Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1987/apr/07/abolition-of-domestic-rates-etc-scotland
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:45:49+00:00

Document:
I have to point out that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 131: Page 7. line 41, leave out ("aged 18"). The noble Lord said: This heralds another series of amendments pointing out some of the difficulties that will be met particularly by students if the Bill is not considerably amended or if the Minister does not find a way of coping with the problem.
§ Under Clause 10, many problems begin to show. What will happen, for instance, to those people aged over 18 who decide after 1st April to enter education in September or October? Will they be registered at their home address or at their term-time address? If they start off registered at their home address and pay the charge, then move to pursue a course of education—they may not know until quite late that they have been accepted—and so become liable for a full year's charge at their new address, how will their previous payment be refunded?
§ There is another group of people. It is not uncommon nowadays for married students to maintain two homes. In fact, the award schemes make specific allowance for this. How will the joint and several liability apply in such cases? Will the home address become subject to standard community charge, and who will be the person responsible for the home address under Clause 19?
§ Another group of students will be those in placement. Many students spend a large part of their course away from their registered university or college. They undertake field work placements for various periods away from their studies. I refer to students on social work courses, those in community education, those on teaching courses and those on business and industry-linked courses of which there are an 904 increasing number. Such periods can range from part of a term to a whole term; so another problem arises there.
§ One of the most difficult problems—the last I shall mention—is the position of those students in further education who are assisted by local authority bursaries. In 1984–85, some 10,700 students aged 18 or over were in receipt of bursaries—the figure is considerably more now—and remained eligible to claim benefit. In this case our concern is about the way all benefit claimants tend to lose under these proposals.
§ I do not believe it is possible to deal with these various categories of students merely by amendments such as that I am proposing. I have brought forward the amendment and Amendment No. 132 which follows in order to give the Government a chance to respond to the real problems which students are pressing on us and I hope on the Government. I beg to move.
It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain the reason for the exemption from personal community charge liability of persons in respect of whom child benefit is payable because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this also comes into the concept of the amendment which the noble Lord has put down. These will be people who are either still at school or attending certain courses of non-advanced further education. In any case, they will be fairly dependent on their parents. If they were liable for the personal community charge, their parents would in fact have to pay for it. That cannot be right since the personal community charge, as I have said on more than one occasion, is in principle the personal responsibility of each individual resident.
The words "aged 18" in paragraph (a) are included purely for the sake of clarity because child benefit is not normally payable in respect of people aged 18. Paragraph (a) exempts from liability to pay the personal community charge the comparatively small group of people aged 18 in respect of whom child benefit is payable. The intention is simply to clarify any doubt about the position of this group of people. That is why I suggest there are good reasons for retaining the wording in the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord may have been proposing to speak to Amendment No. 132 in connection with this. That amendment would be unnecessary because child benefit is never payable in respect of anyone above the age of 18. I can perhaps round up my response by saying that the noble Lord has raised a whole number of different matters to do with students. He even raised the question of bursaries. As I understood the original amendment, he was largely concentrating on the point about child benefit to which I have referred. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord will allow me, is to look at the whole concept that he has raised in connection with the earlier amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and come back to it in due course.
That is the solution we should like. I tried to say how impossible it is to deal with this complicated matter through Opposition amendments. It really is a job for the 905 Government. Our debate last week, and today's, have pointed out some of the genuine problems and I am grateful to the Minister for his promise to look at them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Page 7, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) persons who are severely disabled; ( ) persons who are severely mentally handicapped;").
§ The noble Lord said: I have no desire to speak to any great extent on this amendment. I think I missed by five minutes the Minister's further explanation of the debate we had on this part regarding the severely disabled, physically and mentally handicapped, and all the others who are dependent on someone else to look after them. As long as I can confirm that this aspect will be taken with the pledge given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, late on Thursday last then I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The noble Lord must move the amendment if he requires an answer.
I received the answer in a nod from the Minister, so I do not move the amendment.
We come now to Amendment No. 135. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 136.
§ Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 135: Page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My purpose in moving this amendment is to express my concern that if subsection (7) (b) stays in the Bill it has the effect (does it not?) of treating people who happen to be living in common lodging-houses or houses of multiple occupation differently from the rest of the community. In my view, by doing this the Government's proposals run contrary to the whole raison d'etre of their Green Paper.
§ Why does the administrative cost, as the Government allege, outweigh the link between voting and paying in the case of people occupying such forms of communal establishments? Apparently everyone else will subsist under the accountability argument which is frequently advanced by the Minister. I want to know why this group of people will not. The Minister must keep in mind that direct and individual responsibility for paying will be removed from such people and the community charge will be submerged in a global rent charge so that the direct link, much argued by the Government, is broken.
§ The Government have attempted to justify their position by declaring that people in that type of accommodation are highly mobile and that it would be difficult to register them for the personal 906 community charge. However, many groups who represent their interests—including, in particular, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—have stated that the stereotype of high mobility is at best questionable. Therefore, I believe that the Minister must attempt to justify to the Committee that there is a case for treating those who are said to be highly mobile differently from everyone else.
§ In addition, there are a number of other reasons why, in my view, the Committee should accept this amendment to delete subsection (7) (b). First, the advantages of the collective community charge, made much of by the Government in recent debates, do not outweigh the need to treat this sector of the community in the same way as we intend to treat other members of the community. Secondly, the collective community charge destroys the clear link between the citizen and his authority, which again the Government have been saying frequently is central to the concept of the community charge.
§ Finally, at present persons in hostels are treated as being resident in such establishments for electoral purposes. I contend that this principle should be equally applicable to the community charge. If the Minister does not agree, I want him to argue the case and tell me why he does not. I beg to move.
I certainly support this amendment. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has dealt with the matter so fully that all I need to say is that I share entirely his anxieties about this whole matter. No doubt we will have an opportunity of discussing it more fully when we deal with Clause 11.
I understand that we are discussing Amendment No. 168 with Amendment No. 135. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 168, which rests on the arguments so ably advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on the responsibility put on people staying in these establishments because it puts no accountability on them whatever.
I am putting the case for lodging-house keepers. Why should they be put to the enormous trouble of collecting the money and handing it over? The Government are using them as tax collectors and I am sure that they have enough to do without that. Therefore, first, the principle of accountability of the person paying does not apply; and, secondly, the lodging-house keeper is yet again to be used, as in the case of PAYE, as a non-paid tax collector by the Government. There is far too much of that and it is against the principle and the practice of the Bill. In any case, the formula for calculating—dividing by 365—no doubt can be done fairly reasonably.
I should like the Minister to explain why he is penalising the owners of lodging-houses and why he is going entirely against the principle which runs through the whole Bill of paying the charge, making the citizen responsible for his local government and for taking a deep interest in it. He will have no interest whatever in this charge. He will grumble about it and move on, and so will the lodging-house keepers. This does not appear to me to be a very sensible subsection.
May I ask my noble friend the Minister, for clarification only, to confirm that the intendment of Clause 8 (7) (b) is not designed to apply to students who would be dealt with separately either under the rebate provisions of Clause 24 or, perhaps, as a separate category by extension of Clause 8 (7)? I know that my noble friend the Minister is consideriing his position on this but for clarification I seek assurance, because we may come to this later, that Clause 8 (7) (b) is not intended, as it stands, to apply to students.
I confess that when I studied these amendments—I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that Amendment No. 168 is grouped with Amendment No. 135—I found them rather puzzling. I first refer to Amendment No. 168. It appears to remove any liability for the collective community charge from owners of the premises to which the charge relates but provides instead that the owners should supply information about their tenants and sub-tenants to the registration officer. Tenants and sub-tenants would then be liable for the collective community charge and payments would be made presumably in relation to the length of each tenancy.
That seems to me to be an attempt to replace the collective community charge proposals, which I agree we shall come to in due course, with a system which would approximate to registration for the personal community charge in all cases. It seemed to me that this interpretation was confirmed by Amendment No. 135, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, which would remove the exemption from personal community charge liability for those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. The only difference would be that the owner of the premises would be required to act as a kind of sub-registration officer in providing information about the residence of all his tenants.
There are a number of difficultities about this. In the first place, it is possible that some of those who are solely or mainly resident in premises in relation to which the collective community charge is payable may not have any kind of formal tenancy agreement. Such people would therefore in effect be exempted from making any payment towards the cost of the local authority services which they receive through the community charge system.
More fundamentally, however, I should remind the Committee that the collective community charge is intended to be applied to premises where residents are so transient that individual registration for the personal community charge would not be practicable. We can return to this again in more detail when we come to Clause 11. But the suggestion would require all tenants in residence to pay some portion of the collective community charge in relation to their tenancy.
The amendment is silent on how these payments would be collected. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that the levying authority would have to check through the registration officer on all the comings and goings of tenants and sub-tenants, calculate their liability, send them bills and collect the money. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would agree 908 that this is something of a bureaucratic nightmare, never mind any other bureaucratic nightmares that he might feel exist. It would negate the whole principle of the collective community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested that residents in hostels are registered there for electoral purposes, so they should be resident there for the collective community charge. As I understand it, electoral registration depends on residence at a single date. I think this is rather different from the concept which is embodied in this part of the Bill of the continuous liability for the community charge.
As for the principle of accountability, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred, the principle applies to those resident in premises subject to the collective community charge. Through the collective community charge contribution they will make a payment for local authority services at the same level as the personal community charge and will therefore participate in the increase in local accountability which the Bill obviously brings. The noble Lord disagrees, as far as I can tell, that the principle of accountability is the sort of feature on which we ought to concentrate. We believe, on the contrary, that it is, and that is why I have stressed those points.
I think the amendments which are suggested here would in any case raise more problems than either of the noble Lords, Lord Mackie or Lord Kirkhill, would want and they would be wholly impractical. I hope, therefore, with the explanation of how we see that matter operating, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for having explained this part of the Bill. But I must confess that even after the explanation I find there are many outstanding questions. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, intends to do, but I should have thought that points have been raised which require further consideration by the Government.
The Government's own explanation raises all sorts of difficulties and demonstrates the illogicality and difficulty of construing this whole Bill with any fairness. There are one or two specific points. First, I did not hear the Minister give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who suggested that this subsection appears to be quite contrary to the whole principle behind the Bill; that is, the principle of personal responsibility. Neither did I hear him give any answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as to the position of students. As I understood it, the Minister said that this should deal with transients, but I am not even clear that that is made plain in the Bill. If it is, I am not sure how this is to be done. There is the question, for instance, of people in old folks' homes and hostels and so forth. As far as I remember, most of these are on the register, but as my noble friend Lord Mackie has pointed out, apparently it would be left to the matron or someone to deal with their contribution under this Act.
The Minister may say that the suggestions made from this side of the Committee would be difficult to carry out. But I must confess that I consider the Bill 909 itself will be extremely difficult to carry out. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has said, it will put a very considerable and quite unjustified burden on lodging-house keepers. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider again the points made, because on their own showing it does not seem to me they have any answer to the point that this strikes at the root of their own argument for the Bill. They have not answered such points as were made about students and so forth which could be very important and, as far as I can see it, could be affected by this clause, even though that may not be intended.
Perhaps I may first apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for not answering his point, which escaped me for the moment. Students will not be liable to the collective community charge; they can only be liable for the personal community charge. I hope that clears the noble Lord's mind and that he now understands the relevance of subsection (7)(b).
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that this in any way runs contrary to our principles enuciated throughout the Bill or that this subsection is contrary to personal responsibility. I find that a rather difficult charge to accept. I think the noble Lord is seeking to raise rather more than this amendment and to return once more to the whole concept embodied in the Bill—accountability, which his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has stressed, in moving the amendment, would again in some way he dented by this amendment.
Principles apart, we are faced with practicalities in this issue. The amendments which have been put forward would be thoroughly impractical; they would be clumsy and a nightmare to try to deal with. As I have said, the levying authority would have to go through a particularly protracted and complex business for checking the records and all the comings and goings of everybody concerned, tenants and subtenants. Then he would have to calculate the liability based upon what he thought those comings and goings were. Then the bills would. have to be sent out and the money collected. I can see nothing to suggest that that is a sensible way to proceed. I think it is far removed from the suggestion which the noble Lord seeks to make that in some way we are going against our own principles in not being prepared to accept this amendment.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replies, having so far listened with very great care to what has been said on this subject I find my noble friend the Minister's stand entirely convincing. He has quite enough to take back, and on the grounds of practicality it does not really seem that this is yet another matter which ought to be considered.
Perhaps I may intervene and make the point in answer that of course I agree that my amendment would be a nightmare for the assessor and the registration officer. But the Bill is transferring the nightmare to the poor lodging-house keeper. I am against the concept, of course, but I was 910 trying to point out to the Minister what he was doing. Later on we come to some further amendments in which we suggest that perhaps the poor lodging-house keeper might be recompensed. It is perfectly true that it was a nightmare, but then the whole Bill is a nightmare. The nightmare should not be suffered by the lodging-house keeper but by the people who are promoting the Bill.
So far as the poor lodging-house keeper is concerned, there is such a thing as a pocket calculator.
In his courteous reply to the points which I put to him, the Minister said first of all that he was puzzled as to the reason why I had submitted the amendment, and rather later he said that the amendment itself was somewhat clumsy. To the second of those two propositions I may well agree, but the clumsy amendment could be refined in the fullness of time. As to his being puzzled over why I had submitted the amendment, by now he must have realised that I am opposed to the principle of the collective community charge. We shall discuss that point in great detail on Clause 11, as the Minister knows. Therefore it is necessary for me at this stage to put down this amendment because it forms part of the overall concept of the collective community charge, to which concept I most strenuously object.
Having said that, by leave, I withdraw the amendment.
§ The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 136: Page 7, line 43, after ("persons") insert ("other than those mentioned in subsection (4) above"). The noble Earl said: This amendment corrects a technical flaw in the provisions for the registration of students. Clause 8(4) provides that students in full-time education should be deemed to be solely or mainly at their term-time address for the purposes of their personal community charge liability.
§ However, Clause 8(7)(b) exempts from personal community charge liability persons who are solely or mainly resident in premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable. Therefore, if a student is resident in such premises during term-time he will not be liable for the personal community charge and the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will not apply to him. Like others resident in collective community charge premises, he will be liable instead to pay a collective community charge contribution under Clause 11(10) at the same level as a personal community charge.
§ However, if he moves back home during vacations, he will again become liable to the personal community charge because he will no longer be solely or mainly resident in collective community charge premises. But then, because he is a student, the deeming provisions of Clause 8(4) will apply and he will be considered as solely or mainly resident at his term-time address. Since his term-time address is subject to the collective charge, as I have explained, he will have exemption from the personal community charge liability. Therefore it could be argued that a student in those circumstances would not be required to pay either the 911 personal community charge or the collective community charge contribution during vacations.
§ That clearly would not be right and in order to break out of this circular position the amendment provides that students who are deemed to be resident at their term-time address under the provisions of Clause 8(4) should not be exempt from the personal community charge if they are resident in collective community charge premises. That will mean that all students will always be registered for the personal community charge at their term-time address, notwithstanding that that address may be premises in respect of which a collective community charge is payable.
§ At the same time, by taking students out of the exemption provided by Clause 8(7)(b), they are removed from the provisions of Clause 11(9)(a) on the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier and of Clause 11(10)(c) on liability for collective community charge contributions. They will therefore no longer be liable for a collective community charge contribution, nor will they be included in the calculation of the collective community charge multiplier. Their financial position will therefore be preserved and their landlord will not have to pay any element of collective community charge relating to their residence in his premises.
§ The only difference that the amendment will make in practice is that there will be no doubt that they will be liable to pay the personal community charge during vacations as well as during term-time. Therefore the amendment clarifies a detail of the provisions which otherwise would be open to doubt. I beg to move.
I thought I understood this until I heard the explanation. If there was ever utter gibberish, it was the explanation of what appeared at one time to be simple. However, there is a reason for it; we can blame the hurry and haste of the draftsmanship.
What are we doing? We are defining the exceptions in relation to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge, and we have not yet had any definition or clarification of that. If we have an untidy debate, it stems from the draftsmanship and the way in which this measure has been laid out.
I think it is wrong to define an exception to the personal community charge by reference to the collective community charge when we have not had a debate on what is the collective community charge. That must have been a difficulty for the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Kirkhill, and I can say that it is a difficulty for every single one of us, because now not a soul understands it.
Now that we know that we are not to have an election on May 7th does the Minister agree that it would be rather a good idea to take the Bill back and have it carefully thought out and rewritten in plain English—or even in plain Scottish—so that some people have a chance to understand it?
The explanation given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur a moment ago was wholly intelligible, wholly satisfactory and in fact 912 anticipated this amendment to which my noble friend has just spoken. It is unfortunate, but the speech of my noble friend, which I confess to me was wholly unintelligible, when it appears in Hansard will no doubt qualify for the golden bull for gobbledegook for 1987. But my noble friend Lord Glenarthur's simple explanation was intelligible.
For those of us who perhaps do not have the subtlety of mind of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—and I think that there are some of us in that unhappy state—it might have been better if the various definitions that we have to apply as we go through the Bill had all been stated in the second or third clause. Then, those definitions being mastered, I think that the rest of the Bill would have become more simple.
I do not think that my noble friend should take the whole Bill back. I merely suggest that, if it is just a question of getting the drafting right while the substance is clear, it might be worth while considering placing the definitions of the various types of charge earlier than where we find them in the Bill. We find them dotted here and there and that is not helpful either to us as legislators or to the users of the statute in the years to come.
One does not have to have a subtle mind to agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. It is all too obvious.
From this side of the Committee we also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hope that the Government will take some notice of his remarks. The drafting of Bills has reached a standard which is practically unbelievable and quite unintelligible to anyone other than a whole time lawyer with a full legal library. At the same time, I should like to put up a gentle defence of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I was brought up in the time of no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with whom I was once in Chambers, to say that everyone in this country has the right to the defence of fog. It seems to me that he has been exercising that ancient British right of spreading fog on a standard which would win admiration throughout the Temple and no doubt Lincoln's Inn.
Behind all the fog, we might be able to get back to the essential point, which is a simple one. As I understand it, the result of this measure will be that students will be responsible in some way for paying some element of the charge during vacations, whether or not they are within the area of the authority. I want to get that right. Students will be levied by some means with a community charge even in the vacations and even though they are not resident in their halls of residence in the vacation. That is the purpose of the amendment behind all the fog; or am I wrong.
Perhaps I may raise one practical point. Will students be given a certificate that they are full-time students? If not, how will the person responsible for collecting the community charge know that someone who is staying a night is a student and therefore does not pay the charge, or is not a student and therefore should pay the charge?
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has to be congratulated on having passed that hot potato on to his noble friend. When the noble Earl read the paper in front of him, did it read better to him than it did to the rest of us?
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this matter. There is no doubt some truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, says when he refers to fog over the issue. I am reassured by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that, if one penetrates the fog, the matter is wholly intelligible. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked whether it be the case that when students are at home they definitely continue to be registered at their term-time address and are liable to the personal community charge rather than any other charge. I can reassure him that that is the case. In view of that explanation, I ask the Committee to consider accepting the amendment.
§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 137: Page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: If paragraph (c) is included we will get into just as big a mess as ever. Here we have the definition by reference to non-domestic rates. We have already had this debate. This will put us in a complete fog again. Paragraph (c) states: persons whose sole or main residence is subject to non-domestic rates". If it is subject to non-domestic rates, it is not on the register. That is what we discovered when we defined non-domestic rates. This would not be on the register because it would be on the valuation roll. Anybody whose sole or main residence is in the area of the levying authority has to pay the personal community charge. Here we are leaving such a person out if the residence is subject to non-domestic rates. I do not understand it.
§ I rely completely on the Minister of State once again to use his powers of obfuscation with regard to the draftsmanship. This is a provision that we should have been able to appreciate just at a glance.
Can the Minister give us an example of this sort of person, which would help to clear my mind?
If it is a fog which is before the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, perhaps I can persuade him that it is only a mist and a fairly thin one, because there is a need for the category exemption covered by paragraph (c). There may be a few circumstances in which in the new system the sole or main residence of people remains subject to rating. This would apply—I hope that this may answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—to patients in hospital whose stay is so prolonged as to make the hospital their sole or main residence. Such people have little contact with the world outside. It is our policy that they should be exempt from the personal community charge. In the case of patients in. National Health Service hospitals, this would be achieved by exempting them as a 914 category of the people solely or mainly resident in Crown land who may be exempted by the power of prescription contained in Clause 28(2) of the Bill.
This mechanism will not, however, be available in relation to patients in private hospitals. In that case we intend that the provision of Clause 8(7)(c) should cover such people. We intend that staff in private hospitals should be subject to the personal community charge like other members of the community, but this will be achieved by prescribing their accommodation as domestic subjects under Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill. We consider that it is fair and sensible that long-term patients in private hospitals should be treated in the same way as those in the National Health Service. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is only right. That is the purpose of paragraph (c).
If that is the purpose, why could it not have been said? It would be much easier to understand than what is said in the paragraph. In view of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Kirkhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 138: Page 7, line 47, at end insert— ("( ) persons who are in receipt of income support in the terms of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986; ( ) persons who are in receipt of state pensions and who have no other regular source of income; ( ) persons who are employed in a Youth Training Scheme or a Manpower Services Commission Scheme and have no other source of income; ( ) persons who are in receipt of severe disablement allowance; ( ) such other categories of people as the Secretary of State may prescribe.").
§ The noble Lord said: I do not wish to move Amendment No. 138 because, as those Members of the Committee who were present will recall, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, moved Amendment No. 130. I said that, to facilitate the emphasis upon the amendment of the noble Lord, when we came to Amendment No. 138 I would do no more than draw it to the Minister's attention. As I gave that undertaking at an earlier stage in Committee, I fulfil it this afternoon.
§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 140A: Page 7, line 47, at end insert— ("( ) Any exceptions which are granted under subsection (7) above which involve a reduction in the level of income which local authorities could have received from the personal community charge will be fully reimbursed by the Secretary of State making an appropriate compensatory payment direct to the levying authority.").
§ The noble Lord said: In Clause 8(7) we have been dealing with relieving people of the overall charge that the Government started out with; that is, that everyone had to pay the personal community charge. The more we exempt people from it, the lower the income to the levying authority. The income to the levying authority is thus reduced every time that we make an exemption. That applies to some that we 915 have not made but may contrive eventually to make. It applies to all those we have been discussing.
§ The lower the income from these charges, the higher will have to be the income coming from those who pay it. We are therefore talking about average figures of £200, £300, £400. The more we make exemptions, the more what has to be paid by other must be increased. There is no doubt that once this is in force the non-domestic rates will be looked after by limiting their increase to the cost of living. The same applies to government grant, which is controlled entirely by the Government. I suggest through the amendment that the income lost from exceptions laid down by statute or prescription should be made up by the Government directly, and not through the RSG, to the levying authority. That is only fair.
§ We can generously make exceptions, but someone else has to pay. The people who will have to pay will be those who are left to pay the personal community charge. There is an outcry about that at the moment. I suggest that this is an eminently sensible thing for the Government to do. After all, if the Government and the House agree to exceptions, the Government should agree to make up the cost of those exceptions and not leave other personal contributors to the new charge to bear the burden. I beg to move.
This amendment is intrinsically bound up and related to the question which my noble friend the Minister has been good enough to take back. It involves the principle of whether the Government will accept any further extension to the three categories of exemption provided under Clause 8(7), and, if so, what shall fall within the exemptions of Clause 8(7) in relation to this amendment and what should fall within the rebate principles under Clause 24, and whether such rebates should be granted up to 100 per cent. All those considerations are interrelated with regard to this amendment and the reimbursement.
I must apologise if what I am now asking was dealt with last week. Unfortunately last week I was suffering from a cough, and it would have been an even greater source of suffering to the Committee if I had been here. I followed my doctor's advice and stayed at home.
This may not necessarily be the best time to ask my question. But under the present system, which has been so much criticised, the one overwhelming advantage is the extent to which local authorities succeed in raising from ratepayers the amount of money which they expect to obtain. The percentage which is not covered is small. Different estimates have been made by different authorities, and some Members of the Committee, as to the extent to which the community charge would not be received by local authorities.
Estimates have varied from as low as 5 per cent. to as high a 20 per cent. At present when a local authority levies rates it can confidently expect that it will receive the enormous majority of what it expects to receive. In the beginning authorities working the new system may have difficulties. What do the Government expect local authorities to do? Do they expect them to make 916 an assumption of 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the charges to be received by them? Is it to be left entirely to local authorities to determine which percentage of non-collection they will expect, because the higher that percentage, the higher the community charge will be?
Do the Government intend to give any guidance to local authorities as to the percentage of non-collection which should be assumed in the early stages of this proceeding? If they intend to give such guidance, what percentage of non-collection do the Government have in mind? If an authority, for example, assumes that 5 per cent. will not be collected by it, and it turns out to be 15 per cent., obviously at the end of the year its budget will be in substantial deficit. What guidance, if any, will the Government give, or is to be left entirely to guesswork by the local authorities concerned?
With great respect, the speech to which we have just listened has no direct bearing on the amendment. I think that the noble Lord accepts that. The amendment deals not with the failure of a local authority to collect money lawfully due to it but with the deliberate freeing of certain categories from making a contribution, and poses the question of who pays.
I shall take up one way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, expressed this point. He said that the Government should pay. He is well aware that the Government, as such, have no money. What he means, and what I think it is intellectually honest to say is that the taxpayer should pay. He is entitled to argue that the taxpayer should pay. I do not accept that view. Where exceptions in the new local taxation system are produced, the loss which that involves—he is right, it involves some—should be paid by fellow citizens in the area unless the local authority, taking account of that, reduces its expenditure.
It is a dangerous line to take and a dangerous precedent to suggest that if exceptions to a local tax are granted the national taxpayer should pay. Having said that about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I wish him many happy returns of the day and a prolonged and happy period of work on the Opposition Front Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did me an injustice when he said that what I said had nothing to do with the amendment. I wanted to tie the points together. I was raising a second case in which a local authority would be deprived of revenue. I hope that the noble Lord will at least do me the justice of assuming that I listened to what my noble friend said and that I knew what the purpose of his amendment was. My noble friend was drawing attention to the situation where a local authority would be deprived of possible revenue because of exemptions. He suggested a way in which that could be remedied. Whether the noble Lord agrees that it is a good way is beside the point. Obviously we have different views on that.
I was seeking to obtain information about the way in which a local authority could be helped to obtain the maximum revenue that it expected to obtain. If there is a remedy for that, it will be another way in which the 917 local authority will receive the full amount of money necessary to keep the community charge at a correct level. There is that aspect to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, obviously picked up, I admitted that this point could perhaps be more appropriately raised on another part of the Bill. That is possible, but as has been pointed out, there are so many points where we have to go from one part to another part of the Bill, that it seemed to me that if I could obtain a satisfactory answer to my question at this stage, I should know whether it would be necessary to table an amendment at a later stage.
If I receive an unsatisfactory answer, I shall know how to deal with the matter. If I am told by the Minister or by anyone else that the appropriate place to raise this point is on some other clause, I can then do so. From that point of view, I do not think I have been wasting the Committee's time.
I appreciate the noble Lord's parliamentary agility in raising a point in which he is interested on this amendment. I was merely pointing out to him that if there is a problem here, and there may well be, it is not one which would be remedied even if the amendment were accepted.
The amendment has a number of technical deficiencies. For example, it would relate only to exceptions granted under Clause 8(7) and not to categories such as prisoners or long-term hospital patients who, in accordance with our stated intentions, will be exempted by other mechanisms. It is not entirely clear that the payment of the proposed compensation to the levying authority—that is to say, the regional or islands council—would feed through to the district council in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. But the objective is clear enough. I shall address myself to that.
At present, local authorities receive compensation for reliefs under the rating system in two ways. Reliefs for the disabled are the subject of a specific grant made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Other reliefs—for example, the 50 per cent. relief for charities and the 100 per cent. relief for churches—are taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant.
Under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grants it will be possible similarly to take account of reliefs from the community charge. The mechanism will have to be the subject of consultation in due course with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Where I take issue with the amendment primarily is in the proposition that there should be some form of specific compensatory payment. The approach followed under successive governments has been that general support for local authorities should be provided through the rate support grant mechanism. It seems sensible to continue this in relation to exemptions from the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with respect, may have muddled this point in his own mind. Perhaps he did not hear the discussion to which we returned time and again last week about the question of shortfall and of the details that would have to follow from the 918 consultation in this case with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. On shortfall, I shall be very brief. It is not intended that guidance will he given. The Government are confident that many of the claims about shortfall have been extravagant. If the noble Lord will look at what I said last week in relation to amendments where this matter cropped up, he will see, I hope, why that, in my belief, is the case.
As to details of how account would be taken of exemptions in the distribution of revenue support grant, basically, exemptions present a reduction in the number of tax-paying units. The eventual mechanism will have to ensure that account is taken of this in the calculations so as to produce fair and reasonable results. However, I do not think that I can anticipate the detailed development which will need to be taken forward in consultation with CoSLA. It would therefore be wrong for me to say more at this stage. All I shall say is that I believe that the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, advocates flies in the face of what we have at present and the means of transferring rate support grant mechanism through to revenue support grant mechanism. I should have thought there was logic in that.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I shall certainly take the opportunity of reading what was said last week. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ross can tell me whether I should look at the report of Monday, Tuesday or Thursday to save me ploughing through the lot; because it does not sound like the most interesting reading.
Before the noble Lord rises, I wonder whether I can add one point to the felicitous remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was probably spared the shock that I received when I read in a national newspaper yesterday morning in black type in the middle of the page, "Remembering Willie Ross". I then read: The eighth lecture entitled 'William Ross, the Man and the Myth' was delivered on Friday by his outstanding pupil". It was with great relief that I read those last words. I would merely say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord debating Scottish business.
This is all very surprising. The lecture took place last Friday in the Chapel Royal, Stirling. It referred to Pipe Major William Ross.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows quite well that when I said "government" I meant the taxpayer who is the source of all revenue. There is one point to which the noble Lord may be objecting. It is that the taxpayer providing the money would include the English and the Welsh whereas the burdens of this Bill do not at present fall on them. This applies purely, unwillingly, to Scotland. Is it right that fellow citizens of the community there should have this burden? I do not think so. They have not had the opportunity of deciding that they want it. The matter is decided by the general body of the electors as represented in another place and here—if one can say that they are represented here. It is right that it should fall nationally rather than individually.
919 There may be some areas where the burden will be heavier than others in relation to the exceptions. I can think of quite a number. If one takes all the university cities, the exceptions in relation to students will mean eventually that the students will pay 20 per cent. not the full personal charge. There are a fair number in Aberdeen, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh and Stirling. I therefore think that my argument is justified in that respect.
My noble friend need not bother to look back in Hansard. We shall come back to this again. We have the question of the collection of the money and the ability of local authorities to collect it in full. When we had the garbled explanation about exceptions, I thought that this enabled us to leave out the persons in long-term hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, cannot have it both ways. He cannot keep the provision in one clause and omit it in another to suit his argument.
The noble Lord says, "Leave it to the rate support grant". I have a little experience of the rate support grant. One starts with the Government making an assessment and agreeing—telling—the local authority its relevant total expenditure. The Government then decide what percentage they will give. One of the difficulties over rates in Scotland is that the Government have reduced their share of relevant expenditure from 69 per cent. to 56.7 per cent. If the Government paid back to the local authorities what they have taken from them, we could have a rate-free year-and-a-half in Scotland. That is one of the reasons for the crisis in local government. It is not the loony Left but a loony Right government who were reducing their share of expenditure year after year until they landed in the panic of Perth that brought this Bill upon us.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this. I have been given an idea by my noble friend Lord Hughes. Perhaps, before the next stage of the Bill, we should consider all the matters together which are due to the local authority. By exemptions and other means a heavier burden than ever is being placed upon those who are to pay the personal community charge. In the meantime in the light of that and the support that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to special difficulties in relation to special people and suggests that: Special arrangements shall apply to persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments". 920 Now, a problem arises because a personal charge will be placed on such people which is very much higher than they have to bear at the present time.
§ The first people to be involved are nurses. More and more nurses have to live in, particularly in the cities. One has only to think of London—where would nurses find accommodation which they can afford? Therefore, they become residents in a nurses' home where rates are not payable. The Government think that this situation is terribly unfair and the nurses should pay their share to the tune of £6 a week. If nurses were not living in nurses' homes they would be unable to pay what was demanded of them in other accommodation. This situation arises not only in London but also in university cities—for example, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee—where many nurses live because they work in the big hospitals there.
§ Bearing in mind that about 45 per cent. of our nurses live in, we can appreciate the burden which will be thrust upon them right away. This amendment is the least we can do in respect of that situation. Unfortunately, the arrangements last only for a year. At the next stage of the Bill I may change my mind as to whether that period is long enough, because it is a serious matter. I gather the Minister met one or two nurses in Glasgow yesterday. It was not his most pleasant experience, I understand.
Oh, of course, they were charming and I daresay the noble Lord was even more charming, but the nurses still have a resentment at the latest burden being placed upon them.
I saw a programme very late last night on television which concerned nurses going to California. They will be there for only a year but they were comparing the lot in California with the lot in hospitals here. This is a serious matter and we should not be placing further burdens upon nurses. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not wish this burden placed upon the English and the Welsh at the moment, because many of these nurses will float down here, where the community charge will not be payable. In England they will have a much easier time financially than they have in Scotland. The business of Scotland going it alone on this matter and being plunged into the situation on its own is no laughing matter. It has serious implications which also affect nurses. At the present time nurses' allowance is taken into account when they pay their weekly board—which for some is very considerable indeed. I can assure the Committee that the charge for weekly board has been going up as well.
In so far as concerns the police, they receive approximately £26 a week in respect of rent and rates. Of course that will end because, if a policeman has a wife, there will be two community charges payable; namely £500. This was the nonsense that we heard the other day from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he spoke about a manual worker. He did not say whether or not the manual worker was living at home, in which case he pays no rates at all. He did not say whether the manual worker was married, in which case the amount would be double the charge he 921 suggested. The police might be living in a police cottage which is part office, part residence. However, this is usually for married policemen. They will be faced with additional burdens as well. At one time there was a suggestion made by the Government in order to avoid the turbulence and hardship of paying 100 per cent. right away when the new system started that only 60 per cent. would be payable then, and the rest would form a certain percentage of rates. However, that suggestion has now gone.
What about the situation of people in the Armed Forces, of which there are approximately 1,400 in Scotland? What about the situation of people in Ministry of Defence houses? At the present time people in the Armed Forces do not pay rates if they are in married quarters. A sum of money is paid direct to the local authority in lieu of rates. The same situation is true of Ministry of Defence people at the various establishments around Scotland. What will happen in those cases? Instead of paying reasonable rates in some places they will he paying £200 or £300 per year for every person in their family. I know there are difficulties concerning this matter, but we have not yet had an explanation. Is this to be another loss to the local authorities?
What about the situation of the Americans? They do not have votes here, but they occupy houses and have the benefit of our services. What will happen in this situation? I know that this is taking the matter rather wide of my amendment. However, these questions as to what the Government are going to do will have to be answered at some time, if only to enable me to table another amendment at Report stage covering the loss to the local authority, which should be made up by whoever places the Bill on the statute book.
Nurses, police, Ministry of Defence and other personnel are involved in this situation. What will happen to such people? Are they to be left to bear this burden, or are the Government going to do something to help them, at least in the first year? I beg to move.
We have already considered in some detail the position of some elements of what this amendment is connected with. This was done in connection with earlier amendments put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Polwarth, because of the connection with tied properties.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, this amendment takes a different and slightly wider tack, proposing simply that the personal community charge liabilities of those who live rate-free in tied houses should be reduced either by 50 per cent., or to a level of £100, whichever is the lesser figure. I listened with care to the noble Lord's explanation but I confess that I am still not fully clear of what lies behind the reasoning in the noble Lord's mind. For example, it is not clear to whom it applies: does it simply cover the rateable occupier of this sort of tied property, leaving his wife and adult children to find the full personal community charge on their own, or is it intended to extend to the whole household? If so, what is the justification for granting partial exemption for people in this position who will have to meet a personal 922 community charge liability for the first time, while those in exactly the same position and perhaps the same financial circumstances who do not have the benefit of living in a tied house will have no such exemption? To that extent I confess I find there is a certain illogicality in the amendment.
I hoped I had already made clear that the personal community charge is not directly connected to the occupation of a particular property and that there is no possible justification for special treatment for certain groups of employees or their families simply because they received some form of concession in relation to domestic rates in the past. As I have equally made clear at several points, rebates will be available for those on low incomes who would otherwise have difficulty in meeting their full personal community charge liability.
I suggest that it is much fairer that assistance should be made available in this way to all those who need it than that piecemeal exemptions should be granted, particularly if they are based on the over-complex system of exemptions, reliefs and tax concessions which has built up over the years within and around the system of domestic rates. To that extent, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, remains intent on reproducing many of the complexities of the rating system in the new arrangements while taking no account of the evident advantages of simplicity and fairness in the system which we propose.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, while he raises the valid point about nurses (and I am certainly aware, as he himself hinted, that points were raised yesterday to me in relation to the wider concept of nurses' remuneration, but it is not right for me to go down that road now), nurses generally pay an element of rates as part of the rent which they pay at present. Therefore, the community charge is not going to be a totally new burden upon them in the way he suggests.
As for the question of the Armed Forces—and the American forces are encompassed within this, because the bases which they occupy are used by the services in this country—the Bill imposes liability on all adults including the various groups which the noble Lord mentioned. We would expect them to be registered and they should be liable to pay in the way that the Bill sets out, which he seems to think is not made clear. I hope that when I say that the Bill imposes that liability on all adults he will understand that the Armed Forces will be liable in their quarters or wherever they live and that the group of people to which he referred will be encompassed by the Bill before us.
Sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment goes on to the question of compensation. I do not think I need detain the Committee with a discussion on that point because in part is is wrapped up in the same argument as the last amendment. To some extent I think it falls, in argument certainly, because of the views I put forward on sub-paragraph (a), and so I do not think there is much point in going into it.
Training for nursing starts at the age of 17½ and lasts for about three years. Nurses have to live in. Can I tell them now that it is the Minister's advice to me to tell them to apply for a rebate?
I answered that point last week when the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised the matter. It may be that clarification is needed about the position of nurses and students. That is a matter which is encompassed within the question of students generally which I undertook to consider last week. I hope that that point is one which the noble Lord will accept.
The Minister does not seem to have seen the point of the amendment. Perhaps I might be allowed to try to clarify it. There are certain people who are paid and supplied with a house in which they have to live; for example, ministers of religion, lighthouse keepers, police officers, prison officers and others. Those people are suddenly going to be told, "You and your wife have to pay a personal community charge". Does the Minister expect that all the negotiations for pay and other matters which are planned for Scotland from 1st April 1989 will be settled so that those people's pay will be readjusted to take account of the fact that, although previously they had been living in accommodation for which they did not pay rates, in the future they will have to pay this personal community charge?
There is also the problem of the soldier who may object to being posted to Scotland because he suddenly has to pay £250 a year more than his mates who are serving in England or Northern Ireland. There are difficulties there. It is no good just saying, "We have looked at the principle", and brushing all these matters aside. Apart from the nurses there may be others who decide that it is cheaper to do the same job living in England.
I should have thought it was quite clear to say, "persons who currently have their domestic rating liabilities incorporated as part of their emoluments"—that is, somebody like a prison officer who is paid to live in a prison house—"and any persons who may be prescribed". The Secretary of State can prescribe a wife or children of 18 in full-time education if he so wishes.
I found the Minister's answer on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, singularly unconvincing, as with the one before. It is not enough for the Minister to say that he is puzzled by what the noble Lord is getting at. I have found some of his replies either ingenuous or disingenuous; I am not quite sure which. In embarking on the absurd scheme of this Bill the Committee is entitled to know what kind of assessment of this problem the Government made before they embarked upon it. Surely it is the job of government to assess these kinds of problems and decide whether they form a barrier to going in a certain direction.
One can think of all kinds of people such as school janitors in Scotland. Perhaps I am out of date, but in my time there were always resident janitors to look after schools in Glasgow. Perhaps times have changed, but one can think of all kinds of people. Is the Minister able to give us the Government's assessment of this problem so that the Committee can reach a decision in this context before the Bill is through and add it to the other matters that we shall learn about the Bill so that 924 we can reach a conclusion as to whether it should be supported?
I had thought that the amendments which I moved last Thursday regarding tied houses and people who live in tied accommodation, where their contracts of employment entitled them to rent and rate free accommodation, would have covered these situations. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told me then that the first amendment was unnecessary. As regards the second amendment, particularly concerning clergy, which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned, I withdrew that. The situation regarding the clergy is quite complicated. There are cases in which help is necessary and there are cases where it is not only totally unnecessary but where it would be quite wrong to give it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment because I wish to come back to the question of the clergy in a different way at a later stage of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has perhaps forgotten that we are trying here to make a change to reflect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about accountability, and the fact that all kinds of people—whether they are nurses, members of the armed forces, prison officers or whatever—make some use of local authority services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the services and to a figure in lieu of rates, or whatever, being passed over in bulk to local authorities to represent that kind of value. I believe I said last week that an element of that is taken into account in the rents that members of the armed forces pay for their accommodation. The same applies to nurses. When rent is paid, it includes an element—be it notional or not—to cover part of the amount that would otherwise be paid if rates were paid in full by those servicemen.
It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to suggest that the position of employers and the question of pay negotiations should be wrapped up in this, and that people's financial circumstances should take account of the matter. That seems to me to be going very wide not only of this amendment but also of the Bill. People's financial circumstances can change for 101 reasons. It could be that someone who, until now, or at some point in the future, has been able to cope with the personal community charge may, because of changed circumstances which they could not foresee, find it not so easy to cope. Surely, the important point is that, if they end up in that position, there is a rebate scheme in Clause 24 which will take account of the circumstances.
I do not think that it would be practicable to try to make allowances in this Bill, and in this clause in particular, for the suggestions made by the parties opposite. I believe that we have set out a fair means of achieving what is proposed. Many of those whom it is suggested will be put in a difficult position are already contributing in support of rates through some mechanism or other, because at present their rents encompass some of that charge.
I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment on the special pleading if the Minister could tell me whether, as people are already paying through their rents, those rents will now be reduced? The noble Lord is a member of the Government. He is responsible for prison warders in Scotland—or the Government are responsible. The Minister says that people are already paying and that they are given the allowance in respect of rates. But they receive this new burden in respect of being mainly or solely resident in a place. They cannot be resident anywhere else. Most of the warders at Carstairs must live there because it is not exactly a place to which one could travel to work easily.
There is a problem here. But the unsympathetic way in which the Government have approached it is such that I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment. The Minister could have gone some way towards meeting us in respect of these matters. However, at the moment his treatment of these matters and the people concerned is most unhelpful. We shall need to force this to a Division.
Before that happens, I should like to add a word. I certainly could not support the amendment because, among other things, it contains the provision that any loss to the local authority must be compensated by the taxpayer. We dealt with that matter on a previous amendment. On the other hand, I should not like to leave my noble friend with the feeling that I am at all happy with the position as it stands. I wonder whether he can give a little further consideration to the position of people in the national services. They may be posted from England to Scotland, or from Scotland to England. They will find in different local authority areas in Scotland that different levels of charge will run.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that it will be quite a shock for a soldier, for example, who is posted to one part of Scotland, then to another part, and eventually to England, to find that his posting, over which he has no control, will effect quite a substantial charge upon him by way of community charge. I do not think that my noble friend ought to overlook that entirely. I do not think that he does.
Whatever decision the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, takes about a Division, that is a matter for him. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate a willingness to look at the point perhaps more narrowly than is suggested in the amendment, particularly in respect of those in national services, although there are others who are posted from one place to another with no possibility—apart from prejudicing their careers—of objecting. It seems to me that to plunge into this will cause a certain amount of hardship and to people whom I believe all Members of the Committee feel are important in our society. I am bound to say that I have not had quite sufficient reassurance—not as much as I should like to hear—about what the Government are considering in respect of them.
I find the words that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has addressed to the Minister convincing evidence—as convincing as anything we have heard from this side of the 926 House—for the view that in this context, as in many others in this Bill, the Government have got it wrong.
As I understand it, my noble friend has said that these people will benefit under the rebate system. He has explained this again and again, and not only today. It does not seem such an insufferable problem. What the Minister said seems to be perfectly reasonable.
I believe that the noble Viscount is mistaken. I hope that a private in the army is not paid so little that he would benefit from the rebate system and I hope that anyone higher than a private would certainly be outside the scheme. However, someone posted from England to Scotland must pay £6 per week more in Scotland than in England, and that is the basic problem for the forces.
I do not know how army allowances work. However, with the exception of agriculture, my understanding is that in respect of pay, a person receives a salary plus perhaps accommodation which is rent free, or accommodation which is rent and rate free, or accommodation which is rate free. No employer will ignore that fact in the salary part of pay. The accommodation element is taxable, except in the case of agriculture which we have already discussed.
It seems to me therefore that we are making very heavy weather of this matter. If people will not receive a rate-free house because there are no rates but will pay a community charge, employers will of course take account of that fact: they cannot fail to do so. It will be a normal part of negotiations for wages. I presume that in the case of the army there will be a system within the allowances which will allow for the differences. I do not understand why we are making such heavy weather of this matter.
Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has said, is it the intention of the Government to indicate to employers that this is the way in which they wish the matter to be dealt with? The Minister has already said that discussions about alternatives to the rent or rate-free accommodation are going wide of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is saying that the obvious answer is that if a notional value of X pounds is placed on what is being given in the rate-free accommodation and he ceases to get it and has to pay, then X pounds should be added to the actual sum that is paid. Is that the Government's intention? It would appear that it was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but she has not yet reached the Front Bench.
I am not saying that we should legislate for that. I am simply saying that when you fix somebody's pay as against the pay of somebody else, you take account of the fact that they have free accommodation. But if they suddenly do not have rate-free accommodation because there are not any rates, surely you would take account of that. It is reasonable. That is nothing to do with the Bill: it is just absolutely obvious. I should have thought that it was a false argument.
I did not suggest that we would legislate. What I asked was whether this was the sort of guidance that the Government would give to employers—that this is what they would expect them to do.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, goes any further he might find it useful to study the remarks that I made in relation to Lady Saltoun's point when we were in Committee last week. I went into this in considerable depth, and I think I was able to satisfy the noble Lady. Therefore, I do not think that we can go back and debate at length again an issue that we debated at considerable length last time. We have a long way to go with this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will take my word that it is there in the Official Report. If he studies it he will find that it is possible to take account of that sort of thing.
My noble friend Lord Boyd- Carpenter referred particularly to the matter of the armed forces. I can understand his concern that a soldier, for example, could be posted from somewhere in England to somewhere in Scotland—and this is the burden of Lord Morton's point as well—and as a result could face an increased charge in one form or another, and that it would come out of his salary to meet this particular personal community charge.
This is essentially a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of forces' allowances. The noble Lord looks disturbed, but he has not even let me finish what I was going to say. What I was going to suggest to my noble friend was that since this raises an important matter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence ought to consider in conjunction with those of us who are dealing with this Bill, I ought to take note of that point. I cannot give any commitment at this stage because I would need to study every detail of the armed forces' pay and conditions, which I simply could not do now. I hope that with the assurance that I shall do that and consult my right honourable friend, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will be satisfied, and that indeed the party opposite who moved this amendment will feel that I have at least gone some way towards the spirit of their concerns.
I do not think that I can necessarily go any further than that because it brings us against the whole principle of the Bill. But there may be important points—although I would need to confirm with my right honourable friend that that is the case—particularly in relation to the armed forces.
May I suggest to the Minister that he could get the colonel to make a collective charge on his troops who are required to live in Scotland?
I do not think that that is a very helpful suggestion.
Particularly as I did not give my noble friend notice on this point, I realise that he cannot commit his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. For my part I am satisfied with the assurance he has given that he will 928 consult his right honourable friend. It may be that he could suggest to his right honourable friend that just as members of the services serving in various countries overseas receive special overseas allowances in respect of expenses, by that analogy—if it does not offend Scottish Peers—there might be an allowance. Having heard my noble friend say that he will consult his right honourable friend, I am happy on the point.
That particular point is one of the points that was crossing my mind, and that is why I sensed that there may be some complexity in it, if not difficulty. I shall certainly undertake to do what I originally undertook to do.
Could the Minister make some response to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy? She said that allowances of all sorts—and pay, as I understood it—in Scotland would take into account the effect of these charges. Would the Minister agree with that?
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is accurately reflecting what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said.
I do not wish to have an argument across her body, so to speak, but assuming that the noble Baroness said something like that, have the Government any comment? Do they expect wages and allowances in Scotland to take into account these charges? While they look into the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are they going to look at not only the services but other people whose salaries may be affected by this in Scotland?
I would have to study my noble friend Lady Carnegy's remarks in order to be able to respond fairly to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Maybe I failed to pick up a nuance in my noble friend's remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, picked up. What I said in relation to the earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was, if my memory serves me right, that there would be nothing to prevent an employer taking account of that or any other matter when it came to making arrangements for an individual's pay, salary, or whatever.
So far as the other categories are concerned—and some have been indicated by noble Lords on the Labour Benches—I do not think that I can really go as far as all that. What I can do is look particularly at the question of the armed forces, because, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says, it seems to raise a rather curious position if local overseas allowances, or something like that, had to apply within the context of the British Isles. That is something about which I shall have to consult my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence before I can go any further.
Is it adequate to restrict this examination to the armed services? Surely the Civil Service comes into this, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, indicated. Then there is the question of Members of another House. Would it be appropriate for Scottish Members of another House to have some 929 allowance related to their rates as against English Members, or—as in the case of at least one or two Members I can think of—those Members for English constituencies who later become Members for Scottish constituencies? If such a change took place would the parliamentary allowances be adjusted to take that into account as well?
I think we are getting rather wide of the point. If anything, the noble Lord is making a case which goes very much against the case of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in raising the matter of the armed forces, or indeed the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. If the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, were to go any further down that road he would only make any possibility of seeing any way through this argument even less likely, because he points to so many complexities that perhaps the way we have it in the Bill is the best after all.
The whole thing is fascinating. I look forward to the day when the Scottish regiments coming back to Scotland will get an overseas allowance. This is the idea. As I said before, it is as easy as "JBC", and quite frankly that was not the greatest part of our argument in relation to the problems that arise from the armed forces, or MoD civil servants. There is that one as well.
I was concerned mainly about nurses and those other people like that who are going to have this burden placed upon them. In view of that, I am afraid that I must in this respect test the opinion of the Committee.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 140B) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 132.
Blyton, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Broadbridge, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Heycock, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L Hooson, L.
Chitnis. L. Howie of Troon, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Hunt, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L Irving of Dartford, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Strabolgi, L.
McNair, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Willis, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Wilson of Langside, L.
Abinger, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Annan, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Hunter of Newington, L.
Beloff, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Lindsay, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Long, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Lothian, M.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Manton, L.
Cottesloe, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Cox, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Craigavon, V. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Merrivale, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Middleton, L.
De La Warr, E. Milverton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Minto, E.
Eden of Winton, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Munster, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Penrhyn, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Swinton, E.
St. Davids, V. Teviot, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. Teynham, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Sharples, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
§ Page 8, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("being not earlier than 3 months after the Secretary of State has announced the RSG settlement").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the timing of the prescription of the amount of the personal community charge. It is of course necessary that before the local authority can decide on its community charge level it has to know the amount of rate support grant or revenue support grant that it is to receive. The point about this is to have in the Bill the fact that the date must not be earlier than three months after the Secretary of State has announced the settlement, to give local authorities a reasonable time to determine the various pieces of arithmetic and so on that they have to work out. I beg to move.
It may assist the Committee if I explain how we see the timetable for the announcement of revenue support grant and the determination by local authorities of their personal community charge working. At present local authorities are required to determine their rate by 5th March in each year, with the rates becoming payable, usually in 10 monthly instalments, as from May. The arrangements proposed by Schedule 2 for the payment of the personal community charge are rather different. We envisage that the standard arrangements will be for 12 monthly instalments to be paid, starting in April. If my memory serves me right, that is a point which would have satisfied my noble friend Lord Burton, because he raised it earlier on.
We will of course be able to debate the justification for this provision as a whole when we reach Schedule 2. Since instalments will be payable as from April rather than as from May, we expect that local authorities will have to determine their personal community charge rather earlier in the year than they have determined their rate up till now. In its turn this means that the Secretary of State's announcements on the levels of revenue support grant to be made available to authorities will be made rather earlier in the financial year than is at present the case. We do not, however, consider that it is necessary to allow for 932 a specific minimum period, and this might indeed represent an unhelpful loss of the flexibility which is at present enjoyed.
Perhaps I may explain, just to be helpful, how the RSG timetables operate at the moment. The Government's general aim is, and indeed will remain, to give authorities as much notice as possible of government decisions which affect their planning for the coming year. Thus in July last year, when my right honourable friend announced his plans for local authority expenditure and grant for 1987–88 by using July, he was in fact doing precisely that. At the very beginning of October, authorities were notified of their current expenditure guidelines, although of course there will no longer be guidelines under the new system. During October, there were discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the principles to be applied in grant distribution.
The Secretary of State issued detailed proposals for grant distribution at the beginning of December and these were discussed with the convention on 12th December. The RSG order was then laid just before Christmas. Thus authorities had ample notice of the expenditure which the Government considered they could incur and the grant they would receive. This gave them time to consider fully their rate for 1987–88 which had to be fixed to complete the circle by 5th March.
While it would therefore not be right for a formal minimum period to be included in the Bill, as proposed, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the procedures for announcement of decisions on revenue support grant, like those for rate support grant, will allow adequate time for local authorities to make their expenditure decisions. I do not think it would necessarily be helpful to remove the possible advantages of flexibility which would be the result if I accepted this amendment.
That is a rather disappointing reply and to my mind it does not show a true appreciation of all that is involved here. You cannot judge what will happen here under this clause by what happens in relation to rate support grant. Rate support grant is usually announced towards the end of the year and I think that the English rate support grant announcement is a week or so before the Scottish one. After they know that, they can go forward to the planning.
But this time they have a register that has to be completed and there are appeals against that register. It will be very difficult for local authorities to make the date of 1st April with confidence that the whole procedure will be efficient. To give them time, I consider that the announcement will need to be at least three months earlier than the announcement of the rate support grant settlement.
I have taken part in about eight rate support grant settlements and they tend to be as predictable as the farmers' price review. They used to call the settlement the February price review and, from my experience, the announcement was usually about three or four months before that. The Government would be wise, from the point of view of administration, to give local authorities much earlier warning in this respect, 933 because it will be very difficult for them to be able to strike this personal community charge unless they are given plenty of warning about the rate support grant.
There are the Government's discussions in relation to total aggregate expenditure; there is another clause that is relevant which we have still to discuss; and then the authorities have to decide relevant expenditure, which is the expenditure that the Government will support. There used to be a very considerable number of specific grants. There are fewer of these now, but they could well be revived in relation to some of the things that the Government have said about non-domestic rates being limited to whatever is construed by the Government as the factor of the retail price index increase that authorities will be allowed. I should have thought that at least three months should be given by the Government.
It will not be easy for the Government. It will not be easy for the local authorities either, because they will have to argue with the Government about the relevant expenditure that the Government will meet and the lower that is the higher the personal community charge will be. I did not think up this grotesque scheme; it was the Government. They must face up to the difficulties over who will pay, what will pay and how they will divide up collective, community and standard charges. We have not even touched on the problem of the register.
It would be wise for the Government to give as much time as possible to the local authorities to do a reasonable job, because the last thing we want to see is chaos and the collapse of local government, which is one of the dangers of not getting this right. However, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 142: Page 8, line 6, leave out ("(account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges)").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the last few lines of subsection (2) of Clause 9, which reads, falls to be met out of their community charges, together with such additional sum as is, in their opinion, required". We shall be glad to hear what the Government have in mind in respect of those words. I beg to move.
I shall respond to the noble Lord's suggestion of explaining how we envisage the procedures by which a local authority will determine the amount of its personal community charge. The amount to be covered by the community charges as a whole is, in accordance with Clause 7(2), the amount which is not already covered by other sources of local authority income. The amount to be met by the community charges must cover the budgeted expenditure of the local authority, including of course all expenditure at the margin in excess of assessed need. In order to make this calculation, we envisage that the local authority will divide the total amount which has to be raised by community charges by a number which will represent the number of units of community charge available to the local authority.
934 This number will be made up of three elements. First, it will cover the number of people liable to pay the personal community charge in the local authority's area. Secondly, it will include also the number of premises in respect of which the standard community charge is payable, multiplied by the standard community charge multiplier set by the authority in respect of Clause 10(7). Thirdly, it will include the sum of all the collective community charge multipliers for the premises in respect of which the collective community charge is payable under Clause 11.
Once this total figure is calculated, local authorities will have to take a view on what assumptions should be built into the system about any shortfall in actual collection. This is exactly the same kind of judgment as they have to make already in respect of rates. The final number thus arrived at will be divided into the total amount to be raised by the community charges to give the actual personal community charge figure for that authority.
This procedure is described in subsection (2) of Clause 9. The words, Account having been taken of the moneys to be produced by the standard and collective community charges". Simply refer to the fact that the amount to be produced from these charges has to be included in the calculation of the personal community charge. The personal community charge is, however, the primary object of the calculation, and that is why the subsection is phrased in the way it is. I believe that with this amendment the noble Lord would remove an essential factor in the equation. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord realises what it would do and understands more clearly the purpose of the subsection.
I understand the substance of it perfectly well. The question is: which comes first? I gather that the personal community charge is last in the factor and the other charges, being the standard and collective charges, have not been discussed yet. That is one of the difficulties in relation to the Bill and the way in which it is drafted.
How on earth will local authorities obtain an accurate amount in relation to these charges? It is all very well for the Minister to say, as he did, that they must take account of those who are liable to pay. What the local authority is concerned about is not those who are liable to pay but those who will pay. That is a difficult matter. In fact, we will not even know until we are finished with the Bill whether there is going to be a collective charge. Many people will argue that the collective charge will be one of the most difficult things to estimate. The whole thing will be difficult to estimate.
I saw a report of a study which I believe was made by the Home Secretary and was published this week. It concerned those who do not register for their vote. Those who do not register for voting have nothing at stake except voting. When those who register become liable to pay anything up to £230, many of those who are liable will never appear on the register. Therefore, the money will not be forthcoming. That may be as many as 10 per cent. How on earth are the 935 Government expecting the local authorities to do that as one of the first items in those factors? It is very difficult.
I leave the thought with the Minister as to how he will make sense out of this morass of statistical nonsense which has been put down and called a Bill. It will be difficult indeed. However, if that is the only explanation we are to get, I do not see why we should waste any more time on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 143: Page 8, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
§ The noble Lord said: This is a similar point. The Bill says, account shall be taken by any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for". What does that mean? If it means anything, I suppose that it means fees, and we shall find out whether people are going to pay for the benefits they will receive. I can understand some of them—for instance, young people who are going to be paying £230 a year—who will be making demands, as they will be entitled to. Local authorities have already been putting up the prices of admission to football pitches for young people who will not even pay for this. They will be putting up charges on golf courses and the rest of it. Perhaps the Government will be able to give them guidance about that sort of thing.
§ We all remember how guidelines started. They were what they seemed to mean. They finished up by being statutory and by saying, "You have to do as we tell you—or else". The Bill says: account shall be taken of any means by which those expenses may be met or provided for-. Am I right in thinking that that is the purpose of that particular line and a half? I beg to move.
I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing very mysterious about this subsection in Clause 9. It simply provides that, in determining the proportion of its estimated expenses mentioned in Clause 9(2) which are to be met from the income it will receive from community charges levied in its area, a local authority is to take account of any other means available to it for meeting those expenses. These other means will consist, in the main, of central government grants and non-domestic rates. But in addition local authorities also hold balances and receive income from the fees and charges they charge for certain services they provide. This is what is meant by the words, any means by which those expenses may otherwise be met or provided for". A very similar provision already exists in relation to rates in Section 107 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The only difference between the new system and the old—and I accept, or course, that it is a substantial difference—is that under the new system the community charges will become the balancing element in a local authority's budgeting, rather than rates. I hope that this explanation has served to clarify 936 the position and that the noble Lord can perhaps agree to withdraw his amendment.
Yes. Time is going on and we have spent far too much time on the last group of amendments. Having satisfied myself as to what the Government intend by that and expressed the hope that the Government will not take powers or use some obscure clause, which we may come to later on in the Bill, to compel local authorities to put charges on museums, art galleries and the like in order to boost income, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 144: Page 8, line 22, leave out ("community") and insert ("property").
§ The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 151 to 159 and 161 to 163. We are now dealing with what is to be known as the standard community charge. That charge is a most extraordinary one in this Bill. The Bill sets out to say that everyone should be personally liable and that property taxes will be abolished in respect of domestic property. What is called the standard community charge is a property tax on property which may be a second home or which may be a variety of other things, such as district council housing which is unoccupied or Forestry Commission special housing.
§ As I read the clause, all of those authorities which have houses which for some reason are unoccupied—for example, to be done up—for more than three months will be responsible, as owners, for the standard community charge. That is an extraordinary proposition. However, that seems to be what the Bill says. No doubt we shall be told that that is not what the Bill means to say. However, that is my reading of the Bill at the moment.
§ This is quite clearly a property charge. It is nothing else. To take it shortly, for each domestic subject which is a second home, the fixing authority, by subsection (7), can fix the standard community charge multiplier at somewhere between one and up to two. Therefore, it does not matter whether 800 people or one person will be put into the house; there is the same charge. It is a property tax. It is certainly not a standard charge and it is not a community charge. I think that it would be much better to call it a standard property charge. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I beg to move.
I find the argument of the noble Lord a little strange. We all agree that we are trying to move away from property tax so far as concerns rates. If this is the case I cannot see what is wrong with the wording as it stands. With second homes, cottages and so on a standard charge of one or two units of community charge seems a much more realistic way of dealing with them. If we are to go down the road of a property tax on second homes we might as well wrap up the whole thing and go back to rates.
I see absolutely no logic in the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about this way of going about things. Obviously many people on the opposite side of the Committee wish to maintain rates. If that is the case, why do we have to pay more for putting in radiators, double glazing and so on? That is one of the disadvantages of a property tax and even some members of the Alliance seem to agree. I for one cannot go along with the idea of putting back property into the standard community charge.
Before the noble Lord sits down, he will not be aware, because he is a recent venturer to this establishment, that two or three years ago I moved exactly such an amendment in relation to central heating. The position is even worse than he suggested, because one accrues the burden of rates on one kind of central heating but not on another. I moved that they all be freed of rates but your Lordships turned that down.
I am delighted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, particularly on his birthday.
It is more logical to call it a property charge. I do not mind one way or the other, I suppose. However, it would be highly illogical and certainly would not meet the great question of accountability unless the Government were to reintroduce a second vote for a second house, in which case I suppose there would be some logic in it. Otherwise it is simply a straightforward property tax—much reduced, I must say, in many cases—and not a community charge at all.
Like my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I cannot accept that the standard community charge is a property tax. On the contrary, it is precisely what its name implies. The word "standard" means that it will be levied at a flat rate in each area, with no variation to reflect the circumstances of particular types of property. It will differ crucially from the present tax—domestic rates—which is a property tax with an astonishingly complex system surrounding it and one which takes account, or fails to take account, depending on one's point of view, of so many different factors about the circumstances of particular properties.
What we propose is a community charge, the other element in terminology, because it represents a contribution towards the cost of the services which the payer enjoys as part of the community. I accept that some of those services are provided actually or potentially in relation to property. I suppose that the fire service might be one example and perhaps part of the police service. But it is stretching the argument a little far to claim that the other local services which the standard charge payer enjoys are property based.
The key point is that these services—and I could have mentioned a whole list of them—can all be enjoyed by the owners of second homes and so they should make a contribution, just as residents in the area make a contribution through their own personal community charge.
938 I am not sure that we shall ever have a meeting of minds on the terminology. I have tried to explain why we believe the word "property" should not be used. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
We could go on all night saying on one side that it is a property tax and on the other that it is not a property tax. To me it is perfectly clear that it is a tax on property. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that he could not understand why there was any objection to calling it a standard community charge.
It may occur to many Members of the Committee on this side—and I should have hoped also on the other side and on the Cross-Benches—that in the dispute about whether this is a property tax or a standard community charge there is a focusing on what is fundamentally objectionable about the Bill. The Government brought in a poll tax. If ever there was a poll tax, this is it. We have said it again and again. The Committee may laugh or become impatient about it, but this is what must be brought home to the people outside in the real world who will have to pay this poll tax, which is a very obnoxious and regressive form of tax.
Having called the poll tax a community charge the Government are trying to represent this in taxation terms as something quite respectable and frightfully up to date. It is a matter of cosmetics. The Government are trying to mislead people about the effect of this but they will not succeed. When they come on to deal with the difficult problem of the standard community charge—and it becomes even funnier when you come to the collective community charge, which really is an outrage—again they could not call it a property tax. They had to dress up a thinly disguised property tax and call it a standard community charge.
The Government may not be aware of this but the people of Scotland are laughing their heads off. It is said that the children in the streets of Glasgow are playing a game called "Ask me a riddle". The riddle is, when is a poll tax not a poll tax? The answer is, when it is a community charge. It is a shocking business altogether and that is the importance of these amendments.
Someone asked earlier, after looking at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, whether this was just a matter of semantics; and someone else said, yes, it was. It is not; it goes right to the crux of this ghastly Bill.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, at an earlier stage in our deliberations he talked about the poll being per skull. I thought that the standard community charge was on people and not on property.
Oh, no. I wonder whether the noble Lord will read the Bill. Clause 10(1) says: The standard community charge shall be payable in respect of p remises.". That is why in this amendment we call it a property tax.
I want to support the amendment and the wording it suggests. It is my understanding—and I have listened to most of the debate—that the Government's reason for calling it a community charge was to bring about more accountability. They took away the poll tax tag and the property tax tag and they called it a community charge. People would be accountable to the community and therefore there would be some logic in calling it a community charge. That is what they said. In the case of the owners of second homes who might not even live in that community—I understand that there are 17,300 second homes in Scotland alone, of which the owners of 11,300 are not usually resident in Scotland—those people will have no accountability to the community and so the Government cannot use that argument for them. But they will have to pay for the property which is in that area. Therefore it is a property tax. There is no way they can wrap it up to make it anything except a property tax for that second home.
In discussing this aspect, one of my concerns is the integrity of Parliament in regard to the community outside. If we persist in having in Bills proposals that are not in accord with reality the perception of the population outside this place will be to hold us in ridicule. They will either do that or say that Parliament is trying to hoodwink them. Neither of those two alternatives is very satisfactory for Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider their whole attitude in regard to the nomenclature.
I should have thought that a tax—to use a neutral word—which is payable under subection (4)(a) in respect of the ownership of premises is a property tax however it is measured, whether by value or by a multiplier. It is still a property tax. Nothing that the Minister said suggests to me that I am wrong about that. Therefore, this is a matter on which we should divide the Committee.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 144) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 113.
Addington, L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Ardwick, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Aylestone, L. Dean of Beswick, L.
Blyton, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Glenamara, L.
Grimond, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Rea, L.
Hooson, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Russell, E.
Irving of Dartford, L. Scrota, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Shepherd, L.
John-Mackie, L. Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
McCarthy, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Morton of Shuna, L: White, B.
Mulley, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Northfield, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Aldington, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Auckland, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hunter of Newington, L.
Blyth, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Burton, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Lyell, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. McFadzean, L.
Camegy of Lour, B. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Carnock, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Clitheroe, L. Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Minto, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Mottistone, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Mowbray and Stourton, L.
De La Warr, E. Munster, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Nugent of Guildford, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Perth, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Portland, D.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Reay, L.
Gray of Contin. L. Rugby, L.
St. Davids, V. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly. Trafford, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L. Whitelaw, V.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Wolfson, L.
Swinton, E. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
§ Page 8, leave out line 30.
§ The noble Lord said: On this occasion I have to speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. This extraordinary clause, which means that the largest castle pays the same rate or charge as the smallest cottage, becomes even more impossible to understand when one gets to the end of subsection (2). The clause applies to premises which, (b) are not subject to non-domestic rates; and (c) are not the sole or main residence of any person". So far so good. It obviously points to the fact that if you can arrange that your wife has the sole or main residence in the second home and you have the sole or main residence in the city home, that is the cheap way of doing it.
§ However, we then have the completely non-understandable line 30. In Clause 2 there is power to exclude from domestic subjects such classes as may be prescribed; there is also power to include such classes. I am not at all certain what is meant by the, class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed". What are we talking about in line 30? The first factor we know is that they are not subject to non-domestic rates; so we are taking something totally out of any local taxation. Is that really what is meant? They are dwelling houses; they are not subject to non-domestic rates; they are to be prescribed so that they do not pay the standard community charge; and they are not the sole or main residence of anybody who pays a personal charge. What are we talking about?
§ In lines 31 and 32, dealt with in Amendment No. 146, the Bill says that the class or classes may be prescribed by reference to such factors as may be prescribed. This makes the muddle even more muddled; it is an Alice-in-Wonderland or Alicethrough-the-Looking-Glass type of Bill. It is quite incredibly difficult to work out what is happening. What is supposed to be meant?
§ It becomes even more difficult when one appreciates, as I think I do, that if you have a home which you use for a period in the year as your holiday home and which you also rent out, it may be classified as a second home for, say, the month of August, but becomes a commercial subject for the rest of the year. That is quite a normal situation in holiday areas like the west coast of Scotland. People own cottages or houses which they rent out and use as holiday homes. 942 It is far from clear what is meant by "the class or classes as may be prescribed", quite apart from the factors which are prescribed. I beg to move.
I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has considered the possibility of houses being uninhabitable. I do not know if I am right about this, but I should have thought that this was what the prescription might be used for. I recall, when I was the Member of Parliament for the western district of Edinburgh, seeing many houses in the area of West Pilton which had been vandalised. Their windows were boarded up and I imagine that they were totally uninhabitable. The owner of these houses is now the Edinburgh District Council, and I should have thought that this would be a case for prescription.
One other possibility is probably a little far-fetched. Let us suppose that an individual had as a second home a flooded house in Bearsden, Glasgow, about which there is a certain amount of dispute at the moment as to whether rates should be paid under the present system. If houses were totally uninhabitable—and that is the ground on which the present owners are saying that they should not pay rates—is this not the sort of exception which might be covered by the prescription?
Is the noble Lord proposing that we should now have a window tax involved with this Bill? That is the implication. He is saying that a house will become uninhabitable when the windows are knocked out and they are boarded up; therefore, it will not be liable for tax. That was exactly the result of the window tax. Surely, it is ridiculous.
I shall not try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I do not think it is up to me to explain what this Bill means. I am in as much of a fog as the noble Lord. I do not think that the prescription covers what he talked about because of what was said by Ministers in another place at the Committee stage. They said, if I followed their remarks rightly, that if somebody bought a house which was in a state of dilapidation and had two houses for a period while doing up the second one, that person would have to pay the standard community charge after the period of three months which is applicable in Clause 8. That is my understanding.
Certainly, I had not anticipated that it would involve uninhabitable houses. I have already pointed out that houses which existed in Pilton some years ago under a Tory local authority had to be boarded up because the authority could not spend the money to repair them. Those would be liable for the standard community charge.
I feel we are due an explanation and some examples from the Minister. Perhaps he could tell me, because I am a little puzzled, what will happen to people who own time shares in houses. Considerably more might be collected if the residents had to pay a standard community charge for each fortnight which they owned. They are considered to be proprietors. I would be very interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about them.
I think perhaps I should start by saying, not for the first time, that the premises in relation to which the standard community charge is payable are dwelling houses which are not the sole or main residence of any person. That is the point from which we start. The clause provides, and these amendments would seek to delete, the possibility of prescription by the Secretary of State of a class or classes of premises in relation to which the standard community charge should not be payable. Under subsection (3) such prescription may be by reference to such factors as may be prescribed.
The intention of these exemption provisions, as my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston thought would be the case, is to allow the exemption from the standard community charge liability of uninhabitable property. Rates are seldom, if ever, charged on such properties at present and it does not seem right to require payment for local authority services in circumstances where this can have very little real meaning in relation, for instance, to a property which is derelict or which may be undergoing restoration. In order to achieve that, it is necessary that the prescription should not only be in relation to a class or classes of premises but that it should also be by reference to prescribed factors.
There is no ready-made definition of unhabitable property at present. Therefore we propose that the regulations should be framed by reference to factors which themselves will relate to the fact that the property is uninhabitable—for instance, its unsuitability for human habitation by reason of its physical condition. It is stretching the point beyond the bounds of credulity to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested, that it is akin to the imposition of a window tax or that anything of that kind is remotely connected with it.
The provisions that the amendments seek to delete are necessary. Before I draw to a conclusion perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in relation to the matter of timeshare property which he raised, that timeshare accommodation will remain within non-domestic rating as it is now; so the situation that he envisaged will not arise.
The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that a person who is buying a house in a state of dilapidation should have to pay this charge, and the noble Lord referred to statements that have been made in another place. To the best of my knowledge those statements did not deal with the specific point concerning someone who is buying a dilapidated house. If the house were uninhabitable it would be exempt, as I have just explained; otherwise the charge would be payable after a three-month period of grace. So perhaps the two remarks were somehow not taken in context.
I shall study those points but I do not think that there has been any disparity between what has been said in another place and what has been said in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will accept that explanation. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
I hope that my noble friend will look at this matter again before Report stage. The period of three months is far too short. For instance, during our 944 discussions on a previous clause, the position of army houses was raised. If a battalion moves away, a great many houses become empty in the district. Likewise, if one looks at the situation in Aberdeen when the oil industry collapsed, a lot of houses were thrown on the market then. Through no fault of the owners such houses can remain empty for much longer than three months.
Moreover, if any major repairs at all have to be undertaken, planning permission has to be obtained and I know that applications can often remain to be considered by a planning committee for three months before the repairs can even be started. I think that this matter needs looking into, and perhaps the period could be extended to six months. I hope that my noble friend will look at this point again before we reach Report stage.
There is one small point that I should like to raise. I wonder what will happen to properties that are at present unfit for habitation and are awaiting repair or renovation. It is a process that often takes quite a long time to complete when it involves obtaining planning permission and putting in electricity supplies and so on. My reading of the Bill suggests that those properties are left in limbo.
I do not think that that is the case. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Burton misunderstood me. I was referring not to uninhabited properties but to uninhabitable ones. I may not have made myself plain but certainly that was the burden of my remarks.
The Minister said that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was entirely wrong. It seems to me that he was entirely right. We should remember the kind of situation that has happened recently in Aberdeen, about which we have all read. People there tried to sell their houses in order to move away but they had difficulty in selling them. They have a three-month period when they move away during the time that the house is empty but after that time they will have to pay the second charge, the standard community charge, unless the house is uninhabitable. What bigger incentive to render an empty house uninhabitable can there possibly be? That situation will arise in any number of cases.
It is not unknown for a house to be uninhabited for a period because of the employment situation or for some other reason. I am horrified to hear this suggestion, if indeed it is the suggestion. It will give rise to an incentive to destroy houses and render them uninhabitable. That is the effect of this suggestion.
With respect, that was never the suggestion that I made nor is it contained in the Bill. The noble Lord is misquoting part of my remarks. What I said was that this measure related to uninhabitable property. When it comes to prescribing or framing regulations, the question of physical condition and indeed the suitability of that property for human habitation, taken in its wider sense and revolving around the question of its physical condition, are the matters which would be taken into account. What has been set out in the Bill and what I have tried to describe meets the concern of the noble 945 Lord and I think that it would be wrong of him to suggest that we were embarking upon some exercise in support of a latter-day window tax. I do not have with me the details of the history or the relevance of the window tax but I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, feels that that is stretching the point.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point. I thought that the remarks of his noble friends related to taking more than three months to repair a house. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was referring to trying to sell a house when the owners had to move away in order to look for another job; and because the house was not sold the owner became liable to the charge after three months. That is the point that the Committee is trying to get over to the Minister.
We appear to be introducing a rather large subject in a rather short Bill. I fear that the whole concept of uninhabitable property is a minefield for the Government. I should like to have some clarification about the kind of criteria that the Government would use to judge whether or not a property is uninhabitable. That is my first point.
In times gone by questions of whether a house had a roof on it and how many windows it had were the criteria for judgment of property. It is not completely erroneous to believe that those characteristics may not come into the Government's judgment. Secondly, having set out the criteria and judged a property to be uninhabitable, would the Government take the next step and prevent the habitation of such a property by human beings? That would open a whole can of worms, if I may put it like that. We need some clarification of the Government's thinking in this area.
What the noble Lord is asking me to do is to define in the Bill that which will be prescribed in the regulations. That is the whole point of having the regulations. I have given some examples of the kind of things that would be taken into account when it comes to considering unsuitability. Those criteria may concern physical conditions for human habitation; they may cover a number of other factors. It seems to me quite extraordinary to suggest, as has been suggested, that houses might be made uninhabitable so that in some way it would advantage people. Surely that would be wholly to the detriment of the person who is trying to sell the house. The noble Lord opposite referred to the case of property changing hands in Aberdeen, for example. I think that that is a rather bizarre suggestion. It would not be to the advantage of the person selling the house any more than it would be to the advantage of anybody who ultimately might buy it. I do not think that there is much mileage to be gained there.
The point is that it can be prescribed. The factors that will be taken into account include whether or not the property is suitable for human habitation, its physical condition and all that kind of thing. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward.
I assure the Minister that at least historically there were plenty of cases where roofs were taken off houses in order to remove them from rating. If the Minister is not aware of that, he is not aware of a fairly significant part of Scottish history.
I think that the noble Lord is being a little unkind to my noble friend on the Front Bench. That was done in the 1950s, which was before my noble friend's time.
He said that he was aware of it.
The trouble with the Bill, as has been stated on many occasions, is that we do not know what will be prescribed. We have one thing said at one time and maybe other things will come in. It would be fair enough to say in line 30: but not to uninhabitable houses, the criteria of which shall be prescribed". At least then we would know what we are getting at. We do not know anything about: such class or classes of those premises as may be prescribed". We have not yet had an answer for the situation that I have put—I should be obliged if we could have one—concerning someone who has a second house and rents it as a commercial proposition for certain months of the year, occupying it, say, for a fortnight of the year. Is that a non-domestic subject? Does it become a non-domestic subject for a certain period of the year, with the standard community charge for the rest?
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised this in a somewhat different form earlier. I endeavourd to write to him to explain it and set his mind at rest.
Where the assessor is of the opinion that the letting of a house constitutes a business, he will value the house accordingly. Where he is satisfied that the use is domestic, it will be treated on the same basis as other dwellinghouses that constitute the bulk of the domestic subject which would be deleted from valuation under Clause 2. I cannot see that there is a reason to believe that a holiday house which was otherwise a business could be made domestic if the family concerned lived in it for only a couple of weeks each year.
I repeat that where a house is genuinely domestic it would come out of rating. If it is used as a second home, having no registered resident, it would be subject to the standard charge, so the owners will have to make a contribution. I think that that addresses the point that the noble Lord is making.
I have to say again that what is set out in the Bill is simply explained by what I have just described; that uninhabitable property will be prescribed. That seems to me to be the important point, whether or not one goes back into the realms of history in regard to removing roofs for rating or, indeed, as far back as the window tax of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Can the Minister deal with the poor devil who has to move from Aberdeen and cannot sell his house in a three-month period? Would prescription apply in that case if he could not sell it for nine months, which must be quite common?
It is unlikely that in a three-month period a house would become uninhabitable if it had been wholly habitable before. Maybe I have misunderstood the noble Lord's point.
If he cannot sell the house, although he is paying for two houses, is down in the South of England and has a job there, after three months apparently it becomes a second home and there is a community charge upon it. That appears to some of the Minister's noble friends and to me unfair.
Perhaps the best thing is for me to study the noble Lord's remarks. If I can get an answer to him, I shall endeavour to do so. Perhaps I am being slow. Maybe I have misunderstood him and there is some gap.
The Minister does not understand the Bill.
The noble Lord says that I do not understand the Bill. He is making remarks himself about not understanding the Bill, but we all know that he is beginning to understand it in the light of some of the explanations that the Government have given.
Surely it is fairly obvious from the Bill that if a house is unoccupied and unfurnished—just the kind of house referred to in Aberdeen—and the people are forced to move away and take another house somewhere else, by definition it is treated as a second home. Some local authorities are concerned about this. The Minister appears to have clarified the position of empty local authority houses, but what about all the others that are empty? What about agricultural houses where tenant farmers are subject to certain restrictions in relation to reletting? This is the kind of house that has its roof removed and where even the level of rates is a bar to something being done.
The result is that the personal community charge is put on as the standard charge, and it will be even worse. I know that Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council is concerned about this. I do not think that its fears will be eased by what the noble Lord has said. I gather that this will be covered in regulations—"We don't know the class of house, but don't worry, it will be in the regulations". Then where will the factors be found?—"Oh, they will be in the regulations too".
This has got to the point of utter nonsense. We do not understand the clause at all. I find it very difficult to be patient with this kind of Bill. With the best will 948 in the world, we cannot say, "That applies to that". We are given bits and pieces of information by the Minister and even then he says, "This might apply, this could apply". It depends on what the Secretary of State says will be the class prescribed. It depends further on the Secretary of State saying, "Subject to certain factors". But we do not know the factors.
The Minister need not be surprised that we are amazed by this. I am not surprised that he is sometimes rather mystified. Think of the people who have to pay attention to this and have to read it, among whom are some Conservative local government authorities in Scotland. Many farmers in the Highlands have been using such houses and they will be concerned. Remember, it is the owner of the premises that are unoccupied and unfurnished who after three months will be responsible. Do not be surprised if there are increases in rents if the owners eventually get them leased out or rented—or are they just going to take off the roofs or break the windows, as my noble friend said?
I remind the Minister that he and I sometimes are together on the plane to Aberdeen—at any rate, whether we are or not, we both go to Aberdeen—and he will understand if I direct his attention to this thought. In Portlethen—and Bridge of Don is another example—for the reasons already explained, many of the comparatively new houses have been standing empty for periods of three, four, five or six months so that they are quickly vandalised and the gardens are quickly overgrown. They are not being sold, because when the newcomer arrives he buys a new Barratt that is being built in yet another dormitory suburb. That is the problem, and a real concern to those people who might be considered to own a second home, they having had to shift elsewhere to get employment.
My noble friend Lord Burton asked whether the period could be extended from three to six months, which I think has been lost sight of in the argument. Perhaps the Minister would like to address his mind to this, if not today, at some future occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, concentrated his remarks on uninhabitable properties and said that the prescription will make it clear that such properties will not be liable to the charge. However, most of our discussion has not been about uninhabitable houses; it has been about uninhabited and unfurnished houses. That is what happens when someone moves from one home to another and then finds that he cannot sell the house that he has vacated. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that, Where premises are unoccupied and unfurnished, the charge is not to be payable for a period of up to three months". The present practice is that at their discretion local authorities do not levy rates on unoccupied and unfurnished houses. Most authorities work on the basis that if they are aware that a property has been advertised for sale from time to time but has not found a purchaser, they continue to refrain from levying rates.
949 The mistake which the Government are making is laying down a maximum period of three months. If they want to include three months, the least that they can do is to add, "or such longer period as the local authority may decide". Some authorities may be content to limit the period to three months. Others will follow their present practice, and rates will not be payable until the house is sold. I cannot understand why the three-month restriction has been included. I think it is at variance with the practice of almost every local authority at the moment.
It appears that the argument is boiling down to the question of time. My noble friend made a good point. The easiest way may be for me to take this matter away and to look at it to see whether we can make any more sense of the arguments about the time factor which have been put forward. My noble friend suggested that we should extend the time factor to cater for houses such as those in some parts of Aberdeenshire mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in places that have declined.
I hope that the Committee will agree that that is a sensible way to proceed. I cannot give a commitment as to how my consideration will go, but some valid points have clearly been made about timing and the inability of some people to effect a sale within that three-month period. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested. I hope that the Committee will agree that is a sensible way to proceed.
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I answer his point about Amendment No. 115A? The arguments on these amendments are bound up with one another. At this stage, the easiest thing may be to say that I take the spirit of the noble Lord's suggestion about Amendment No. 115A and the point that we have just discussed. I am prepared to take the matters away. I cannot give any firm undertakings, as I think the noble Lord will understand, but I understand the spirit with which he refers to the amendment and the points which have been made about the other amendments. I shall look at that as well.
In those circumstances, I shall continue my sentence and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147.
§ Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 148: Page 8, line 38, after ("more") insert ("and the owner has provided the registration officer with a copy of the lease and with the name and address of the tenant").
§ The noble Lord said: I think it is intended that I speak also to Amendments Nos. 149, 169 and 170. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 150, which seems to fit the same circumstances. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 relate to, The person liable to pay the standard community charge and Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 relate to Clause 11 and the collective community charge. The principle is the same. The person liable to pay the charge shall be the owner unless the premises have been let for a continuous period of 12 months or more, or, if the premises have been sub-let, the sub-tenant. That is fine. That tells us who is liable, but no one is under any obligation to tell the keeper of the register.
§ These amendments make the owner liable unless he has told the registration officer the name and address of the tenant and given him a copy of the lease. The tenant is liable in the appropriate tenancy unless he has supplied the registration officer with the name of the sub-tenant and a copy of the lease. Without that, there would be total confusion. The liability has to be decided by the registration officer. As I see it, he has no power to be satisfied. He must see the lease to see that it fits within the Act, as it will then be, and that it is for 12 months or more. Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170 help clarification so that everyone knows where they stand.
§ Amendment No. 150 again deals with the lease or sub-lease. Only someone who lives in an ivory tower can have been dealing with this point. One is liable for the community charge month by month, if not day by day. How can one backdate the transfer or liability from the owner to the tenant or from the tenant to the sub-tenant by an extension of the lease to take it over 12 months? That seems to me to be exotic. By Amendment No. 150 I seek to take out lines 43 and 44, which say: Renewals of a lease (or sub-lease) shall, for the purposes of this subsection, count towards its period". If I rent a second home from an owner for six months, the owner is liable. If at the end of the six months he extends the lease for a further six months and a day, the lease becomes a 12-month lease, and I as tenant then become liable for the whole period. The Government cannot mean that. It is stupid. There may be an Alice in Wonderland or Alice Through the Looking Glass view about this, but it is extraordinary suddenly to say that by extending the lease the tenant becomes liable for some period for which someone else has been liable. Even St. Andrew's House could not have perpetrated that deliberately.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna's Amendments Nos. 148, 149, 169 and 170, and in addition No. 150, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 150. I hope I shall be able in part at least to point to certain improvements in paragraphs (b) and (c) which form the main point in his Amendments Nos. 148 and 149.
I listened to what the noble Lord said in support of Amendment No. 150. The Government's intention was quite straightforward. It was that the owner be liable for the standard community charge unless there is a tenant or sub-tenant with a lease or sub-lease of the premises which is for a continuing period of 12 months or more. In that case, the tenant or sub-tenant would be liable. The noble Lord is nodding and I think he agrees with me on that point.
I have to accept that lines 43 and 44 might have the effect of obscuring that relatively simple intention. If I were to accept that point, there would also be a need to look at subsection (4)(b) and (c) to make clear the point about the lease or sub-leases being for a continuous period of 12 months or more. That seemed to me to be the entire burden of the noble Lord's arguments. If that is the case then Clause 11(4) might also require to be similarly amended.
In short, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 150 but I shall need to come back with the other amendments to subsection (4)(b) and (c), and additionally Clause 11(4). I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Certainly. My point was not so much the continuity of the period but the fact that there is nothing in Clauses 4, 10 and 11 which gives any obligation for anybody to tell the registration officer. Obviously the registration officer is the person who has to know. I shall be very pleased to withdraw this amendment.
§ Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 150: Page 8, leave out lines 43 and 44.
As these amendments have already been dealt with perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I suggested that I do not move Amendments Nos. 151 to 159, including Amendment No. 155A, en bloc.
Before I call Amendment No. 160 I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 161.
(b) the amount of the standard community charge payable in respect of the premises in respect of that year divided by the number of days in that year.").
§ The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The noble Earl has to be congratulated that this time he was handed an easier one.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 10 as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
This has been an extraordinarily good debate. The Minister has been extremely reasonable. He has been convinced of the correctness of many of the points made. A man of his intelligence could not have failed to be so convinced. However, I must oppose the clause as a whole for a very simple reason. All round this Chamber people have said at Second Reading and at other times that they would be better off themselves with the community charge. Today one of my noble friends told me that with a house in London and a house in the country, when this Bill applies to England he will be a great deal better off—by several thousand pounds.
The regressive nature of the community tax, property tax—call it what you will—demands opposition. Quite simply, that is why I oppose this clause. It takes money from the poor and gives money to the rich. It must be bad.
I could simply say "ditto". It appears to me totally reprehensible that people with very large houses with very large estates, for which they require considerable local authority services, should be asked to pay exactly the same as people who have a small but-and-ben. It seems totally reprehensible and the most regressive part of a very regressive piece of legislation.
What about those people who have very large houses but have no local authority services? There are many such houses in Scotland, especially in the Highlands. Those people also have to pay a great number of non-domestic rates.
Some of the places without services are places occupied by crofters who are working. They do not have to pay the standard community charge. Whether they are old-age pensioners, or whatever, they have to pay the personal charge. They receive no services in such places without roads on the western side of Harris or Lewis.
They have a lot of other services, of course. I have one or two crofters and I am all for it. But they receive a tremendous grant for almost everything they buy themselves. I do not therefore think that they do too badly.
Everything that they buy in the outer islands or in the inner islands, or in most places in the Highlands, is considerably more expensive than in the cities. Your Lordships' House decided in the Judicial Committee that for that reason they were not entitled to any higher rate of DHSS benefit. In places such as Tyrie, or Coll, or Colonsay, they will be asked to pay exactly the same regional personal community charge as if they lived in an unflooded house in Bearsden. On this side of the Chamber we think that is totally unfair.
It seems to me that the arguments in dealing with Clause 10 fall into four different parts: a justification in principle for the standing community charge; the level of the charge; the liability for the charge; and the period of grace.
The Green Paper recognised that some domestic subjects such as second homes—which would be excluded from the valuation role and on which no rates would be payable—would not constitute the sole or main residence of any person. In order to replace the loss of rate revenue which would otherwise occur in such cases, the Green Paper therefore proposed a standard community charge to be levied in respect of the premises in question.
We have debated at some considerable length the details of these provisions including the question of whether the standard community charge is to be considered as a property tax. However, I remain convinced on the principle that I have already set out that it is not. In any case, it cannot seriously be questioned that the replacement of rates on second homes—in respect of which those liable to pay rates would now otherwise enjoy a windfall benefit—is entirely justified.
The Green Paper's proposal that the standard community charge should be set at a level of two units of personal community charge was based on the proposition that taken over the country as a whole, this would replace the rate revenue on the properties concerned which would otherwise be lost. However, in the course of consultation on the Green Paper, the point was made that the standard community charge at this level might lead to large increases in local tax bills in respect of some properties which at present bear low rates. That is why the clause provides that local authorities should have discretion to set the level of standard community charge at between one and two units of the personal community charge, and hence allow the level to reflect local authorities' views of how great a burden of local taxation should be borne by the owners or occupiers of these second homes and similar properties.
The provisions in subsection (4) that the long-term tenant or sub-tenant of premises to which the standard community charge applies should be liable for the charge, rather than the owner, are intended to ensure that the charge is readily recoverable from tenants who use property as a second home, as against those tenants with short holiday leases in circumstances where the owner may be resident abroad or otherwise difficult to pursue for payment of the charge. I am convinced that these arrangements are entirely practicable and that they will lead to efficient and economical collection of charge.
954 On the question of period of grace, I have already said that I would be prepared to look at the matter in so far as concerns the points raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Hughes. I do not repeat that argument now, but in general I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that despite the fact I have agreed that I will look at and consider certain points of detail, the principle of Clause 10 is reasonable. It is a straightforward means of charging owners or tenants of second homes and similar property for the use they make of local authority services. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will see that in the round there is a benefit to be gained from it. I agree that there are certain points which have to be looked at in the light of the discussions we have had, but I certainly commend the clause as it stands to the Committee.
I am surprised that, in view of the pointed remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, no one rose from the other side of the House to defend this clause. Of course, the essence of the clause, as it is put, is that this Government have an unfortunate tendency every now and then to throw money at the wrong people. I am not in favour of governments throwing money about at all, but if they must do it they should not throw the money at the wrong people.
Surely the reason for the clause is that so many councillors, particularly in the urban areas, have been throwing away money and that is why we have had to change the system.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 67.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Digby, L.
Arran, E. Eden of Winton, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Birdwood, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Gainford, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Chelwood, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Cork and Orrery, E. Ingrow, L.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Kinnoull, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Lauderdale, E.
De La Warr, E. Lawrence, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Layton, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Reigate, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Renwick, L.
Lyell, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
McFadzean, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Morris, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L. Ullswater, V.
Rankeillour, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Birk, B. Milner of Leeds, L.
Blease, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Mountevans, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Ogmore, L.
Falkender, B. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.] Rhodes, L.
Galpem, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Heycock, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hughes, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Jeger, B. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Lockwood, B. Wilson of Langside, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Ypres, E.
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 163A: Page 10, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("other than those used as refuge homes").
§ The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if we took Amendment No. 191 B with this.
§ This amendment is an attempt to exclude refuge homes from the collective community charge. It is likely that refuges will be liable for the collective community charge under Clause 11, but, as all such hostel staff will find, the responsibility of determining, notifying, collecting, recording and receipting the daily base community charge will be a time-consuming administrative nightmare. For the already overworked, understaffed voluntary groups that is an unpalatable and unacceptable burden.
§ If the Ministers opposite have visited any of those refuges in the course of their duties they will realise the incredible work that the people who operate them undertake and the great difficulties they have. Frequently addresses have to be changed in order that men will not be able to chase their wives. The addresses are often kept secret. There are a number of refuges in Glasgow, but now I do not know where any of them are. They are sometimes in local authority premises or in houses that the local authority has allocated, sometimes in large houses. I know that Glasgow University has given a house which was not going to be used for some time.
§ Women who are in fear of their lives and who fear for the health of their children run away from home and go to these refuges because they have been abused and physically assaulted by their husbands. The Scottish women's aid groups would like to have an administrative figure deducted from the community tax to allow them to pay for the considerable administrative duties that they will need to undertake if they become liable for the community charge.
§ It is difficult to determine the population of a refuge as it tends to fluctuate quite dramatically. Some women will stay for 24 hours only or perhaps a couple of days; others will stay for two or three weeks and others for two or three months. They may have children with them, so housing them is a problem, particularly if they are going to stay for any length of time. When an authority has severely limited housing stock or a bad policy for the homeless, women have sometimes been known to stay in a refuge for 12 to 18 months awaiting a house of their own where they can get away from the man who has been the cause of all the trouble in the first place.
§ The calculation of a meaningful multiplier for a 12-month period could be very difficult when some people stay for two or three days, some for two or three weeks and some for two or three months or even for a full 12 months. If the multiplier had to be amended weekly, this would provide much greater accuracy but at the expense of administrative inconvenience. In any case, I believe it has already prescribed by Clause 13(1). Guidance in the calculation of the multiplier for refuges is required. It is essential that erroneous calculation of the multiplier does not result in women's aid groups having to find special funds just to meet the difference between the amount of the community charge due and the amount collected. Therefore, I feel that this is a very special case.
§ This is a peculiar type of voluntary organisation. Almost everyone involved gives their help voluntarily, at great inconvenience to themselves, spending a lot of time in the houses. I hope that the Minister will find some way of accommodating this amendment. I beg to move.
Although we have already considered the position of women living in women's refuges, or refuge homes as these amendments refer to them, during our discussion of Clause 2, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for introducing the matter again at this stage.
As a result of our previous discussions, the Committee will recall that I agreed to take away and reconsider the proposition that such homes should in all cases be retained in rating, with those of their residents who were solely or mainly resident there being thereby exempted from any personal community charge liability. What I now have to say is without prejudice to that reconsideration. However, it may be of assistance to the Committee if I set out our views on the precise amendments before us.
Amendment No. 163A would ensure that refuge homes were never made liable to the collective community charge. That is consistent with the proposition which has already been put forward that they should remain in rating. However, I am not clear that it would be wise at this stage to exclude the possibility of collective community charge treatment for those homes. It seems to me that in some cases at least they would fall within the main category of premises suitable for the collective community charge set out in Clause 11(2) (i), that they: are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods". If therefore such homes and their residents are to attract any form of community charge liability—and I repeat that what I am saying is without prejudice to our further consideration of the proposition that they should remain in rating—a collective community charge treatment would seem at least to be a viable option.
I understand that the concerns expressed by Scottish women's aid groups and others relate in part to the anonymity of those living in refuge homes. That anonymity could not be preserved if individual residents were registered and liable for the personal community charge, since their names would appear opposite the address in the publicly available part of the register. That would not be the case if they were treated as collective. I accept that in that case it might be possible for those seeking to trace women living in such homes to do so by identifying them from the appearance of the collective community charge multiplier on the public register.
However, I have mentioned that Amendment No. 226, tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, provides a mechanism whereby that multiplier in prescribed cases should not appear on the public register. The use of that power of prescription would seem to meet the concern which has been voiced on that score.
Amendment No. 191B would require premises operated as refuge homes to be excluded entirely from the register. The implication of this would appear to be that no form of community charge liability would be recorded in relation to their residence. That is again in line with the proposition which we are considering: that they should remain in rating. However, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that even that solution may not meet in 958 full the concern which has been voiced about the anonymity of residents in homes of that kind. If they remained in rating they would be the only ordinary dwelling-houses which would continue to appear on the valuation roll. I submit that that might well make them just as conspicuous as collective community charge treatment, with the multiplier appearing on the register.
I therefore fully take the force of the concerns which have been expressed about refuge homes and their residents. We have already undertaken to consider their position again. However, it would be wrong for me to leave Members of the Committee with the impression that we see any single means of dealing with these homes under the new system as providing the solution to all the problems about which concern has been expressed. This is a difficult area and we shall consider it further. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Do I understand, first, that the Minister has agreed to take the position of people who go to the refuge homes (I recall that from a previous debate last week); secondly, that the Minister will also incorporate in his consideration the position of the homes as such as rateable properties; and that the whole matter of the status of refuge homes, as well as the status of the temporary occupants of refuge homes, will be considered and that the Minister will come back to us?
I felt that what my noble friend said was encouraging. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I come across these refuges quite often because the people concerned come to our district council looking for money. They have considerable difficulty financing themselves and I think that we should be careful not to burden them with any additional finance.
On the other hand, they are an emergency refuge and we must be careful that people are not taken in on a long-term basis, as I know has happened on a number of occasions. Someone staying there for a long time is taking up the accommodation required for the emergency case. Therefore we must be careful not to exclude someone from the community charge, thinking that they are quite safe and can sit there for a long time Apart from that matter, I hope that my noble friend can look sympathetically at this amendment.
On the last occasion that the question of refuges was raised, I understood the Minister to say that the position of refuges operated by women's aid associations in particular would receive the most sympathetic consideration, and that we could expect something at a later stage in the Bill which quite clearly met the gravamen of their concerns. That was my clear understanding of what the Minister said on that occasion.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, on those points. We shall be 959 considering together all those matters with regard to refuges.
I should like to answer an earlier point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in regard to the calculation of the multiplier. The multiplier will reflect the numbers of people who are typically solely or mainly resident in women's refuges. We shall be meeting representatives of Scottish Women's Aid to discuss this with the other wider implications.
I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made in coming towards the object of these amendments. There probably will be difficulty in finding a typical occupancy rate. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I do not think that there is any great desire on the part of the women to stay in some of the refuges for very long. The real problem is that sometimes there are no local authority houses for them. If housing cannot be provided for them, it is difficult to get them to move on.
I should like to comment on the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I continually return to this point. At some point there will need to be a register of property. The Minister said that the fact that premises had been omitted from a list would destroy its anonymity. That tends to suggest to me that it is contemplated that there will be a list, in order that an address can be omitted from it. That point goes all the way through the Bill, and perhaps it is a hobby-horse of mine. However, I am sure that at some point we shall need to have a register. I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 164: Page 10, line 9, leave out ("sole or main").
§ The noble Lord said: I think that difficulties are created by the definition in respect of premises where the collective community charge shall be payable. Once again I emphasise that it states "premises" and not "persons", so in many ways that runs counter to the whole principle of personal responsibility that underlies the Bill. There are difficulties in respect of these kinds of premises.
§ The paragraph reads: are designated by the registration officer as premises which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of persons most or all of whom reside there only for short periods". I hardly call that a sole or main residence. We have not yet had a definition of "sole or main residence". Very often it is the kind of residence where, when people are in trouble in the courts and are asked for their address, they give it as "no fixed abode". That is very often what happens. They are only there for two or three nights. It is not their sole address; they may have half a dozen within two or three months, and certainly within a year or so. They float from one place to another. I am suggesting that we remove the words "sole or main".
§ I should like to include Amendment No. 164A. We may ease the situation, or even solve it, in respect of the problem that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, says he will look at in the cases of houses of refuge and of these women, if we leave out "sole or main" and leave out all after "persons", so that it would read: which, in his opinion, are used wholly or mainly as the residence of persons for whom individual registration is impracticable". In addition I would add "or undesirable", and leave that to the decision of the electoral officer. That may be something that is quite wrong altogether, but I put it forward as a suggestion.
§ I am probing to see whether we could make some kind of change here that would be to advantage. In many cases it is impracticable for many of these people to fill in these kind of forms for a couple of days and then to be charged, and paid. The difficulties for those who are running these premises are almost impossible to catch up with. If at the same time they are in receipt of some kind of benefit and they want help, these charges are going to be available under later clauses and it is going to be almost impossible to track them down. It is going to be difficult.
§ If they go without paying this particular charge, it will be anybody's business. If it is only two or three nights, how much will it be? If they can get away with it they just will not pay for it, although it may be a matter for the efficiency of the owner of the premises. It is one of the difficulties that arise because of this, but I object to the words "sole" or "main" when really what they mean is "of no fixed abode". I beg to move.
Not for the first time in our scrutiny of this Bill we are faced with a passage which requires a remarkable degree of mental agility on the part of the reader before it becomes comprehensible. I want to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 164 rather than to the two which I understand are linked with it. I am in some sympathy with Amendment No. 164 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. My interest is in the drafting of subsection (2) and the inclusion of the words "sole or main" in it.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur may be able to demonstrate that the words "sole or main" are essential. If he does so prove, I suggest that he invites the draftsman to move the word "used" in line 9 so that the passage we are complaining about would read: are wholly or mainly used as the sole or main residence". Doing so might dilute the purity of the language a little, but it would make it immediately clear that "wholly or mainly" refers to premises and "sole or main" refers to persons.
Since I am making a wholly, mainly or solely drafting point I hope that it will not receive a wholly unfavourable response. I have not quite finished with the point, because it has tentacles which reach out into other parts of Clause 11 and even beyond that. The words "sole or main" actually enter Clause 11 by another gate.
Perhaps my noble friend would glance at Clause 26 on page 20. There he will find at the foot of the page an interpretation of "part residential subjects". The description "part or residential subjects" features in Clause 11 and is one of the categories of premises to which sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of that 961 clause, which contains the words "sole or main", qualifies.
If my noble friend reads the interpretation of "part residential subjects" he will discover that it imports into Clause 11 the very words "sole or main" to which Amendment No. 164 draws our attention. In the interpretation, however, the words "sole or main" are qualified by the words "which are occupied partly". This appears to conflict with what is set out in Clause 11 where the qualification is "wholly or mainly".
If my noble friend, and any other noble Lord who has managed to follow me this far, will turn again to page 20—and I am still on the same point—he, and they, will find that the interpretation of "part residential subjects" includes the words "other than domestic subjects". Turning back again, I am afraid, to Clause 11 we find at line 5 the description: not subject to non-domestic rates". Apart from jibbing at the use of "subject" in line 5 and "subjects" in line 6 in two entirely different senses, I am wondering why on earth the draftsman did not simply use the words "domestic subjects" at line 5 instead of, not subject to non-domestic rates". If line 5 simply said "domestic subjects or" and then line 7 started with the word "but" instead of the word "and", I submit that it would make the clause a good deal clearer.
I am sorry I have to read this but I would lose myself if I did not. My consideration of why the draftsman employed the phrase, not subject to non-domestic rates", here and in Clause 10—and, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in Clause 8—has led me to the conclusion that the sole reason was that, although there is an interpretation of the alternative, which is "domestic subjects" in Clause 6 and which refers only to Part I of the Bill, there is no interpretation of the phrase "domestic subjects" in Clause 26 which provides the interpretation for the remainder of the Bill.
That brings us back full circle to the discussion we had last week as to whether there ought to be two separate interpretation clauses in the one Bill. If my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has not managed to follow me on my tour of Clause 11(2) and Clause 26 I shall not be surprised. I found myself at risk of getting somewhat lost. However, I hope at least that he will ask the draftsman to study the Official Report and seriously to consider what I have said. I apologise for taking so long but there was no other way in which I could make points that I think are relevant to our scrutiny of this Bill.
If the Minister would not think this an arrogant remark on my part let me say to him that when I used to sit where he now does I always found, as did some of the draftsmen—perhaps not all of them—and most of the mandarins in the Scottish Office that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was usually correct.
Since this is the first occasion on which we have dealt in detail with the question of the collective community charge I ought perhaps to start by describing in general terms how we envisage the operation of the collective community charge. The Green Paper proposed that in order to deal with the small numbers of people whose mode of life was so mobile as to make individual registration of the personal community charge impracticable, a collective community charge should be levied in respect of the premises in which such people live.
The essential criterion for the application of the collective community charge is therefore the transience of the residents of any particular premises. The premises will be designated by the registration officer and the charge will be payable by the owner or long-term tenant of the premises. That person will be registered in the community charges register as liable to pay the collective community charge and therefore will have a right of appeal against designation as part of his right of appeal against entry in the register under Clause 16(1)(a). The appeal will lie to the sheriff. This will provide redress for the person who considers that the registration officer has not made sufficient efforts to register individually the people living in his premises before designating them as suitable for collective community charge treatment.
Essentially, therefore, the charge is an alternative to the personal community charge for people who are very mobile and for that reason it must relate to sole or main residence of the people who live in the premises to which it applies. The first amendment of the noble Lord opposite would, as he says, delete the words "sole or main", thus making it possible for registration officers to designate further collective community charge premises which are not used as anyone's sole or main residence. While the main examples of premises in this category—hotels, guesthouses and that sort of thing—will normally remain in non-domestic rating, the amendment would nevertheless remove one of the main criteria on which registration officers would be required to designate premises for the collective community charge and could therefore lead to confusion.
As to the length of residence, the phrase "sole or main residence" will mean in general that the person has no other house, even if this position lasts only for a short time. It is of course conceivable that some premises which are liable for the collective community charge will have some residents who are not in fact solely or mainly resident on the premises but who are staying there temporarily while remaining registered for the personal community charge at their home addresses.
A liability for the collective community charge will depend on the collective community charge multiplier provided for by subsections (7) to (9) and the multiplier will reflect the number of people who are typically solely or mainly resident on the premises. Only those who are so resident will be required to pay to the landlord the collective community charge contribution provided for by subsections (10) to (16).
963 I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for raising these quite complex drafting points. He suggested that the reference to premises which are not subject to non-domestic rates in Clause 11(2) (a) might be replaced, if I have understood him correctly, by a reference to "domestic subjects". It is the case that "domestic subjects" are taken off the valuation roll under Part I of the Bill and will not be subject to non-domestic rates. However, although I will give further consideration to that point, I do not think it would be appropriate to refer to "domestic subjects" in Clause 11(2) (a). In 10 or 15 years' time it will be far easier to determine whether premises are not as a matter of fact subject to non-domestic rates than it will be to determine whether they would have fallen within the definition of "domestic subjects" under Clause 2(3).
My noble friend also asked whether it would be clearer if Clause 11(2) (b) (i) referred to premises which are "wholly or mainly" used rather than used "mainly or wholly", if I have correctly understood the burden of his argument, as the sole or main residence of persons. I do not see any real or material distinction between the two formulations. There are those who may prefer the present wording of the Bill because the adverbs follow the verbs rather than appearing between the auxiliary and the main verb. I have to say to the noble Lord that this approach is also followed in other Acts. I can refer my noble friend, for example, to Section 32(5) of the Capital Allowance Act 1968, which refers to "vehicles provided" and goes on to say, "wholly or mainly" for a particular purpose.
My noble friend has raised some important points and I will certainly study them. With the complex explanation which he gave, I do not think he would necessarily expect me to answer his points too quickly off the cuff: but I will certainly do what I can to see that those points are taken care of, together with the question of the two separate clauses under the two separate parts of the Bill in relation to the definitions contained there, interpretation being the theme. I hope, with those explanations, that my noble friend is at least content that I shall look at this matter again. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, appreciates a little more fully the effect of his amendment on this part of the Bill.
Yes, I do; and I waste no more time. I ask leave to withdraw that amendment. As to the next one, it is far too important to withdraw and therefore I shall not move it. I would ask leave to withdraw No. 164, and I shall not move No. 164A.
Your Lordships' Committee may feel that this is a convenient moment to break our proceedings and return to the subject at twenty-five minutes to nine. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

References: V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.