| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On Question, Motion agreed to.
131: Page 148, line 41, after “was”,”, insert-
“(ba) for “they act” substitute “it acts”,”
132: Page 149, line 16, at end insert-
“(za) for “they have” substitute “it has”,”
133: Page 156, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert-
“(c) for “the Commissioners so request, be transmitted to them” substitute “the Commission so requests, be transmitted to it”, and”
134: Page 157, line 11, at end insert-
“(9) In subsection (8) for “in subsection (3)” substitute “to subsection (3)”.”
135: Page 158, line 9, at end insert “, and
(c) for “they may” substitute “it may”.”
136: Page 162, line 10, leave out “19B” and insert “19C”
137: Page 162, line 35, at end insert-
“(3A) At the end add “or section 75D”.”
138: Page 164, line 41, at end insert-
(a) in the definition of “exempt charity” in subsection (1), the words “(subject to section 24(8) above)”, and
139: Page 165, line 7, at end insert-
“(ba) in the definition of “institution”, after ““institution” insert “means an institution whether incorporated or not, and”.”
140: Page 165, line 11, at end insert-
““the Minister” means the Minister for the Cabinet Office;””
141: Page 165, line 15, at end insert-
“169A In section 97(3) (general interpretation) for “Part IV or IX” substitute “Part 4, 7, 8A or 9”.”
142: Page 165, line 15, at end insert-
“169B In section 100(3) (extent) for “Section 10” substitute “Sections 10 to 10C”.”
143: Page 169, line 32, at end insert-
“Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4)
7 Nov 2006 : Column 727
In Part 3 of Schedule 14 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the Judicial Appointments Commission: relevant offices etc.) after the entries relating to section 6(5) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 insert-
“President of the Charity Tribunal
Legal member of the Charity Tribunal
Ordinary member of the Charity Tribunal Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1B to the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)”.”
144: Page 169, line 32, at end insert-
“Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 10)
The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 has effect subject to the following amendments.
In section 36(1) (powers of OSCR in relation to English and Welsh charities)-
(a) for “Charity Commissioners for England and Wales inform” substitute “Charity Commission for England and Wales informs”,
(b) for “under section 3” substitute “in accordance with section 3A”, and
(c) for “section 3(5) of that Act,” substitute “subsection (2) of that section,”.
In section 69(2)(d)(i) (persons disqualified from being charity trustees)-
(a) at the beginning insert “by the Charity Commission for England and Wales under section 18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 or”, and
(b) for “under section 18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10),” substitute “, whether under section 18(2)(i) of that Act or under”.”
145: Page 169, line 32, at end insert-
(1) The Equality Act 2006 has effect subject to the following amendments.
(2) In section 58(2) (charities relating to religion or belief)-
(a) for “Charity Commissioners for England and Wales” substitute “Charity Commission”, and
(b) for “the Commissioners” substitute “the Commission”.
(3) In section 79(1)(a) (interpretation) after “given by” insert “section 1(1) of”.”
146: Schedule 9, page 170, line 5, at beginning insert-
“Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31)
In section 5(1), in paragraph (b) of the proviso, the words from “, and no representation” onwards.”
147: Page 170, line 18, column 2, at end insert-
“In section 79, in subsection (6) the words “(subject to subsection (7))”, and subsection (7).”
148: Page 170, line 20, column 2, at end insert-
“In Schedule 7, the entry relating to the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31).”
7 Nov 2006 : Column 728
149: Page 170, leave out line 29
150: Page 171, line 6, leave out “paragraphs (x) and (zb)” and insert “paragraph (x)”
151: Schedule 10, page 173, line 21, leave out paragraph 12 and insert-
“12 The amendment made by section does not affect the payment of remuneration or provision of services in accordance with an agreement made before the day on which that section comes into force.”
152: Page 174, line 4, at end insert-
“Section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator): Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator
15A In relation to an offence committed in England and Wales before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general limit on magistrates’ courts power to impose imprisonment), the reference to 12 months in section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator)(6) is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”
153: Page 174, line 20, at end insert-
“18A In relation to an offence committed in England and Wales before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general limit on magistrates’ courts power to impose imprisonment), the reference to 12 months in section 10A(4) of the 1993 Act (as inserted by paragraph 99 of Schedule to this Act) is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”
154: Page 174, line 21, leave out paragraphs 19 and 20
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131 to 154.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
7.05 pm
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the first two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 October be approved [Considered in Grand Committee on 25 October].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 729
Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
7.06 pm
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 October be approved [Considered in Grand Committee on 25 October].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I start, perhaps I may make a housekeeping announcement. Peers with an interest in Northern Ireland may wish to know that tomorrow's meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been postponed until Monday 20 November—probably Monday afternoon. Letters will be sent out with new details. I regret that, but it is one of those things.
I do not intend to belabour the point about the order. The review and reform of the rates was commenced by the Northern Ireland Executive in 2000. A decision was arrived at in December 2002, just after the Executive was suspended, to go for a capital value system. The order is therefore the culmination of four years of research and reform to see whether we can get a better system that is fit for purpose in Northern Ireland. It applies purely in the Northern Ireland context. That is all we are discussing tonight.
The provision has been arrived at after an enormous range of consultation on the order and the draft order, amounting to more than 32 weeks in all, and substantial debate in Northern Ireland itself. The present rating system in Northern Ireland, for noble Lords who are unaware of it, does not benefit from the experience in England of having had the poll tax—otherwise known as the community charge—forced on it or, indeed, the council tax. In other words, the local rating system in Northern Ireland is based on the rates system that we used to have in England prior to the poll tax. Indeed, the values currently used in Northern Ireland on which the rates are fixed are in many cases the rateable values from 1968.
In 1968, the majority of properties were probably rented; now, the majority of properties are owner-occupied. I think that the proportion is about 70 per cent plus. If all 720,000 properties in Northern Ireland had risen in value by the same percentage from 1968 to today, there would be no problem. Everyone’s rates on the new system would be exactly the same as they are today. The purpose of the system is not to raise new revenue. I make that absolutely clear. It is not the function of the new system to raise new revenue. But the plain fact is that not all properties have risen in value by the same percentage. Some have gone up enormously; others have gone up by a very small amount. That means that, in today's Northern Ireland, many people are paying an unfair rate, based as it is on an old rateable value of the property. Others are clearly not paying a fair share.
I am not going to go through the minutiae of the system to be brought in. It is a system used elsewhere in the world; it has not been invented purely for Northern Ireland. It is not a brand new system. It is based on the capital values of properties—capital
7 Nov 2006 : Column 730
On behalf of the Government, I regret that this is not being done in the Assembly by the Executive, but we need to move the order because the new rating system—the new capital values—will be used to bring in the water charges. Without the water charges, Northern Ireland could lose an enormous amount of revenue that will flow from a different system. A fairer system means that most people in Northern Ireland will gain rather than lose. Sixty-eight per cent of the population will gain, pay the same or pay less than £1 a week extra. A pensioner couple living in a house worth £500,000 on the basic state pension will pay no rates, so it is not the case that this is unfair and penalises most people. We have made several concessions for young people in education and others.
Lord Trimble: My Lords, I notice that the Minister is using a different percentage figure from the one that he used in Grand Committee, where he said that 55 per cent of people would gain under this. He will recall that the point was made to him in Grand Committee that if he considered the people who are legally obliged to pay rates—in other words, if he discounted those whose rates are paid for them by social security—a different figure might emerge. Has he looked into that, and can he tell us what the relevant figure is?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall get a figure for that, but I am not using a different figure from that used in Grand Committee. The figure that I have just given is different, because I was making a different assessment. Fifty-five per cent of people gain or pay the same; in other words, they pay lower rates or pay the same. The figure that I have just used is 68 per cent of people, who will gain, pay the same or pay less than £1 extra. That is what I have just said, and it is completely consistent with what I said in Grand Committee. These are two separate assessments. I have now used a figure that also includes people who will pay less than £1 extra. Sixty-eight per cent will gain—that is, they will pay lower rates—will pay the same or will pay less than £1 a week extra. That gives a scale. One in five people in Northern Ireland pays no rates anyway. Under this system, more than one in five will pay no rates. The rebate system will be more generous than it is under the present system.
As I said, a pensioner couple living in a house worth £500,000 on the state pension will pay no rates. I also gave a figure in Grand Committee for a couple living in a house worth £500,000. That couple would have to have an income of £35,000 a year or £16,000 in savings before they were taken out of the rebate system. So it is not true that we have not considered the people on the margins who are asset-rich and income-poor. We have tried to devise a system that is fairer and more up to date. In other words, it is a system that people understand because houses are bought and sold every week. It is the same all over the country. I challenge any noble Lord to explain
7 Nov 2006 : Column 731
The assessment that was made was necessarily a snapshot of the position in January 2005. Generally, people would have sold a house for less then than they could in November 2006. It is important to start the system a reasonable amount of time after the snapshot was taken in January 2005. In other words, it should be started by April 2007 so that the figures are reasonably realistic. Obviously one needs to revalue properties over time. In Northern Ireland, the Rate Collection Agency of the Department of the Environment knows much more about properties because of what it has been doing over the years than we do in England. The whole point is that what is happening in Northern Ireland is fit for Northern Ireland. It is not a test bed. The people of Northern Ireland are not being used as an experiment.
As I have said repeatedly, and notwithstanding the Lyons review and all the material that has been in the press in the past few days, it is a fairer system that takes account of the ability to pay. However, the ability to pay is not the prime factor in a dwelling that has been adapted because of the owner’s disability. There will be a reduction in the valuation of their rates irrespective of their income. That valuation is therefore not related to that person’s ability to pay. The concession for people whose dwelling has been adapted because of their disability may therefore have increased in value because various factors have been incorporated. That concession is made irrespective of their income. It does not matter whether they are poor, on a medium income, on a pension or whatever their income is; that concession is available. It is true that it is not related to the ability to pay. We wanted a scheme that was related as closely as possible to the ability to pay but that was also property-based. Property-based taxes are much easier to collect, as are people-based taxes, as we discovered when the unwise poll tax was instituted. In terms of value for money, you do not want to spend a lot of money collecting rates.
I fully accept—we can discuss this—that Northern Ireland’s system for water charges is different from that in the rest of Great Britain. Water charges need to be up front and levied in a way in which more income comes into Northern Ireland to be spent in Northern Ireland and so that a borrowing capacity can be created that is not there under the current arrangements. I realise that the cost of living and incomes and earnings are somewhat lower in Northern Ireland than they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that public expenditure per head is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Even now, a cap is possible—we have discussed this issue, and I will conclude on this point—so that no one in Northern Ireland would pay a rate that was greater than the highest rate in England.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |