which the noble Lord seeks. The word therefore does not add to the meaning of the legislation and can quite readily be dropped.

I could put the matter further in context by explaining briefly how we determine what are the comparable authorities to any particular authority, but I do not think that would necessarily usefully add to the noble Lord's point.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. One wonders how, as regards earlier legislation, the Minister would have defended his position if someone had said "closely" was tying the Minister down too much. I feel that he would have been just as zealous in defending the inclusion of the word "closely" as he is now in saying that it is unnecessary and misleading. However, in view of his explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 173A: Page 36, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment objects to the principle that the Secretary of State is able to take account of balances in the general fund of the local authority when determining a lower level of community charge. I understand that no such power exists at the moment and therefore the Secretary of State should have no right to become involved in aspects of councils' finances other than their determination of the community charge. The amendment would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to reduce the community charge by reference only to the so-called excessive expenditure. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, where the Secretary of State proposes a reduction in an authority's community charge he may take into account an authority's balances. This is being added to the provision—repeated from the present legislation—that an authority may not compensate for a reduction in community charge payments by borrowing. Taken together those two provisions will mean that a reduction in community charge will be effective both in securing savings for the local taxpayers and in securing a real reduction in the authority's expenditure. That is important because if the authority seeks to evade the effects of a reduction in the community charge by using balances to sustain a high level of expenditure, it is obviously building up trouble for its taxpayers in the following year.

This is a financially prudent provision which is entirely consistent with the overall objective of Schedule 3, the principle of which we have already discussed. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation and not press the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the difficulty about the Minister's explanation is that the Government and the Secretary of State have managed very well without needing to take account of any surplus funds available to the local authority, and it is disappointing that they have now suddenly decided that they must have access to these surpluses. On reflection the Government will find that there are a number of local authorities who are not very happy, and they may not necessarily be local authorities of the persuasion of this side of the House. However, having heard the explanation, and disappointed though I may be, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 175: Page 37, line 18, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert (sub-paragraph (1) above").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]

Clause 23 [Replacement of rate support grants by revenue support grants]:

[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 178A: Page 20, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this amendment deals with a difference as regards the existing legislation. At present the revenue support grant "shall" be paid, but the Bill states that it "may" be paid. The word "shall" has been removed and the word "may" substituted. The amendment proposes that the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may". I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear that it is envisaged that every local authority will receive revenue support grant. All the calculations made to show how the new grant system will work have been done on that basis. The word "may" is included to cover the remote possibility that an authority might one day have so much income from non-domestic rates and other sources that it would be fairer to give all the grant to other authorities. That position might arise from a massive industrial development in a small authority. However, I again emphasise that we do not see any authority being in such a position at present. We merely think it prudent to cater for such circumstances in case they ever arise.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, that appears to be a belt and braces approach. I cannot remember such a situation ever existing. I do not think it even applied to Orkney and Shetland and the enormous bonanza there. It is an amusing explanation and one can only hope that it will one day be required in a local authority in Scotland. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 [Revenue support grants:]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone)

My Lords, we come to Amendment No. 179. If this is carried, Amendment No. 180 cannot be moved.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 179: Page 39, line 16, leave out paragraph 1

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we must first see what happens to Amendment No. 179. The schedule is headed: Revenue support grants". Line 15 states: Determination of aggregate amount". This deals with how the aggregate amount of grant is to be determined. Let us read the schedule to see whether we can learn anything from doing so. Paragraph 1(1) reads: For the purpose of determining the estimated aggregate amount of the revenue support grants payable to local authorities for any financial year, the Secretary of State shall determine". There is no argument about that: the Secretary of State shall determine". Indeed, the paragraph concludes: and may, from time to time, re-determine". How, we do not know. What, we do not know. The paragraph continues: (a) the aggregate amount which he estimates is to be available". I repeat, what, he estimates is to be available". Nobody else is involved. At this point even the Treasury does not come in. It is the Secretary of State who estimates. The paragraph goes on: (b) the portion of that amount which the Secretary of State estimates will be allocated … for that year in respect of such services"— What services? as the Secretary of State may determine".

Therefore, the Secretary of State determines, the Secretary of State estimates and, again, the Secretary of States determines. That is very illuminating. Nobody can say yea or nay. It is entirely in the control of the Secretary of State.

With all due respect, it is not enlightening to have, as we have here: Determination of aggregate amount". It tells us nothing. It is surely a proclamation that the Secretary of State will do what he likes and determine what he likes and that everyone else must lump it. I should like to hear the justification for paragraph 1(1) in this part of the schedule.

There is no need for the Minister to look for help. The Secretary of State is not here. The noble Lord is on his own. However, I now see that the cavalry has arrived. I hope he can justify this and can give us some enlightenment.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I was somewhat puzzled by the amendment because it appeared to increase the Secretary of State's discretion rather than constrain it.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 repeats the existing provisions of Section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 but in a simplified form. The Secretary of State first determines the aggregate of grants to local authorities in respect of their relevant expenditure. This is commonly called aggregate exchequer grant. He then estimates how much will be payable as specific grant such as police grant. The rest is then available to be paid as revenue support grants.

This method of calculation was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. It has stood the test of time and I must congratulate him on its widespread acceptance and on its durability. It is a tribute to his 1966 Act that we are, in effect, simply replicating his arrangements in the new system. There may be differences of view as to the amount of grant that should be paid but not over the process by which it should be determined.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, it is all very well for the Minister to plead me and my perfection of draftsmanship when giving powers to the Secretary of State, but he will remember what has happened since then. What was the proportion of that relevant expenditure that I gave, which was determined after the aggregate of grant had been drawn up? The reason why there has been no demand for an explanation hitherto is because I was so generous to local authorities. There was no outcry from the local authorities in 1966.

I do not know what age the noble Lord was then, but I do not suppose he was paying very much attention in those days to rate support grant or meetings with the Convention of Royal Burghs or the Association of County Councils and the counties and cities, as they were in those days—they have changed their names. In fact, I gave over 70 per cent. of the relevant expenditure in grant. This year it is 75.6 per cent. and that is one of the reasons why rates have gone up.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, it is 55 per cent.

Lord Ross of Marnock

That is right. Rates have increased because the Government have not been paying their due share of much that is national expenditure. That is not determined by the local authorities themselves but by the actions of this House; by decisions of the Government in respect of teachers' salaries, the number of teachers, extensions of educational opportunity, and so on. The more we have done that, the worse the situation has become.

It is from the point of view of the Government's behaviour that we question whether it is wise to give this degree of power to an irresponsible Secretary of State. In the next amendment I propose certain aspects that should be borne in mind in making these determinations. There is no reason why we should trust the Government with this power at the present time; that is why I have tabled this amendment. Therefore, the Minister should not plead the fact that I was so good and my draftsmanship even better in 1966. The position has become much worse for the Scottish Office since 1966 and more so since 1979. It is dreadful that, as justification for the words in the schedule, we should be given something that was rightly done 20 or 21 years ago when I was a boy.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, briefly, surely the noble Lord's amendment is not concerned, apart from the forensics, with the functions of the Secretary of State as regards relevant expenditure and whether the Government do or do not pay their right share. Its only concern is with the functions of the Secretary of State from the point of view of administrative law. As far as I can see, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur is totally right, this paragraph to the schedule constrains the power rather than extends it. I am not concerned with the merits of the wider argument on which I am not competent to enter.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I do not think we are going to get any more joy from the Government so I may as well ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 180 to 183 not moved.]

5.30 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 184: Page 40, line 33, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, dare I ask the Scottish Office to do something with the consent of the Treasury for a change? I see that I am not getting any response so I shall not move this amendment either.

[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]

Clause 24 [Rebates from rates and community charges]:

Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 184A: Page 20, line 25, after ("1986") insert (", subject to subsection (2) below,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendment No. 184A and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 188AAA which has been circulated as a manuscript amendment. This is a last ditch attempt to do something to protect those sections of the community who are the worst off and who will be involved in paying contributions towards the community rate should this Bill go through as it is.

I know that the Government will say that we have already discussed this matter when amendments were put forward, first, to give 100 per cent. rebate and then, by a further amendment, to give a 95 per cent. rebate to people in this category. They will also say that they cannot possibly consider this amendment because it is their established principle that everybody should contribute; that is embodied in this Bill and that is the purpose of the Bill. However, the Government have principles other than those that are enshrined in this Bill. One of them, which is embodied in the Social Security Act 1986, constitutes protection for the worst off in our community with a determination, which they have repeated again and again, to fight poverty by focusing resources on the poorest sections of the population. That was the whole theme of the 1986 Social Security Act.

Surely there is an inconsistency between the principles embodied in the 1986 Social Security Act and the determination expressed in this Bill to make even the poorest people pay. There is the provision for a rebate of up to 80 per cent. but that still leaves 20 per cent. to be paid, however hard up those people are. It has been estimated that there may be cases in which a childless unemployed couple with an income of a little over £63 per week would be called upon to pay £10.40 a month as a result of this legislation, and there may well be far more serious cases than that. That seems to us to be monstrous at a time when we know that in certain areas poverty is very acute and when the Government have said that such acute poverty has to be fought and that that is the basis of their social security legislation.

I ask the Government to show consistency between the legislation that they put through last year and the present Bill. We should like to see that inconsistency overcome by ensuring that income support is enhanced to a point at which the person who is paying the 20 per cent. (which that person will still have to pay even with an 80 per cent. rebate) will be no worse off, because that would feature as an element to be included in income support as was foreshadowed in the 1986 Social Security Act.

The Government will say that it is another way of ensuring that the rebate is given to the very poorest people in the country, which is what we are trying to do. They attach great importance to what they see as the principle that everybody should transfer the money out of their own pockets into the pocket of the local authority so that they learn to have some responsibility for the demands that they make on local authority expenditure. In fact this will physically take place because money will come from the DHSS, go to the person so concerned and then that person will continue to pay the 20 per cent. that they are required to pay under this legislation.

To some of us it seems a ridiculous way to proceed. It would be much more sensible to give the 100 per cent. rebate for which we asked in previous legislation. That has been lost and the excuse for defeating that measure was that everybody must have the experience of paying something to the local authority. Very much as a second best, we put forward the proposal that the extent of the rebate should be incorporated into the income support that is to be given in such cases. I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I think that I ought now to say something about my Amendment No. 188 but I am not quite clear whether Amendments Nos. 188AA and 188AAA put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are intended to stand on their own or are amendments to my amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten me.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the amendments that I am putting forward stand on their own. I intend to move Amendments Nos. 184A and 188AAA. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 188AA. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Lady. She is doing fine.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. At Committee stage I tabled and spoke to a probing amendment, seeking an assurance from the Government that couples in receipt of maximum rates rebate under the Social Security Act 1986 should not be put at a financial disadvantage by the passing of this legislation. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out that for various reasons (which he gave in col. 1194 of the Official Report of 9th April last but which I shall not repeat) my amendment was impracticable, which explanation I accept. He gave me the assurance that: A large majority of the most needy groups in society will gain, or be no worse off. Among those are unemployed couples and other couples on income support who have no children". I welcome that assurance, but there still remain couples who have children and I have had no assurance about their fate.

The Minister also mentioned the press release in which his right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave illustrations of figures for the thresholds of income support and the rebates payable. He said: If those have not been drawn to the attention of Members of the Committee, I shall ensure that that is done for clarification".—[Official Report,9/4/87; col. 1192.] It was done but I am not as clear as I should like to be about it. I got out my crystal ball and my pocket calculator and I thought that I was doing quite nicely until I looked at the notes. Note 1 seemed to bear no relationship to any of the figures in the illustrations; nor did the illustrations tell me how couples with children will fare in real terms compared with their situation at present. Moreover, what about couples with children who are over the age of 11 or those who have only one child or more than two children?

Perhaps I am being very stupid but I must ask the Minister to clarify this matter a little further and to produce some assurance that in setting the income support levels for the year 1989–90 the Secretary of State will bear in mind the incidence of community charge on those people at least in Scotland. That is all I am asking.

I should like to say a word about Amendments Nos. 188AA and 188AAA that have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I have only just received Amendment No. 188AAA and I am not familiar with it.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, can I help the noble Lady? I recognise that this amendment arrived late. Amendment No. 188AA will not be moved. It is defective. One concentrates entirely on Amendment No. 188AAA.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. So far as I can see, subsection (3) of Amendment No. 188AAA is to some extent a differently phrased version of my amendment. It is rather narrower than mine because it takes account only of the average personal community charge as opposed to the actual community charges in different local authority areas. Under the amendment quite a large number of people in areas with a low community charge would be making a profit whereas people living in areas with a high community charge would be losing out. For that reason I cannot support the amendment. However, I should be most grateful if the Minister could give me the assurance about the levels of income support with regard to couples, for which I have asked.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, Amendment No. 188AAA sets out what I assume Amendment No. 188AA intended. It supports in terms the principle of the 100 per cent-. maximum rebate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for signifying consent. That is the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, contends in Amendment No. 185.

All these grouped amendments raise the fundamental question of principle as to whether rebates under Clause 24 can be up to 100 per cent. By the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, it is sought to enshrine—no more and no less—the 100 per cent. rebate as one of the governing principles of the regulations under Clause 24. The governing principle of these regulations was a point which I sought to raise with your Lordships for discussion on a previous occasion.

The amendments of the noble Baroness to some extent follow the same initial approach of Amendment No. 188 in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and in my name, which takes into account liability to pay any community charge subject to rebate. As noble Lords appreciate at once this is a more flexible approach. It is, or could be adequate—I stress the words "could be" because this depends on the implementing regulations, and here one comes back again to the governing principle—to ease the shoe where it pinches on the ability to pay as regards grants under Part II of the 1986 Act. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, proceeds on that basis alone by supporting the principle of 100 per cent. rebate and by importing an average concept of community charge instead of region by region. I may be wrong—this is a difficult Bill and I am open to correction—but I thought that the House slightly disapproved of that concept at an earlier stage. I thought that the House welcomed the region by region approach as distinct from the "average" approach. However, I may be wrong on that; it is only my impression. I have not been able to look it up.

Therefore, although I understand and applaud the spirit, I cannot support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. With the utmost respect it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Baroness, and that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and myself, are in a sense not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. Although both sets of amendments deal with the income support grant they do not lay down any governing principles governing the regulations under Clause 24 for rebate concerning the severely disabled who are unable to pay, or others in receipt of state benefit and allowances, who are unable to meet the community charge—the point taken by all of us—save out of government funds.

The crucial question of principle is this. Where there are those unable to pay the community charge, will these graduated rebates of up to 100 per cent. be available or will the Government take the other course and provide machinery under the regulations for a determination of graduated charges by rebate according to means which will include in the grant sufficient funds to meet the community charge—in other words, that would enhance, to use the words of the noble Lady, the support in toto.

I do not at this stage wish to anticipate but one cannot get away from a consideration which has worried me throughout progress on the Bill. What are the governing principles of these regulations as to rebate? I raised the matter in Committee at col. 775. I raised it on Report at col. 1658. I respectfully ask—although I would not be discourteous and demand—for a measure of clarification from the Minister.

At one time I was attracted to the idea of exemption under Clause 8(7) for those in receipt of income support grant. I changed my mind for reasons which are on record. For reasons that are again on record I have also changed my mind in respect of the money merry-go-round. I think that I was wrong about that. I accept the first limb of the amendment of the noble Baroness—whether it be Amendment No. 188AA or Amendment No. 188AAA—which marries with the fundamental approach of Amendment No. 188 in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. But the second limb stands open to serious objection for the reasons that I have sought to give. With the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I seek assurance and comfort—it is no more than that—as to the Government's intentions about couples with children.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, at this stage I do not want to prolong the debate much longer but to agree with the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I apologise to her for not hearing her opening remarks. I do not want to go into the convoluted arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about the Government's intentions and so on. I share his concern about the absence of regulations. We are discussing something that does not exist at this moment—not for the first time. It is difficult to envisage or to anticipate what might be in regulations when trying to discuss such details.

My major concern is with those people who at present are entitled to 100 per cent. rebates. It is clear that that principle should be enshrined in statute. The people concerned should not be made worse off as a result of the Bill. It was made clear that the 1986 social security legislation was the forerunner. A figure was put in, a nominal figure admittedly, but it was included at 20 per cent., and that figure has been used right the way through and is now becoming enshrined in this legislation. In the absence of the regulations we have to work on that figure of 20 per cent.

The noble Lord in debates on previous clauses in this Bill announced a number of concessions. For those everybody is grateful. Concessions are always welcome, but the concessions stop short—the Minister said so himself—at the physically disabled in the community. As I understand it, concessions may affect residential homes and people living in those homes, but they will not affect the physically disabled living in the community. My concern is that most of those who live in the community now are receiving 100 per cent. rate rebates. The Bill ensures that they will not get a 100 per cent. rebate but will be charged 20 per cent. of the community charge, whatever that might be. That must mean a worsening of their living standards and other conditions, which must be of concern to all of us, because those people are at the most vulnerable end, the receiving end, of any legislation and certainly of the Bill.

Given the difficulties that I have outlined about discussing this in a vacuum, because we are not sure what the regulations will be or what they will say, we can only assume. It is a fairly strong assumption, however. We also know—because I sat through the debates on the social security legislation, as did the noble Lord, he will recall—of the anger and concern that this 20 per cent. charge contained in that Act has caused throughout the country.

Voluntary organisations are still concerned about the 20 per cent., charge on rates. The Social Security Advisory Committee expected that figure to be used in this legislation. I read from pages 11 and 12 of the Fifth Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which says quite clearly that if domestic rates are replaced by a community charge the administrative problems will be significantly exacerbated. The committee believes that it would result in a real cut in the value of the safety net for the poorest people in society with increased hardship or increased debt. The committee was not only talking about the Social Security Act 1986, but it was anticipating the community charge as we know it now. As far as I am concerned, the major concern must be for those disabled people still living in the community who until now would have been receiving 100 per cent. rate rebates and who will have quite a serious cut in their incomes if this Bill is allowed to go through in its present form. I support the amendment.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I appreciate the considerable concern which has been expressed at all stages in our debates on the Bill about the Government's intention that under the reformed scheme of housing benefits which applies to rates as from 1st April 1988 and on which the community charge rebate scheme will be based everyone should make at least a minimum contribution towards their local taxation. We have heard arguments which strike directly at this principle by seeking to increase the maximum rebate to 100 per cent.

As we have heard, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness and the amendments put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway seek to tackle the matter in slightly different ways by proposing a requirement, in the case of the noble Baroness, that the level of income support should be set so as to leave individuals not worse off having paid that community charge. At the technical level Amendment No. 188AA, which I appreciate has been superseded by Amendment No. 188AAA, would have gone too far anyway.

Baroness Seear

I shall not be moving Amendment No. 188AA, my Lords.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, in that case I shall remark upon it no further. Amendment No. 188, in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is perhaps better focused in the way that Amendment No. 188AA was originally focused, but in both cases the general principle at stake seems clear enough.

The Government hold firmly to the principle that it will help improve local accountability if each individual makes some contribution to his local taxation bill. At present substantial numbers of people receive 100 per cent. rebates. While this provision was introduced no doubt for very understandable reasons, it creates a situation in which a significant proportion of those who are nominally ratepayers have no financial interest in the cost of the local services that they enjoy and the financial implications of the policies of the local councils for which they vote. The requirement to make a minimum contribution will change that.

Taken together with the introduction of the community charge, which will substantially widen the tax base, our policies will provide for a great increase in accountability and I believe an important strengthening of local democracy. The question raised by these amendments is whether, having paid at least the minimum contribution, people will be worse off than would otherwise have been the case. It is impossible to consider just the proposed minimum contribution in isolation. Instead we must consider the overall impact of the whole package of benefit changes being introduced on 1st April 1988, discussed last year in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, described.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, on that point we know that those changes were brought in to save £500 million. It was purely a saving exercise. We also know that more than half that £500 million was to come from this 20 per cent. The intention of the Government was that over half the savings on the social security benefit side were to come from the introduction of the 20 per cent. It was not a question of accountability; it was originally a cost-cutting exercise.

6 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord has slightly misinterpreted my meaning. The measure of accountability to which I was referring related to the Bill as a whole and the principles enshrined in it. If he will allow me to develop my argument a little further, I hope he will begin to understand what we are saying. When we discussed that package of benefit changes, it was illustrated in Great Britain in the technical annex to the social security White Paper. On the assumption of a minimum contribution of 20 per cent., it showed that the majority of people on income support will not experience any overall reduction in their disposable income after meeting the minimum contribution to their rates.

Of course there will be gainers and losers. I suggest that is bound to be the case in any wide-ranging reforms. But the fact that the overall position is as I have described it, with the majority experiencing no overall reduction in their disposable income must, I suggest, temper the force of the argument that explicit provisions need to be written in, addressing specifically the question of the minimum contribution.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the press notice on how the rebate system will work.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, before the noble Lord turns to that point, I think he said that paying the minimum contribution of 20 per cent. for people on income support would have no effect on their overall disposable income. Is that what he said?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that is what I said when I quoted the technical annex to the social security White Paper. But if the noble Lord will bear with me for a minute, r shall return to the theme shortly. Before I do so, I pick up a point made by the noble Lady when she referred, for example, to a couple who are unemployed with two children under 11. They are quoted in the document, and the noble Lady asked what would be the case if the children were over 11. If they were over 11, we should have to add £5 a head, which is £10 in total, so the income support level rises from the illustrative figure in the table attached to that press notice to £83.95.

However, further than that, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, concerned as I understand him to be about the governing principles being lacking in this case, appeared to be suggesting that the additions to income support should vary region by region and not on average, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. A hugely complex administrative machinery would be necessary to try to do this in the way my noble friend proposes. I hope that he will accept from me that, while I can understand the point he is making, the practical feasibility would be such as to make it virtually unworkable.

I also emphasise that the figures available so far have all been illustrative and that until the rates of income support are set this autumn, it is premature to draw absolutely firm conclusions about who may or may not be worse off. Much will happen between now and then which will need to be taken into account and which will influence the factors affecting the setting of the income support rates. One of those factors will be that many people will for the first time be making a contribution towards their rates. In setting income support levels we shall take into account the impact of this on the most vulnerable groups.

I cannot make a detailed commitment now, but I hope that your Lordships will find what I have been able to say about the position of vulnerable groups to be a positive response to the concern which I think underlies all these amendments. For the reasons I have explained, therefore, and with the assurance which I have given about vulnerable groups, which I think very much helps both my noble friend Lord Campbell and indeed the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I believe that a specific amendment of the kind which the noble Baroness has put down is not necessary or desirable. I hope with that explanation that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I have been most interested in hearing what my noble friend has said. Let us cut out most of his speech and concentrate, if I hear him right, on the suggestion that in setting income support levels the Government will take into account the impact on the most vulnerable groups. I had a letter today, as I expect many noble Lords did, from the Social Security Consortium, which said that the noble Baroness's amendments did not contradict the position of paying the 20 per cent., but then there should be compensation for such payment through income support levels. I think what we have heard from the Government today through my noble friend must mean just that. I should be very disappointed if the most disadvantaged people in the community, as I said at Second Reading, should be in any way put in a position where they have no money and are not able to pay. So this may well be the let-out for us on a most important part of this legislation.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I too listened with great care to what the Minister said. It was difficult to take in precisely his phraseology and I would be glad if he could confirm that he said what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, suggested.

On the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, No. 188AAA, I feel that although in principle clearly she is trying to do something very similar, this approach would not work out quite right because the level of the community charge which will be set in individual regions will be uneven—and it will not only be in individual regions but, as we know, for example, by looking at Strathclyde and Lothian regions, very different in different districts of Scotland. It will vary enormously.

So if a person was getting an amount not less than the average of the community charge over the whole of Scotland, some people would be getting considerably more than they had to pay and others considerably less. Although it would probably be impossible to be totally fair to everybody—it always is—that seems to me to be building into the Bill an unfairness and a discrepancy which are not necessary. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment on those grounds if on no other.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I listened with very great interest to what the Minister said and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. This amendment is a compromise; it is not what we would wish if we could have our own way. I fully accept that it would be much more desirable if the system could be regionally based for the reasons which Baroness Carnegy gave.

As the Minister said, one was aware that that would be immensely complicated and in a very imperfect Bill this is an imperfect amendment. However, we think it has more chance of being accepted than the more desirable but very much less administratively practical amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. That is why I fully accept that it is not by any means ideal. We should much have preferred the 100 per cent. rebate to the poor and to leave it at that, but we could not get it. What we are trying to do here is something which we thought the Government would find practical to operate and would be a step in the direction in which we wanted to go.

The Minister replied very carefully to the debate which has taken place. He told us—and this is exceedingly unsatisfactory, although it is not his fault—that we do not know at this stage many of the matters of cardinal importance which will determine the impact of the Bill. We do not have these housing benefit regulations. We are legislating in the dark on some of the most important aspects of the Bill and on the important effects it will have on the most vulnerable section of the community. This is a criticism not of the noble Lord but of the way in which, for obvious reasons, the Bill is being presented. It is asking us to do something which your Lordships' House should never be asked to do, which is to make decisions with quite inadequate information to allow us to judge what the impact of those decisions will be.

The noble Lord was trying to say in his final reply that the Government were aware that hardship would be created by the introduction of the community charge without the full rebate and that something would be done about it. The noble Lord is an honourable man and I am sure he means it, but this is too vague. First, we are asked to accept legislation in the light of regulations of cardinal importance which we do not have in front of us; and, secondly, we are asked to accept what is at best a vague promise from the noble Lord. While I thank him for the spirit in which that was said, I cannot accept it and I must test the opinion of the House.

6.11 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Amherst, E. David, B.
Ardwick, L. Davies of Penrhys, L.
Attlee, E. Dean of Beswick, L.
Aylestone, L. Diamond, L.
Birk, B. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Blackstone, B. Donoughue, L.
Blease, L. Elwyn-Jones, L.
Blyton, L. Ennals, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Ewart-Biggs, B.
Boston of Faversham, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Bottomley, L. Gallacher, L.
Briginshaw, L. Galpern, L.
Caradon, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Grey, E.
Carter, L. Grimond, L.
Chitnis, L Hampton, L.
Hanworth, V. Peston, L.
Hayter, L. Phillips, B.
Hooson, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]
Howie of Troon, L.
Hunt, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Irving of Dartford, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Jeger, B. Seear, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
John-Mackie, L. Serota, B.
Kilmarnock, L. Shackleton, L.
Kirkhill, L. Stallard, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Stedman, B.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Lockwood, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Longford, E. Strabolgi, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
McNair, L. Tordoff, L. [Teller]
Milner of Leeds, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Monkswell, L. Underhill, L.
Morton of Shuna, L. Walston, L.
Mountevans, L. White, B.
Murray of Epping Forest, L. Wigoder, L.
Nicol, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Oram, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Parry, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Gray of Contin, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Greenway, L.
Allerton, L. Gridley, L.
Ampthill, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Atholl, D.
Bauer, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Hesketh, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hives, L.
Bellwin, L. Holderness, L.
Beloff, L. Hood, V.
Belstead, L. Hooper, B.
Bessborough, E. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Blake, L. Killearn, L.
Boardman, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Lauderdale, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Lawrence, L.
Brookes, L. Layton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Long, V.
Broxbourne, L. Lyell, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. McFadzean, L.
Butterworth, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Caithness, E. Marley, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Merrivale, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Mersey, V.
Chelwood, L. Middleton, L.
Colwyn, L. Molson, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Craigavon, V. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Davidson, V. [Teller] Mottistone, L.
De La Warr, E. Mountgarret, V.
Deedes, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Denham, L. [Teller] Nugent of Guildford, L.
Derwent, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Dundee, E. Pender, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Penrhyn, L.
Elibank, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Plummer of St Marylebone, L.
Erroll, E.
Erroll of Hale, L. Porritt, L.
Faithfull, B. Portland, D.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Quinton, L.
Ferrers, E. Radnor, E.
Fortescue, E. Rankeillour, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Reigate, L.
Geddes, L. Renwick, L.
Glanusk, L. Rochdale, V.
Glenarthur, L. Romney, E.
Goold, L. St. Davids, V.
Gray, L Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Shannon, E. Trafford, L.
Sharples, B. Trumpington, B.
Skelmersdale, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Stockton, E. Whitelaw, V.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Wigram, L.
Strathclyde, L. Windlesham, L.
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L Wise, L.
Wolfson, L.
Teviot, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Teynham, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.19 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 184B: Page 20, line 27, after ("or) insert ("individual").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to show that the fundamental concept behind the Bill, which is the introduction of a personal charge, is incompatible with Sections 28 to 31 of the Social Security Act, which from 1st April next year will introduce a benefit system based on household support income. This contrasts with the scheme proposed in the Bill, which of course will deal with an individual tax for everyone in the household. It is possible that some administrative arrangements can be made to overcome the problem of the two systems working together. However, it will still not detract from the fundamental difference in the two concepts and methods of taxing a household.

If we look at the case of a married couple living together as man and wife, the community charges will be added together and the joint income will be reached by adding these two on a household basis, including non-dependants' income. This will be taken into account before a rebate level is established. If this is done on a joint basis, which is their individual liability, at the moment there would be a fifty-fifty split, whereas when the Bill comes in it will be quite different and there will be one person severally and jointly responsible for paying the community charge. But nevertheless the community charge will be paid by both the man and wife or the people living together as man and wife. We have a real contradiction.

We also have the problem that the Scottish Office will be dealing with another department of government, because it will be operating a quite different system from that south of the Border in terms of household income support. It will not be household income support in Scotland; it will be the personal tax. There is also considerable difficulty within a household in that anyone over 18 will be paying the full tax as well.

I hope that the Minister will try to explain to the House whether there is any possibility of an administrative arrangement that can clearly show that these two different ways of working are supportable, and also of course without causing undue stress to the Scottish people as against those south of the Border. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I think I understand the concern which lies behind this amendment and Amendment No. 174B, which I believe is connected with it. I can, however, give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that the rebate system which will be brought forward in due course will apply to all those who are liable to pay the personal community charge and the collective community charge contribution.

It is correct that at present only householders who are actually liable to pay rates are eligible to apply for housing benefit for rates. The modifications to the Social Security Act 1986, which will be made in regulations, will however ensure that the community charge rebate scheme will indeed apply to all individuals who are liable for those charges.

Couples will continue to be assessed on the basis of their joint income, as indeed is the case at present. Non-dependants' income is not taken into account in the assessment at present. There is a flat-rate deduction from rebate when there are non-dependants. In future no such deductions will be made and non-dependants will be separately assessed for a community charge rebate in their own right. Perhaps the noble Lord was labouring under something of a misapprehension when he expressed that concern.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that my noble friend's concern is well justified. We are working on the basis at the moment of what is going to happen in 1986, where it is easy to determine a person's income in relation to pensions and other things which are universal throughout the whole country. In 1988 100 per cent. rent rebates will be admitted and 80 per cent. rates rebates within that.

For a year Scotland and England will be treated absolutely alike. But then there is a new burden in respect of those who are claiming rebates in 1989. You will have then a new burden upon Scottish applicants in respect of which they will get an 80 per cent. rebate at maximum. While in England and Wales it will be 80 per cent. of rates, in Scotland it will be 80 per cent. of the community charge. Therefore you have people probably in receipt of exactly the same amount of money but paying different sums. A husband and wife will be liable for about £600, whereas in England and Wales they will be liable in respect of 80 per cent. of their rates. You can take it that most of the people who are applying for rebates are not paying that amount in rates.

That unfairness will remain unless, as my noble friend suggested, you get individual assessments. We hoped that the noble Lord might have said on the last amendment that he was going to give us individual and different income levels acceptable in respect of rates, but we are no further forward. We do not know whether he is going to do that. If he does not do the one, he has to do the other if there is to be fairness between those of exactly the same circumstances in England and Wales and in Scotland.

For instance, for the young unemployed applying for rebate within the present known scales that are going to be applied, I think the allowable income for the 18s to 24s is £24. In relation to the over 25s the income allowed is £30.60. Yet when it comes to the question of the community charge, the community charge is exactly the same. Probably about £60 a year will be the 20 per cent., and I am talking now within the one country, Scotland. There is going to be unfairness there between the 18s to 24s, because their income level is lower, and the others in respect of which it is £30.60. One is going to pay 4.8 per cent. of their income as assessed and I think the other is something like 2.4 per cent.

If we take it in money terms there is unfairness there unless we sort out the business of the different scales in Scotland. There is no justification for a charge which is going to be universal to the individual and which is the same, and yet for income to be assessed at different levels. An 18 year-old does not eat less or cheaper food than a 24 year-old. Or does he have to eat cheaper food? Similarly, does his dress have to be cheaper? There is no fairness here between 18 to 24 year-olds and the 24 year-olds and over who are applying for housing benefit rebate.

The charge is to apply to Scotland only, and there is going to be a difference between Scotland and England. There will be unfairness for young people, the unemployed and pensioners until such time as there is a Bill applying the same general principles of the community charge to England and Wales. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would call that a benefit. Far from it; it is a considerable disadvantage when people in the same circumstances are treated differently because of the introduction of something which is not rates but which is a very onerous charge in respect of the poor.

As to what we have done with respect to students, there are wealthy students as well as those who are going to feel very hard done by at having to pay 20 per cent., which is what is suggested by the amendment, although once again we do not know because the Government have not told us. This will apply in Scotland only and not in England. Suppose that the sum is £60. That is a great deal to a student. We get into this difficulty simply because we are applying a different burden in Scotland from that in England and Wales. Until such time as the England and Wales community charge is applied and there is equality in that respect, we are going to risk considerable difficulties with the deliberate unfairness to the vulnerable categories in Scotland. This will not be sorted out unless we make the changes in the DHSS scales in 1988 for that one year between 1988 and 1989, and then until such time as we get the gap closed between England and Wales and Scotland.

I hope that the Government will look at this question very seriously indeed. I do not think they have considered the need for an individual rebate. This has to be done. We have to have fairness. We have made so many changes in this Bill; we have been forced to make changes that run across all the principles which were laid down originally, when everyone was going to pay it and everyone was going to pay the same. It is not working out that way at all. I hope the Government will think again and not brush it aside by saying, "Well, it will run counter to the principle". We have broken the principle before. We want to have fairness within Scotland between the 18 to 24 year-olds and those over 24 who are applying for rebates through housing benefit.

There is no fairness there. The young unemployed man does not pay rates, but now he has to pay the community charge. In England he does not pay rates but he will not be paying a community charge. The burden is there. These unfairnesses are being deliberately put in, and they will cause considerable trouble in Scotland. I do not need to ram it home. I do not want to give grist to certain separationist-minded people in respect of it, but this is a gift to them. I am sorry about that, but the Government are not being fair to the poor.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter)

My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment?

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, on reflection, and in view of the Minister's reply and the fact that there undoubtedly will be unfairness between Scotland and England until a similar Bill is fully implemented in England and Wales, I think we should get the opinion of the House.

6.35. p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Amherst, E. Kirkhill, L.
Ardwick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Attlee, E. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Aylestone, L. Lockwood, B.
Birk, B. Longford, E.
Blackstone, B. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Blease, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Blyton, L. McNair, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Monkswell, L.
Bottomley, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Briginshaw, L. Mountevans, L.
Brockway, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Nicol, B.
Caradon, L. Oram, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Parry, L.
Carter, L. Peston, L
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Phillips, B.
David, B. [Teller] Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]
Dean of Beswick, L.
Diamond, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Donoughue, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Seear, B.
Ennals, L. Serota, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Shackleton, L.
Falkland, V. Stallard, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Stedman, B.
Gallacher, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Galpern, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Grey, E. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Grimond, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hampton, L. Tordoff, L.
Hanworth, V. Turner of Camden, B.
Hayter, L. Underhill, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Walston, L.
Howie of Troon, L. White, B.
Irving of Dartford, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Jeger, B. Wilson of Langside, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Wilson of Rievaulx. L.
John-Mackie, L. Winterbottom, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Holderness, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Hood, V.
Allerton, L. Hooper, B.
Ampthill, L. Inglewood, L.
Atholl, D. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Auckland, L. Killearn, L.
Bauer, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Beaverbrook, L. Lauderdale, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Layton, L.
Bellwin, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Beloff, L. Long, V. [Teller]
Belstead, L. Lyell, L.
Bessborough, E. McFadzean, L.
Boardman, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Marley, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Braye, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Brookes, L. Merrivale, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Mersey, V.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Middleton, L.
Butterworth, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Caithness, E. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Mottistone, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Mountgarret, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Carnock, L. Orr-Ewing. L.
Chelwood, L. Penrhyn, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Colwyn, L. Portland, D.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Quinton, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Radnor, E.
Cowley, E. Rankeillour, L.
Craigavon, V. Reigate, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller] Renton, L.
De La Warr, E. Renwick, L.
Deedes, L. Rochdale, V.
Denham, L. Romney, E.
Derwent, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Dundee, E. St. Davids, V.
Eden of Winton, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Elibank, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Shannon, E.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Sharpies, B.
Faithfull, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Ferrers, E. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Fortescue, E. Strathclyde, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L. Sudeley, L.
Goold, L. Teviot, L.
Gray, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Trafford, L.
Greenway, L. Trumpington, B.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Whitelaw, V.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Wigram, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Windlesham, L.
Hesketh, L. Wise, L.
Hives, L. Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.43 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 185 to 188 AAZ not moved.]

Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 188AB:

After Clause 24 insert the following new clause:

align="center">("Reduced Charge for crofters.

. The Secretary of State shall, by regulations modify the provisions of this Act so that persons aged 18 or over who are solely or mainly resident within dwellinghouses occupied—

  1. (a) by a crofter or cottar within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, or by a person to whom subsection (6) of section 22 of the said Act applies, or
    2. 64
  2. (b) in connection with any agricultural lands and heritages situated within the counties of which that Act applies, being lands and heritages the area of which does not exceed seventy-five acres or the rent of which does not exceed £100 per annum, and which are occupied by the owner or tenant thereof,
shall be liable to pay 50 per cent (or such lesser percentage as may be determined) of the amount of the personal community charge to be imposed by each local authority under the terms of section 9 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the Highlands and I have spoken to it previously. With no apology I again bring forward the whole situation because it is of extreme importance to the Highlands. Better men an better governments—Conservative Governments at that—have in the past had a tremendous concern for the Highlands and for the social problems there. They have made many concessions and put forward many positive schemes to help. This must be the first piece of legislation that will do great harm to the Highlands. It is generally accepted that an extra £1½ million will be taken from the pockets of those living in what are disadvantaged areas. That must be wrong, in view of the great efforts being made to preserve and improve life there, and also to keep the Highlands as an area which may be enjoyed by the rest of the population.

The Government and the Minister persist in telling the House that the Bill will have little effect and how many households will be better off and how many worse off. The Highland region has carried out a study of the effect on a number of selected areas. It will be for the benefit of the House if I quote from the study. No doubt the Minister has read it with great care and will have an answer. The authority studied a number of regions typical of the area—an island crofting parish in Kilmuir, Skye; two remote mainland crofting parishes in Durness, north west Sutherland, and Ardnamurchan, West Lochaber; a small northern farming parish, Bower, in Caithness (all places I know well); an east coast farming parish, Logie in Easter Ross; a peripheral public housing area, Balloan in Inverness and a highly rated private housing area, St. Stephens in Inverness.

That is a pretty fair selection of areas in the Highlands. All had different characteristics. I shall not deal with the whole report but I shall quote the results. In the crofting area of Kilmuir, 90 per cent. of the houses would have paid more, and over £61,000 would have been removed from the local economy. In Durness, 91 per cent. of the houses would have paid more, and over £23,000 would have been removed from the local economy. In Ardnamurchan, 67 per cent. of the houses would have paid more and £33,000 would have been removed. In Bower 86 per cent. of the houses would have paid more and £30,000 would have been removed. In Logie, a rather better area, 54 per cent. of the houses would have paid more and £5,500 would have been removed.

In the public housing area of Balloan in Inverness, 57 per cent. of the houses would have paid more and nearly £23,500 would have been removed. In only one area—the private housing area in Inverness—80 per cent. of the houses would have paid less and over £124,000 less would have been required to be paid from the local economy. It is the pattern of the whole Bill that the rich are better off and appear to benefit while the poor not only fail to benefit but actually suffer.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

If the noble Lord will forgive me—

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I shall forgive the noble Lord but I shall not give way. There will be an opportunity later on. In bringing forward the amendment, I think that it is enormously important that the Government should do something about the matter. It is all very well to say that there will be individual chances to apply for rebates. But this is an extraordinary burden when there is a simple answer, and the simple answer is to give the same sort of remission that the crofting counties had before.

Amendment No. 188AB would also benefit a number of people who are not official crofters, and they are important too, because people really have enough to bear in the Highlands without actually having their income dropped. I know that everyone will say that crofters have other jobs, but even if you are a roadman in the West of Sutherland it does not make you an enormously rich chap. You still have a lot of extra costs to bear. Certainly it is not an inducement to make someone from the City of London go to West Sutherland even if he knew he could get a job as a roadman as well as having a croft. We need these concessions if we want to hold the population and keep the Highlands viable. I think this amendment would go a long way towards that, and I beg to move.

Lord Gray

My Lords, when we debated in Committee an amendment identical to Amendment No. I 88AB, I explained that while I was sympathetic to the principle I found the wording unacceptable because it was drawn so widely that it would give rebate entitlement to many who were certainly not genuine crofters. That remains my position.

However, as regards the other amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has just spoken, No. 188AC, I am a great deal happier. As I read it, it allows for the application of the means test, which is essential, in that it refers to those crofters: who would benefit from relief from local taxation but for the provisions of this Act". That qualification would allow the local authority, as I understand it, to apply the principle set out in Section 7(4)(b) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, which restricts rebate of rates as of now to working crofters, dependent mainly upon their crofting activities for their livelihood. Although the provision I have referred to will be abolished under this Bill, the principle will by implication remain available for application under Amendment No. 188AC. Also, the amendment is modest, in that it targets the crofter alone and does not extend to those who live with him. It targets him as the recipient of community charge rebate.

That said, I entertain certain doubts that the words at the end of the amendment— relief from the Community Charge on a comparable scale",— are really capable of interpretation in the way that I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, intended. I should have thought it could be a matter of doubt whether they apply to a percentage or to a financial amount.

We have heard arguments at earlier stages against both the detail of whether crofters should be accorded some relief and the generality of the argument that they should. At Committee stage my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour argued that others elsewhere engaged in agriculture should receive equal treatment if crofters were to be favoured. However, that argument does not recognise just how small some crofts are or that the very existence of some communities depends on crofting or that some communities have crofting as their essential core.

My noble friend also referred to the great amount which is being, and has lately been, done by a multiplicity of agencies to assist the Highlands and Islands. That is true; but it is expenditure on infrastructure or even more direct aid given to improve workaday conditions. It does not put ready cash into the hand of those who must pay the community charge.

As to the generality of the argument against making an amendment of the type which has been put before your Lordships this evening, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur argued that it was wrong to single out a particular socio-economic group for special treatment. However, we have heard during our discussions on this Bill that specific groups will receive special treatment. Already, for instance, we have students actually mentioned in the Bill proper. I know that my noble friend the Minister recognises the special place of crofters and crofting within Scotland. I hope that even if he cannot accept either of the amendments put forward this evening, he may yet be able to look favourably on the principles and perhaps help crofters in some way with regard to the community charge.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I do not think there is any dispute or quarrel with the facts deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It is a hard life: there is no question about that. All the same, I am bound to say—and this is not an original remark because it has been referred to already and I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would agree with me—that agriculture is under pressure at the moment both inside the Highland area (or perhaps more accurately in the crofting counties) and also outside it.

The point I want to emphasise is that, not only now but hitherto, the shoe pinches most on the farm where no practical alternative way of farming exists. Therefore in Angus the noble Lord can grow probably the best strawberries that are on the market and if they do not pay he can move into "Golden Wonder" potatoes; and if they have the colour knocked off them, he can move into "Golden Promise" barley.

That is fine. I am not in quite so fortunate a position in the uplands although even I can vary slightly. But there are farms—and, as I say, this is where the shoe pinches most—where there is no readily alternative means of agricultural production. That is why, quite frankly, much though I sympathise with the money that is going to be taken out of the crofting counties by means of this, I do not think it would be fair on those who are in the category I have described; and many of them exist outside the area we have been referring to. It is true that, although it still remains a hard life for the crofter, if the stirks sell badly there is just a chance that with his boat he may be able to make up his income by catching lobsters. Many of them do.

A second reason perhaps why I am not happy about this amendment is that I hate lines such as 75 acres or £100 rent to be drawn. One immediately runs into trouble with the man who has 76 acres or pays £101 in rent. I say this somewhat sensitively because for years now I have farmed the last farm before the area where hill advantages apply. I am therefore conscious of the unsatisfactory position of drawing lines.

It is just possible that I might have had more sympathy with the amendment if the noble Lord had explained the slightly obscure words in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 188AB: a person to whom subsection (6) of section 22 of the said Act applies". It may be somebody of such importance that it would have swept me off my feet.

There was reference to the 1897 Act. No doubt the noble Lord has looked that up and if it is a matter of great substance I am sure that he will tell us.

7 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gray made reference to some remarks that I made in a discussion at an earlier stage, of which in the main this is a re-run. It is my belief, with my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, that there are many farmers in other parts of the country who have similar difficulties in not dissimilar circumstances and that the amendment is therefore not a wise one.

However, a new element in the discussion was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the report by the Highland Regional Council, which I read with great interest. I have a great deal of respect for that council; I have met it and we have discussed many matters in the past. It has produced a document, which, although it makes the case that it does, is enormously misleading. The tables take no account of the effect of the very rebates that we discussed in the previous debate today. The effect of rebates in the Highlands will be enormous for crofters and for other people. This is a very important element in the Highlands. The lower the average income in a given area, the more important rebates will be. Thus the discussion we had is of great significance in regard to the content of the amendments.

The right way to help crofters in need—and there will be crofters in need—will surely be through the normal rebate system. That is the correct way to do it, as applies in the rest of Scotland.

In this context, the Highlands Regional Council report, although interesting, is not valid evidence on which to base the argument because it ignores the rebate system, as does the amendment of the noble Lord.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I live on a farm in another less favoured area, although crofting is not the kind of farming there. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said about crofting. It is very important. I hope that whatever legislation is enacted at no point will the crofters be left out or treated in any way less well than anyone else.

In the Highlands there is the excellent Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has done a wonderful job and is well supported and financed. There have also been considerable grants from the EC for the less favoured areas of the Highlands, all of which I strongly approve of.

When it comes down to singling them out for treatment that does not cover other less favoured areas in Scotland in regard to agriculture, one will get into difficulties. Many farmers in my area are experiencing difficulties, not necessarily because they have only a small area but because the land is very poor and the markets are not good. People are talking about more and more forestry and less and less farming; and this may happen. I do not know.

I should like to be sure that we do not take on something that is favourable to one kind of less favoured area farming, which I would call crofting, and leave out the rest. In my view, it would be dangerous to agree to the amendment because it will only stir up many other people who will ask why they too are not being helped.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has probably been less than generous to the Highlands. He read a report from the Highlands region. I read it with interest and thought that it proved its case very well.

The definition of crofter and cottar in the report was based on a rental of £200. The noble Lord is limiting it considerably by suggesting £100. He is therefore being generous to the Government, probably hopeful that they will see the point that one is dealing mainly with real crofters and people who are up against it.

The 1956 Act made this mandatory. There was no question of a rebate scheme. The local authorities in the crofter counties were told that they had to reduce by 50 per cent. the rents of crofters, cottars or the like without any definition of acreage or rental, and of course this has caused considerable heartache to people who employ and have on their land, crofters.

No-one can argue against that. If one did that in 1956 in respect of the croft, what does one do in respect of the crofter? Taking an average of three personal charges—I think that these were the figures that came out as the average in the crofter county areas—it is probably £600. Crofters do not have that sort of money to throw around. I think that we can overdo the business of saying go and ask for a rebate. We do it with group after group of people who should not be paying this kind of charge at all.

Crofter counties have been covered in many aspects of legislation. We have had the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I know a little about that. I can remember, if I may so remind the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that it was not always called an excellent board. I remember the leader of the Conservative Opposition at that time telling us that what we were doing for the Highlands and Islands was Marxism. Now people are falling over themselves to say how good it is. But never mind about that.

In terms of the infrastructure we had a special road scheme, the crofter counties road scheme, in an endeavour to do everything that we could to help the area. Having done so much, recognising how special the area was, why should we go out of our way to help them and then come along with this, which removes one of their benefits in respect of rates and involves charges to people? I think that they are far too high in relation to the services, yet these people value education. In some areas they have more respect for education than in many other parts of Scotland or England. It is often a way of getting out of the Highlands.

Better roads encourage them to get away more quickly. That is sad, but it is to the benefit of the rest of the country and the world. But if we want to keep them there, we must maintain our efforts to treat the Highlands and Islands areas as different and in need of this kind of help. It does no good to say that other areas have a claim. They do not have the same history, the same claim.

I sincerely hope that the Government will recognise that claim. I see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in respect of certain drafting weaknesses. But the last thing that should stop us doing something for the Highlands is that a few words are drafted badly or wrongly.

Lord Gray

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I agree that the provision under the 1956 Act was mandatory. But it was subject to certain conditions. One condition was that the person living in the house was engaged primarily in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on those lands and heritages, or was employed as an agricultural worker thereon. In other words, he must obtain the main source of his income therefrom. In respect of the noble Lord's comment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the Act extended within the crofting counties to lands and heritages situated within the counties to which that Act applied, being lands or heritages the area of which did not exceed 75 acres or the rent of which did not exceed 100 a year. I merely enter that in the record for clarification.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I do not disagree with what is said in the Act or in the amendment. I think that I mentioned it when I spoke about the amendment. The amendment is even less generous in respect of the suggested reduction than was the 1956 Act. It shows how reasonable my noble friend is being on this occasion.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, began his remarks by referring to the Highland Regional Council report. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Reading the report leads one to believe that its authors have taken no account whatever of the existence of rebates. Details of the Government's intentions on the rebate scheme and a large number of examples have been available since the Bill was published. I am frankly surprised that the Highland Regional Council should have made such a remarkable omission from its report.

It will always be possible to select individual areas which will be better or worse off under any policy change. The introduction of the community charge is no exception. The majority of the examples selected by the Highland Regional Council appear to be representative of sparsely populated and remote, or relatively remote, areas. Only two out of the seven represent areas in which the bulk of the regional council's population lives. The question of what people should pay for their local services, especially in remote areas, is already a sensitive one under the rating system.

Our basic position is that the flat-rate charge payable by each adult is fairer than the property-based rating system. That is just as true in remote areas as in built-up areas. Of course, many services cost a great deal more to provide in more remote areas. Education is the obvious example. There are others. It is therefore far from clear that those who have to pay more under the community charge system are necessarily being unfairly treated.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I do not want to interrupt too much. But that is looked after by the share and the apportionment in respect of the rate support grant. Whereas Glasgow receives 49 per cent., the Highland region receives far more. That is a recognition of more costly services. It is already dealt with. The Government pay their share through the apportionment of the rate support grant.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, yes, that is one thing. I shall turn however, to the debate's central theme relating to crofters. We discussed the matter at considerable length in Committee. It was argued that there should be some form of specific relief for crofters and other smallholders from full personal community charge liability. Nothing that I heard then or that I have heard this evening has convinced me that any general relief of the type proposed by Amendment No. 188AB is appropriate.

Not for the first time I must remind your Lordships that we are introducing the personal community charge to spread the burden of payment for local authority services more widely and to achieve the accountability and fairness which the present domestic rating system so conspicuously lacks. In principle therefore, it is right that all adults over the age of 18 should be liable for the full personal community charge subject to the limited exemption which we have discussed. The position of individual crofters and of others in their households under the new arrangements will of course depend on the circumstances of each person and household involved.

I am the first to recognise, along with all those who have contributed to the debate on this amendment, that crofters in the Highlands have for years held a special place and have been regarded with a great deal of affection in respect of their way of life. The amendment implies that one particular group of people should enjoy a sizeable reduction in its personal community charge liability merely because it forms a distinct economic group and social category.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Like students.

Lord Glenarthur

I agree with my noble friends Lady Camegy and Lady Elliot that if we went down that road, we would receive representations from many other groups of people that they, too, should be granted similar relief. That would make a serious breach in the principle that the personal community charge should be a universal obligation at the same basic level for all. And that in its turn would lead to unfairness to others who, though no less deserving than those in the favoured groups, were unable to argue that their social or economic status justified relief from the personal community charge liability.

Without going over all the ground covered in Committee, I think I said that a measurable proportion of crofters has resources of income other than crofting. Those sources are secure and well paid. I described how among crofters are to be found, for example, general medical practitioners, vets, shopkeepers, hoteliers, teachers, policemen, civil servants, local government officers and so on. That shows the breadth of the crofting community and how it is even more difficult to argue that its status justifies special reliefs, putting at a disadvantage people from other communities who might broadly be in the same financial position as crofters but not favoured by the same benefits.

Amendment No. 188AC, the alternative to the earlier amendment, takes a slightly different approach by proposing that crofters who at present qualify for rating relief should enjoy a relief from the community charge "on a comparable scale". That appears to apply only to rateable occupiers and is therefore somewhat narrower than the noble Lord's earlier amendment. The same objections of principle apply. In addition, the proposal would appear to require some form of continuation of the assessment of croft houses for rates in order for an assessment to be made of the comparable relief which would apply. That would be a cumbersome requirement which I do not think we could contemplate.

I must therefore say that, while we recognise of course that some crofters and their families may have difficulty in meeting the full personal community charge payment, the remedy for them should lie where it lies with all others in that position, and that is in the rebate system which we propose. This will allow full account to be taken on an individual basis of the financial circumstances of people in that position, without invidious distinctions being drawn between particular groups of people. I believe that that is a fairer and more equitable approach than that proposed by the noble Lord's amendments. I hope therefore that he will be prepared to withdraw them.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I said in Committee about crofters, which has also been said by many other noble Lords. However, three points have arisen. First, we now learn from the figures of the Highland area that the burden of the Bill will be very much heavier than even the most mischievous of us expected. It has been argued and has just been argued by the Minister in answer to that, that the crofters' will receive a rebate. That is a perfectly fair argument and I accept it, but it has never been the answer to comparative poverty in the crofting areas. Secondly, it might have been said that the crofters could obtain national assistance, family income supplement or whatever else is available, but that is not the line that has historically been taken. The line taken was that this was a special area and that the crofters deserved special treatment.

That leads me to my third point, which is that it is justifiably argued by many people that the position of the Highlands is no different to that of the Borders or other difficult upland areas. However, in my view, it is. The whole argument and the entire history of the crofting areas and the treatment of the Highlands show that the position there is different.

There is no area comparable to the Highlands in Britain. That applies even more to the Islands. To say that the Shetland crofter is in anything like the same position as the Border farmer is untrue. He may in certain circumstances be lucky enough to have other jobs and be as well-off, but the position is still different and to pretend that it is not is to fly against the whole history of the Highland area.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grimond has encapsulated the whole case. The Minister of course does not look with sympathy on the study carried out by the Highland Regional Council, but nevertheless he cannot gainsay the facts. The fact is that one is taking money out of an area which is still one of the poorest in Britain and one which successive governments have tried to help for that reason and because of its importance for the preservation of a way of life and of a countryside which is valuable to the whole of the rest of the country.

It is no argument to say that the districts chosen for study might not be representative. In fact I could not have picked a better representation of the Highlands areas than was listed in the study. The areas of Bower in Caithness and Easter Ross, two remote areas, and the fairly big town of Inverness were chosen for the study. That appears to me to be a perfect cross-section. Therefore, one cannot do down its arguments.

It was interesting that the traditional Highland laird had a lot of sympathy for the general case, although he quite rightly pulled me up on certain points in the amendment about which he knows much more than I. However, sympathy for the general case came from the Minister. He does not like lines drawn, especially when they are drawn against him. To quote many a reply from the Minister, as regards the technical points that he was asking, if he does not mind I shall write to him as they are fairly obscure and I doubt whether he would understand them any more than I do.

To come back to the main point at issue, of course a number of crofters will be well able to pay the community charge, but the point that I thought I had made clearly was that the whole area requires all the help it can get. The man who receives the 50 per cent. alleviation will be able to pay his personal charge, but the man who has a very small croft and does not have another job will need to apply for relief for 50 per cent. of the personal charge. However, an answer has not been given to the fact that out of this area—which we all have all agreed should be helped—a figure of between £1.3-£1.5 million is being taken. It must be bad and it must be wrong that this Bill is cancelling a concession which we have all already agreed is necessary. I must ask the opinion of the House and put the issue to the vote.

7.25 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I 88AB) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 98.

DIVISION NO. 4
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Kirkhill, L.
Ardwick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Attlee, E. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Blackstone, B. Lockwood, B.
Blease, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brockway, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.[Teller]
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller] McNair, L.
Monkswell, L.
Carter, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mountevans, L.
David, B. Nicol, B.
Dean of Beswick, L. Phillips, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Ennals, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Falkland, V. Ross of Marnock, L.
Fitt, L. Seear, B.
Gallacher, L. Serota, B.
Galpern, L. Stedman, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Grey, E. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Grimond, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hampton, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hanworth, V. Tordoff, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Hooson, L. Underhill, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Walston, L.
Jeger, B. White, 4.
John-Mackie, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Kilbracken, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Winstanley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Crathorne, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Davidson, V. [Teller]
Ampthill, L. Denham, L. [Teller]
Atholl, D. Derwent, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Dundee, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Beloff, L. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Belstead, L. Ferrier, L.
Bessborough, E. Geddes, L.
Boardman, L. Glenarthur, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Goold, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Gray, L.
Braye, B. Gray of Contin, L.
Brookes, L. Greenway, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Broxbourne, L. Hesketh, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Hives, L.
Butterworth, L. Hood, V.
Caithness, E. Hooper, B.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Campbell of Croy, L. Inglewood, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Carnock, L. Killearn, L.
Chelwood, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Colville of Culross, V. Lawrence, L.
Colwyn, L. Layton, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Cowley, E. Long, V.
Craigavon, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L. Rochdale, V.
McFadzean, L. Romney, E.
Macleod of Borve, B. St. Aldwyn, E.
Marley, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Shannon, E.
Masham of Ilton, B. Sharpies, B.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L. Strange, B.
Strathclyde, L.
Merrivale, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Mersey, V.
Middleton, L. Sudeley, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Swinfen, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Teviot, L.
Onslow, E. Trafford, L.
Penrhyn, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Plumb, L. Whitelaw, V.
Plummer of St Marylebone, L. Wigram, L.
Windlesham, L.
Radnor, E. Wise, L.
Rankeillour, L. Wolfson, L.
Renton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.38 p.m.

[Amendment No. 188AC not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Water and sewerage charges:]:

Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 188B: Page 42, line 44, at end insert— ("11A. Notwithstanding the repeal of section 44 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 any regional council or islands council which has at any time before 1st April 1987 pursuant to that section defrayed any part of the expenditure referred to in that section out of the regional rate or the general rate (as the case may be) may make a contribution to that expenditure out of the general fund as if that section had not been repealed and it had authorised the defraying of such expenditure out of the community charges and non-domestic rates due to the council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to alleviate some of the steep rise in water charges which will result if the Bill becomes law. It is moved particularly with reference to Orkney, although I think that other areas may also be affected. Sixty per cent. of the water in Orkney is metered. Under the Bill as it stands, the local authority is bound to apportion the charges for water between the various users as equally as it can. That will mean that for users of metered water the charge will rise by 270 per cent. One farmer has reckoned that his water bill will increase by £1,400 per annum, which is an extremely steep increase, particularly in days when agriculture is not doing so well as it was.

The charges for water work out in the following manner. The deficit on the water account of Orkney is £1,395,000. The meter charges at present account for £309,000 of that total. The domestic water rates account for £283,000. The balance is made up of two sets of contributions, one from the rate fund and the other under Section 44 of the Water (Scotland) Act. As I understand it—no doubt the Government will correct me if I am wrong—assuming that the deficit on the water account is the same after the Bill passes, the meter charges will have to come up from £309,000 to £837,000. As I said, that is an increase of nearly 300 per cent. Exactly how far the other charges will go is difficult to calculate. However, I understand that they will almost certainly go up.

It may be that users of water should pay more towards the cost. It may be that there are other arguments about how these charges should be borne. However, I do not think that there can be any argument that, in one step, the rise is simply too steep. I cannot believe that the Government intended it to work out that way.

My amendment suggests that Section 44 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 should, although the Act as a whole will be repealed, be left in operation and that the local authority should still be able to make a contribution under that authority. Of the two contributions which are now made from the rates, one will disappear but the other will be kept. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.

The Duke of Atholl

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I do not think it goes against the Government's thesis that everyone should bear their particular share of the burden. That is a thesis with which I entirely agree. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said, the proposed system seems very unfair on the Orcadians and I feel that they need some relief. Perhaps my noble friend has some suggestions to make. I suspect that the amendment may be deficient in some ways. But I should very much like to support it in principle.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I too find the increase in water charges an enormous one for farmers to face. I am amazed that the increase should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said, one of almost 300 per cent. If that is the case, I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the matter, because it will have serious effects in Orkney and perhaps in any other island with high water charges.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, although the amendment would go wider than Orkney, perhaps it would be best if I responded particularly to the Orkney situation. I realise from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sanderson and also those of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl that those concerns are uppermost in everyone's mind.

Orkney is now the only council which meets more than the normal one-third of expenditure on water services from the general rate. I understand, in fact, that in 1987–88 around two-thirds of this expenditure will be met from the general rate, with the domestic water rate accounting for only one-third. The result is that rates demand notices show a domestic water rate of 11 p in the pound but of course this does not reflect the true cost of providing the service.

Similarly, the present metered rate of 17.6p per cubic metre does not reflect anything like the true cost, as metered users also currently contribute a substantial part of their general rate to public water. The actual level of metered charge and community water charge will be governed in future by the apportionment between domestic and non-domestic users as determined by the council, having regard to the requirement not to discriminate against any class of consumer. That will not change the overall cost of the service. The metered rate will go up, but of course non-domestic users will not be making an additional payment as they do now through the general rate.

I understand the worry in Orkney that charges will be redistributed within the non-domestic sector, placing a greater relative burden on domestic users, particularly farmers. However, I cannot go into the full details of the matter today because neither I nor my department has the full figures available at the moment. There have been discussions between the Orkney Island Council officials and our impression is that Orkney's worries on this score are much overstated and that the problem can be sorted out, at least to a substantial extent, by further detailed consideration of this kind.

My officials are ready to have further discussions with the Orkney Islands officials. Therefore while I cannot accept the amendment, which would have a very wide effect well beyond the islands, I can say that I recognise that there are problems in Orkney and I believe that those problems are capable of being resolved in another way. That is the burden of the discussions which are now beginning to take place. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, for his sympathetic attitude, and for his statement that further discussions can take place. However, as he well knows, the difficulty that we are up against is the time limit in the Bill. Unless something can be done there will be a serious situation for Orkney farmers. It is not a question of the Orkney Council itself being able to do much about the situation, because, as the Minister knows, under the Bill it cannot discriminate—it must fairly apportion the results. Therefore it has only limited play.

However, in view of what the noble Lord has said—and I am sure he is sincere in thinking that he can sort the matter out, and in a way which will avoid an immensely steep increase—I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. Although I have in mind primarily Orkney, I am told that similar difficulties may well arise in other places, and that there is dispute in other places as to the way in which the matter is to be handled. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 189: Page 48, leave out from the beginning of line 47 to ("and") in line 4 on page 49.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Interpretation]:

Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 190:

Page 21, line 22, at end insert— (""financial year" means the financial year of a local authority;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to the other day together with a collection of drafting amendments. For the benefit of noble

Lords who were not present on that occasion, I simply explain that the reason for its inclusion in the interpretation clause is to make quite clear that "financial year" means the financial year of the local authority and not the financial year of central government. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 191:

Page 21, line 31, at end insert— (" "net annual value" shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the 1956 Act;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 192 to 194:

Page 21, leave out lines 32 to 38.

Page 22, line 4, at end insert— (" "rateable value" shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the 1956 Act;").

Page 22, line 11, at end insert— (""the Valuation Acts" means the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854, the Acts amending that Act and any other enactment relating to valuation;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I can move Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 194 en bloc. They were all taken with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, etc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]

7.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 196:

Page 22, line 12, at end insert— (""the 1956 Act" means the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956; the 1966 Act" means the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 not moved.]

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 22, line 18, at end insert— ("(2) In this Act and in any other enactment, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and unless the context otherwise requires—

  1. (a) the word "rate" shall mean—
    1. (i)the non-domestic rate.
    2. (ii) the non-domestic water rate, and
    3. (iii) the non-domestic sewerage rate;
  2. (b) the expression "non-domestic rate" shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of this Act;
  3. (c) the expression "non-domestic water rate" shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 40 (non-domestic water rates) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (as substituted by paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to this Act); and
  4. (d) the expression "non-domestic sewerage rate" shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 19 of the said Schedule 5,
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 200:

After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition on arrangements for making of certain determinations under this Act. In section 56(6) of the 1973 Act (certain local authority functions to be discharged only by the local authority themselves) for the words "determining a rate or" there shall be substituted the words—

  1. "(a) determining a rate;
  2. (b) determining the amount of—
    1. (i) the personal community charge;
    2. (ii) the personal community water charge;
  3. (c) determining the standard community charge multiplier (within the meaning of section 10 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987; or
  4. (d) "").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, at present under Section 56(6) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the function of determining a rate may be discharged only by the local authority itself. It may not delegate the function to a committee or subcommittee or to one of its officers. The underlying reason for this is that decisions involving the raising of money, whether by rates or through borrowing, which is the other function mentioned in Section 56(6) which the local authority has to discharge itself, are so important that they should be taken only by the whole authority in council.

Quite simply, we consider that for the same reason a similar restriction should apply also to the determination of a local authority's personal community water charge and standard community charge multiplier. That is simply what Amendment No. 200 will achieve. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Appeals]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 200A:

Page 22, line 32, at end insert— ("() General application of a decision in principle shall not be retrospective to any date earlier than the date of decision.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the general application of the principles that apply will not be retrospective. Appeals to the sheriff are provided for, with appeal on a point of law to the Court of Session. How speedily can a community charge registration officer expect the sheriff courts to respond? The success or failure of a poll tax must depend upon the immediacy or otherwise of a decision. How long will it take for a point of law to clear the Court of Session?

If such a point of law produces a retrospective general effect should there not be a provision that, except for the actual case in point, general application of a decision in principle should not be retrospective to any date earlier than the date of the decision? The local authority should not be overpenalised because of the difficulty or the tardiness of getting a decision from the sheriff or the Court of Session. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, there are a number of reasons why I consider that this amendment is undesirable. First, I am not certain what is meant by "a decision in principle" or its general application. As I understand it, the court decides the particular case which is before it. It does not decide it in principle. It may be that certain cases are more important than others in establishing a principle or ratio which can then be applied to different cases, but this is not a decision in principle.

However, I assume that what the amendment is seeking to do is to prevent the ratio of a judicial decision from being applied retrospectively before the date of that decision except in relation to the particular case in which it was given. The timing aspect concerned the noble Lord.

I think that would have undesirable consequences. Let us take the example of a number of cases, all turning on the same point, involving a person's liability for the personal community charge he has been paying for over a year. In these circumstances, it is usually arranged that one of these cases should be taken as a test case and the other cases sisted until the outcome of that test case. Let us further assume that it is decided in the test case that the person should not have been registered and should not therefore have been paying the personal community charge. The local authority is then obliged to refund him the amount of the personal community charge which he had been paying for the year.

Without the amendment, the ratio of the decision would then have been applied to the cases which were sisted so that they were then all treated equally. The amendment would, however, have the effect that the ratio will not be applied to the other cases so as to give the persons whose cases were sisted the benefit of that decision prior to its state. The effect of the amendment would be to discourage persons from agreeing to take a test case. It would have the undesirable consequence of encouraging a multiplicity of actions to no useful purpose, except to the pockets of lawyers. I could give other examples, but that explanation sets out the need for this in context and I hope the noble Lord will see the force of it.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 [Crown application]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 201: Page 22, line 43, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this part of the Bill we are granting exception status to a group of people. Do not ask me who they are, because I do not know. The Bill states that they are exempt, if they are within such class or classes of person as may be prescribed".

Once again we are in the dark. We may think this is worth while or we may not. For a long time—almost since the start of this Bill—I have been asking what is happening to the armed forces. At present they may be on Crown land but the Government undertake to pay rates for them with a total sum to the local authority concerned. It might be personnel at HMS "Gannet" in Ayrshire, some of whom live in houses provided by the Government. It might be the RAF somewhere else. It might be the army in various places. Altogether there are about 14,500 people who are probably in this category, and that is a fair number of people.

There are also about 500 Ministry of Defence officials who are on Crown property. The Ministry of Defence used to pay a sum in lieu of rates for them. What is going to happen now? Surely they are all subject to this overall business of accepting accountability. The Government want them to be accountable. They can vote in local elections. They are using local services. Their children go to local schools. They are using water and all sorts of services provided by the local authorities.

Why should they be made exceptions? They are not exceptions to the rating system. The whole principle of every person being liable for personal charge or, indeed, collective charge is broken. So far as I can see, they often have second homes in Scotland—perhaps a place in Argyll or the Borders. They should pay for that, like everyone else. Therefore can we be enlightened as to the position of the armed forces? Are they covered here? It would be wrong for them to be exempt.

The point is that we will never see this legislation again. That is not good enough. There will be regulations and we will probably read about them but they are all subject to the negative procedure. We will never see them here. They will be decided, if anywhere, in another place. Therefore I am concerned about the principle that we do not know who these people are and that we are left in the dark on who is covered. Further, are the armed forces included, or are they not? I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the term "Crown land" in the context of this subsection is not limited to the Sovereign's private estates but extends, for example, to land occupied by government departments, as the noble Lord realises.

Property owned or occupied by the Crown is not subject to rates; instead, the Treasury makes contributions in lieu to local authorities. But those individuals who are solely or mainly resident in Crown land will not be exempt from the personal community charge, which is a personal rather than a property-related tax. The purpose of subsection (2) is to allow for the exemption from liability for the personal community charge of certain categories of people. As I made clear in earlier debates, we intend to use this provision to exempt prisoners and long-term patients in NHS hospitals. The argument here is that those categories are so far removed from the democratic process that the imposition of liability to pay the personal community charge would be inappropriate. Payments in lieu of non-domestic rates will be unaffected by the Bill.

The noble Lord asked about servicemen. The Bill makes provision for all adults solely or mainly resident in Scotland to be liable for the personal community charge. That will apply to servicemen as to other people. In Committee I agreed to consider, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the financial position of servicemen who may be liable for the personal community charge. I have now done so and will be considering in due course, along with the Ministry of Defence and other interested departments, whether any special arrangements for registration or collection of the community charge from the forces are necessary. My right honourable friend will also be reviewing the basis of the assessment of service accommodation charges to see whether changes need to be made in the light of the new system.

I should also refer to visiting forces as, again, this matter was raised in Committee. The position of visiting forces is at present under consideration by the various departments involved. In fulfilment of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, visiting forces are at present exempted from rates, as well as from British income tax and various other forms of taxation. Some contribution towards the rate liability of accommodation occupied by visiting forces is, however, made by the relevant governments.

Some aspects of the position of foreign forces—and diplomats, who are in a similar position—will probably require consultation with other governments. Further legislation may be required, in which case the Government will bring this forward in time for enactment before the new arrangements come into operation in Scotland on 1st April 1989. In any event the Government will honour their international obligations under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the Vienna Convention.

I thought that it was important to have those two points on the record because they were raised at Committee stage, but the main point is that the purpose of the provision is to exempt prisoners and long-term patients.

8 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we have made some headway in that the Government are considering whether there should be special arrangements in respect of registration. Apart from that, am I to understand that such people will be liable no matter how they are registered? We must remember that it is not only the people in the forces who are more or less permanently resident in Scotland; there are their wives and children who may be grown up. As far as I can see, they will be registered but we have not yet reached a conclusion on how they will be registered, and that is the moot point.

That applies to our own forces; if they are living—domiciled—in a house next door to other people and not in married quarters, I see no reason why they should not be registered. They should be treated just like everybody else. I can understand exactly what is happening in respect of visiting forces. It will not be easy to make arrangements but if we stick to what has been agreed by international agreement, then I have no objection.

I shall still be interested in the people who are exempted. I do not know who they are and I doubt whether the Government know. It is one more occasion on which we are left completely in the dark. It should not require further legislation. With all the powers contained within the Bill I am sure it will be possible to do it. It may well be a different matter for visiting forces; that may require further legislation.

It is a difficult problem to solve, and it is made even more difficult when one considers what may be termed appendages to the forces; that is to say, wives and children, who fully use all the services available from the local authorities. Can the Minister give us any indication, even by letter, about when this difficulty is likely to be solved so that we may know what will happen?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that there were two elements in what I said. One was that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the other departments which are interested will be consulting about whether any special arrangements for registration or collection of the community charge in respect of the forces are necessary. That is one aspect. The other aspect, which relates to the point made by the noble Lord in his concluding remarks, is covered by the fact that I also said that my right honourable friend will be reviewing the basis of the assessment of service accommodation charges to see whether changes need to be made in the light of the new system.

I cannot go further than that, nor do I think I can give the noble Lord information on timing. However, if I find that I am able to provide him with any information on timing, I shall correspond with him. I do not yet know, and I suppose that I shall not know for some time. Nevertheless, those are matters that my right honourable friend is considering at the present time, just as he is also considering the position of visiting forces. If I let the noble Lord know about that, I hope that he will feel at least partially satisfied.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am glad of that reply. It is an important point because, although there are around 15,000 of our own forces in Scotland, they tend to be concentrated in particular areas. From the local authority's point of view it is important how much it will gain or lose by this breach of the general principle that everybody will be treated alike. In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 [Additional powers exercisable by, and procedure for, regulations]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 202: Page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we may discuss Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 together, as they cover the same point. I think that this is an astounding piece of information in a Bill that has already given us so many headaches and left us rather blind as to what will happen in view of all the powers of prescription that will be taken. It is just like the last one.

Clause 30(1) reads: Such provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of rendering this Act of full effect may be prescribed.". In other words, the Government are saying, "We can do what we like without referring to Parliament other than by regulation".

Why bother to have a Bill at all? Why not just state the general principles and then say, "Well, anything that we think we need to do for the purposes of introducing these charges may be prescribed"? We are giving a very powerful instrument to the Government; we are giving them the power to introduce anything else, anything they like, and confirm it by regulation. We must remember that under this Act the regulations: shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

I am sorry that some of our more able constitutionalists are not in the Chamber because one does not just give such powers to a government without question. I can remember in the Parliament of 1945 the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, keeping the House up all night on the subject of such resolutions. Nowadays one has only three-quarters of an hour for a negative Motion and an hour and a half for an affirmative Motion. In those days, 1945 to 1950, time was not limited and we went on and on about this matter. Now not even the Commons will be allowed an hour and a half; it will be three-quarters of an hour to discuss matters of such considerable importance. In the whole of this Bill there is not a single instance of regulations, no matter how important they are, being subject to affirmative resolution.

The power that is being taken in this Bill means that one can introduce anything that has been forgotten because anything: necessary or expedient for the purposes of rendering this Act of full effect may be prescribed".

That means anything, without limits. This Bill is incredible stuff—but it is worthy of the Bill itself. Everything is done by prescription and then, if there is anything that has been forgotten, it can be introduced by negative resolution. What is the explanation? I hope there is a good one. I shall leave it to the Minister of State. He has proved to be a dogsbody on this Bill. I do not know what he has been saying to the Scottish Office but I know what we should have said to it a long time ago.

The Government are to blame. They asked the civil servants and the draftsmen to draw up this Bill and this is the best that they could do in the time available. Let us not blame the civil servants for that; let us blame the civil servants for saying that they would do it. They should have dug in their heels and said, "It cannot be done in the time that is left to us". I beg to move.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, this is quite a weird provision in an Act of Parliament. In general I do not think that precedent is necessarily tremendously important, but I think that the House is entitled to have a precedent for something quite so excruciating as this particular provision.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I think it will be found that there are many precedents which give such a power to meet the circumstances, even if they are not spelled out in detail. In his speech made in respect of his last amendment the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, pointed out that with the best will in the world one will encounter situations which at this minute cannot be identified and therefore included in any statute. He expressed himself satisfied that something would be done to ensure that everybody who ought to make a contribution should contribute their fair share.

I see no other way of doing it than by giving power to somebody so as to take into account all the circumstances in order to make sure that everybody is treated fairly. If one takes the contribution that the noble Lord made on his last amendment, it is the answer to his objection on this amendment.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, may I suggest that we know at least what is being done in principle here. We are left with the words: Such provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of rendering this Act of full effect may be prescribed". Subsection (2)(a) states, such supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit". That is not comparable with what we discussed in respect of the Crown land provision where exceptions will be made.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I should explain that subsections (1) and (2) are both well precedented in recent legislation. There is a very similar provision to subsection (1) as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls indicated. That similar provision lies in Section 215(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 where it states: The Secretary of State or any appropriate Minister may at any time, whether before or after 16th May 1975, by order make such incidental, consequential, transistional or supplementary provisions as may appear to him—

  1. (a)to be necessary or proper for the general or any particular purposes of this Act or in consequence of any of the provisions thereof or for giving full effect thereto; or
  2. (b)to be necessary or proper in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed in the same session as this Act as applied to any area or authority affected by this Act;
And nothing in any other provision of this Act shall be construed as prejudicing the generality of this subsection". There are others which I do not think I need go into. There are also examples of provisions similar to subsection (2). I can quote one. It is Section 35(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 which provides that, Any order under this Act may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or proper for bringing the order into operation and giving full effect thereto". I do not think that I need detain your Lordships by speculating on exactly how these powers might be used. By definition the powers in subsection (1) are contingency powers. As an example, however, it is conceivable that in the light of experience we might wish to provide formally that the registration officer should give a copy of the register to the levying authority, or details of the procedure to be adopted by the registration officer before imposing a civil penalty under Clause 17(10), or before a levying authority could be satisfied that a surcharge should be imposed under Clause 21, should be specifically set out.

That is the kind of use that might be made of the powers in subsection (1). I believe them to be entirely reasonable.

Lord Ross of Marnock

The Government think that anything is reasonable after this hotch-potch. Remember, my Lords, that we have 78 different matters in respect of which we have regulations. I am sure that the Government have forgotten something. This Bill is quite unique. Somebody asked me how to spell this word the other day and I must therefore use it. In Scottish we call it "a mouger". I am sure that the Minister does not know how to spell it even if he knows what it means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 202A, 203 and 203ZA not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota)

My Lords, I should point out to the House that certain amendments have been marshalled in the wrong order. I shall therefore call Amendment No. 203B first.

[Amendments Nos. 203B, 203A and 204 not moved.]

Clause 31 [Finance]:

[Amendments Nos. 205, 205A and 205B not moved]

Clause 33 [Repeals]:

[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]

Schedule 6 [Repeals]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 207: Page 50. line 33. after ("7") insert ("(1) and (2)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 208: Page 50, line 41, at end insert ("In section 26(2), the definition of "rate".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 209: Page 51, line 34, at end insert ("In section 8(1), the definition of "rates".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Forward to