HL Deb 12 July 1994 vol 556 cc1711-4

8 p.m.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a brief order which nevertheless makes several important changes in Northern Ireland's rating legislation, principally to the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. For a number of years, the rating system in Northern Ireland has been significantly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom and that difference has, if anything, increased since the introduction of council tax.

The different legislative regimes stem mainly from the fact that in Northern Ireland central government and its agencies provide up to 90 per cent. of the services; which in Great Britain are the responsibility of local authorities. In the very different circumstances the Government have no plans at present to make fundamental changes in the Province's rating system. But although that remains the situation, it is necessary to review the legislation regularly to ensure that it is kept fully up-to-date. The order is intended to do just that.

I should like briefly to mention the main articles of the order. Article 3 will overcome an inconsistency in the existing principal rating legislation. At present, where properties have been structurally altered and come back into use, the degree of backdating of rate liability can vary depending on whether or not the properties have remained in the valuation list during the period of alteration. This illogical distinction was not intended when the 1977 rates order was in preparation. The present amendment therefore provides a common method of determining the date of rate liability for all properties which have been out of occupation because of structural alteration.

Article 3 corrects a second defect in the primary legislation. Where at different times two or more structural alterations have been made to a property, the article will permit the issue of separate certificates of alteration for each stage, with retrospective effect where appropriate. Under existing legislation, a certificate of alteration must reflect the state and circumstances of an altered hereditament at the date of issue of the certificate. It cannot be backdated to reflect staged alterations. This absence of a backdating provision can result in a loss of rate income to the Exchequer. It can, however, apply also in cases where the ratepayer would be at a disadvantage; for example, where premises are damaged and partly out of use for a period but are restored to full use before the district valuer takes action. In the absence of a facility to backdate, the opportunity to seek an abatement for the period out of use would be denied to the ratepayer.

Article 4 will clarify the provisions relating to rate relief for institutions for the disabled in Northern Ireland. It provides for the removal of anomalous references in the present legislation to use for profit and also to old people's homes, neither of which appear in the equivalent Great Britain legislation on which the Northern Ireland legislation in this area was based. It also makes provision for the reimbursement of district councils for the rates incomes foregone where rate relief is granted by way of rate rebate to institutions for the disabled. Councils are losing revenue under the present regulations and the new order will correct the position.

I said earlier that this was a somewhat brief order. It is also, in part, rather technical but I hope that the House will agree that these are useful and important changes which have practical and beneficial consequences for ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this technical order which nevertheless alters the law in Northern Ireland in at least three main ways.

I make this general comment. This is the second order to have been made to amend the principal rates order of 1977. To that extent, Northern Ireland has been spared the traumatic and unfair upheavals which have affected the householder in the remainder of the UK. However, I am not sure that I have correctly grasped the significance of all the provisions of Article 3. I am not sure of the meaning of the words "altered hereditament", or "structural alterations" within the order. I must confess that I have not been able to find the principal order; that may explain my state of ignorance. But it would be helpful if the Minister could say how she defines and applies the phrase alteration … by reason of more than one event". When does the one event begin? When does it end?

We welcome very much the rebate for institutions for the disabled in Article 4. Perhaps I may ask the Minister for an explanation of paragraph (7) of the new Article 31B. In what circumstances will a building qualify for a rebate for a period which is part only of a rebate period? One would have thought that it should qualify for a rebate for the entirety of the rebate period. The answer to that question is not immediately apparent and it would be helpful if the Minister could say more.

The paragraph raises another question. If we assume that without the applicant being at fault in any way the department has mistakenly repaid too large an amount, or allowed too large a rebate, is it intended that the department should be able to bring an action for recovery against the owner of the building, and his or her personal representative, at any time within six years? Alternatively, in those circumstances, should there be a shorter period of limitation?

My last point is purely a drafting one. It arises out of Article 5 which exempts from rates certain industrial fishing hereditaments. It applies where the right to fish is exercised by means of a fishing engine. What does a fishing engine mean? It is defined in the schedule to the principal order of 1977. But by virtue of this order, and in particular paragraph (3) (a) of the order, that definition is omitted and is replaced by reference to the definition which I found in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 for the purposes of that Act. We understand that legislation by reference is perfectly legitimate and indeed often unavoidable. On the other hand, in the circumstances of this order, I should have thought that it would be advantageous for the reader if the 1966 definition had been set out on the face of the order instead of having to trace the 1966 Act. I should not have thought that that would cause the draftsman too much difficulty. On the other hand, I am equally certain that the draftsman has a very good defence to the comment.

With those few questions, on behalf of these Benches, I am happy to welcome the order.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, we on these Benches have nothing to add. The order clearly amounts to adjustments and fine-tuning of a system which is obviously working well in its application. Otherwise the Government would have sought to bring it into line with other parts of the United Kingdom and the system which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I hope that the order will continue working satisfactorily, as it implicitly seems to be. I look forward to the noble Baroness's answers to the points raised by the noble Lord on the Labour Benches, particularly concerning the fishing engine, about which I had intended to ask.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

My Lords, perhaps I may start my response by saying that I am by no means a drafting expert. I shall endeavour to answer the noble Lord's questions. However, I doubt that I can get myself entirely into the draftsman's mind.

On the issue of the structural changes, the order simply changes the way in which the backdating can take place. It does not change any of the meaning. Local authorities have concern for building regulations and they identify what the structural change is.

The other matter which the noble Lord queried was whether it was possible for an overpayment to be pursued for six years. The answer is that six years is the limited period, and yes, during that period, it can be pursued. However, as it is taxpayers' money I suspect that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to be casual in looking for recovery of the money.

On the question relating to the drafting on the fishing engine and the omission from the face of the order, the order reclassifies salmon and eel fisheries as properties not to be treated as hereditaments. Consequently, references to fishing engines in the main order as hereditaments have had to be removed and we have reverted or referred back to the meaning assigned in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. I hope that the House will accept the order, I commend it to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.12 to 8.45 p.m.].