HL Deb 11 October 1989 vol 511 cc305-42

3.30 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Schedule 5 [Local Government Finance Act 1988: Amendments]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 174ZDB: Page 171, line 26, at end insert— ("30A. The following section shall be inserted after section 117— Termination of tenants' liability to rates. 117A.—(1) After Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Liability with respect to rates 4. —(1) This Section applies to any tenant who has the right to occupy premises as a dwelling in consideration of rent payable where the tenancy commenced prior to 31st March 1990 and where the rent payable included a payment in respect of rates. (2) Not later than 31st March 1990, a tenant to whom this section applies shall be entitled to receive from the landlord written notice in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State which shall contain the following details—

  1. (a) the amount of the rent payable in respect of rates;
  2. (b) information to be prescribed regarding the introduction of the Community Charge from 1st April 1990 and the tenant's liability to make payments with respect to community charge as appropriate; and
  3. (c) the termination of the tenant's liability to make payments under subparagraph (a) above to the landlord as from 1st April 1990 by virtue of subsection (3) below.
(3) With effect from 1st April 1990, it shall be an offence for any landlord or tenant to whom this Section applies to collect from such a tenant any amount previously attributable to rates as identified in subparagraph 2(a) above. (4) If any landlord to whom subsection (3) applies fails to comply with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) he shall commit a summary offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale".").

The noble Lord said: I understand that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 179NB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.

We shall be debating a Statement about other aspects of the community charge later on this afternoon but this debate is quite appropriate in the sense that we are in the thick of this huge number of amendments which the Government are making to the community charge. Despite all the amendments which the Government find it necessary to make to their own legislation, there are still grave gaps in the necessary provision for the protection of community charge payers and particularly of tenants in this country.

This is not mere speculation. It might be thought that, since the community charge in England and Wales does not come into effect until April 1990, we are anticipating difficulties. That is not the case. We already know from experience in Scotland, where the community charge has been in operation for six months, that there is a particularly grave problem which is not covered by legislation and which needs to be covered by legislation. I refer to the case of tenants whose landlords in the past have charged them rent which includes their rates.

In many cases under previous legislation landlords have not been required to declare what is the rate element of the total rent payable. The fear which is being expressed about England and Wales, and being expressed with considerably more force in Scotland, where it is no longer a fear but a reality, is that a substantial number of landlords are not reducing the inclusive rent by as much as they should to cover the fact that they no longer have to pay rates. However, they are adding to the rent, when a collective community charge is applicable, that amount which they have to pay on behalf of the tenants for the community charge.

It may be thought that it is premature to bring this forward and it may be thought that 1st April 1990 is some way away and that there is still time to deal with the problem. However, by 1990 there will already have been 15 months' experience of the conditions of assured tenancy. I remind the Committee that one of the conditions of assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 is that the previous protection under rent Acts is either not available or less available than it was in the past. Therefore, a very substantial number of people who will be liable for collective community charge and who will not have access to rent legislation as they did in the past not only risk paying an additional share of the collective community charge on top of their rents but will also not receive the benefit which the landlord will receive because the domestic rate is coming to an end.

This is a problem which is not arising for the first time. As long ago as 1956, when owners' rates were abolished, the Conservative government of the time made it illegal for landlords to continue to collect the rates which they no longer had to pay. Why can we not have the same sort of provision at this time? Why cannot the Government agree that, at the very least, tenants would have the right in accordance with the terms of this amendment to know what part of their rent had been in respect of rates and be entitled to take the steps necessary to ensure that their rent was reduced by that part so that they are not paying twice. If the Government do not have enough concern for those tenants—and much of our experience of the Government's attitude in the course of this legislation leads us to think that they do not have very much concern for such tenants—will they not have some concern for their own purse? Will not the Paymaster General recognise that the implications for housing benefit could be quite serious?

What is likely to happen is that, where these tenants are eligible for housing benefit, they must in future pay not only the rent but their part of the collective community charge plus, in many cases, that part of the rent in respect of the rates which the landlord should have taken off but is continuing to charge. Therefore, public money in the form of housing benefit will go not to the tenants who need it and who have qualified for it but to those landlords who are profiteering at their expense. I should have thought that any government with proper concern for public expenditure would be concerned to see that housing benefit was not misappropriated in that way.

The whole issue of landlord and tenant law is extremely complex, and is one in which I have no special qualification and do not wish to become involved. However, where there is a liability for rates built into the rent it seems to us common justice that effective steps should be taken to ensure that landlords are not profiteering from their tenants and from the community as a result of these changes in the law. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I should like to say something about the reference to Scotland because we in Scotland have been paying the personal community charge since April. The point raised by the noble Lord has already come to my attention. I quickly say that on my small estate I have six properties which are let furnished and that from 1st April the rents of all those properties were reduced by me by exactly the amount of the domestic rates which I paid in the previous year. The tenants knew that that had happened. Whether the local council office supplies, or is prepared to supply, information as to what are the rates in individual cases, I do not know. I should not mind at all if the tenants were to check with the Highland Regional Office in Inverness, which is the appropriate one, to make sure that the rents were reduced by the correct amount. However, my tenants are all quite grateful.

There is, though, another side to this matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee. I am now in argument with the council office because it has suddenly decided to impose a standard charge for a period of about two months while one of those cottages was empty. As far as I was concerned, it was not empty. It was occupied under a lease, furnished, and I had no idea that the occupants were not there. Even if I had had snoopers going round—and I am a busy person and I do not snoop—I would not have known that the tenants were not there. However, in the event it was a family to whom I had been kind. I had not demanded that they should pay their arrears of rent and, therefore, I did not know until much later that they had done what in Scotland is called "flitting"—that is, they had just disppeared. Therefore, it was not until about two months later that I knew that they had gone for good and that their lease was no longer operative. Of course, I was then able to re-let the cottage to somebody else by advertising and so on.

I mention the matter because if such a charge is to be imposed, the owners of property who are letting it must make an allowance for periods between letting for the sort of incident I have described. This will no doubt have the effect on them of wishing to increase the rents. As Members of the Committee will realise from what I have said, I agree with the principle of reducing the rent by the amount of the domestic rates which are disappearing, and I have done that. However, if there is this further complication that one does not know when a council office will say that a cottage has been empty for two months—and I did not know whether the people in question were in hospital or visiting cousins in Canada or New Zealand, which happens in northern Scotland, many of whose people have brothers and cousins there—then one will have to make allowance for a quite new state of affairs where the owner of the property will find himself charged with an additional cost which has never arisen before; that is, a standard charge when a property is deemed to be empty.

Therefore, I agree in principle with what the noble Lord said. Whether it should be put into the English and Welsh legislation is a matter for my noble friend on the Front Bench.

However, I should like to point out that bringing in this new system has the hazard that owners of property might well have to consider other unexpected expenses which may suddenly arise. My case has not yet been settled. It is an administrative matter, but it is an important point which I draw to the attention of colleagues in England and Wales as an unforeseen hazard that might arise south of the Border as well.

Lord Coleraine

I do not believe that I can usefully follow the interesting Scottish by-paths introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, but I have no doubt that they will interest my noble friend the Minister.

I have introduced my amendment, which is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I share his concern at the situation which arises where rate-inclusive tenancies entered into before the commencement of the community charge carry over into the community charge regime; though I do not agree with the way in which he proposes to remedy the situation.

The effect of the present situation seems to be that after 31st March 1990 some tenants will be paying both the community charge to their councils and rates to their landlords and the landlords may be entitled to pocket the rates payments. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Hesketh during the recess to express my concern, and in his reply he explained that to put this right would require very complicated drafting and that in most tenancy cases where there have been complaints about this perceived injustice either the tenant is paying rates direct to the district council or there are existing mechanisms for putting matters right; for example, by the Rent Act protected tenant applying for registration of a fair rent, and a fair rent is bound to be rates exclusive.

My concern is directed to private tenants, and there are many of them, who have entered into rate-inclusive leases and for whom neither the Rent Act nor the assured tenancy provisions appear to provide any remedy. I am principally familiar with those tenants in London. There may be lettings, furnished or unfurnished dwellings, outside the Rent Act rateable value limits, or there may be cases where the landlord is resident in a house which has been converted into flats. There may be business or holiday lettings.

It would be tempting to say that the agreements will for the most part have been entered into when the commencement date for community charge was already known, when most people should have known all about it, and so should have been drafted differently. This appears to overlook the fact that in general—in fact, almost invariably—it is the practice that it is the landlord or his agent who drafts the tenancy or who provides a printed form out of which the tenancy is made. Often the tenant who takes a furnished flat for a couple of years simply signs on the dotted line.

I do not feel able to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. My noble friend the Minister will no doubt comment in more detail on its exact provisions. I should merely like to say that in my opinion the implementation of the amendment would involve an excessive amount of red tape and bureaucratic involvement. Morever, the criminalisation of the acts of landlords in this instance (notwithstanding what the noble Lord said about the making of the collection of owners' rates illegal in 1956) would hardly seem calculated to further the long-term interests even of tenants in general. I should think that in most cases the tenants will suffer from these leases.

I turn now to Amendment No. 174ZDB, which is in my name. I suggested to my noble friend Lord Hesketh that perhaps the law—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, but I think his amendment is Amendment No. 179NB.

Lord Coleraine

The noble Lord is right. I am delighted to have my amendment correctly identified as Amendment No. 179NB.

I suggested to my noble friend Lord Hesketh that perhaps the law—I mentioned courts—was already capable of dealing with this problem. It might be that the courts would decide that a landlord was not entitled to retain for his own benefit a payment made to him by a tenant with the express and agreed purpose that it should be used for the payment of rates. I suggested that this Bill might enshrine some general equitable principle both to aid the courts and to make the law clear to landlords and tenants alike.

However, that is not how I framed my amendment. It is a simple amendment. It provides that there will be implied in the relevant tenancies, a covenant by the landlord to allow or repay to the tenant from time to time such rents due from or paid by the tenant as may be shown fairly to represent payments of rates which the landlord would have been liable to make under the tenancy in respect of periods after 31st March 1990 had the Local Government Finance Act 1988 not been enacted and on the assumption that rates in respect of the premises would have continued to be payable after 31st March 1990 of the same amount each year as for the year ended 31st March 1990". I make no great claim for my drafting but I believe that the amendment provides a more sensible and reasonable way forward than that proposed by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot advise acceptance of my amendment, will at least offer to take this whole matter away and see whether he can bring forward his own clause on Report.

3.45 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the introduction of his amendment. We welcome him back to our Committee proceedings and I am glad to hear that he is in such good voice—obviously inspired. I also thank my noble friend for the clarity with which he expressed his Amendment No. 179NB. As the Committee will be aware, my noble friend's amendment is not consequential on that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but it is obviously for the convenience of the Committee that the two amendments should be discussed together.

I am sure that all Members of the Committee will understand the concern behind the amendments, but I have to advise the Committee that Amendment No. 174ZDB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would not work for many reasons. Perhaps I may give the Committee just some of those reasons. The parties might not have addressed the issue as to whether the agreement includes rates. If the part of the property occupied by the tenant was not separately rated, how would the landlord know how much to charge? What if the parties disagreed about the amount? The tenant might not be subject to the personal community charge in some circumstances. The landlord would not necessarily know this, so he could not comply with subsection 2(b). Nor would Amendment No. 179NB be free from difficulties. It too would require arbitration to enable the parties to agree what the rates element was in the event of problems such as I have described.

There have been allegations that landlords will profit considerably from the Bill as it stands. I have to say that I believe profiteering will not occur to the extent described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Not all landlords are by any means villains. Some—for example, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—will certainly agree a reduction with their tenants as a matter of course. Nevertheless, whether to do something about rate-inclusive rents in the light of the community charge was a question we considered very seriously. We decided not to make special provision in this Bill.

Here I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, regarding the concerns of the tenants. The main reason for not including the provision is that most tenants who might not get an automatic reduction in their rents from their landlord when rates are abolished already have a remedy. Some 40 per cent. of tenants pay their rates direct. Of the remainder, some 600,000 who do not have a registered fair rent under the Rent Act are entitled to have a rent registered. Registered rents are of course exclusive of rates. I imagine that there will be quite a few landlords who would rather make a reduction for rates than see their tenants go off to the rent officer. Some 280,000 tenants live rent free and a further tranche have low rents, usually employment-related. So where the tenant does not pay rates direct there are already remedies built into the system.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been very helpful in giving the numbers of people who have remedies. He mentioned 240,000 tenants who are rent free and the 600,000 who can register their rents. Can the Minister complete the sums and tell us how many tenants do not have a remedy?

The Earl of Caithness

I shall try to answer that question at the end. Perhaps I may turn first to the point that my noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned as regards new tenants; namely, those subject to the Housing Act 1988. Shorthold tenants have the right to ask the rent assessment committee to fix a market rent during the initial fixed term of the tenancy. That rent will be exclusive of rates. So they too have a remedy.

Some full assured tenants will have access to the committees at various points in the tenancy. But I have to say that I think any new-style assured tenants should have covered the question of rates in their tenancy agreements. The community charge, as my noble friend reminded us, has been on the agenda for a long time now, and the law to put it into effect was on the statute book before assured tenancies under the 1988 Act came into being. The people who are not in a strong position to force a reduction in their rent are those who do not have security of tenure; people in houses in multiple occupation, for example, who might be licensees.

I am sure the Committee will agree that there is little point in giving statutory rights to people whose stake in the property is such that it is not worth enforcing them. Finally, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord shows the difficulty of legislating on an issue such as this. It is not an easy matter to deal with. One has to cater for parts of properties which are not separately rated, with oral and written agreements which may themselves be unclear, or where the overall settlement was a balance of risks and overheads, with the problem of what to do about allowing appeals.

I think that some agreements may indeed come to court and the arguments advanced there will establish the problems of identifying the rates element of inclusive rents. We have quite enough complicated legislation in this Bill, as I believe the Committee will agree. To cater for every situation we should need lengthy and complicated provisions and I do not think that they are needed in this case.

We recognise, however, that we need to explain to people what their rights are in this matter. For example, there may be tenants protected by the Rent Act who do not realise that they have the option of having a fair rent registered. We are therefore producing a clear, simple leaflet in the community charge series which will be distributed on our standard network to local authorities and citizens' advice bureaux. This will make clear the remedies available to different types of tenants and help the parties to agreements to reach amicable solutions. I hope that meets some of the concerns of my noble friend.

Lord Northfield

I must declare an interest in this matter in the same manner as the noble Lord opposite. The Minister said that the leaflet would be made available through local authorities. Can he go one stage further and say that the demand for the community charge will be accompanied by such an explanatory leaflet so that tenants have the remedies quite clearly drawn to their attention?

The Earl of Caithness

I hear what the noble Lord says. As so many of the community charge demands will be made to owner-occupiers who may not be affected, I wonder whether that is the most cost-effective way of getting the information to the tenants. I take on board what the noble Lord has said and I shall ask whether anything can be done to try to help the situation.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My noble friend has said that he recognises the problems that have been set out, but that after great consideration it is not intended to do anything about them in this Bill. Do I understand from that that there are other means which the Government have in mind where the same point may be made, but not as regards this Bill? Is it the case that this simple leaflet that is being discussed is the only alternative that the Government have in mind at the moment?

The Earl of Caithness

As I understand it, it is the solution to the problem. I said that there was a problem and I then explained that some tenants were not in any way affected by it. I also said that those who remained had remedies. Having considered the matter, we think it best to provide the leaflet. We shall monitor the situation.

I wish to take up some points that have been raised, if the Committee will bear with me. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of the 1956 Act where the Government made it illegal for landlords to benefit at tenants' expense. The noble Lord is referring to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. The context of that Act was rather different, as I am sure the Committee will remember. The Act concerned the transfer of the liability for rates from the owner to the occupier and not the situation where rates are being replaced by something else. That Act was introduced when there was not the system of fair rents, rent officers and rent assessment committees and the tenant did not have the remedies that he has today.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also raised the important question of the effects of housing benefit. People who are living in the kind of accommodation to which the collective community charge applies are paying a market rent and they are not likely to be tenants covered by the Rent Act. As we promised during the debate on deregulation, housing benefit is available up to market rent level. If landlords try to charge rents above the market level once rates have been abolished, local authorities are likely to refuse housing benefit on the full amount because they will not get full Exchequer subsidy. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is very unlikely that landlords will be able to profiteer at the taxpayers' expense, as he suggested.

I turn now to the important point raised by the noble Lord during my speech as regards how many tenants have a problem. It is very difficult to say what the situation is. We estimate that there are about 100,000 residents who are largely licensees, as I indicated earlier.

Lord Northfield

Perhaps I may briefly pursue the point that I raised in my earlier intervention. I am concerned that tenants should not have to find a leaflet or to be aware that such a leaflet exists, in order to protect themselves when they ask their landlord to reduce their rent in order to take account of the rates that they have been previously paying through the landlord. When the community charge demand is sent out by a local authority what I have in mind is that the demand should have a phrase on it which says something to the effect, "If you are a tenant who has previously paid rates with your rent through your landlord, you may have a right to have that payment reduced to take account of the fact that you are now paying the community charge. If so, please get leaflet X".

All I am saying is that when a person receives a demand he should have the leaflet or the proper information drawn to his attention as the best way of forcing the pace with landlords.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying his intervention. Perhaps he will give me a little time to consider it.

Lord Coleraine

I shall have to consider carefully what my noble friend has said on what I find is a very complicated subject. There are two points I wish to make. The first is (if I understood him correctly) that he was saying that it might be relevant to consider the amount as regards a tenant entitled to have the rates back from the landlord. I do not believe that is correct. It seems to me that if the tenant has paid rates to the landlord and the tenant is not liable for the community charge, he is still perfectly entitled, as against the landlord, to have the rates back.

The second point concerns what my noble friend said about licensees. I believe he said that in most cases where there is a lodging-house it will not be in the interests of the people in the rooms to ask for the rates back from the landlord because the tenants will be shown the door very quickly. That may be so, but it still seems to be reasonable that licensees should have the right to exercise a discretion if they choose. It also seems to me that there may be a number of cases where licensees may be thinking of moving, but before they do so they would like the right to get the rates back from the landlord.

The Earl of Caithness

I am now able to help the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, a little more. I can tell him that 36 million leaflets have already been distributed. The general leaflet says words to the effect that if one is a tenant with queries, a leaflet is available. We have already done what the noble Lord has asked.

Lord Northfield

That is not what I am asking. When in April next year a tenant receives his demand for the community charge, it should clearly state that if he has been previously paying rates through his landlord he should make sure that he is protecting his position. He should look at the leaflet to see whether he is entitled to a reduction in his rent to compensate for the community charge. I am asking for that to be drawn to the payer's attention when the demand for the community charge is sent out. That is a reasonable position.

4 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

We have come to the seventh day of the Committee stage. There are 105 pages of amendments in the Seventh Marshalled List. Most of them are government amendments, either to their own Bill which is before Parliament now or to legislation which has been through Parliament within the past 15 months—notably the Local Government Finance Act and the Housing Act 1988. The Government are clearly unable to control their own department, their own drafting facilities and their own political will in these matters. Yet the Minister has the nerve to stand up and accuse me, in putting forward an amendment with a new clause less than one page long, of introducing complicated legislation. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard that. I could hardly believe that that was the most serious answer the Minister could give to what after all, even on his own figures, is a problem affecting 100,000 people.

The Minister claimed in his reply that most of the tenants with whom this amendment is concerned have a remedy. Certainly those who are the tenants of landlords like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, have a remedy because the noble Lord is clearly an honourable landlord. If all landlords were like him, there would be no need for this amendment and no need for large parts of this Bill. Let us look at the figures that the Minister put before us. He said that 40 per cent. of such tenants pay direct, 600,000 have the right to register and 240,000 live rent free. That leaves an estimated 100,000 tenants who do not have remedies. He did not volunteer the figure. It was only when I asked him that he was able to produce it.

In the Minister's own words, those tenants are in the weakest position to secure compliance with their rights. These people are in housing in multiple occupation or are licensees. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, confirmed, licensees are particularly vulnerable because they dare not oppose any injustice from their landlords as their landlords find it easier to get them out. These people, who are not only the weakest but have been made the weakest by government legislation over the past two years, are to be cast on one side and given no protection against exploitation.

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the quality of the argument being made against the amendment. For the Committee to be told, as it was by the Minister this afternoon, that these tenants should have seen that the point was covered in tenancy agreements because they knew that the community charge was coming in the future is a piece of pharisaism—I accuse the Government; I do not talk about individuals—which I find totally unacceptable. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the problems of tenants and of the problems of the weakest tenants in our society. I was shocked by those answers. I hope the Committee feels that this is an issue on which it ought to take a view.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I have listened to the noble Lord's argument. Would it not be met for the most part if he could persuade my noble friend to follow the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield? Would that not be a better way of trying to achieve something? If the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, were adopted, all the strictures included in the noble Lord's speech would be met. Why does he not say just that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

There is a series of possible remedies to the injustice which has been identified. The first remedy would have been the action taken by a Conservative Government in 1956 when the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act was passed. The first action would have been to make it illegal. We did not propose it in those terms. We proposed a more reasonable set of procedures. We proposed notification to make recourse to the courts only a last resort. The third possibility was that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which was rejected out of hand by the Minister. He did not say that he would take it away and think about it. He said that he would not do it. When the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked what would be done if it was not done in this Bill, he was told that there would be nothing more than information—no legislation, now or at any other time. My noble friend Lord Northfield made his point twice and failed to get a response.

I do not think that there is a lack of flexibility on our side. All of the propositions put to the Minister, including a quite separate proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, have been rejected by the Government. In those circumstances, I.think—

Lord Campbell of Croy

The noble Lord referred to me. I was hoping simply to add to the knowledge of the Committee because a reference had been made to Scotland, whereas the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was talking tentatively about things to happen next year in England and Wales. He was speaking in terms in which we have been acting, paying our charges and encountering problems. I thought that I could help the Committee because he was discussing the very subjects with which we have been dealing in the past six months.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am most grateful for that intervention. As I said, if landlords had all been like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, there would not be a problem. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities is in touch with these issues over the whole of Scotland. It estimates that the shortfall—in other words, the profiteering by bad landlords in Scotland—could have amounted to £40 million. That is not a trivial amount.

Lord Northfield

I should like to make it clear that I was not putting forward my view as an alternative to the proposition of my noble friend. We should try to do this by legislation. The Minister made a legitimate point. Getting it right in law is very difficult indeed because of the exceptions which he carefully set out. There are difficulties in making the law work and apply where we want it to apply. If the amendment is withdrawn and not voted on, will the Minister take the issue away and see whether he can find a way of doing the job properly by legislation in a manner which would command the support of my noble friend? It would certainly command mine.

The Earl of Caithness

I am grateful for the reasonable and rational tones in which the noble Lord, Lord Norhtfield. put forward that last proposition. I was somewhat surprised by the perhaps intemperate words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thought that I had moved a great deal towards the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and has tried to be helpful to the Committee. Obviously that did not suit the noble Lord. I should like time to consider what he has said. However, I have to tell the Committee that there are difficulties, and as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has just reminded the Committee, the position is so complicated that it would be wrong to deal with this on the face of the Bill.

Lord Brightman

Perhaps I may intervene at this late stage. If a tenant pays a rent which is inclusive of the domestic rate it seems to be common justice that the landlord should reduce the rent by the amount which he no longer has to pay. I cannot believe that a provision to achieve this justice would be beyond the skill of the parliamentary draftsman.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My noble friend Lord Northfield asked a specific question of the Minister, on the basis of which I might be persuaded to withdraw my amendment. He asked whether the Minister would provide for it, in a way to satisfy me, by legislation. I am encouraged by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord to think that legislation, even if we do not have the wording right, is not impossible. If the Minister will say to my noble friend that he will use his best endeavours to secure that the matter is dealt with by legislation—I take it that that would mean by legislation in this Bill at the next stage of the proceedings—then of course I shall be willing to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness

As the noble Lord knows, I cannot give him that firm guarantee. However, I can say that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State exactly what has been said. It would be totally wrong for me in my present capacity to give the firm commitment which the noble Lord desires. But I shall certainly report to my right honourable friend the strength of the feelings which have been expressed by noble Lords.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I think he ought to go an inch or two further along this road and not allow the issue to be pushed to a vote, with the impression that that would give as to the beliefs of both sides of the Committee about the principle behind what is proposed, when it is quite clear that all are agreed on the matter, especially as regards the comment made by the noble and learned Lord from the Cross-Benches. He should go further along that road to show that serious thought will be given to find the right words, which are not there at present. We have only received a promise of a leaflet in that respect. If he were to do as I suggest, it would be a sign that at any rate there is a possibility of the points which have been made on all sides of the Committee being implemented.

It would be grossly unfair, whether a hundred thousand or a hundred million people are involved, for the legislation to relieve the landlord of the rates which were previously included in the rent which he collected and not pass that benefit along to the people who now have to pay.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I understand the difficulty faced by my noble friend the Paymaster General. He is in obvious difficulty in dealing with legislation from a department of which he is not a member. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I think that my noble friend realises the very wide spread of opinion held on all sides of the Committee that there should, if at all possible, be some legislative provision to deal with the position of tenants so placed.

I wonder, therefore, whether my noble friend could go a little further without embarrassment and say that he will see to it personally that an effort is made to find a legislative solution to this problem. Having heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, it does not seem that it would be asking the impossible—coming, as the suggestion does, from such a high authority as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—for him to say that he will seriously seek a legislative solution and use his personal influence to see whether such a solution can be found. However, if that cannot be done, then perhaps my noble friend will return to this Chamber at the next stage of the proceedings on the Bill and say so.

The Earl of Caithness

I shall try to be as helpful as possible. I hope that I shall be able to do what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested. However, I did not want to mislead the Committee in any way because of the difficulties that are involved in the matter. I shall certainly talk to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to see what can be done to allay the concerns of all Members of the Committee. But, of course, I cannot guarantee anything and I cannot make a commitment that we shall be able to come forward with a solution in this legislation. However, I am willing to take the matter back so that it may be discussed again. On that basis, but, I stress, without any guarantee, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I am doing the best I can.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I think that we are nearly there. No one is asking for any guarantee of success. I did not ask for a firm commitment; I said that the Minister should use his best endeavours. But the phrase we want from him is that he recognises that an attempt to secure a remedy by legislation is what noble Lords on all sides of the Committee are seeking. If he will confirm that fact, I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness

I hear the concern which has been expressed. I understand that Members of the Committee would like the provision placed on the face of the Bill. The difficulty in the matter is that I do not know whether it can be. That is the point I wish to reconsider.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I do not feel that I can pursue the matter any further. I can only say that the Committee will be gravely disappointed, especially after the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, if the Government do not find it possible to do something which is widely agreed across parties as being necessary to secure justice.

I shall be glad to talk to Ministers in the department between now and a later stage—

The Earl of Caithness

The way the noble Lord said that the Committee would be, "gravely disappointed" slightly pre-empts what I am supposed to be doing. I am taking the matter away with the best will so that it may be looked at again. If Members of the Committee are disappointed it will not be because of my lack of trying.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I meant that the Committee would be gravely disappointed if these attempts failed. If that were the case, then we would certainly find it necessary to put this amendment, or a similar one, forward again. Everyone is now agreed that there is a case in justice for something to be done in the matter. I think that virtually everyone is agreed that leaflets and propaganda are not good enough and that legislation will be necessary to deal with the issue. It is on that basis—which is a view I take to be widely held in the Committee, as a brief if you like for the Minister to take back to the department—that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDC: Page 171, line 26, at end insert—

("Existing rates

(1) In section 118 (power to abolish or modify existing rates), at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added "and, in the case of an internal drainage board, there shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (b) above any agreement under section 81 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 under which the board have agreed that no drainage rate will be levied on occupiers or owners of certain rateable hereditaments".

(2) In subsections (2) and (4) of that section for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "appropriate Minister".

(3) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added "and "the appropriate Minister" means—

  1. (a) as respects any internal drainage board whose district is wholly within England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;
  2. (b) as respects any internal drainage board whose district is partly in England and partly in Wales, that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly; and
  3. (c) as respects any other body, the Secretary of State."")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDJ: Page 171, line 26, at end insert—

("Information

30B. The following section shall be inserted after section 139—

"Information.

139A.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

  1. (a) the Secretary of State serves a notice on a relevant authority or relevant officer requiring it or him to supply to the Secretary of State information specified in the notice,
  2. (b) the information is in the possession or control of the authority or officer,
  3. (c) the information is required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of deciding whether to exercise his powers, and how to perform his functions, under this Act, and
  4. (d) the information is not personal information.

(2) The authority or officer shall supply the information required, and shall do so in such form and manner and at such time as the Secretary of State specifies in the notice.

(3) If an authority or officer fails to comply with subsection (2) above the Secretary of State may assume the information required to be such as he sees fit; and in such a case the Secretary of State may decide in accordance with the assumption whether to exercise his powers, and how to perform his functions, under this Act.

(4) In deciding whether to exercise his powers, and how to perform his functions, under this Act the Secretary of State may also take into account any other information available to him, whatever its source and whether or not obtained under a provision contained in or made under this or any other Act.

(5) Each of the following is a relevant authority—

  1. (a) a charging authority;
  2. (b) a precepting authority.

(6) The community charges registration officer for a charging authority is a relevant officer.

(7) Personal information is information which relates to an individual (living or dead) who can be identified from that information or from that and other information supplied to any person by the authority or officer concerned; and personal information includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of any person in respect of the individual.

(8) This section shall have effect before 1 April 1990 as if after paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above there were inserted—

"(c) the Inner London Education Authority."")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDD: Page 171, line 44, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("subsection (1)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDE: Page 172, line 2, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("subsection (1)").

The noble Earl said: This is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDF: Page 173, line 8, after ("population") insert ("(calculated by reference to the time mentioned in section 141A(1) above)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDG: Page 173, line 18, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ("(6) As regards any particular time the relevant population of a charging authority is the relevant population, calculated under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12A below, of the area of the authority for the financial year in which the time falls.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 174ZDH and 174ZDK had been withdrawn from the Marshalled list.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDKA: Page 173, line 33, at end insert—

("Orders and regulations

.—(1) Section 143 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted— the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".

(3) In subsection (3) for "(9)" there shall be substituted "(9A)".

(4) In subsection (5) after "118 above" there shall be inserted "other than regulations relating to an internal drainage board".

(5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (9)— (9A) The power to make regulations under paragraph 5 or 6 of Schedule 12A below shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.

(6) In subsection (10) after "118 above" there shall be inserted "other than regulation relating to an internal drainage board".").

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 174ZDKA deals with the regulation making powers in Sections 75 and 118 of the 1988 Act and those in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the new Schedule 12A to that Act which we debated earlier.

When Sections 75 and 118 of the 1988 Act were enacted, they were enacted principally with local legislation in mind and regulations under the powers in those sections are not subject to parliamentary procedure, although before they are made their proposed contents must be advertised. Since the regulations for internal drainage boards will require amendments to public legislation, Amendment No. 174ZDH provides for those regulations to be subject to negative resolution procedure of either Chamber and removes the requirement for the contents of those regulations to be published in a newspaper.

This amendment also provides that regulations relating to the calculation of the relevant population of part of the area of a charging authority under Schedule 12A will be subject to negative resolution in another place. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 174ZDL: Page 173, line 33, at end insert—

("Relevant population

41. The following section shall be inserted after section 145—

"Interpretation: relevant population

145A. Schedule 12A below (which contains provisions about relevant population) shall have effect."

The following Schedule shall be inserted after Schedule 12—

"SCHEDULE 12A

RELEVANT POPULATION

Population of area

1.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 2 to 4 below each of the following is a relevant authority—

  1. (a) an English charging authority;
  2. (b) a Welsh district council;
  3. (c) a Welsh county council;

(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 2 to 4 below each of the following is a notifiable authority—

  1. (a) a charging authority,
  2. (b) a county council,
  3. (c) a metropolitan county police authority,
  4. (d) the Northumbria Police Authority,
  5. (e) a metropolitan county fire and civil defence authority,
  6. (f) the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, and
  7. (g) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

2.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a report containing rules for calculating the relevant population of the area of each relevant authority.

(2) Before making the report the Secretary of State shall notify to such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate the general nature of its intended contents.

(3) The report shall be laid before the House of Commons.

(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the report is laid before the House of Commons the Secretary of State shall send a copy of it to each notifiable authority.

(5) After making the report the Secretary of State may make a further report or reports, and any such report—

  1. (a) may replace any previous report under this paragraph, or
  2. (b) may amend any previous report under this paragraph.

(6) A report under sub-paragraph (5)(a) above shall contain revised rules for calculating the relevant population of the area of each relevant authority.

(7) A report under sub-paragraph (5)(b) above shall contain amendments to the rules contained in the report which it amends.

(8) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above shall apply to any report under sub-paragraph (5) above as they apply to one under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(9) A report under this paragraph shall state the day on which it is to come into force and the first financial year for which it is to operate.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies where in accordance with paragraph 2 above a report has been made and laid before the House of Commons.

(2) If the report is approved by resolution of the House of Commons it shall come into force on the clay stated in the report.

(3) If the report is made under paragraph 2(1) or (5)(a), on and after the day it comes into force the rules it contains shall have effect for calculating the relevant population of the area of each relevant authority for all chargeable financial years beginning with the first financial year for which it states it is to operate; but this is subject to the effect of any subsequent report under paragraph 2(5).

(4) If the report is made under paragraph 2(5)(b), on and after the day it comes into force the rules it amends read subject to the amendments shall have effect for calculating the relevant population of the area of each relevant authority for all chargeable financial years beginning with the first financial year for which it states it is to operate; but this is subject to the effect of any subsequent report under paragraph 2(5).

4.—(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after a revenue support grant report for a financial year has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State shall calculate the relevant population of the area of each relevant authority for the year in accordance with the rules for the time being effective (as regards the year) under paragraph 3 above.

(2) If the Secretary of State decides that he will leave out of account information received by him after a particular date in making a calculation under sub-paragraph (1) above the calculation shall be made accordingly; and he may decide different dates for different kinds of information.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above applies only if the Secretary of State informs each notifiable authority in writing of his decision and of the date (or the dates and kinds of information) concerned; but he may do this at any time before the calculation is made under this paragraph.

(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after making a calculation under sub-paragraph (1) above the Secretary of State shall —

  1. (a) inform each relevant authority of what he calculates as the relevant population of its area for the year;
  2. (b) where the relevant authority is an English charging authority, inform each appropriate precepting authority of what he calculates as the relevant population of the area of the charging authority for the year.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above an appropriate precepting authority, in relation to a charging authority, is a precepting authority which has power to issue a precept to the charging authority.

5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing rules for calculating for chargeable financial years the relevant population of the area of each Welsh charging authority.

(2) A Welsh charging authority shall calculate the relevant population of its area for a chargeable financial year in accordance with the rules for the time being effective (as regards the year) under the regulations.

(3) The calculation shall be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after such date as is specified for the year in the regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after making a calculation under sub-paragraph (2) above a Welsh charging authority shall inform each appropriate precepting authority of what the charging authority calculates as the relevant population of the area of the charging authority for the year.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above an appropriate precepting authority, in relation to a charging authority, is a precepting authority which has power to issue a precept to the charging authority.

Population of part of area

6.—(1) This paragraph applies where the relevant population of part of a charging authority's area needs to be found for the purposes of section 69 above.

(2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing rules for calculating for chargeable financial years the relevant population of any such part.

(3) The charging authority shall calculate the relevant population of the part for a chargeable financial year in accordance with the rules for the time being effective (as regards the year) under the regulations.

(4) The calculation shall be made —

  1. (a) where the authority is English, as soon as is reasonbly practicable after a revenue support grant report for the year has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons;
  2. (b) where the authority is Welsh, as soon as is reasonably practicable after such date as is specified for the year in the regulations made under sub-paragraph (2) above"").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to,

Clause 132 [Scottish non-domestic rates: interim provisions]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174ZDM: Page 118, line 29, after ("value") insert ("or, where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, according to that rateable value").

The noble Lord said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 174ZDN, 174ZDP, 174ZDQ, 174A, 174B, 174BA, 174F, 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K, 174L and 174R.

The amendments cover a number of measures aimed at improving the system of valuation and rating in Scotland. Amendment No. 174A would establish the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to hear an appeal against the refusal by a local valuation appeal committee to refer a case to it. That tribunal would itself be able to decide in any cases of dispute whether the appeal in question was of such a complex and difficult type that it should be heard by it. That should ensure a more consistent approach throughout the country in the types of case referred to the tribunal.

We are also incorporating in Amendment No. 174A, for the sake of tidiness, a provision which previously appeared in the Bill in another place. Its effect would be to require local valuation appeal committees to refer cases to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland where both parties to the appeal apply for such referral within a prescribed period.

Amendment No. 174B extends the classes of church property in Scotland which will qualify for relief from the non-domestic rate. This will bring the position of the churches in Scotland in terms of water relief into line with those in England and Wales.

Amendments Nos. 174BA, ZDM, ZDN, ZDP and ZDQ would modify Section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and make certain other consequential amendments in order to enable full implementation of the Government's declared intention to cushion business ratepayers in Scotland from any significant changes in rates bills brought about by changes in rateable values as a result of the 1990 revaluation of non-domestic property.

Amendments Nos. 174F, G, H and J are technical amendments intended merely to clarify existing provisions. They do not introduce any changes to the current position.

Amendment No. 174K is brought forward in fulfilment of our undertaking to give relief to churches and charities on their payments for sewerage. Prior to April this year sewerage was included within the general rate, from which churches and charities enjoyed relief. From April those bodies have continued to enjoy relief from the non-domestic rate, introduced on that date, but have been required to pay the non-domestic sewerage rate on their full rateable value. That has resulted in significant rates bills for these bodies which we have undertaken to reduce. At present an authority can resolve to calculate the non-domestic water rate for churches, charities and other organisations on anything between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their net annual value. The amendment proposes to require authorities that have resolved to give such relief from the non-domestic water rate for those premises to give similar remission from the non-domestic sewerage rate. The amendment also covers cases where churches, charities and other premises may not be subject to the non-domestic water rate.

Amendment No. 174L is consequential on Amendment No. 174A. The provisions in paragraph 4 of the schedule are included in Amendment No. 174A.

Amendment No. 174R seeks to ensure that no community water charge is payable where, prior to 16th May 1949, a free supply agreement existed. These agreements were entered into by water authorities where, in exchange for some concessions on the part of a landowner such as the use of a water source or wayleave for a pipeline, a free supply was granted. The amendment continues that concession to the community charge payer in the case of domestic property. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I thank the Minister for that full explanation of these basically technical amendments. In the maze of technicalities, I tried to understand why the non-domestic water and sewerage charges were not being included in the transitional arrangements. The Minister gave a long explanation on that point. I am sure that he will appreciate that the matter will require a fair amount of thought and study and perhaps a need to take advice.

I have had little correspondence or objections on the purely technical parts of the amendments. After I and my advisers have studied the Minister's reply we may wish to come back about something, but in the meantime I am happy to accept his explanation.

Baroness Phillips

I have a simple question to put to the Minister. As the amendment refers to Scotland and the legislation relates to the community charge and rateable values, surely it was dealt with in the legislation in the last Session. The community charge has already been issued. Are we to assume that these other charges have not been issued? If they have been issued, will there be retrospective repayment?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I am not certain that I understand what is meant by "other charges" We are trying to iron out some of the anomalies, particularly in relation to church properties and so on, which have now become obvious. We announced that we wished to make those changes. This is the first opportunity since we were able to take decisions on the matter we have had to bring forward proposals for legislation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174ZDN: Page 118, line 33, at end insert ("or, where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, according to that part of that rateable value which is so shown in the apportionment note").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 133 [Scottish non-domestic rate]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174ZDP: Page 119, line 28, after ("value") insert ("or where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, according to that rateable value").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174ZDQ: Page 119, line 32, at end insert ("or, where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, according to that part of that rateable value which is so shown in the apportionment note").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174ZDR: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—

Powers to vary incidence of standard community charge: Scotland

(". In section 10 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (liability for and calculation of standard community charge) for subsections (6) and (7) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(6) The standard community charge due to a local authority in respect of any premises in respect of any financial year shall be the product of the personal community charge determined in respect of that year by the local authority and—

  1. (a) where the premises are in a specified class, the standard community charge multiplier determined in respect of that class by the authority; or
  2. (b) where the premises are not in a specified class, the standard community charge multiplier determined by the authority in relation to such premises,
in respect of that year.

(7) A specified class is one which has been prescribed under this subsection or determined under regulations made under subsection (7F) below. (7A) A local authority shall determine their standard community charge multiplier or multipliers before such date in each year as is prescribed. (7B) A standard community charge multiplier must be one of the following, 0,¾,1, 1¾,2. (7C) A local authority may resolve that different standard community charge multipliers shall apply in relation to different classes of premises prescribed under subsection (7) above. (7D) A standard community charge multiplier relating to a class of premises prescribed under subsection (7) above shall not exceed such maximum multiplier as may be prescribed in relation to that class. (7E) In prescribing classes under subsection (7) above, the Secretary of State may classify premises by reference to such factors as he thinks fit, including, without prejudice to that generality—

  1. (a) the physical characteristics of premises or any part of them;
  2. (b) the fact that premises are, or any pan of them is, unoccupied;
  3. (c) the fact that premises are, or any part of them is, occupied for prescribed purposes;
  4. (d) the fact that premises are, or any part of them is, occupied by persons of prescribed descriptions;
  5. (e) the circumstances of persons liable to pay the standard community charge.
(7F) The Secretary of State may by regulations, make provision—
  1. (a) enabling local authorities or local authorities of such class or classes as he may specify in the regulations —
    1. (i) to determine, in relation to their areas, classes of premises additional to those prescribed under subsection (7) above;
    2. (ii) to determine different such classes of premises in relation to different parts of their areas; and
    3. (iii) to resolve that different standard community charge multipliers shall apply in relation to different classes of premises determined under the regulations, and
  2. (b) requiring them, when determining a class or classes under the regulations, to classify premises only by reference to one or more prescribed factors being such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
 (7G) Regulations under subsection (7F) above may make provision enabling the district council to resolve that different standard community charge multipliers shall apply in relation to such different classes of premises as have, in relation to the district, been determined under the regulations by the council of the region in which the district is situated. (7H) A regional council may resolve that different standard community charge multipliers shall apply in relation to the same specified class of premises in different districts within the region.".").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 174AZA. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 134 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Amendment of Scottish Enactments]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 174A, 174BA and 174B: Page 174, line 38, at end insert—

("Valuation appeals to Lands Tribunal for Scotland

In section 1 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (which provides as to, amongst other things, the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland) after subsection (3B) there shall be inserted the following subsection —

"(3BA) The Lands Tribunal for Scotland may also determine any appeal against the decision of a valuation appeal committee not to refer to the Tribunal any appeal or complaint made to the committee and, where the Tribunal upholds such an appeal, the appeal or complaint made to the committee shall, for the purposes of this section, be regarded as having been referred by the committee to the Tribunal for determination under subsection (3A) above.".

In section 15 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963—

  1. (a) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
  2. (b) in subsection (2A) (regulations about valuation appeals to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland)—
    1. (i) for the word "governing" there shall be substituted the words "as to";
    2. (ii) the word "and" between paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted; and
    3. (iii) at the end there shall be added the following paragraphs—
  3. "(c) the giving by a valuation appeal committee of reasons for its decision not to refer to the Tribunal any appeal or complaint made to the committee; and
  4. (d) the circumstances and manner in which an appeal may be made to the Tribunal for determination under subsection (3BA) of section 1 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine appeal against decision of valuation appeal committee not to refer an appeal or complaint to the Tribunal).".")

Page 175, line 27, at end insert—

("Rateable value for purposes of levying rates after 1st April 1990

In section 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (levying of rates) in subsection (1A) there shall be inserted at the end the words "; and references in this subsection to an apportioned value of part residential subjects are references to that part of that value which is shown in the apportionment note as relating to the non-residential use of the subjects,"

In section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (levying of rates after 1st April 1990)—

  1. (a) in subsection (1)—
    1. (i) for the word "Every" there shall be inserted the words "The non-domestic"; and
    2. (ii) after the word "regards" there shall be inserted the words "different areas and";
  2. (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections —
(1A) The considerations referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above shall be such as the Secretary of State thinks fit and may, without prejudice to that generality, include considerations which otherwise would not relate to the determination of the rateable value of lands and heritages. (1B) The classification of lands and heritages for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall be by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit and may, without prejudice to that generality, include the circumstances of persons by whom rates are payable. (1C) Regulations made under this section may, in relation to lands and heritages which are part residential subjects (within the meaning of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987), provide for the apportionment of the rateable value prescribed or determined under this section in respect of the subjects as between the residential and non-residential use of the subjects. (1D) A rateable value prescribed or determined under this section in respect of any lands and heritages shall be the rateable value of the lands and heritages for the purpose of the levying of the non-domestic rate but not for any other purposes."; and

(c) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.")

Page 175, line 27, at end insert—

("Exemption of church premises from the non-domestic rate

.—(1) In section 22 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (exemption of churches etc. from rates)—

(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections — (1) No non-domestic rate shall be levied on any premises to the extent that they consist of —

  1. (a) a building occupied by a religious body and used for the purpose of religious worship;
  2. (b) a church hall, chapel hall or similar premises used in connection with a building such as is referred to in paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the religious body which occupies that building; or
  3. (c) any premises occupied by a religious body and used by it for carrying out administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of religious worship in a building such as is referred to in paragraph (a) above.
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect with respect to the year 1990–91 and each subsequent year. (1B) Subsection (1)(c) above shall have effect also with respect to the year 1989–90."; and (b) subsection (4) shall be omitted.

(2) In subsection (9) of section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1962 (exception from relief under that section of premises exempt under said section 22), after "(b)" there shall be inserted "or (c)".

(3) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above, to the the extent necessary to give effect to subsection (1)(c) of the said section 22, and the amendment made by sub-paragraph (2) above shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1989.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174C: Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

("Duty to notify registration officer about liability for collective community charge.

.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 18 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty to notify registration officer of certain matters) for the words "the personal or standard community charge" there shall be substituted the words "any of the community charges"").

The noble Lord said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 174D, 174DA, 174DB, 174E, 174M, 174P and 174Q. This group of amendments comprises a number of technical but necessary adjustments to the present community charge arrangements in Scotland. They have been shown to be necessary as experience has been gained of operating the new arrangements. Amendments Nos. 174C and 174D correct the situation whereby under the present arrangements a person could find himself liable for payment of interest of 10 per cent. on a backdated community charge liability, even if the need to backdate that liability had arisen through no fault of the person in question. The provision gives a levying authority the discretion which it previously lacked to take account of a reasonable excuse before it demands that a person pays such interest. Amendment No. 174C corrects a minor drafting anomaly.

Amendments Nos. 174DA and 174DB extend the present exemption whereby anyone in respect of whom child benefit is payable does not have to pay the personal community charge. Child benefit can be payable up to a person's 19th birthday and the present provision recognised that there were certain 18 year-olds whom it would be inappropriate to make liable for the community charge, such as those still at school.

Experience has shown, however, that there are certain groups who are not eligible for child benefit for whom exemption is nevertheless appropriate. These are foster children, children residing in certain residential establishments in Scotland and 19 year-olds at school or undertaking courses similar to school courses at other educational establishments. Amendments No. 174DA and 174DB ensure that people in these circumstances will not have to pay the personal charge. I understand that my colleagues in England and Wales are looking carefully at the possibility of adopting a similar policy. Amendment No. 174E is a purely drafting amendment.

Amendment No. 174M makes it quite clear that local authority members with standard charge properties can vote in council meetings on matters relating to the standard charge. There have been doubts about such a councillor's present rights to vote. This provision removes these doubts.

Amendment No.174P will allow community charge registration officers to revoke civil penalties which they have imposed in respect of a person's failure to comply with some aspect of their responsibilities in relation to community charge registration. At present they cannot legally do this in Scotland even if, for example, new information becomes available which suggests that a person has a reasonable excuse. The amendment brings the Scottish position more closely into line with that in England and Wales.

Amendment No. 174Q makes it clear that a sheriff can hear evidence in relation to a community charge appeal which comes before him under the summary application procedure. Although there is no obvious obstacle to prevent evidence being heard in such appeals under existing procedures, Ministers in my department agreed during the Report stage of the Bill in another place to consider introducing an amendment to put that matter beyond reasonable doubt. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

Again, I thank the Minister for this very full explanation of a technical series of amendments. I have only one point about which I should like to ask him, though I may have got it wrong. He suggested that there would be an exemption for those living at home who are following education similar to school education until the age of 19. He will know that Scotland has a very high non-residential population in higher education. In particular, Glasgow and Edinburgh have more that most other universities in Britain and therefore they are affected considerably.

I had thought there was a suggestion, in regard to people going to higher levels of school education, that perhaps 19 was low. Can the Minister say whether he is likely to bring back an amendment later to make the age 20? I thought that I saw it somewhere, and it would be quite important for many families.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I shall obviously look closely to see what the noble Lord is asking me. But my understanding is that we are dealing with people in respect of whom child benefit is payable, and I made clear that it is where 19 year-olds are at school or undertaking courses similar to school courses —which is important —at another establishment. However, if the noble Lord has seen a report which I certainly have not seen, I shall look into it. Obviously if there is something to be considered I shall consider it before the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I do not want to delay the Committee for too long but I was perhaps wrong in suggesting that education similar to school courses is higher education. Students leave school and then go on to take exactly the same course as the Minister will be aware in his area, in a technical college, but they are taking school subjects to top up their groups, and are more likely to get a higher grade than perhaps they had at school. These are the people I thought were going to be dealt with. It is not a small number and is in fact a rather important number.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I thank the noble Lord, the point he raises is an important one. I think it is covered by this amendment, but I shall look into it and will obviously be in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 174D, 174DA and 174DB: Page 175, line 32, at end insert —

("Interest not payable on backdated liability for community charges where there is reasonable excuse for non-registration.

.—(1) In subsection (3)(a) of section 18 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (interest on backdated liability for community charges) after the words "together with" there shall be inserted the words ", unless he satisfies the levying authority that he has a reasonable excuse for not having been registered,".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as the said section 18."). Page 175, line 32 at end insert—

("Exemption from personal community charge

For paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (exemption of person in repect of whom another is entitled to child benefit) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— 5. A person is exempt if—

  1. (a) another person is entitled to child benefit in respect of him; or
  2. (b) a person would be entitled to child benefit in respect of him but for paragraph 1(b) or (c) of Schedule 1 to the Child Benefit Act 1975.").
Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

(". After paragraph 6 of Schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 there shall be inserted the following paragraph — 6A.—(1) A person is exempt if —

  1. (a) he is aged under 20;
    2. 331
  2. (b) he is undertaking a qualifying course of education; and
  3. (c) the course is not undertaken in consequence of an office or employment held by the person.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be treated as undertaking a qualifying course of education if (and only if) he fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174E: Page 175, line 32, at end insert— In paragraph 12(c) of Schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (exemption for persons residing in premises subject to non-domestic rates) there shall be added at the end "but are not part residential subjects." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 174F, 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K and 174L: Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

("Liability for non-domestic water rate

.—(1) In section 40(3) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (which provides as to who is liable for the non-domestic water rate) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or who would be liable to pay those non-domestic rates but for any enactment which exempts the lands and heritages from those rates or by or under which any relief or remission from liability for those rates is given.".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987."). Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

("Premises in respect of which non-domestic water rate is leviable

.— (1) In section 41 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (levy of non-domestic water rate on certain premises)— (a) in the proviso to subsection (1) (rate to be levied on one half of rateable value or lower fraction resolved by water authority)—

  1. (i) after the word "aforesaid" there shall be inserted the words "or to any class of such premises"; and
  2. (ii) after the words "those premises" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to premises in that class"; and
(b) in subsection (4) (premises subject to the rate) after the words "other premises" there shall be inserted the words "of whatsoever kind but".

(2) The amendments made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed always to have been in force."). Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

"Exemption of formula valued premises from non-domestic water rate

In section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the non-domestic water rate shall not be leviable in respect of formula valued lands and heritages or of such formula valued lands and heritages or of such class or description of formula valued lands and heritages as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

In this subsection, "formula valued lands and heritages" are lands and heritages which have, or lands and heritages of a class or description which has, been prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above."

In section 40 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (non-domestic water rate)—

  1. (a) in subsection (1), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and section 6(1A) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (exemption of formula valued premises from non-domestic water rate)";
  2. (b) subsection (7) shall be omitted.").

Page 175, line 32, at end insert—

"Liability for non-domestic sewerage rate

.—(1) In paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (liability for non-domestic sewerage rate) there shall be added at the end the words "or who would be liable to pay the non-domestic rate but for any enactment which exempts those premises from that rate or by or under which relief or remission from liability for that rate is given."

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as the said paragraph 20."). Page 175, line 32, at end insert —

"Reduced liability for non-domestic sewerage rate in respect of certain church and charity premises

.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987—

  1. (a) in paragraph 19 (which provides as to, amongst other things, the levying of the non-domestic sewerage rate), for the word "paragraph" there shall be inserted the words "paragraphs 19A and"; and
  2. (b) after paragraph 19 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"19A.— (1) Where, in respect of a financial year, the non-domestic sewerage rate is leviable under paragraph 19 above in respect of lands and heritages which are both —

  1. (a) church or charity premises; and
  2. (b) premises to which, by virtue of subsection (4) of section 41 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, that section applies, whether or not they are premises in respect of which the non-domestic water rate is leviable.
the non-domestic sewerage rate shall be levied not according to the rateable value of those lands and heritages or that part thereof which is shown in the apportionment note as relating to their non-residential use but instead in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) Where—

  1. (a) the water authority, in a resolution under subsection (1) of the said section 41, made with respect to the lands and heritages mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above or to a class of premises which includes those lands and heritages, have specified for the purposes of that subsection in respect of that year a fraction of net annual value smaller than one half, then the non-domestic sewerage rate shall be levied according to that smaller fraction of the rateable value of those lands and heritages, or, as the case may be, that part thereof; and
  2. (b) the water authority have not so specified a smaller fraction, then the non-domestic sewerage rate shall be levied according to one half of the rateable value of those lands and heritages or, as the case may be, that part thereof.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1) above "church or charity premises" means —

  1. (a) premises, to the extent to which, under section 22(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (exemption from non-domestic rates of church premises etc.), no non-domestic rate is leviable on them in respect of the financial year; or
  2. (b) land and heritages in respect of which relief in respect of the non-domestic rate is given in respect of the financial year under subsection (2) of section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1962 (relief for premises occupied by charities); or
  3. (c) land and heritages in respect of which a reduction of or remission from the non-domestic rate has effect in respect of the financial year under subsection (5) of the said section 4.".

(2) The amendments made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as the said paragraph 19."). Page 175, line 34, leave out paragraph 4.

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 174F with Amendment No. 174ZDM, and with it I should like to move Nos. 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K and 174L. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 174M, 174P, 174Q and 174R: Page 175, line 44, at end insert—

"Exclusion from voting disability of local authority members who are community charge payers

(1) In section 41(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (exclusion from voting disability) after the word "as", where first occuring, there shall be inserted the words "a person who is liable to pay any of the community charges or community water charges imposed under the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 or who would be so liable but for any enactment or anything provided or done under any enactment or as".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as sections 8 to II of the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987,"). Page 175, line 44, at end insert—

"Revocation of civil penalties imposed by registration officer

. —(1) In section 17 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (which provides for, amongst other things, the imposition of civil penalties) after subsection (11) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(11A) If. after the imposition of a civil penalty under subsection (10) or (I 1) above but before the making of any appeal under subsection (12) below against that imposition, the registration officer, in the light of information which he did not consider when imposing the penalty—

  1. (a) is no longer satisfied as to the matter as to which he was satisfied under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (10) above or paragraph (c) of subsection (11) above before imposing the penalty; or
  2. (b) is satisfied that the responsible person upon whom the penalty was imposed did have a reasonable excuse,
he may revoke the imposition of the penalty; and on such revocation any money paid to the regional or islands council by the responsible person by way of that penalty shall be repaid by them to him.".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as the said section 17."). Page 175, line 44, at end insert—

("Evidence in appeals under Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987

. In section 29 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (appeals) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection — (1A) The sheriff may, in considering an appeal under this Act, hear and receive evidence. This subsection is without prejudice to—

  1. (a) any other enactment; or
  2. (b) any rule of law
relating to the hearing or receiving of evidence in summary applications."."). Page 175, line 44, at end insert—

("No liability for community water charges where water previously supplied free

. —(1) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (qualifying conditions for liability to pay community water charges) there shall be added at the end "and (c) that the supply of water provided is not one which the water authority were, immediately before 16th May 1949, and continue to be under an obligation to provide free of charge.".

(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be deemed to have come into force at the same time as the said paragraph 8.").

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 174M with Amendment No. 174C, and if I may I will move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174RA: Page 175, line 44, at end insert—

("Provision of information by registration officer

The following section shall be inserted after section 20B of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987—

"Registration officer: provision of information to Secretary of State

20C. —(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

  1. (a) the Secretary of State serves a notice on the registration officer requiring him to supply to 1.he Secretary of State information specified in the notice:
  2. (b) the information is in the possession or control of the registration officer and was obtained by him for the purpose of carrying out his function under this Act; and
  3. (c) the information is not personal information.

(2) The registration officer shall supply the information required, and shall do so in such form and manner and at such time as the Secretary of State specifies in the notice.

(3) Regulations under this section may include provision that the registration officer may—

  1. (a) Supply relevant information to any person who requests it;
  2. (b) charge a prescribed fee for supplying the information.

(4) Information is relevant information if—

  1. (a) it was obtained by the registration officer for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this Act: and
  2. (b) it is not personal information.

(5) Personal information is information which relates to an individual (living or dead) who can be identified from that information or from that and other information supplied to any person by the registration officer, and personal information includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of any person in respect of the individual." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174S: Page 175, line 46, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment consequential on the reordering of the schedule by the amendments already discussed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 175: Page 176, line 1, at end insert— ("6A. In paragraph 9 of Schedule IA to that Act there shall be added after sub-paragraph (1) the following paragraph— (1A) A person is exempt if—

  1. (a) he is resident on a temporary basis in a residential care home, nursing home, private hostel or hospital; and
  2. (b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there as part of a programme of respite care," ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 175, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I also dealt with Amendment No. 176. The amendment is designed to ensure that disabled persons who spend time in residential accommodation for a period of respite—that is respite care—do not find themselves liable for the community charge while they receive this care.

At present income support payments made during a period of respite care do not include an element to cover payment of the community charge. The low level of payments made—for instance, I believe that the personal allowance is £10.05 a week—means that many disabled people will suffer financially as a result of going into respite care for a short period in order to give their normal carers, usually their family, something of a break from the daily task of looking after them.

People who are solely or mainly in residential care receive an exemption from the community charge. This exemption, however, does not apply to people who go into residential accommodation for a short period in order to give some respite to their normal carers and family. The person in respite care would still be held to have his or her main residence at his or her normal home, and would be liable to pay at least some of the community charge.

Most users of this service rely on social security to meet the cost. When they go into residential accommodation they no longer receive the normal rate of income support. Apart from a payment towards their accommodation charges, they will receive a personal allowance of about £10. But even with a full rebate the community charge will account for a high proportion of this weekly income. I understand that at current levels in some areas the weekly charge would be roughly equivalent to a day's income.

Furthermore, because most people receiving this allowance (particularly as long-term residents) will be exempt, the level of allowance was not uprated along with the normal rate of income support to include a notional amount for the community charge. The anomaly is that people in residential accommodation for short periods are treated unfavourably in comparison with those in prison or in hospital. People in prison under a court order are exempt regardless of the length of time involved. People in hospital for a short period may not be exempt, but their normal level of social security payment will be preserved for up to six weeks.

I think that the Minister would be bound to agree that the sheer volume of work involved in dealing with someone in prison under a court order for a short period—because it varies, and it is not usually in set weeks—must be more than for someone who goes into a home for respite care who will normally be there for weekly periods. He will be there for one week, two weeks, or four weeks, whereas someone can be in prison for a week or a week and a half perhaps, depending on when a fine is paid. He may be fined so much, or 60 days. If the fine is paid after 25 days someone has to calculate the amount of the fine paid and how much of the 60-day sentence should be returned or remitted.

Prisoners are given complete exemption, whereas people who do it for care and love in the family are not. They get exhausted by continuously for 365 days a year, looking after someone who needs that type of intensive care. It seems to be penalising them even more not to give them some consideration, such as that given to people in hospital or in prison. I am not suggesting that there should be any reduction in the payment to people in hospital or in prison, but I suggest that this is an anomaly and that the Minister must agree that it must be dealt with at some point. I hope that he is able to give us some good news today. I beg to move.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I too received the representations that he has adequately presented this afternoon. It appears to me to be an anomaly that could be adjusted without any great cost to the Exchequer. The more emphasis there is on community care under the Griffiths Report the more necessary it is to allow people, without penalty, to get occasional respite in hospital without having to suffer as a result. Perhaps the Minister would respond sympathetically to these representations from the various organisations concerned with this matter in Scotland.

The Earl of Balfour

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for introducing this amendment. I should like to give a specific example of a wonderful old lady whom I have known practically all my life. Through an infection in her toe she lost her leg at the knee. However, she is determined to carry on living on her own in a little cottage for as long as she can. She spends an average of three weeks in hospital out of every six to eight weeks.

This is just the sort of case that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has so well illustrated. These people manage, but they cannot manage very well. If such people are living with a family, I think that the family would need a break in the course of the year, even if they could just be taken to the hospital for a few weeks. That is done by some of the wonderful charities. It is an interesting point.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for bringing forward these amendments. Of course I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Balfour in his wish to see that those who look after and care for their relatives should get some respite from the difficult task they perform. I do not want to dwell upon the technical deficiencies that I understand are prevalent in these amendments, but I shall concentrate briefly on why, for practical reasons, we cannot accept them.

I can appreciate the reasons that have led the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to put forward the amendments, and superficially they are attractive. But I am unable to see why, even if it were practicable, a person who is liable for the community charge and who goes into a hostel or a home for a short time, whether for respite care or for any other reason, should as a result be exempt. The essential difference between those in a hostel or a home on a short-stay basis and those who establish a sole or main residence in that home is that the circumstances of the latter as regards community charge liability have obviously changed, and changed on a permanent or semi-permanent basis

The circumstances of anybody in a hostel or a home for a period of only a few days or weeks have not changed, and so it would be inappropriate for their community charge liability to change. It may be that some Members of the Committee would want to see exempted some of those persons on a programme of respite care, but that is a different question from the one we are discussing today. We know various areas where we might wish to carry on that discussion, but the present amendment does not seek to address the wider question of who should or should not be exempt from the charge.

I would, however, make the point that many of those who might be covered by the amendments will already be exempt, or may be receiving a community charge rebate at the maximum rate. I see the point of the amendments, but I believe the way we have addressed the problems of those who should or should not be exempt from the community charge is better. I see it as a route that could be pursued; I do not think it is the one I should wish to go down.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I thank the Minister for his reply. It always amuses me when government Ministers tell us that the wording of our amendments is not quite what is wanted. I accept that we are not draftsmen, but it amuses me that usually, at a later stage in discussion of the legislation, huge hefty lumps of amendments are put down to the amendments that the Government proposed earlier. I wonder how long we can continue to strive for perfection in the Bill. There have been a number of fairly lengthy amendments to the Scottish poll tax legislation. When that legislation left the Chamber some two years ago we were assured that it was well nigh perfect. It was legislation drawn up by the Government who had all the necessary resources at their disposal.

I believe the Minister is aware of the feeling in the Chamber and the desire that fairness be shown towards those in respite care. Perhaps the only duty of an opposition is periodically to try and push special cases. Emphasis on special cases can result in bad law; nevertheless, a point is reached at which some special cases cry out for a solution. I believe that this is a special case crying out for a solution. I hope the Minister has taken note of the remarks not just of myself but also of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I hope that the Minister will address this issue at a later date or be aware of it in future legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 176A: Page 176, line 2, leave out paragraph 7.

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 137 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 176B and 176C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 176E: After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:

("Statutory references to rating

. —(1) In the case of a provision which is made by or under any enactment and refers to a rate or a rateable value or any other factor connected with rating, the Secretary of State may make regulations—

  1. (a) providing that the reference shall instead be to some other factor (whether or not connected with rating); or
  2. (b) providing for the factor to be amended (whether by limiting its operation or in any other way);
and this section shall have effect in place of section 119 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

(2) Regulations under this section—

  1. (a) may make provision in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit (whether by amending provisions or otherwise);
  2. (b) may provide for a factor expressed by reference to valuation, rent, a premium, the length of a lease, anything connected with rating, or any other matter whatever;
  3. (c) may provide for a factor expressed by reference to a combination of matters (whether expressed in terms of a formula or otherwise);
  4. (d) may provide for a factor which includes a method of adjustment (whether by reference to indexation or otherwise);
  5. (e) may make provision with respect to the resolution of disputes (whether by a court or otherwise); and
  6. (f) may contain such supplementary, incidental. consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(3) A factor expressed by reference to rent may be by reference to ground rent, rent of premises at a market rate, rent as limited by law, or otherwise.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the power conferred by section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 to revoke, amend or vary regulations previously made under this section.

(5) In this section "enactment" means an enactment contained in Schedule 9 to this Act, or in any other Act whether passed before or in the same Session as this Act; and for this purpose "Act"includes a private or local Act.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by this section, section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (which provides for compensation by reference to rateable values) shall be amended in accordance with Schedule [Compensation provisions of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II] to this Act.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 176D, 188NF and 188QB. This group of amendments deals with substitutes for references to rating which appear in non-rating legislation. Amendment No. 176E is a new clause which replaces Section 119 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Section 119 is a fall-back power which enables essential changes to be made to non-rating legislation where this would cease to work once domestic rates are abolished. In considering the wide range of alternative provisions that will be needed we have found that unfortunately the scope of the powers provided by Section 119 is inadequate.

The proposed new clause provides for any reference to rating in public or private legislation to be replaced by some other factor or for any factor connected with rating to be amended. It also provides for ways in which a factor may be expressed and the scope of amendments which may be provided in regulations under this clause. The clause also gives effect to a new schedule, Amendment No. 176D, which amends the compensation provisions in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. These amendments are consequential on the abolition of rates on domestic property. They were part of the proposals in a wider consultation paper issued by the department at the end of 1987. The objective is to ensure that the system of compensation for business tenants continues to operate as fairly and as effectively as hitherto. Under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 compensation based on the rateable value of the holding is payable to business tenants who lose their right to renew their leases when their landlords prove statutory entitlement to possession.

The abolition of the present rating system does not alter the basis of compensation under the 1954 Act for purely non-domestic leasehold premises. The amendments in this schedule are particularly directed towards business tenants' holdings which contain a domestic element, for example, shops with flats above. Existing tenants of such mixed hereditaments will have a choice for a transitional period from 1st April 1990 as to the basis of compensation. Before 1st April 2000 they may opt for compensation based on the last rateable value for the complete holding. Alternatively, they may opt for compensation on the same basis as that available for new tenancies of mixed hereditaments on or after 1st April 1990. This will comprise compensation for the non-domestic part based on the new rateable value plus removal expenses for the domestic element.

Amendment No. 188NF provides for the repeal of Section 119 of the Local Government Act 1988. Amendment No. 188QB is consequential on that repeal. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 138 [Power to allow charges]:

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 176F: Page 122, line 40, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 176J standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Amendment No.176F relates to Clause 138. The rubric of that clause is entitled, "Power to allow charges". The purpose of the amendment is to allow a general debate on the way in which the charging clauses put pressure on local authorities to keep their poll tax down by initiating or increasing charges for services, thus moving away from community provision through equitable taxation. The purpose of Clauses 138 to 140 is to allow charges for services, presently provided free, by order. The excepted functions in Clause 140 are not necessarily free, but they can only be altered by primary legislation. Further, the clauses seek to vary the existing basis of charges, other than those relating to excepted functions, by order, even when those charges are in other primary legislation unless that legislation requires rather than allows a charge to be imposed. This represents a fundamental shift in emphasis from a regime of local authority charges based on primary legislation to one in which the enabling Secretary of State exercises a wide discretion in allowing or varying the charges.

There has always been a place for charges in local government. Many relate to licensing and regulatory functions or to inter-authority charges. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 allows a reasonable charge to be made for supplying copies of documents to the public. Many of these charges are unexceptionable and do not go to the core of the provision of community services. However, the Minister may argue that these clauses are for administrative convenience and that they seek to tidy up the existing statutory basis for charging or make it easier to introduce new charges in future to address changing circumstances.

Local authorities which spend more than the Government think they should will be able to meet this extra cost either through raising the poll tax or through increasing revenue from fees and charges. Neither the revenue support grant, which is 50 per cent. of expenditure, nor the national non-domestic rate will vary with a local authority's expenditure. Local authorities will have to choose between charging service users, some of whom can afford to pay, increasing poll tax, which is regressive and bears most heavily on those just above the cut-off point for rebate, or reducing or halting service provision. No doubt the Government will claim that these clauses enhance local authority discretion. But if, as is happening in current discussions with the DoE, the Government make assumptions about income raised from fees and charges in calculating RSG, local authority discretion will be purely illusory. Everything taken off government grant will have to be met from the poll tax, or possibly by charging, if spending does not change. Is the new rule for service provision to be, "Can't pay, won't get"?

Amendment No. 176J amends Clause 139, which is similarly subject to affirmative resolution. The Government may well say that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise any such regulations. However, the previous point regarding an inbuilt majority still applies. The power which this Bill gives to tinker with other legislation is itself open to question. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport)

I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 176G.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

I can understand the noble Lord's concern about the Bill. Perhaps I may assure him that there is nothing sinister in those two provisions. It is perfectly normal for regulation-making powers to specify that the regulations may include such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit. In this case the provisions exist for the avoidance of doubt, since other provisions in the two clauses are specific as to the types of provisions which the regulations may provide. The two subsections which the noble Lord seeks to remove are necessary in order to make it clear that those other provisions do not prevent the inclusion of matters in addition to those specified.

It would simply not be practicable, in a clause which is intended to provide a framework for future regulations, to set out in detail the kinds of provisions which those regulations may contain. We are dealing with a very wide range of local authority services covering the responsibilities of a great many Ministers. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to deal with a particular service in the light of its unique circumstances.

I can understand, and indeed I share, the reluctance which many Members of the Committee may feel about apparently unfettered discretion being given to the Secretary of State. However, I remind the Committee that regulations made under the two clauses will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and it will therefore be open to the House to withhold its agreement if it disapproves of any regulation which comes forward.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I must tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that that never happens to me. The noble Lord is always welcome in the Chamber, not just on this occasion.

The Minister has dealt fairly with what may be unfounded suspicions. I do not accuse the Minister or his colleagues of sinister intentions. However, concerns about the situation have been drawn to our attention by the local authority associations which will be at the sharp end.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider one particular example which illustrates what it is felt could happen. Although Clause 139(1) allows the Secretary of State to use the new powers only when primary legislation does not require a charge to be made, there is nothing to limit the use of those powers where charging is currently prohibited. For example, the Public Health Act 1936 allows an authority to make a reasonable charge for trade refuse but makes no reference to charging for the removal of household refuse. When a council has decided to provide a service for removing household refuse an occupier may give notice to the council to carry out its duties. If it fails to do so without reasonable excuse within seven days the occupier may recover civil damages of 25p per day. There is a legal presumption that local authorities are not to levy a separate charge for that service. Does the Minister intend to use the provisions in the Bill to override that presumption?

That is an example of the nitty-gritty of the problems which the authorities consider will flow from what they believe is, if not unfettered power, the possibility that the Minister and his colleagues may ride roughshod over the intentions of local government. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that one point.

The Earl of Caithness

What the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said only serves to reinforce the argument I made earlier about the wide spread of the charges and the various departments under which they fall. The noble Lord mentioned one area for which I do not have responsibility. However, as I understand it, there are no plans to introduce a charge for household refuse collection.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

That is a refusal I cannot refuse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Denham

I apologise to the Committee, but I believe that the House will want to hear the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.