New Clause.—(LIABILITY TO RATES OF OWNER OF UNOCCUPIED LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

HC Deb 27 June 1956 vol 555 cc491-579

5	(1) Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages which have become unoccupied within their area is without reasonable cause allowing those lands and heritages to remain unoccupied, they may, after giving to such owner notice in writing of their intention to do so, levy upon him, in respect of the period commencing on such date as may be specified in the notice (not being earlier than six months from the date of the notice) and ending on the date on which the lands and heritages cease to be unoccupied, such proportion (not exceeding twenty-five per cent.) as may be so specified of the rates which would have been payable for the said period in respect of the lands and heritages by an occupier thereof.
10	(2) Where the owner of any lands and heritages is aggrieved by the decision of a rating authority to levy any rates upon him in pursuance of the foregoing subsection he may, not later than six weeks from the date of the notice sent to him under that subsection by such authority, appeal to the sheriff against the said decision, and the sheriff shall have power to confirm, vary or annul the decision of the authority, and his decision shall be final.
15
20	(3) This section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section two hundred and forty-three of the Act of 1947, and the provisions of section seven of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, relating to the right of the owner of a small dwelling-house to claim repayment of occupiers' assessments shall not apply as regards any dwelling-house in respect of any period for which rates are levied upon the owner thereof in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

We have later to deal with the Report stage of the Bill, we have much to do and I will not take up a great deal of time on the new Clause. For a detailed explanation of it and the reasons which

In view of the discussions which have taken place, I should not be justified in accepting the Amendment as it stands, but I could accept it if the hon. Member moved the recommittal of the Bill in respect of the new Clause dealing with apportionment of payments.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, at the end to add: and in respect of the new Clause (Apportionment of payments received by the council of a county under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Fraser.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

have prompted the Government to place it upon the Notice Paper, I refer the Committee to the Report of the proceedings in Standing Committee which is a considerable work, and, in particular, to col. 1001 of 10th May, in which is stated the Government's view of this matter. I also refer hon. Members to paragraph 148 of the Sorn Committee Report. I will not spend time in quoting, but perhaps I might remind hon. Members of the conclusions of the Committee on this subject, as given in paragraph 148: We therefore recommend that it should be dealt with —that is, the rating of unoccupied property— by a provision to the effect that the local authority may after due notice levy such proportion of the new single rate on the owner as they may sec fit where they are satisfied that he is not genuinely seeking to let a lettable dwelling-house. Their decision, as in some other housing questions, should be subject to appeal to the sheriff. As I have said before now, the Bill as drafted follows the advice tendered by Lord Sorn's Committee. It was the Government's intention to follow that advice in drafting the Bill unless there were very strong reasons which compelled them to adopt some other course.

I admit quite frankly that the provisions incorporated in the new Clause were not in the Bill as originally presented to the House, for certain reasons. One of the reasons, very briefly, was the fact that on 30th June last year, as reported in col. 590 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the House refused to accept a Clause in the English Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now an Act of Parliament, providing that unoccupied property should be liable to rates and that in England and Wales the owner should pay the rates of such property in precisely the same way as the occupier pays them, there being no occupier.

The proposal in the new Clause is quite different from that in the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) last June. As hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee on this Bill will know, I was pressed on this point and, in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), as reported in col. 1001 of the 10th May, I said: However, in spite of these considerations to which I have referred, I realise, as did the Sorn Committee, that there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services, such as the police and the fire services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.]

As a result, the new Clause was placed upon the Notice Paper. My difficulty arises from the fact that one of the objects of Clause 16 is to deal with owners' rates, as any hon. Member will find if he studies the Bill. I accepted that principle, but I wanted to meet the case put to me without breaching that principle more than I could help.

It was not what might be called a simple operation. As a result of tabling this new Clause representations have, of course, been made to me, both orally and in correspondence, accusing me of breaching the principle of Clause 16. I should like to put the matter in another way and to ask the Committee to consider it from a different point of view, and I hope that in doing so I may be able to carry most of the Committee with me some of the way.

In my view, and I have given a lot of thought to this, an unoccupied dwelling or building—or whatever the lawyers choose to call it—is still property of value and should be taken care of. For instance, in the case of a fire in any part of the country one would not, if one had time, instruct the fire brigade to do its utmost to put out the fire and, at the same time, tell the firemen "You need not bother about No. 11 or No. 15 because it happens to be unoccupied." [An HON. MEMBER: "No. 10."] No. 10, if one wishes—I see the point. I am at No. 3 of another street. As I say, one would not give such an instruction, but would try to save the whole street.

I therefore suggest to the Committee that what the new Clause aims at is to make provision that the owner of an unoccupied dwelling should after a reasonable period, as specified, in which to find a tenant or to dispose of the house otherwise to someone who will occupy it, pay a fair and reasonable charge towards the services provided by the local authorities at the public expense; that is to say, rate-borne expenditure and Exchequer contribution affecting the whole body of taxpayers throughout the country.

The main argument refers, of course, to the fire services, but the police were also constantly referred to, although an unoccupied dwelling which is, presumably, not furnished is not such a good subject to break into as an occupied one. I also included water, for the very good reason, in my opinion, that a good water supply is something which most fire brigades prefer to have at their disposal when trying to deal with a fire.

For those reasons, we have endeavoured to draft a Clause which, I hope, in a fair and reasonable manner and with proper and reasonable safeguards meets the points which were put to me. I suggest to the Committee that this is in the nature of an insurance premium to be paid in respect of unoccupied property.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)

Too high.

Mr. Stuart

If the owner thinks that the proportion of the rates charged on the property, within the 25 per cent. which the local authority may charge, is too high, he has his right of appeal. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. As I say, this is in the nature of an insurance premium which the owner pays on this valuable asset because, after all, houses have value—or most of them have. It is an insurance premium or, if the Committee prefers, it could be described as a protection charge against fire, burglary, and so on.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. McInnes

I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State indicate that he had had difficulty in incorporating such a Clause as this into the Bill having regard to the fact that the English Bill did not contain a Clause of a similar nature. Surely he realised that south of the Border there is no such problem. This problem, which is extremely acute, is confined almost entirely to Scotland and does not exist throughout the United Kingdom.

Ever since I entered this House I have tried, by way of Question and debate, to destroy, shall I say, what I regard as a ruthless and anti-social practice indulged in by factors and property owners in Scotland. That practice is to keep thousands of houses unoccupied, unlet, because of a desire to sell rather than to let. I want very briefly to recall circumstances that brought about the inclusion of this Clause, and then to submit that it is an anaemic Clause, one which is of no use and which in no way meets the demands of the Opposition.

Let me at once make it quite clear that I am not denying to factors and property owners the right, the freedom or the opportunity to sell houses during a reasonable time after they become unoccupied. What I object to is that between 3,000 and 4,000 houses in Scotland are at present being kept unoccupied without reasonable cause for periods of 8, 10, 12—even 18 months. I regard such a practice as being almost criminal, the more so when we realise the extent of Scotland's housing problem.

As I have frequently asserted, I regard Scotland as perhaps the worst-housed country in the whole of Europe. We still need about 400,000 houses. In the City of Glasgow alone, although we have built 100,000 municipal houses, there still remain on the waiting list no less than 112,000 applications. Glasgow today has 40,000 homeless families and in such circumstances I think it criminal that we should still find in that city nearly 2,000 houses standing unoccupied for periods such as I have indicated.

It is not merely a matter of factors and property owners exploiting the housing shortage. There is also the question of the exorbitant charges which are demanded for these empty houses, existing as they do in old and dilapidated property. Tragic circumstances follow for those who, stupidly enough, pay these exorbitant prices. I could give illusstration after illustration, as indeed could hon. Members opposite, of young married couples who, in their desire to obtain what we all desire to obtain—a house in which to live—are paying £300, £400 or £500 for a two-roomed house. They settle down in it, and in a matter of three or four months along comes the city engineer and condemns the property as dangerous. Out go the young married couple, and down the drain go their whole life's savings which have been invested in that house.

During the earlier stages of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and I put down an Amendment designed not to deal harshly with the factors and property owners, not to impose a severe penalty, although we may have desired to impose such a penalty, but merely to act as a deterrent against this practice of keeping houses unoccupied for a year and sometimes as long as a year and a half.

I was very glad when the right hon. Gentleman indicated in Committee that if we withdrew our Amendment he would be prepared to look at the matter and bring in a new Clause to deal with the situation almost in accord with the general line set out in the Sorn Committee's Report. In the main, the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Sorn Committee, but they did not accept this one. That Committee, after its very exhaustive inquiry into the whole situation, came forward with the recommendation that where it was established that without reasonable cause, property was being kept unoccupied and unlet, the owner should become responsible for the rates.

But the Bill as it stands would mean that the owner would not be required to pay a single penny in rates. That is even worse than the situation which exists today. Today, an owner who keeps houses unoccupied for any length of time over 12 months becomes responsible for the whole of the owner's rates. If the property is kept unoccupied for three months but for a period not exceeding 12 months, he becomes liable for owner's rates and a proportion of the occupier's rates. Indeed, the remission that he gets from the occupier's rates is less than one-third.

As I said, my right hon. Friend and I withdrew our Amendment. We naturally expected that the Secretary of State would bring forward a Clause which would meet the situation adequately, but I must say that I am very disappointed with the Clause that he has produced. It bears absolutely no relation to the recommendation of the Sorn Committee. It does not meet our demands in any way, nor does it fit in with the general scheme of the Bill.

The Clause has many weaknesses. The first is that local authorities "may" give notice. It is permissive rather than mandatory. I think that that is a weakness. Knowing local authorities in Scotland as I do, there is every chance for them to escape their responsibility in this matter. I am disappointed to find that the right hon. Gentleman's Clause suggests that only 25 per cent. of the rates payable by the occupier should be charged. What possible justification can there be for that, when one recognises that these owners are keeping houses unoccupied without reasonable cause? If a person keeps a house unoccupied without reasonable cause, surely there is every justification for exacting from that person the maximum of rates that may be in operation in that locality.

Mr. J. Stuart

Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the education rate, for example, does not come into it.

Mr. McInnes

There is more than education that does not come into it, but there are many other things which do come into it and which the 25 per cent. would not possibly cover. It is no use trying to chip and chop here, and cut out there, and put in something somewhere else. The simple, straightforward method is the best method and will be more easily understood by local authorities.

I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty; I can appreciate it. He finds himself in the position of trying to meet the demands of the Opposition while, at the same time, he is confronted by a few reactionaries on the benches opposite who are demanding that absolutely nothing should be done. I suggest that he should pay little attention to those reactionaries. Those are the people who would have us back to the old system of the Poor Law and the workhouse if they had their way. They have not yet joined us in the twentieth century.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

They look like it, too.

Mr. McInnes

I regard the right hon. Gentleman as being fair-minded and reasonable. Indeed, I think he has a reputation for being fair and for not wanting to tolerate an injustice. I say that quite honestly. I hope that in that spirit the right hon. Gentleman will at least tell us that he is prepared to consider favourably the Amendments that we have on the Notice Paper; indeed, I hope that he will not merely consider them favourably, but will accept them in order to strengthen his Clause in such a way that it will not only discourage but will destroy this pernicious practice that exists in Scotland.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) would regard me as a reactionary. It is true that I opposed at once any suggestion that a new Clause on these lines should be introduced when my right hon. Friend told us in the Scottish Grand Committee that he proposed to consider the matter and to introduce such a Clause at a later stage. I am bound to tell the Committee that I still oppose the Clause when I have seen it, and perhaps even more strongly than I imagined I would have to.

I oppose the Clause for reasons largely of principle. First, to reimpose owners' rates in this way violates an established principle—established in Scotland and certainly in England and Wales—that the liability for rating arises normally when there is beneficial occupation. Rates are levied in respect of occupation, and time and time again the courts have shown that the occupation must be of value before the rate is levied.

There have been many cases about this. I call to mind one particular case tried in England during the war, which I will quote because I think it is the most typical of them all. It was the case of a firm which took houses as an emergency measure in case it should be bombed out of its offices. It paid the rent upon those houses throughout the larger part of the war. It never occupied them. The local authority levied a rate, and the company appealed against the rate. The appeal was upheld on the ground that there was no beneficial occupation.

4.0 p.m.

To reimpose owners' rates, in whatever form they be imposed—I recognise, of course, that this is a maximum of 25 per cent.—is bound to discourage private enterprise building, because people are unlikely to build if, while looking for a buyer, they have to pay 25 per cent. of the rates upon the empty property. I am quite certain that if sanity is to be restored to our housing economy, it is essential that as soon as we can we should get away from the subsidised local authority house back to the unsubsidised, private enterprise house.

I am being deliberately telegraphic in what I have to say because I know we have a great deal of business before us, and I am anxious not to delay the Committee.

Thirdly, it seems to me that this new Clause was introduced upon the flimsiest evidence. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Sorn Report. The only paragraph which refers to this matter is paragraph 148, where we read that if owners' rates are abolished unoccupied property would not be rated at all, which, says the Report, is as it should be.

Then, in a most extraordinary way, it goes on to express an entirely opposite view, basing it upon the opinion of a single unnamed member of an unspecified local authority. There is no evidence, but just the remark that it has been suggested to the Committee by an unnamed individual, a member of an unspecified local authority, that it might be a good thing in the circumstances to impose a rate.

Mr. McInnes

The Committee was convinced by it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

No one on this side of the Committee would seek to deny that there are unoccupied houses at present, but in so far as there are such unoccupied houses they are unoccupied despite the fact that owners presently pay rates upon them. They remain unlet not because of any lack of demand for rates, because the owners are still paying rates upon them in Scotland, but because of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which prevent owners from letting properties at economic rents.

The remedy seems to be not to seek to reimpose owners' rates upon such properties, a thing which the Sorn Committee, after hearing evidence from witnesses among whom there was, as the Report says, "a striking degree of unanimity", castigated as an unnecessary and harmful complication in the Scottish system of rating which … impedes the provision of housing and the growth of industry. The remedy is not to go back to that harmful complication in our system but to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts. For about 40 years, everybody who has advocated rating reform in Scotland has objected to rates on owners of unoccupied houses. To preserve owners' rates as a feature of the law cuts right across the main purposes of the Bill which we have been considering for so long.

My right hon. Friend reminded the Committee that this matter had been discussed in the House of Commons only last year. It is not the first occasion that an attempt has been made, always by the Labour Party, the Opposition of the day, to impose a rate on unoccupied property. In Committee on the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, an attempt was made to levy rates upon unoccupied property. That proposal was rejected. A Private Member's Bill, in 1936, made the same proposal and the proposal was again rejected. In Committee on the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of 1955, the House of Commons rejected by 133 votes to 175 a proposal to levy a rate upon unoccupied property.

I have never said that Scotland ought slavishly to follow England and Wales, but it seems to me that in a matter of this kind the law in Scotland ought to be on all fours with the law in England and Wales. If it is not, it will do great harm to the country which makes the innovation, and it will particularly discourage the coming of industry to our country.

My right hon. Friend referred throughout his speech in introducing this new Clause to its operation upon rents and upon houses. Never once did he mention factories. Never once did he mention shops or offices. It is remarkable that although the arguments adduced in Committee and adduced this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central have all been upon the basis of the need to levy some rate or charge upon dwelling-houses, the Clause itself goes far beyond that and applies to every kind of heritable property in Scotland.

It applies to factories. It might be said that factories only pay 25 per cent. anyhow of the net annual value because of the effect of derating, so that the levy of 25 per cent. upon that does not matter at all. But everyone in the Committee must be aware of all the talk there is in the House and in the country about the possibility of rerating industrial heritages. If we were to rerate industry, it would mean that there would be this possibility of a 25 per cent. rate hanging over the heads of all owners of factories or industrialists who might be considering whether they would go to Scotland or to somewhere else, perhaps to Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] This is not fanciful by any means.

Everybody knows the fierce competition there is to bring industries into different places. Everyone knows the pull which the Development Areas exert because of special concessions made to industrialists. Everybody knows how attractive it is to industrialists to be able to go to the new towns with their modern houses, country surroundings, and other features and amenities which are attractive to the people who work in the factories. Everyone knows how hard Northern Ireland is trying to secure industry.

That is the sort of competition we are facing. If we in Scotland, deliberately, with our eyes open, impose this burden upon industrialists, we really shall not get them to come to our country. If industry is to be attracted to Scotland, we must not impose this impediment. I have been as brief as I can. For all those reasons, I most strongly object to this new Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) with interest. They seemed to me to be fallacious.

In the first place, there is no obligation to rate the factory that stands empty. The Clause is permissive; that was one of our disagreements about it. The rating authority "may" do so, after giving notice in writing to the owner.

The second argument was about house building. I was surprised that the hon. Member adduced the argument once again that the proposed new Clause will prevent the building of houses in Scotland. The Clause is so weak that a house might stand empty for a very long time before anything is done, while the local authority is making up its mind whether to place a rate on the property or not. Even then the local authority has to give six months' notice.

In present conditions, any house that is offered for sale at a fair price is bought quickly. The reason that houses do not sell is that the price demanded is unreasonable or extortionate. People are asked to buy for £400 or £500 property that is practically worthless. We have heard that that is happening in Glasgow and I know that the same thing is done in Edinburgh. Any hon. Member seeing the condition of some of these houses might wonder whether they ought to be occupied at all, never mind being offered for sale.

I hope that we shall not hear again the argument that because England and Wales have done something Scotland ought to do the same. We can always produce a better Bill than the English, who are far too woolly and muddly about these things. It is a characteristic of the English that they muddle through. Many of their Bills muddle through. We are not satisfied with that kind of thing and I do not accept that argument. We have the exceedingly serious problem of thousands of houses standing empty while people need them. We have made many attempts to deal with it. The proposed new Clause provides a method of doing so.

I could not understand the argument of the Secretary of State that the rate should only be up to 25 per cent. for the reason that the properties are using only the fire service and the police service. I think he said that the owners should pay the water rate. That is not really the argument. It is that by acting anti-socially and demanding an unjust price the owner is preventing a tenant from entering the house and paying the full rate. By his action, the owner prevents someone making his contribution to all these services of the local authority.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at his argument, which is not sound. If an owner is not acting anti-socially and unjustly, the local authority will not make him pay the rate. He must be acting against the best interests of the community by denying somebody else an opportunity to make his full rate contribution, in which case he ought to be liable for that rate contribution.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Ian Horobin (Oldham, East)

This is a very bad Clause. As an English Member I resent very much the way in which an important principle, which must in due course affect England, is being introduced. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has had to leave. I hope he will return. I want to address my remarks, as an English Member, purely to this aspect of the matter.

One of the general principles of this reform in Scotland has been to assimilate to a considerable degree the Scottish rating system to the English system. The rights and wrongs of the matter I do not propose to refer to. It is impossible to introduce any change of principle in this way without bearing very much in mind the inevitable consequences to the English system. It has always been the view hitherto in England that rates should not be imposed upon vacant and unoccupied property, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has pointed out. If the arguments that have been put forward for the proposed new Clause are sound, why do not they apply in England?

Hon. Members

They do.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Bill is limited to Scotland and we are dealing with a proposed new Clause applying to Scotland.

Sir I. Horobin

I propose to keep my remarks strictly in order. The arguments for this being a good Bill for Scotland apply absolutely without change to its being a good Bill for England. Therefore, we must consider them, as hon. Members, whether we sit for Scotland, England or Wales.

The Government have decided over and over again that those arguments are bad in principle. I view with the greatest concern what appears to be a running away, in a minor piece of legislation, from that position. I do not believe that one English hon. Member in fifty has the vaguest idea of what we are doing today, because this is supposed to be a Scottish Bill. The arguments which are proposed in support of the new Clause will, if they are not carefully watched, debar the Government from opposing a similar change for England and Wales.

On the question of reasonable cause, I would like someone on the Government Front Bench to tell us whether it would or would not be reasonable cause if an owner of a house said, "I do not want to rent, I want to sell." His reasons may be good or bad. Would it be a proper exercise of the discretion of a court to say that it is unreasonable of the owner to refuse to let? Every hon. Member whether English or Scottish, can see the implications of this question. It is the sort of reasoning which has hitherto prevented us from applying this bad principle to English rating.

I want to refer to the 25 per cent. proposal. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who are such authorities on English rating, are not here. I do not think they would disagree that they, and certainly other hon. Members on that side of the Committee, are violently opposed to any proposal to link the rate charge to some proportion of local authority expenditure, whether for the fire service, the police service, or any other service. That has been argued very forcibly today. They have always taken that view. We cannot but expect that this provision made now solely for Scotland may be attempted in England at some time in the future; and likewise the 25 per cent. rate proportion, which it is proposed shall be paid upon unoccupied premises, may be increased.

In previous debates on the question of the rating of unoccupied premises it has been argued, as it has been forcibly argued today by hon. Members opposite, and even admitted by the Government, that it is not practical and reasonable to attempt to say that such and such a hereditament absorbs only such and such amounts of the local authority's expenditure and ought not to have to contribute to the rest. I am not saying for the moment that I agree with that, for that is not important at the moment. What is important is that the Opposition think that and hitherto the Government have thought that, and if we are not careful, just as this new proposal to rate unoccupied premises may be introduced into England, so also may the 25 per cent. at some time be increased even up to 100 per cent., and we shall be back to owners' rates not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom as a whole.

There may not be objection to that among hon. Members opposite, but we certainly object to it. We certainly object to owners' rates. We thought, some of us who are English Members, that we might, by turning up here today to vote for the Bill, possibly help Scotland to escape from them, but we certainly do not want to saddle England with them.

The way this Clause has been introduced, by a side wind, to make a change in what hitherto has been Government policy, dating back, in England anyway, indefinitely, seems very improper, and I would—I hope in a not too unfriendly spirit—warn the Secretary of State that he has not heard the last of this proposal. The more people get to know what is being done, in a casual attempt to speed up the dilatory proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee, the stronger the objection to this Clause will be.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

Will the hon. Member go into the Lobby to vote against it?

Sir I. Horobin

If anybody goes into the Lobby against it, I will certainly do so.

This Clause is a bad Clause, contrary to Conservative principles of rating. [Interruption.] This is supposed to be a Conservative Government. Is it indecent to refer to Conservative principles when my remarks are intended for the consideration of a Conservative Secretary of State? It is a thoroughly bad Clause to which I strongly object, and if there is a vote against it I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)

The Secretary of State, in explaining the Clause to us, explained the difficulties he had in reconciling the Clause with Clause 16 and the attacks that had been made upon him by his hon. Friends for what has been called a breach of principle. I should have thought that the Secretary of State's proper reply to those attacks would have been to have reminded the attackers of the parable of the buried talent—

Mr. Rankin

In Premium Bonds.

Mr. Johnston

—and to have explained to his attackers that the man who buried his talent hardly got the commendation which he expected, but was regarded as a sinner.

We are delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin). As far as I know, it is the first time he has intervened in a Scottish debate. I sympathise a good deal with what he has said, particularly the latter part of it, but much of his speech arose from a complete misapprehension of the history of Scottish rating. It is quite different from the English.

The Committee may recollect that in English rating the principle of liability arising from beneficial occupancy started with a Statute of Elizabeth I, and it was only if there was beneficial occupancy that there was any liability for rates, and it was the occupier who was always rated. That is not so in Scotland. Rating in Scotland arose and was first levied on owners because rating was a method of raising local finance, and it was raised not upon occupancy or upon income but upon capital. It was only, I think I am right in saying, at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century that occupiers were first called upon to pay any part of the rates.

I do not think the Secretary of State would regard himself as in any way bound by the English principle of beneficial occupancy, and I do not think that, in transferring the liability now upon owners to occupiers, he thinks he is trying in any way to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England. They are still distinct and apart. Even the word "occupancy" in England is very different from the word "occupancy" in Scotland.

What I have said applies in answer also to the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who is, if he will permit me to say so, much more familiar than appeared from what he said to the Committee with the rating system of England than with that of Scotland. The two systems are poles apart and should never be compared. So I hope the hon. Member may rest content with the English system while we rest content with the system we have.

However, all that is far from saying that I am satisfied with the Clause. I wholly agree with the criticisms of the dreadful words "without reasonable cause". I am aware, of course, that they have been used on numerous occasions. On numerous occasions they have ended in litigation in the House of Lords. The Clause is really a lawyers' dream as it stands at present. If anyone doubts that, let me give him a few examples, and if anyone thinks the examples are farfetched I suggest he looks through the latest book on valuation and rating in Scotland. I remind the Committee that we are concerned here not with dwelling-houses only, but with all sorts of hereditaments.

I start the examples, again with the preface that this is the type of case that can arise, with that of a grouse moor. A grouse moor is let, let us say, at a rental of £1,000 a year, and has been let for many years. The owner of the grouse moor, who has never shot over it himself but has always let it, becomes converted by the propaganda of the Society of Feathered Friends and refuses to let the moor ever again. Nor does he shoot over it himself. I wonder, is that refusal to let because of his dislike of killing grouse a reasonable cause within the meaning of the new Clause? Is it, or is it not? Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, who are both here, and the Secretary of State, who, I think, sometimes does or used to shoot grouse, will tell me.

Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some examples of such a case as this which he can draw upon from his own experience. He would not, I am sure, be attempting to keep the Committee with a purely hypothetical and even fanciful case. He must have some examples of this in mind.

Mr. Johnston

Oh, yes, I have more examples. I use this as the first one. It is not fanciful, because in many valuation and rating cases one is concerned with deer forests or grouse moors and properties like that.

Mr. Elliot

rose—

Mr. Johnston

I am not going to give way again, because I am anxious to ascertain from the Government, particularly from the Law Officers and the Secretary of State, whether this is or is not a reasonable cause. Can I have no answer?

4.30 p.m.

Suppose the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate were called upon to advise the owner of the estate, who had been asked to pay rates because of the determination of the Argyllshire valuation authority. How would they advise the owner on his propects of an appeal to the sheriff? The only way I can suggest is that they would consult those books of reference which told something about the practices and habits of the sheriff and would ascertain whether he shot grouse or was a member of a zoological society.

There is also this very curious result that in Argyllshire an appeal is refused while in Caithness and Sutherland an appeal is allowed. That, surely, is absurd. Perhaps that is a far-fetched example, but it shows the width and absurdity of the Clause. Let me come to something nearer. Company X buys premises adjoining its present factory, with the purpose of extending its premises in five or ten years' time. It makes no use whatever of the premises bought. It does not even put in a caretaker. It just allows it to stand empty. Is that or not "without reasonable cause" within the meaning of the Clause? What is the answer? I am looking for a nod or a shake of the head from occupants of the Government Front Bench, or does silence mean "I do not know"? This is really shocking.

Here is another example. Company X owns a block which contains two shops. The lease of the first falls in now, and the lease of the other is to fall in in five years' time. The company sees great opportunities of development of the site as a block when the second shop falls vacant. Is that a good or a bad reason for allowing the first shop to fall vacant? Is it "without reasonable cause" within the meaning of the Clause? What is the answer this time? How would the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland advise their clients in those circumstances?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant)

The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has an Amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with this question of "reasonable cause". Although I have been a Member of the House for a very much shorter time than has the hon. and learned Member, it strikes me that it is quite inappropriate to put up Committee points on the Second Reading of the Clause. I am certainly prepared to answer these points. They are perfectly simple, although extremely far-fetched. Unless the hon. and learned Member can think of better ones he will not convince me or anybody else. I am certainly prepared to answer his points at the appropriate stage.

Mr. D. Johnston

I had not been called to order by you, Sir Alan, and, therefore, I thought it quite proper to put questions about the ambiguities of the Clause now. I am a little surprised at the tone of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in replying to these questions which he has, of course, not answered any more than he has answered the question put by his hon. Friends.

I can give further examples, but I will not weary the Committee. It is clear that these words "reasonable cause" have no precise meaning. All they do is to add to the income of those of us, perhaps including myself, who practise in the valuation courts.

The Clause also provides that this is permissive, which means that in one part of the country the rate will be levied and in another part it will not. I had always understood that it was the principle of taxation law that tax should be imposed on all who are in equal circumstances, but that is not so here. It is entirely discretionary not only whether the tax is imposed, but the rate at which it is imposed. Surely that is altogether remarkable. Is there any precedent for it at all? I confess I know of none.

In these circumstances, what we want to do is to accept the Secretary of State's Clause but be prepared to make very substantial alterations late this afternoon, and that is how I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to deal with it. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that the difficulties which I have put are not fanciful but real and that he will accept Amendments which are designed to give clarity and force to the Clause.

The Joint-Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)

The principle of the Clause is that if an owner chooses to leave his property unoccupied, then, after some time and if there is no reasonable cause in the opinion of the sheriff, he has to pay some charge in recompense for the cost of the police and fire services and the loss of occupier's rates and this charge should not be more than 25 per cent. That is the principle which we have been discussing.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the acute problem of the practice of keeping houses unoccupied and unlet. We think that this, although it is a problem, is not primarily one of valuation and rating. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said, there is some force in the contention that the problem lies in spheres other than valuation and rating. Therefore, we felt it wrong to incorporate in the Bill the special, full provisions that would be necessary to meet this temporary local housing difficulty, however real. But the Clause does deal partially with this situation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has explained why he has not gone as far as hon. Members opposite would wish.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus underlined quite frankly, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, the difficulties which my right hon. Friend has had in framing the Clause. The example which my right hon. Friend quoted in the first part of his speech I think would be covered in this Clause by the words "without reasonable cause". The effect on private house building, about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus was worried, would be nil, because new buildings are exempted from the Clause. My hon. Friend also referred to the evidence in the Sorn Report on this matter as "flimsy". I think that, like myself, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central knows that the evidence cannot be described as flimsy.

The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) raised the question of "reasonable cause". My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has intervened to say that he will deal with the point on the appropriate Amendment, and I know better than to answer "Yes or "No" to any legal question. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus was concerned about the effect on Scottish industry. I hope that the Committee will allow me, if I deal a little more fully with this now, not to deal with the same point, as perhaps could be done, on a later Amendment.

If business is good the Clause will not operate unless it suits the industrialist. If business were bad then there would be reasonable cause and consequently there would be no charge. I cannot believe that any industrialist would be deterred by the Clause from acquiring a factory in Scotland. Nobody acquires a factory without all the attendant capital expenditure. And does he do that with a view to keeping it empty? Surely he would only keep it empty if there were reasonable cause. Of course, he might buy it in order to keep out a competitor, in which case why should he not incur a charge?

Mr. Rankin

Would that not be reasonable cause?

Mr. Browne

I said, why should he not incur a charge?

Mr. Rankin

The hon. Gentleman gave a legal judgment a few seconds ago, as he will see if he reads his speech tomorrow.

Mr. Browne

If this factory owner or manufacturer did want to do so, and was able to keep the factory empty without reasonable cause, it would not be this Clause which would matter; it would be the expense not of a quarter of the occupier's rates but the much heavier costs of maintaining an empty factory—of insurance, maintenance, watchmen and the like.

There is another side to this picture. If a firm had to concentrate its activities, and had to close its Scottish factory, these provisions might well have a beneficial effect on Scotland in that the proprietor of the empty factory might be encouraged to make special efforts to find an occupier, thus bringing to, or keeping in Scotland employment that might have been provided elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East was concerned about the Scottish Standing Committee creating a precedent. I would remind him that we have had owner's rates in Scotland for the last hundred years and that they have not filtered to England yet. However, he dealt with what I think is a serious point. In considering legislation for the country for which he is Secretary of State my right hon. Friend has often to allow for special factors peculiar to the needs and interests of the Scottish people that have no parallel in England and Wales. In many such cases we in Scotland take our own line and sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we believe that we have done a better job than our partners across the Border. Certainly, in Standing Committee it is not for want of trying if we do not.

In the principle of this Bill we have discarded a century-old valuation system in favour of England's, which shows that we are prepared to follow the example of England if it is wise for Scotland. However, I do not think that anyone would wish that Scottish legislation should slavishly follow a pattern set by England, nor should this Committee of the whole House feel that in agreeing to any particular policy for Scotland, by so doing it is binding this House to pass similar legislation applicable to the broader English and Welsh scene.

Mr. Elliot

I am sure that we would fully agree with the sentiments just expressed by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in respect of this piece of legislation. I only wish that the Government had had more courage in enunciating and carrying through the same views when an attempt was made, which is still in progress, to assimilate the law of capital punishment in Scotland to that in England. However, I do not wish to pursue that point, because it would be out of order. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are sometimes so keen about not assimilating the law of Scotland to the law of England, should remember that this works in many other cases than in the cases to which they are particularly attached.

I am sure that the principle here in Scotland is quite different from the principle in England and, what is more, that it ought to be. The conditions are different in Scotland, and it would be a great pity if this Clause were to go forward supported merely by the Government and by the rather tepid and lukewarm approval of the Opposition, with no voice raised in its favour on this side of the Committee.

4.45 p.m.

It is not true that there is unanimous opinion against it by Conservatives. There is, in fact, sound Conservative support for the proposal which is here enunciated. I only say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that I do not think he should fear the leakage of these principles across the Border. There are many cases in which the two sides of the Border have proceeded on separate lines, with great advantage to both sides.

I followed the rather fanciful argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) on the subject of a hypothetical owner of a grass moor who had been hypothetically converted by a hypothetical parson preaching a hypothetical sermon, and his mock indignation when no hypothetical answer was given in reply to his parenthetical case. But we were listening for the simple answer: was the hon. and learned Gentleman for or against? I understand that he supports the Conservative proposal here brought forward, though he wishes to amend it in Committee, as, indeed, many of us do also.

Finally, I come to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), a near neighbour of mine, on the question of the houses remaining unoccupied and the difficulty in which we are all placed, in my constituency as well as his, by those cases. Surely that matter is dealt with by existing legislation. I have here a copy of the relevant legislation, the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. It is there laid down that the local authority may acquire any of those houses, and, therefore, the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman raises as to the unjust withholding from the property market of those empty properties is not really valid because, if a local authority so decides, it can now under the existing law take over those properties.

Mr. McInnes

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is suggesting is that the Glasgow Corporation should now acquire property that is 100 and 130 years old, which in a few years' time it will be able to acquire for nothing?

Mr. Elliot

The first point is that if the corporation acquired it, it would be done either by agreement or at a valuer's price, which would take into account all the factors mentioned. But there is a much stronger argument. The hon. Gentleman and his party have brought forward the proposal that all properties are to be acquired by all corporations throughout the country. His remedy for all these evils is that all the properties, of whatever age, should be forthwith acquired by the corporation in question.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument holds water. I say that there is at present legal power to deal with the really difficult point of the house being kept out of the property market indefinitely by a totally unreasonable landlord. I say that we have in addition proposals here by which a charge may be levied upon the owner of a property to meet certain risks and dangers towards which the owner of the property should make some contribution.

I do not think that it is a question, as the hon. Member for Govan said, of attaching narrowly the portion of a rate to a particular charge, but simply that a charge in general is made for the amenities which the owner of the property at present enjoys, and enjoys to his very great advantage, even if the property is kept empty.

Therefore, I say that I think the Clause is sound in itself. I do not think that we need discuss at the moment whether it would be an advantage in other countries or not. I think that as applied to our own country it is a sound proposal, and I propose to support it in the Division Lobby.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in line 1, at the end to insert: to which the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Acts, 1920 to 1939, apply". In the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave to the Committee upstairs when he was introducing a Clause on these lines—an undertaking which any hon. Member can read in column 1001 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scottish Standing Committee and in the following pages—he said that he would give effect to the general lines of the recommendation of the Sorn Committee's Report. But the Sorn Report, as I have already reminded the Committee, refers only to this matter in paragraph 148 and concerns itself only with dwelling houses. Moreover, in the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) proposed an Amendment, which my right hon. Friend said that he would implement in his own way and in his own words, which was confined to dwelling houses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) based his case on houses, and he wanted the recommendation of the Sorn Committee's Report implemented.

In none of those speeches was there any suggestion whatsoever that the Clause which my right hon. Friend undertook to bring forward would go wider than that and would, in fact, deal with commercial premises, farms, grouse moors, factories and all other heritages throughout Scotland. In spite of that, my right hon. Friend has come down without any kind of warrant from the Sorn Committee's Report, to which he pays so much attention, without any pressure from anybody on either side of the House, and without a voice being raised by any single individual in the Committee in favour of imposing this charge on factories and other commercial properties, with a proposal to rate factories and commercial buildings which happen to be vacant for upwards of six months. That is a deplorable proposition.

One of the advantages of the fact that we had a fairly full Second Reading debate on the Clause was that some of us have been able to go over the ground already, and I do not propose to delay the Committee by going over the case again. Let me say that the competition from Development Areas, from new towns and from Northern Ireland to industrialists to induce them to come and start factories is so strong that I fear that we in Scotland will have little chance of attracting new industries and new factories if we impose this prospective burden upon the owners of industrial premises.

The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) gave the Committee some entertaining and hypothetical examples, all of which might well have been true. I agree with him entirely that these rating cases are based on just the kinds of examples he gave. He spoke about grouse moors, shops, extensions to factories and so on. Every one of those cases would be excluded if this Amendment were accepted and if the operation of the new Clause were limited only to dwelling-houses.

So far, I have based my case on the need to confine the operation of the new Clause to dwelling-houses and to exclude factories and other commercial properties. Even if we were to do that, we would still be faced with the problem of the large houses, and they are a real problem in Scotland as elsewhere. There have been all too many cases of houses of which the owners have had to remove the roofs in order to avoid paying rates. I met only last weekend in Scotland an owner who was, I think, a past owner, who removed the roof from a large house, a perfectly appointed house with a great many bath rooms and most up-to-date appointments, because there was no use to which he could put it and no use to which it could be put by any authority to whom he was able to offer it. There was a house that was liable to rates.

This problem applies, and would still apply, to the large houses if we were to extend this Clause to dwelling-houses. I want to limit it not only to dwelling-houses but to the smaller houses, the kind of house that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling-shire had in mind when they made their speeches on Second Reading. I want to limit it to the kind of houses covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. J. N. Browne

I agree with my hon. Friend for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that the Sorn Committee's Report recommended limitation of this provision to houses, but the Sorn Report did not limit it to houses subject to the Rent Restriction Acts. I think the Committee will agree on reflection that it would be quite illogical to restrict this provision to houses.

The general principle underlying the Clause is that if any owner leaves any property vacant without reasonable cause, relying on police protection and perhaps on water, fire and lighting services, and depriving the local authority of an occupier's rates he ought to contribute something towards the rate fund. There is no case, in the view of my right hon. Friend, for drawing a distinction between smaller properties and large houses and factories and shops. No hardship will be brought about. If for any reason there is no demand for the letting or the purchase of the property, the owner would have reasonable cause for not becoming liable which would cover the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. This Clause lays down a minor and novel principle, that a charge in very exceptional circumstances can be made on an owner by a rating authority. The principle is clear and straightforward. Because the Amendment cuts clean across this principle, I ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), I am a rather unexpected visitor to this sort of debate; but I am rather worried about the new Clause to which we have now given a Second Reading. I am all the more worried because of what the Joint Under-Secretary has just said. The tone in which he announced the Government's rejection of the Amendment contrasted very greatly with the tone he used when he tried to persuade us to accept the new Clause. Then he was all reasonableness and sweet blandishments; now it is a dogmatic and vigorous rejection.

The whole case is that we must have some kind of compulsion placed upon the owner of property in Scotland because the property is not being let. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and others have throughout said that this is because houses, small houses in particular, are not being let. This is not a problem that is purely Scottish, despite what has been said by several hon. Members. It is a problem with which we are clearly familiar in England and Wales. As my hon. Friend said earlier, it arises because of the Rent Restriction Acts which apply to the whole country. That is why properties are not being let. Owners are trying to sell houses so that they may realise the capital locked up in them. That is why I urge that this Amendment be accepted.

I do not like the new Clause. Despite all the blandishments that we have had from the Front Bench, I have very severe and critical doubts about whether or not we should find that this precedent which is being set in Scottish legislation would not, in the course of time, creep over the Border.

5.0 p.m.

I do not like the idea, but we can limit it if we accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and make sure that it does not apply to factories, offices, shops, commercial property, grouse moors and all the other more native aspects of Scottish heritages but is kept strictly to the small houses for which the case, such as it is, has been made. I very strongly urge the Front Bench to reconsider its attitude. If it will not do so, I think some of us who represent English constituencies would wish to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rankin

I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out "without reasonable cause".

It has been pointed out that the non-liability of the landlord for rates has led to two very serious evils. The first is the keeping of unoccupied houses out of circulation, and the second is the compulsion to which, in many places, people are subjected, in their desire to get a home, to invest in this type of property, which is often almost derelict.

Mr. J. N. Browne

As we are discussing "without reasonable cause", I wonder, Sir Alan, whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), in line 9, at the end to insert: Reasonable cause" shall mean either—

1. (a) that the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer; or
2. (b) that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value.

Mr. D. Johnston

I have no objection to that course.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan)

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the two Amendments together.

Mr. Rankin

I did not catch the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston).

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that his Amendment to line 9 should be discussed with the Amendment to line 2.

Mr. Rankin

I have no objection to that. If I interpret the second Amendment correctly, it seeks to express a definition which is absent in my Amendment. Mine is general. I am agreeable to discussing the second Amendment as well if my hon. and learned Friend is agreeable.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

The hon. and learned Member for Paisley has agreed.

Mr. Rankin

Then I have no objection to the course which has been suggested.

During the Committee stage, the Secretary of State indicated his appreciation of the evils about which I have spoken and which are not disputed on either side of the Committee. He said: … there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services such as the police and the fire services. The right hon. Gentleman took the further step of offering: … to table a proposed new Clause giving effect to the general lines of the recommendation made by the Sorn Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.] The Sorn Committee's recommendations are in paragraph 148 of its Report. It recommends: … that the local authority may after due notice levy such proportion of the … single rate on the owner as they may see fit where they are satisfied that he is not genuinely seeking to let a lettable dwelling-house. As a result of that recommendation and the Secretary of State's recognition of the evils, we are presented with the new Clause.

I have certain criticisms to make of the Clause. My first one is general. Although the Secretary of State made a firm promise in Committee to seek to meet the difficulties inherent in the Bill, the new Clause is so devised that it will not work. This is because the time table involved in working the Clause is bad. Any house that comes within the scope of the Clause could be left unoccupied for a year or longer, and very little could be done about it.

I should say that that is the desire of the Government benches. A subsequent Amendment in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite shows that they wish to delay the operation of the Clause, for they seek to delete "six months." and substitute "twelve months" to make absolutely sure that the Clause will not work. The real difficulty about the operation of the Clause is to be found in the words "without reasonable cause".

Suppose a landlord says he will not let his house unless he gets a good tenant. That can be regarded as a perfectly legitimate attitude to take and one against which a sheriff would scarcely pronounce. Every landlord wants good tenants. Local authorities have certain houses which they let only to people whom they regard as good tenants, and there are certain houses which are reserved for others. A practice which is approved for local authorities can hardly be condemned for others. If the landlord, having a pride in his house, says he wants a good purchaser or tenant, he can, under the Clause, delay until he gets what is, in his estimation a good purchaser or tenant. No sheriff who had to decide an issue of that nature would come down against the owner or the factor.

An owner or factor might have personal reasons which would come within the definition of "reasonable cause". He might have personal reasons which it would be difficult to dispute. He might have reasons of price. No one could quarrel with the attitude of an individual who had made up his mind that unless he got a certain price he would not part with the house.

In terms of the Clause, it is not unreasonable to assume that a landlord might say that he wanted to put his house into a certain condition of repair, which might take longer than he had imagined. It might take six months or a year. He could be held up by all kinds of delays in carrying out the repair of the house to meet his desire to put it into a good, habitable condition.

Sir I. Horobin

Does the hon. Member consider that unreasonable in property management? I should have thought that he was giving almost a definition of good property management.

Mr. Rankin

I am not saying that it is unreasonable. These are perfectly legitimate reasons for a landlord to put forward to the sheriff, in which the sheriff could support him, to nullify the working of this Clause, which proposes to bring houses into the market for letting or for selling. By means of all these methods, a landlord could legitimately keep a house out of circulation and his action upheld in the sheriff court.

Sir I. Horobin

I do not understand the hon. Member. I hardly believe that this argument would appeal to his hon. Friend behind him.

Mr. McInnes

It certainly does not appeal to me.

Sir I. Horobin

Then I leave it at that.

Mr. Rankin

The fact that it does not appeal to my hon. Friend may be a reason for supporting it. All these arguments might reasonably be adduced to keep a house out of the market. In other words, they could become excuses for enabling an owner to get round the Clause. They could lead to interminable delays.

In my view, therefore, the words "without reasonable cause" should be taken out and the time factor would then be the determinant. That is why a later Amendment by my hon. Friends and myself suggests cutting the time limit from six to three months. If the only effective factor in the operation of the Clause was the time factor no one could evade it. The Clause is so devised as to permit delay after delay for one reason or another, good or bad, and so defeat the purpose which the Secretary of State said he had in mind when dealing with the matter in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) may not agree with that. Nevertheless the Clause, instead of affording a method of allowing our views to operate, is a method whereby they may be frustrated.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes

I am not showing any antipathy to my hon. Friend's argument, but I put this simple proposition to him. Would all the cases he has cited as illustrations not arise equally if the words were left out?

Mr. Rankin

Not necessarily. It is around these words that the argument would be centred in court, but if the time factor alone applied there would be no argument.

If an individual was given three months within which to meet all the demands that, as a landlord, were placed upon him, but had not fulfilled within that time, he would be subject to the stated penalties. To define "reasonable cause" is exceptionally difficult. I cannot imagine a definition which would allow the Clause to operate as I, for one, should like to see it operate and not at the same time provide the landlord with all these excuses with which the Clause now provides him and which would frustrate the desire of those who wish to see houses presently kept out of use brought back into circulation.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in his Amendment. I am amazed at some of the statements I have heard both during the Committee stage and today. When the Bill was introduced, we heard a good deal about uniformity. One of the ideas in abolishing owners' rates was to have uniformity in Scotland, and that is the purpose of the Bill. Now, we have a new Clause which would permit of a certain proposition by the sheriff. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) ably pointed out, one local authority will be doing one thing and another local authority something else, and a vegetarian sheriff will do one thing while a teetotal sheriff might do another, so that in this matter uniformity will not exist in Scotland. The Clause, therefore, breaches the principle of uniformity.

In the five years I have been in Scotland, many people have come to me for advice and I have accompanied them to look over property which was for sale. One of the biggest obstacles to buying property, as I have had to tell people, is that if they were to pay, say, £300 for it, they would need to spend another £400 to put it into decent repair. If the owners of some of the property did their job and put it into a saleable condition, it would not remain empty far long. Much property is empty because people try to sell it in a terrible state of disrepair. That is why it remains empty and cannot be sold.

Not long ago, there was an uproar from hon. Members opposite because a lady had been evicted from a farm which she was not using in the national interest to produce food. With the present chronic housing shortage, why do we allow people to have their houses empty, sometimes for years? It is not because there is no market for them, but because they are kept in a state in which no one will buy them.

I saw a property, for which the man who bought it paid £600, which was in a really disgraceful condition. He had already spent £150 to make it reasonably fit, but I am certain that within three years, viewed according to the standards which obtain in the south in regard to decoration and fitness for human habitation, that house would be condemned, and the £750 would be wasted.

The Temporary Chairman

I must ask the hon. Member to relate his argument to the words of the Amendment, namely, "without reasonable cause."

Mr. Bence

We are also discussing the qualifications of that definition, Sir Alan. I hope that no property owner will tell a sheriff that he is not selling or letting his property because he cannot get the money he wants or, because he has a bond or an overdraft upon it at the bank. If he does, I hope that he sheriff will be able to say, "I do not expect that you will ever be able to sell it." I hope that such a person will not be deemed to have a reasonable cause for not selling his property. He should first be made to put it into good working order, just as I should do if I wanted to sell a motor car.

I should like to give another example in this connection. It is very common for a man to buy three or four shops together, although he wants to use only one. He may be compelled to buy them all because they are offered for sale as one lot. Let us suppose that he is a retailer of a certain commodity. He takes two of the shops and converts them into one big double-fronted shop for his own business, and proposes to let the other two. When he offers those shops on lease he imposes a limiting factor in relation to what can be sold in them, so that they will not compete with him. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must have known of many such cases.

In such a case the man might find great difficulty in letting those shops, because all the applicants for leaseholds may wish to sell some of the commodities which he is selling. How long is he going to be able to hold on to those two shops without making any contribution in rates in respect of them?

The thought struck me when we were discussing the new Clause that if a person has an empty property in a local authority area he can find all sorts of causes for keeping it empty. Most people can find an ointment for every sore, if there is a sore about, by the use of ingenuity. The potential letting value of the property exists because the local authority is servicing it, and is always prepared to do so. But if a person who owned a property had an overdraft of £5,000 at the bank it would be no good his going to his bank manager and saying, "I am getting no benefit from this property. Will you stop the bank charges?" The manager would merely say, "Not on your life, while your property is empty." Why should a local authority suffer because, for reasons which may be quite legitimate in the business world but quite unjustified in the social ethics of the community and the century in which we live, a man continues to withhold his property from circulation?

I ask the hon. Member to reconsider the definition of "without reasonable cause". My hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned the case of a man who had a shop in respect of which the lease fell in in five years' time. That is a similar example. The property is unoccupied until the lease falls in because the owner would have a job to let it merely for five years. How in the name of fortune will a sheriff be able to judge whether that is a reasonable cause? If a tobacconist with a big double-fronted shop is prepared to let other shops provided only that none of them sells tobacco, will that be judged to be a reasonable cause for his refusing to let the shop? The uncertainty which these words will cause leads me to support the Amendment.

Mr. Hay

The two speeches which we have heard in support of the Amendment have been quite remarkable. The speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) was the most unique I have ever heard used in the moving of an Amendment, because every argument he adduced in support of his proposal was, in fact, an argument in favour of retaining the words which he seeks to delete.

Every instance which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) quoted was a case of genuine folk keeping their houses or properties unlet for perfectly valid reasons which would satisfy any normal and honest person. Faced with any of the situations mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East any sheriff would agree that there was reasonable cause for the property being withheld. It is perfectly reasonable for an owner who wishes to let a number of shop properties adjoining his own to include in his leases restrictive covenants restraining the occupants of the other shops from dealing in certain types of goods. That is why the words should remain in the Clause.

Mr. Rankin

The hon. Member must not misrepresent the argument which I was putting forward. I said that every one of the reasons which could come under the heading of "reasonable cause" could be employed as an excuse.

Mr. Hay

If a reason exists and one agrees with it one calls it a reason; if one does not agree with it one calls it an excuse. The schoolboy who stays away from school may be asked what was his excuse for being away, but he may prefer to use the word "reason".

All the examples quoted by the hon. Members opposite are justifiable reasons for withholding property from the market, and in such cases I submit that it would be quite proper for the property owner to go to the sheriff and say that he has a reasonable cause for withholding the property.

If we must have this wretched Clause, these words are essential, because they provide the only escape hatch for the honest-to-goodness property owner. It is not a complete escape hatch, despite what hon. Members opposite have said. The owner has to go to the sheriff at his own expense, pay his lawyer's fees, as the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has pointed out, and plead his case. The sheriff must then decide whether he has reasonable cause for withholding the property from the letting market.

I should say that that is the very least that we can do for this very oppressed class of persons who often withhold properties from the market not because they wish to make extravagant profits but because the rents at which they could be relet are so absurdly small, in modern conditions, that they would be completely uneconomic and would result in a complete loss. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston

Perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke now in view of the invitation extended by the Joint Under-Secretary and by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Blackburn, and turn to the Amendment defining "reasonable cause" which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

The desire to delete the words "without reasonable cause" by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) shows a similar desire to that conveyed by my Amendment. All hon. Members are conscious that the criticisms offered during the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) were merited, and that these words standing alone could mean all or nothing. What they certainly will mean is a mass of litigation. I suggest that we have either to delete the words or define them. A reason, perhaps among others, for not limiting them is because of the example which is often in our minds of a large mansion house which can neither be sold nor let, however hard the owner may try.

In Scotland, we see such property being stripped of its roof and gradually deteriorating, all in order to avoid the payment of any proportion of rates. If the words "without reasonable cause" were deleted, it would mean that that situation would continue; that after the lapse of time provided for in the Clause, the mansion house would be subject to a proportion of rates, and after that time had lapsed it would be destroyed. The Amendment in my name provides that "reasonable cause" shall mean either: That the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer or alternatively—and I emphasise that the rights given to the owner are alternative— that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value". I suggest with some diffidence that these are proper definitions, because they would make an owner chargeable for a proportion of rates only if he refused either to sell the land or heritages at the price determined, which is a method used in many other cases, or if he refused to let it at a price which is the fair rent determined as the fair rent under this Bill.

I am not necessarily committed to the precise words, and there may be other conditions which may be suggested. But I suggest that it is essential, in order to avoid doubts and litigation, that we should define the words; secondly, that these words which I have suggested are good definitions, and, thirdly, for the reasons which I have given, the proposals of the hon. Member for Govan are not wholly valid in the circumstances which I have set out.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The real reason which underlies both these Amendments is the fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like Clause 16. It comes to this, that they are trying to save something out of the abolition of owners' rates. We have to approach both these Amendments on the basis that, under the provisions of this Bill, owners' rates will be abolished.

Mr. Woodburn

It would be a pity if the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded with his argument on the assumption that these Amendments were put down because of a prejudice against landlords. They were put down to meet the conditions outlined by his hon. Friend, namely, that in certain cases houses are deliberately kept from occupancy. That is a serious problem in Scotland and has nothing to do with prejudice against the landlords or any intention to try to retain owners' rates. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will address himself to that problem and not to any reason which he imagines prompted us to put down these Amendments.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I hope that I always address myself to any problem put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to the point he has made was given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), that local authorities already have the powers to deal with that problem and it is up to them to use those powers.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the object is to use these Amendments as a lever to force landlords to let houses which otherwise they would not let, or to sell houses which otherwise they would not sell—

Mr. Woodburn

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but he has missed the point. If these houses are not let, it is quite true that the local authority has power to take them over. If they are not let and there is not some condition of this kind, these houses will cease to make the contribution to the finances of the local authority which ought to have been made. That means that the local authority is being deprived of a contribution to the rates which it ought to have. That is the real point.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I was coming to that point, had the right hon. Gentleman allowed me to proceed. I say, first, that if this is to be used as a lever, then (a) it will not work, and (b) the local authority already has the power. But if these Amendments, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, have been put down in order to recompense a local authority for rates which it would have received from the owners under the old system and will not get under the new system, I say that the proper way to effect that is to leave the Clause as it stands.

We must return to the basic fact that, under this Bill, owners' rates are abolished. That is a cardinal principle of the Bill. The question then arises whether, in any exceptional circumstances, an owner should make a contribution to the local authority for what I might call owners' rates on an unoccupied house. The issue between us is how large that contribution ought to be and in what circumstance it should be made. I suggest that as the Bill gives this protection to an owner—this umbrella—whereby he does not in future pay owners' rates, it is only if there are very exceptional circumstances that he should make a contribution.

We are starting from the basic principle of abolishing owners' rates and then trying to find a case where an exception should be made and a contribution paid by the owner. The question is whether, if the owner is acting reasonably, he should make that contribution. I suggest that the proper way to approach the matter is to say that if the owner is obtaining the protection of the Bill and acting unreasonably—without reasonable cause—he should make some payment. But if he is acting reasonably, there is no reason why he should not receive the general protection given by Clause 16. After all, it seems to me that, if either of these Amendments is carried, it would cause great hardship in a number of cases.

For example, we might get the case of a married couple living in Glasgow, when the husband is transferred to another part of Scotland. They decide to sell their house, but they have a bond over it, and may have to wait a little while in order to get the price which will enable them to pay off their bond. Surely, that is a reasonable case, and, accordingly, they would get the protection of this provision in the Bill. If we delete these words, they would have to pay a proportion of the rates, determined at the discretion of the local authority, irrespective of whether they were suffering hardship or were acting reasonably or not.

Again, we may get the case in which there are family reasons. A man may buy a house for his retirement and keep it until he retires. If his retirement is delayed, and it is six months or even longer, and he still keeps it, that is surely a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Why should he, now that owners' rates are being abolished, pay a contribution in respect of that house? He might have to hold it for longer than six months, but it is perfectly reasonable, if he suddenly finds that he has to stay on the job for a further period, that he should keep the house vacant for his eventual retirement.

I was asked a number of questions with which I said I would try to deal at this stage. First, there is the question of the hypothetical grouse moor and the feathered friends thereon. The answer seems to me simply to be that, if the owner of the grouse moor does undergo this extraordinary change and become a conscientious objector to blood sports, and if that is his reason, it is perfectly reasonable that he should not let the moor. The practical answer is that, if he leaves his moor for any length of time and it is not shot over, it would no longer be worth £1,000 a year, but would be worth no more than £5.

Mr. Bence

It would be worth more.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I mean, of course, the shootings. The hon. Member is confusing two things. The shootings are assessed separately from the actual land, and I am talking about the shootings. I said the grouse moor, but I meant the actual shooting rights over it. I am using the colloquial phrase.

The second question I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley was in regard to a factory whose owner had bought ground for extensions. Certainly, if it be his genuine intention to use that ground for an extension in the for-seeable future, that would, I suggest, be a reasonable cause which would justify him coming within what one hon. Member has called the "escape hatch".

The third point concerned the case of a man who had two shops, one of which became vacant. The question was whether he would be entiled to hold that shop empty until the other one became vacant. I think that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman asked. There again, it is very much a question of the circumstances. If he is intending to develop this property, and if it is a reasonable development, it is reasonable that he should do so. We have to consider each question on the merits and go into the facts. There may be financial questions, family matters and so on, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little optimistic in thinking that this Clause will be a lawyers' paradise. He should keep in mind that the decision of the sheriff is final and that there is no question of appeal to the House of Lords or anything of that sort.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised the question of the man who owns two shops, one of which he occupies himself as a tobacconist. He will not let the other shop except on a limitation in the lease providing that that shop must not be used for the business of a tobacconist. Undoubtedly, I think that would be reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable for him to say that he will not let it to a competitor. Although it might not go down well with hon. Members opposite, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that a man should not be expected to let a shop next door to his own to a trade competitor.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis

We thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government believed in competition.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

We will leave that to another Bill and another place.

Turning again to the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley, I think I have really dealt with the point. I say that if we define reasonable cause in this way or leave those words out, we shall cause hardship where, I suggest, no contribution should be made. I would hesitate to criticise the drafting, but I would say that— at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer; is a rather curious phrase to use. If the district valuer fixed £500 as the value, £1 is a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer, and, under this Amendment, a man who refuses to sell for £1 would have failed to show reasonable cause. I therefore recommend the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Sir I. Horobin

Would my hon. and learned Friend say whether the mere refusal to let at any price, in view of the history of these properties, would be reasonable or not?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

It would depend on family circumstances and financial circumstances. I have come across these cases in practice. We may have the case of property owned by trustees, and it is a common case that they do not have the money in the trust to expend on the property. If part of that property becomes vacant, they would be perfectly reasonable in saying, "We want to sell that part of the property in order to get the money to keep the trust going and to keep up the rest of the property." That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, and that is why I have said that it is a question of the individual circumstances of the case.

Mr. D. Johnston

The Solicitor-General for Scotland has given a number of confident opinions on what I should have thought were rather difficult questions of law. I would remind him that, in giving these confident opinions, he is advising the Committee, and that he has, as he himself knows, a heavy duty in advising the Committee.

I should have thought that the proper answer to any of these questions was that it depended entirely upon, first, what view the valuation authority takes the words "reasonable cause", and, secondly, on the view of the sheriff on the same phrase, and that, as both valuation authorities and their sheriffs vary in their opinions on what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, it would be impossible to predict the answer to any question postulated either by my hon. Friends or by myself. The whole thing is wholly unpredictable, as was, I think, said in somewhat similar circumstances by the House of Lords in a case which arose on precisely the same words. All I can look forward to in this, as in other Clauses of the Bill, is litigation.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles)

If the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland has indicated anything, it is the likelihood that action will be taken only very exceptionally. One of my hon. Friends said that it was not intended by the Government that the Clause should operate, and that it is phrased in such a way that it was very unlikely that it would have very much effect. I think the Solicitor-General for Scotland himself, possibly in trying to reassure some critics on the other side of the Committee, rather overdid the proof when he suggested that this Clause was most unlikely to operate except in the "most exceptional circumstances". He himself used the phrase at least once that only in very exceptional circumstances would it be possible to take action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) went out of his way to offer examples of the sort of excuses—sometimes legitimate, sometimes not—which could be brought by the owners of property even in these circumstances. He tried to illustrate—perhaps with the wrong reaction from the other side of the Committee—in how few cases it would be possible under this Clause as now phrased to take effective action against people leaving property unoccupied and leaving local authorities unable to levy rates upon them. He did so very successfully and if the Solicitor-General for Scotland was trying to destroy my hon. Friend's argument, he certainly failed in that respect, because what the Solicitor-General for Scotland proved was that only in the most extreme and exceptional cases is it likely that action will be taken at all, and only in the most exceptional of such cases will action be likely to succeed.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) went out of his way in an extravaganza of generosity to give the Solicitor-General for Scotland some of the answers which the Solicitor-General was not himself able to give to questions from this side of the Committee. Some of my hon. Friends and I have put down this other Amendment to the new Clause, not because of any lack of faith in the later Amendment or in the capacity of my hon. and learned Friend, but because we lacked any faith that the Government would have the common sense to accept the Amendment defining the words "reasonable cause". We put it down as a second effort, not in contradiction of my hon. Friend's Amendment, or to frustrate it, but to support its purpose from a different angle.

We are concerned with two issues. We are concerned with the social problem for dealing with which the Amendments are framed, namely, the very large number—not by any means an exceptionally small number—of properties which are left unoccupied for very long periods indeed, although there are in fact many people who would like to occupy them.

We are also concerned with the cause of their unoccupation, which is the very high financial demands of the owners of these properties upon those who are willing, but unable, because of the high prices and often bad physical conditions, to occupy them. In among all this confusion the local authorities are deprived of the rates which they should be able to levy on the properties and which they would have been able to levy if the owners had maintained them in a reasonable condition in the first place—so that they would attract tenants and, at least, be worth the figure which is asked for them.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley said that, in the first place, the local authorities themselves would have to come to some conclusions about what was meant by the words "without reasonable cause" and in which cases to apply them. That is putting quite an onus on local authorities in the absence of any definition in the Bill. Then the sheriff must interpret the phrase. And that would also put quite an onus on the sheriff. There is also the difficulty that in exactly the same set of circumstances in different areas one might have different local authorities with different views about this problem taking different actions, or no action at all.

It might well be that in Glasgow one would find the local authority taking action and taking decisive action, because Glasgow has a very big problem. Another authority controlled by people with the views of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) would take no action of any kind which might appear to be detrimental to the owners of property. The circumstances could be the same, but local authorities with different political outlooks would take different kinds of action.

There is no way of forcing local authorities to take action. No definition of the words "without reasonable cause" is attempted. The Clause is left permissive and in such a way that there will be a variation of possible action in exactly the same circumstances in different areas. There is no standard of criterion here. Nothing is done to achieve the end which the Secretary of State promised he would try to achieve when we made representations to him in Committee.

It seems to us that it is time that action was taken—and we can discuss it only narrowly within the context of this Bill—to deal with this problem of properties left unoccupied when people—in more reasonable circumstances—would like to occupy them and require them. It seems unreasonable that landlords who have neglected those properties should expect people to pay unreasonable rents or purchase prices for them, or be allowed to leave them unoccupied for long periods.

My hon. Friend the Member for Govan and others of my hon. Friends and I were mainly concerned that there should be a time limit, something definable and defined in the Bill, which would enable and oblige local authorities to take action. It is not enough for the Solicitor-General for Scotland, nor for the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) to say that under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, local authorities have permissive powers to acquire such properties. Local authorities may not want to acquire a property for the very limited purpose of levying a rate upon it, something which they should be allowed to do in any case. Their solution is taking a very big bite to satisfy a very limited appetite. It would be to aggravate rather than to cure to put local authorities in the position of having to take quite drastic action on a scale out of all proportion to the minor aim that they have in view.

I am struck by how differently the landlord is treated in this connection compared with other people with whom the Bill has dealt. In passing I will give the illustration of the case of the agricultural subject to which the Bill refers. If a farmer does not perform all the requirements of agricultural executive committees and is not practising good husbandry, out he goes. The landlords, on the other hand, can leave unoccupied properties which might be profitable to a tenant, to the local authority and to society in general—and no effective action is taken against them. If one of my crofters, even a tenant, does not cultivate his croft, out he goes; but the landlord can leave property unoccupied for months and possibly years—avoiding rates—and the local authority has no effective way of dealing with the situation. That is still the sum total effect of the new Clause. We agreed to the Clause on Second Reading hoping that the Government might accept some Amendments to it later. We are still hoping, without expecting, that they will have the wisdom to do that.

We have done much in this Bill to create a privileged class of rate-free people—the landlords. In spite of what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said—that was a leakage into the Scottish debate of an English contribution which certainly did not fit into the context of a Scottish rating discussion—it is absolutely wrong that we should give further privileges to people who need them least and who are obstructing the people who are willing to occupy these properties, if only they are able to do so on reasonable terms.

There is one final criticism of the Joint Under-Secretary. He said that it was quite legitimate for a person engaged in commerce or trade to exclude a trade rival by buying a property and keeping it empty. He does not deny that. He did not set a time limit, nor suggest that such a person was doing anything antisocial, or "in restraint of trade", to use the old phrase. That shows exactly what is in the mind of at least one member of the Government. I can picture Mr. Hugh Fraser or Mr. Clore coming along and buying half Glasgow and leaving it unoccupied to keep out trade rivals. Does the hon. Member approve of that?

Mr. J. N. Browne

What I said was that if he did that sort of thing to please himself, there was absolutely no reason why, under this Clause, he should not pay a contribution towards the rates.

Mr. MacMillan

But there is no reason in the Bill why he should. There is no compulsion upon him to do so and no compulsion on the local authority to make him do so. We have this odd picture of Mr. Fraser buying half of Glasgow and sterilising every other property and preventing other people from occupying it and preventing the local authority from levying rates; and yet the Joint Under-Secretary sees nothing wrong with that, and believes that it is perfectly good practice. I think that that gives away the whole attitude of the Government on this Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

We have now spent an hour in discussing this Amendment and, if the Bill is to go through the remaining stages tonight, as had been agreed through the usual channels, we shall have to make some progress. I regret very much that the Solicitor-General has adopted a provocative, supercilious attitude towards the Committee. That flippancy might be admitted in Standing Committee, but in the House arguments have to be treated with a little more dignity and a little more respect. He has thrown his opinions about in a legal way like some of the "smart Alec" opinions of some of his colleagues who, on the matters of opinion, can give wonderful judgments in about two minutes. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) pointed out, when a legal officer is addressing the House he is supposed to give legal advice, not to make political cracks.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I think that the right hon. Member would agree that when I answered the specific questions of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), I gave what I thought was a perfectly straight answer to each. I thought I did so perfectly courteously and fairly. I feel that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is being a little unfair in suggesting that I was supercilious. I certainly did not intend to be.

Mr. Woodburn

My impression was that the hon. and learned Gentleman had prepared a whole lot of very smart cracks without having listened to the arguments at all. There was nothing of the "smart Alec" type of controversy from this side of the Committee, and our attitude did not call for the type of approach made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. That sort of thing could delay the passage of this Bill and prevent it passing, because my hon. Friends are not beyond being provoked. Like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), they all have a certain capacity for lifting gauntlets when they are thrown down and for starting shenanigans. The right hon. Member is adept at that, and nearly started it today by his discussion of capital punishment and other things which have nothing to do with this Bill.

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that there might be confusion as two Amendments are being discussed together. I gathered from him and from my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) that in effect we are seeking the same thing. Since I do not think that anyone wants to prevent people who have really serious difficulty in letting a house—difficulty which is beyond their control—from being able to get the protection of the umbrella mentioned by the Solicitor-General, I hope it would meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan if we did not vote on his Amendment but on the later Amendment which seeks a specific definition.

I can only regret that the Solicitor-General has not presented a more serious argument and defined this matter more clearly, thus preventing some of the anomalies which might arise. It is rather late in the day, however, and we could spend a lot of time debating the question. We on this side of the Committee want to keep pace with the usual channels about what business we should complete tonight.

Mr. J. Stuart

I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for what he has said about his desire to encourage further progress on this Bill. As I think the Committee is well aware, it is of great importance to the Government, and I assure the Committee that so far as I have anything to do with it I and my hon. Friends will do our utmost to co-operate.

Mr. Rankin

Not only are we on this side of the Committee desirous of helping progress on the Bill but we are also keen to improve it. That is the reason why I moved this Amendment. I think I can say that, as a result of the discussion, we on this side of the Committee are all agreed that the new Clause in the name of the Secretary of State is quite unsatisfactory.

I agreed completely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) that the issue is whether or not the contentious words, "without reasonable cause" should be deleted or defined. I believe that they should be deleted. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has admitted the case. He said that the words, "without reasonable cause" provided the escape. That was the case I sought to make. He said that there must be some escape for landlords, and that by retaining those words the Secretary of State was providing it. By supporting retion of those words we should be aiding and abetting in the escape. However, I am glad to know that my right hon. and hon. Friends, who may not completely accept my view and the view of many other hon. Friends that the words should be deleted, do agree that they should be defined, and recognise that as the Clause stands it provides an escape which, in my view, would make it unworkable.

When we are faced with having either half a loaf or perhaps no bread, I think I can announce to the world that we are prepared to take the half loaf and, with the consent of my hon. Friends, I shall not press the Amendment, but will support the one which is in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley and other right hon. and hon. Friends, and hope that it will be pressed to a Division.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn)

Do I understand from the words of the hon. Member about taking half a loaf that he wishes to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Rankin

I am sorry, Mr. Blackburn, if I was rather ambiguous. Therefore, I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "may" and insert "shall".

I do not think that discussion of this Amendment need take long. I think the Solicitor-General made the case for it in resisting the last Amendment. He sought to show that in the great majority of cases where properties were left unoccupied, be they houses, shops or even grouse moors, they would be kept unoccupied because of a reasonable cause and no rates would be payable. But he said that in the very exceptional cases where the owner kept the rateable subject unoccupied without reasonable cause he would pay his contribution towards local services. This is all this Amendment seeks to make clear. As the Bill is drafted, that person would presumably not be asked to make any contribution at all, but in the definition given by the Solicitor-General, the person keeping the subject unoccupied and denying the local authority rates which would be paid if it were occupied, would be called upon to make a contribution.

The Solicitor-General said that that man will make his contribution. We therefore seek to correct the slight mistake which he has made in drafting the Clause, and to provide that where the owner keeps his lettable subject unoccupied without reasonable cause, and only in those circumstances, he will be liable to a contribution towards local services. That was the Committee's intention when it gave a Second Reading to the Clause; that was made clear by the Secretary of State, the Joint Under-Secretary of State and, later, the Solicitor-General. We have moved the Amendment in the hope that, in the circumstances, the Government will have no difficulty in accepting it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has tried to convict me out of my own mouth. I do not know whether he has succeeded. If I said, as I must have done if he quotes me as having said it, that the owner will pay in these cases, I can only explain that I should have said, "the owner will be liable to pay". It is at the discretion of the local authority. That is the position as the Clause stands.

The word "may" has been used instead of the word "shall" for two reasons. First, it was a Sorn Committee recommendation that the payment should be at the discretion of the local authority; the authority should decide whether or not the payment should be made. Secondly, as I stressed before, the main purpose of the Clause is to give some protection to the revenues of the local authorities, in view of the loss of owners' rates on unoccupied property. As the authority is the loser, we can leave it to its common sense to take the necessary steps to collect the money.

Further, the amount to be charged is discretionary. This point will arise later, and I shall not trespass on subsequent Amendments. Authorities have a discretion in the amount they charge, and if they have such a discretion it is difficult logically to compel them to charge it. If they have a discretion to charge anything up to 25 per cent., they can say, "We will charge only 1 per cent.". The word "shall" would in effect be useless here. For those reasons I think that "may" is adequate and is the right word to use, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. McInnes

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooks the fact that this question of whether the matter is permissive and mandatory is only in relation to the initial action being taken. What follows that is a matter for the sheriff and the local authority.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The local authority has to initiate action. First, it must be satisfied, and then it may levy the rate. Levying is what it may or may not do; that is the discretionary power. After the authority has satisfied itself, the rest is optional

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

Is there any recommendation in the Sorn Committee Report for a 25 per cent. limit? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman impose that specific limit in favour of the landlord in relation to the words "may" and "shall"? Is there any mention in the Sorn Committee Report of 25 per cent. in relation to "may" or "shall"?

The Temporary Chairman

I do not think that occurs on this Amendment, which is whether to insert "shall" or "may".

Mr. MacMillan

I never wish to get out of order. We are suggesting here that the local authority may, or, if the Amendment is accepted, shall impose a sum, with a limit of 25 per cent. I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he justifies the 25 per cent. in relation to the words "may" or "shall".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The Sorn Committee recommended a discretion but did not recommend any upper limit, but it was felt that as the owner of the unoccupied property benefits only to a minor extent from local services, even though we cannot put these services into compartments, some upper limit should be imposed. I think that that matter arises on a later Amendment.

Mr. MacMillan

In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to include this specific provision in favour of the landlord but is not prepared to include anything which will help the local authority. That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. T. Fraser

The Solicitor-General has made it quite clear that the first thing the local authority has to do is to satisfy itself that the owner of this property is behaving in an unsocial manner. Having decided that he is guilty of a serious social offence, the authority, it is suggested, may decide to impose no penalty and not to ask him to make any contribution towards local services.

I explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman in Standing Committee that one of my constituents, who is not well off, has a garage which used to house a car. In recent years, with the cost of practically everything rising, he has had to dispose of his car, and the garage is unoccupied. This constituent still has to pay rates on the garage, and the local authority has no discretion to excuse his rates.

Mr. MacMillan

He pays all the rates.

Mr. Fraser

If in this case the House and the Committee have reached the view that the local authority should be given the discretion to decide whether the owner is keeping the property unoccupied without reasonable excuse, surely the House and the Committee presuppose that such a person will then be called upon to make his contribution towards the local services.

I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply as satisfactory. The speech which he made in resisting the previous Amendment, the speech made by the Secretary of State in commending the Clause to the Committee, and the speech made by the Joint Under-Secretary in reply to the discussion on the Second Reading of the Clause, were all speeches which could be construed by any reasonable person only as assuming that the person who was guilty of keeping his property unoccupied without reasonable cause would in every circumstance make his contribution to the local services. If we think that that is what should happen, let us decide that it will happen by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

In advancing his argument, the Solicitor-General said that he was considering the local authority; by the use of the word "may", the local authority could exercise its judgment whether rates should be paid on the unoccupied property. Local authorities have made it clear, however, that they are not concerned only with the loss of income from owners' rates. Glasgow at least has made it clear, in its circular to hon. Members representing the city that the corporation had in mind the loss in rates which they would thereby incur as a result of the abolition of owners'

rates but more particularly were they anxious to secure that housing accommodation should not be left empty unnecessarily long."

This other consideration also applies, not merely the consideration which the Solicitor-General advanced. It should therefore be present in the Government's mind. It is very present in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. By using the permissive word "may" instead of the mandatory word "shall", the right hon. and learned Gentleman is declining to put teeth into the Clause which the Government have introduced.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

What I meant to say was that from what the hon. Member said, and from what we all know, the local authority obviously has two very good reasons for exercising its powers under the Clause. Because of that, "may" is clearly quite enough, because undoubtedly the local authorities will exercise their powers.

Question put, That "may" stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 207, Noes 148.

Division No. 240.]	AYES	[6.21 p.m.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Cunningham, Knox	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Arbuthnot, John	Currie, G. B. H.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Armstrong, C. W.	Dance, J. C. G.	Hay, John
Ashton, H.	Davidson, Viscountess	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Atkins, H. E.	Deedes, W. F.	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Baldwin, A. E.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Balniel, Lord	du Cann, E. D. L.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Barter, John	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Duthie, W. S.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Holt, A. F.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hope, Lord John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hornby, R. P.
Bidgood, J. C.	Errington, Sir Eric	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Horobin, Sir Ian
Bishop, F. P.	Finlay, Graeme	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Body, R. F.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Boothby, Sir Robert	Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Bossom, Sir Alfred	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	George, J. C. (Pollok)	Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Gibson-Watt, D.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Godber, J. B.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Gough, C. F. H.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Gower, H. R.	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Bryan, P.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Grant, W. (Woodside)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Burden, F. F. A.	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)	Keegan, D.
Campbell, Sir David	Green, A.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Channon, H.	Gresham Cooke, R.	Kerr, H. W.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Grimond, J.	Kershaw, J. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Kimball, M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Kirk, P. M.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Gurden, Harold	Lambton, Viscount
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Crouch, R. F.	Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.	Leavey, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Oakshott, H. D.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrlm, N.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)	Osborne, C.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Page, R. G.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
McAdden, S. J.	Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
McKibbin, A. J.	Partridge, E.	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Touche, Sir Gordon
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Powell, J. Enoch	Vosper, D. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Wade, D. W.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Profumo, J. D.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maddan, Martin	Raikes, Sir Victor	Wall, Major Patrick
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)	Ramsden, J. E.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Rawlinson, Peter	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Redmayne, M.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Marples, A. E.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Marshall, Douglas	Remnant, Hon. P.	Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Mathew, R.	Ridsdale, J. E.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Maude, Angus	Robertson, Sir David	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Mawby, R. L.	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Russell, R. S.	Wood, Hon. R.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Moore, Sir Thomas	Sharples, R. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Shepherd, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Nairn, D. L. S.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Mr. Richard Thompson and
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Mr. Barber.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Healey, Denis	Padley, W. E.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Herbison, Miss M.	Pearson, A.
Awbery, S. S.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hobson, C. R.	Probert, A. R.
Balfour, A.	Holmes, Horace	Pryde, D. J.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Randall, H. E.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Hoy, J. H.	Rankin, John
Benson, G.	Hubbard, T. F.	Redhead, E. C.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Reeves, J.
Blyton, W. R.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Reid, William
Boardman, H.	Hunter, A. E.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)	Jeger, George (Goole)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brockway, A. F.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Royle, C.
Burke, W. A.	Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Callaghan, L. J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Sorensen, R. W.
Clunie, J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Sparks, J. A.
Coldrick, W.	Lawson, G. M.	Steele, T.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Stones, W. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Logan, D. G.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dlokson	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	MacColl, J. E.	Sylvester, G. O.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McGhee, H. G.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Dodds, N. N.	McGovern, J.	Thornton, E.
Donnelly, D. L.	McInnes, J.	Timmons, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McLeavy, Frank	Usborne, H. C.
Fernyhough, E.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Warbey, W. N.
Fienburgh, W.	Mahon, Simon	Weitzman, D.
Finch, H. J.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Forman, J. C.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Wheeldon, W. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Messer, Sir F.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Gibson, C. W.	Mitchison, G. R.	Wilkins, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony	Monslow, W.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Grey, C. F.	Moody, A. S.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)	Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mort, D. L.	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.	Moyle, A.	Winterbottom, Richard
Hannan, W.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hastings, S.	Oram, A. E.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hayman, F. H.	Oswald, T.	Zilliacus, K.
	Owen, W. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Dee[...]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. McInnes

I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from "notice" to "and" in line 6.

The Temporary Chairman

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment we discussed the next Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve", and the following one, in the same line, to leave out "six" and insert "three".

Mr. Elliot

I take it, Mr. Blackburn, that when the Question is put it will apply only as far as the word "than"?

The Temporary Chairman

The following Amendment will be saved.

Mr. McInnes

I feel that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will not be too happy about the phraseology of this part of the proposed new Clause, because it indicates that Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages which have become unoccupied within their area is without reasonable cause allowing those lands and heritages to remain unoccupied they may … levy upon him, in respect of the period commencing on such date as may be specified, in the notice (not being earlier than six months from the date of the notice) … and so on.

Those words may be construed to mean that the intention is that when the notice is issued, the house must be occupied for a period of not less than six months. I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland agrees with that interpretation, but that is how as a layman, have interpreted it. In other words, before the notice is issued by the local authority, the house must be unlet or unoccupied for a period of six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I think I might clarify that point. There is no period laid down—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

Has the Question been proposed?

Mr. McInnes

I am moving the Amendment now, Sir Rhys. I am only giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is clarifying a point, I am sorry that I misunderstood the position.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

Thank you, Sir Rhys. I thought it might help if I stated my understanding of these words. The Clause says that the local authority can come to a decision at any time. It may decide after six weeks or three months that the house is unoccupied without reasonable cause. Then a period of six months runs from the date when, having decided that, the local authority serves a notice on the owner.

Mr. McInnes

If I understand the Solicitor-General for Scotland correctly, the local authority can take action immediately, but before it serves a notice there is a period of six months in which to serve it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The local authority has a few weeks in which to find out whether there has been reasonable cause or not, but once the local authority comes to a decision it can serve the notice at once. But then six months elapse before the rates are actually leviable.

Mr. McInnes

Before the rates operate?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

Yes.

Mr. McInnes

So that what this part of the Clause means is that the local authority can take action within a period of a few weeks, and it must serve intimation on the owner, but a period of six months must elapse before there is any question of the rates operating?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

indicated assent.

Mr. McInnes

A house may remain unoccupied for two or three years before the local authority serves a notice. It is conceivable that there may be, in Glasgow, a house unoccupied for two years. The Clause says that the local authority may serve on the owner notice of its intention to levy rates, and a period of six months must elapse before the rates become applicable. But something happens in between that period. In other words, if he feels aggrieved, the owner, on receipt of the intimation from the local authority, has six weeks in which to appeal to the sheriff. Knowing the state of the law in Glasgow, knowing how cluttered up it is—and the same may well apply to Edinburgh and elsewhere—it may take two or three months before the matter reaches the sheriff. Then, as I understand the position, after the sheriff has made a decision, a further six months must elapse before the rates become operative.

I am trying to get information. I have established that two or three weeks must elapse before the local authority takes action on a house that may be unoccupied for two years. The owner has six weeks in which to appeal. It may take two or three months before that appeal reaches the sheriff, and after the sheriff has given his decision, as I interpret the provision—I hope I am wrong—a further six months elapse before the rates become operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have already indicated that I am not happy about the phraseology of the proposed new Clause.

It is all very well to check me at this stage, when the Clause has been clarified by the intervention of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but as I interpret it—and I do not think any hon. Member can fault my interpretation—in the aggregate, ignoring the fact that the house has already remained unoccupied for two or three years, at least another year will elapse before the question of levying the rates is put into effect. I think that is deliberately destroying the whole purpose of the Bill.

This Clause has been so worded as to enable the Bill to become non-effective. What I am suggesting is that we should delete the period of six months. The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated that the six months' period relates only to the period after which the local authority may notify the owner. There is nothing in that to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman from accepting the Amendment.

The matter should be left to the local authorities. The Solicitor-General for Scotland was in favour of freedom and liberty being given to local authorities to determine when action may be taken—"may" instead of "shall", as it were; permissive instead of mandatory power. Here is an opportunity for him to accept the theory which he advanced on the last Amendment. Why should a local authority wait for six months before deciding to take action? Why should six months elapse before the rates are levied?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland must agree that the Clause is somewhat clumsily worded. I suggest that most hon. Members would never have thought that the six months had any reference to the levying of the rates. But even accepting that, I have shown that a further six months will elapse before all the machinery has operated, so that taking into account the fact that the house has been unoccupied for approximately eighteen months or two years, the whole arrangement provides for a period of about three years to elapse before something definite is done. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Rankin

I have much pleasure in seconding, if it be necessary, the Amendment just moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes).

May I also, at this stage, say how warmly I welcome the support which he is now giving to the Amendment which I moved earlier in today's proceedings? It is nice to know that he agrees with me that this new Clause is worded so that it will be largely inoperative. That is the view which I stated at the beginning, and, as we go along, everything which eventuates will lend support to the view which I then enunciated.

I have an Amendment on the Notice Paper proposing to reduce the operative period to three months. The purpose of that Amendment is, of course, to keep our view in harmony with what was stated in Committee; but, obviously, as things have developed, this new Clause turns out to be merely a method whereby this part of this Bill will be made unworkable and become more than ever a landlord's charter. Because my hon. Friend's Amendment strengthens the attitude which I and my hon. Friends sought to display in our Amendment, I propose not to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, and I shall support whole-heartedly in the Division Lobby the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central.

Mr. Elliot

I understand that discussion on the two Amendments is to take place now.

Hon. Members

Three Amendments.

Mr. Rankin

The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment now.

Mr. Elliot

My Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve", is one to bring harmony to all sides of the Committee. It was suggested that the sheriff would have some difficulty in deciding this matter. We are here concerned with the narrow field over which he operates. We are dealing with a very minor point, as was said by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). We are not dealing with any question as to whether houses should or should not be made available for occupation, for we have agreed that there is power in the existing legislation to make these houses available for occupation. We are here concerned with the very narrow point as to whether a charge should at some stage or another be levied to assist the funds of the local authority.

There would be something to be said for the Amendment now before us if the terms of this proposed new Clause applied only to houses; but, as was pointed out in vigorous language by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), the Clause applies to other properties. Had he not broadened the discussion so much, I should not perhaps have persisted with my Amendment. He introduced the question of grouse moors. This new Clause embraces farm property; it applies to industrial premises of one kind and another. I do not suppose even the hon. and learned Member for Paisley would suggest that he could let a grouse moor at any period of the year. Obviously, there are only certain periods when properties like that become lettable. I suggest that six months is altogether too short.

Mr. Rankin

A full year's rent is charged.

Mr. Elliot

I think the hon. Member must mean a season's rent.

What is more, the sheriff has power to confirm the decision of the authority, and then the time begins to run from the date when the authority made the decision. Obviously, when one is dealing with heritages of all kinds, including house property, farms, factories, and even grouse moors, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, one has to take into consideration other factors altogether. In my view, twelve months would not be an unreasonable period, and I hope very much that that view will commend itself to the Committee.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

May I suggest that this is an Amendment on which there can be a very sensible compromise, by accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), since there is an argument as to whether the period ought to be three, six, or twelve months. I think the Solicitor-General would agree that if one puts in the words "not exceeding six months", one is apt to give an indication thereby that that is the period which should be adopted. If one puts in a period of twelve months, one indicates that that is the period which should be allowed.

Mr. Elliot

It could be nine.

Mr. Woodburn

That is exactly what we are suggesting, that there is no reason to retain any period, be it three, six or nine months, but that the matter should be left to the discretion of the local authority. After all, we have been arguing that the local authority should have this discretion—that it "may" charge, and so on—and suggesting that the local authority will take everything into consideration. If local authorities are to take all these things into consideration, they obviously will take into consideration what is the appropriate period after which to levy rates.

The wisest course would be to drop all this talk of six or nine months and any indication to local authorities that that is what the period should be. The better thing would be to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, and leave the matter to the good sense of the local authority to decide the period after which rates will be leviable. Local authorities can then make it six months in some cases, three months in others, or twelve months in others, according to the circumstances which are put before them. I would respectfully suggest that the Solicitor-General and Secretary of State should recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). In this case, we are trying to balance on the one side the rights and duties of the property owner—and, after all, he still has some rights—as against the rights of the local authority.

Perhaps I should start by indicating how the timetable works. The house becomes unoccupied at a certain date. The local authority then looks into the matter and decides whether or not it is unreasonable that it should be unoccupied.

Mr. T. Fraser

Surely, the day after a house becomes unoccupied the local authority does not look around to see whether it is being left unoccupied unreasonably. The local authority will look at the property after it has been unoccupied for some considerable time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I quite agree; I am trying to go too fast and losing time by so doing. I was only giving the sequence, not the interval.

The house becomes unoccupied and then, at some stage—it may be after a matters of weeks or months, depending really very much upon the local authority's sources of knowledge and the like—the authority will come to a decision that the house is being left unoccupied without reasonable cause. Having done that, it will issue a notice, and in the notice it will say that rates will be levied from a certain date. That date is not earlier than six months from the date of the notice.

Let us assume that the owner appeals. It takes a little time—weeks, possibly months—to get an appeal disposed of; but if the owner fails in his appeal, the date in the notice will stand. There will not be another six months from the date of the appeal to the sheriff.

I think we are agreed that the question is now one of whether we should have six months or not, or whether we should have a longer or shorter period.

Mr. Woodburn

Or whether we should leave it to the discretion of the local authority.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

Yes, I agree.

Mr. Rankin

The hon. and learned Gentleman agrees.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I agree that that is the question, or one of the questions; but I do not agree that that is the answer.

The Clause provides a reasonable compromise between not only the interests of the proprietor and of the local authority, but also between the views which have been expressed in this short debate. It is only fair that when an owner has a notice served upon him he should have a little time—and six months is a reasonable time—in which still to look around, or perhaps even for the first time, to try to sell or let the property. This provision would give him the six months not only in which to cover the time of the appeal, but also to try to sell or let the house, if he thinks fit. I suggest that the Clause is a reasonable compromise between the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Woodburn

There may be degrees of unreasonableness. Is there any reason why the penalty, if it is to be considered a penalty, should not be equated to the degree of unreasonableness on the part of the person dealing with the property? If it is a bad case, is there any reason why he should be allowed six months? If it is a very good case, is there any reason why he should not have even longer?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

It would be extremely difficult for a local authority to decide on degrees of unreasonableness. It has been said today that to decide reasonableness is difficult, but to decide degrees would be an impossible task. Once an owner was over the borderline, he would get everything that was coming to him. If he was on the right side of the line, he would be safe.

Mr. Willis

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that a notice is never served unless the owner has been unreasonable—

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

That is the whole point.

Mr. Willis

—and unless he has been anti-social. His house must have been standing empty for so long that the local authority considers it unreasonable. Why then give the owner another six months, when the notice is issued on the assumption that he has been unreasonable?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "six" in line 6, stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 192, Noes 141.

Division No. 241.]	AYES	[6.53 p.m.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Grant, W. (Woodside)	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)	Moore, Sir Thomas
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Green, A.	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Arbuthnot, John	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Nairn, D. L. S.
Armstrong, C. W.	Gurden, Harold	Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Ashton, H.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Atkins, H. E.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Oakshott, H. D.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Balniel, Lord	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Barter, John	Hay, John	Osborne, C.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.	Page, R. G.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Partridge, E.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bidgood, J. C.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Pitman, I. J.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Hope, Lord John	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bishop, F. P.	Hornby, R. P.	Powell, J. Enoch
Boothby, Sir Robert	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Bossom, Sir Alfred	Horobin, Sir Ian	Protumo, J. D.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Raikes, Sir Victor
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Ramsden, J. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hughes-Young, M. H. C.	Rawlinson, Peter
Brooman-White, R. C.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)	Redmayne, M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bryan, P.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Remnant, Hon. P.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Ridsdale, J. E.
Burden, F. F. A.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Robertson, Sir David
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Campbell, Sir David	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Roper, Sir Harold
Channon, H.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Russell, R. S.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kaberry, D.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Keegan, D.	Sharples, R. C.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Shepherd, William
Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Kerr, H. W.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kershaw, J. A.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Crouch, R. F.	Kimball, M.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Kirk, P. M.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Cunningham, Knox	Lambton, Viscount	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Currie, G. B. H.	Leavey, J. A.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Dance, J. C. G.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Summers, Sir Spencer
Davidson, Viscountess	Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Deedes, W. F.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
du Cann, E. D. L.	McAdden, S. J.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	McKibbin, A. J.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Duthie, W. S.	McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Vosper, D. F.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Wade, D. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Wall, Major Patrick
Errington, Sir Eric	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Farey-Jones, F. W.	Maddan, Martin	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Finlay, Graeme	Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)	Waterhouse, Capt.-Rt. Hon. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
George, J. C. (Pollok)	Marples, A. E.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland S.)
Gibson-Watt, D.	Marshall, Douglas	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Godber, J. B.	Mathew, R.	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Gower, H. R.	Maude, Angus	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Graham, Sir Fergus	Mawby, R. L.
	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Barber.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Blyton, W. R.	Chetwynd, G. R.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Boardman, H.	Clunie, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Coldrick, W.
Awbery, S. S.	Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)	Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Brockway, A. F.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Balfour, A.	Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Cove, W. G.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Burke, W. A.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Benson, G.	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Crossman, R. H. S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Callaghan, L. J.	Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Dodds, N. N.	Lawson, G. M.	Reid, William
Donnelly, D. L.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lindgren, G. S.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Fernyhough, E.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Fienburgh, W.	Logan, D. G.	Royle, C.
Finch, H. J.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Fletcher, Eric	MacColl, J. E.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Forman, J. C.	McGhee, H. G.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MoGovern, J.	Sorensen, R. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	McInnes, J.	Sparks, J. A.
Gibson, C. W.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Steele, T
Greenwood, Anthony	McLeavy, Frank	Stones, W (Consett)
Grey, C. F.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mahon, Simon	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Sylvester, G. O.
Hamilton, W. W.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hannan, W.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Messer, Sir F.	Thornton, E.
Hastings, S.	Mitchison, G. R.	Timmons, J.
Hayman, F. H.	Monslow, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Healey, Denis	Moody, A. S.	Warbey, W. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)	Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)	Weitzman, D.
Herbison, Miss M.	Mort, D. L.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Holmes, Horace	Moyle, A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hoy, J. H.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Hubbard, T. F.	Oram, A. E.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Oswald, T.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Owen, W. J.	Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Hunter, A. E.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Pearson, A.	Winterbottom, Richard
Jeger, George (Goole)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Probert, A. R.	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Pryde, D. J.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Randall, H. E.	Zilliacus, K.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Rankin, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Redhead, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
King, Dr. H. M.	Reeves, J.	Mr. Deer and Mr. Wilkins

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in line 7, after "unoccupied", to insert "a charge of an amount equal to".

The Deputy-Chairman

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment in line 11, to leave out "rates" and insert "charge";

In line 20, to leave out "rates are" and insert "any charge is";

In line 21, at the end to add: (4) A charge under this section shall be leviable and recoverable as if it were a rate and shall be treated as money paid as rates.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Yes, Sir Rhys, the four go together.

Earlier in these proceedings, as the Committee will remember, I urged the case on theoretical grounds against the imposition of a rate upon unoccupied and unused property. I pointed out that historically the rate is levied upon occupation, and that where there is no benefit from the occupation then there is no liability to rate. Therefore, there is a very strong objection in principle to calling this charge a rate. I think much of the objection would be removed if, instead of calling it a rate, we were to call it a charge.

I think there is something to be said for the levying of a charge for services. Protection of empty property has been mentioned, police protection, the protection afforded by the fire service, and so on. I think it is reasonable to levy a charge for that so long as it is called a charge and does not confuse the issue by being called a rate. That is the reason for these Amendments. They do not alter the principle. I object in principle to rating unoccupied property. I do not like it, and I have all sorts of objections to the Clause, as I have tried to make clear, but my objection would be lessened if the Amendment were to be accepted.

The wording I propose has some precedent. We use in the fourth Amendment the phrase "treated as money paid as rates." It is taken from Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill, and there is an earlier precedent since it occurs in the Scottish Section, Section 145, of the Local Government Act, 1948. That is the justification for the wording. I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. J. N. Browne

The payments under this Clause are intended to compensate rating authorities in part for revenues they would receive if the property in question were occupied. Rating authorities must have adequate power to levy and recover those payments. The sums paid under the Clause will require to be treated in the local authorities' accounts as money paid as rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) says, there are similar provisions in Clauses 19 and 20 in respect of contributions received from police stations and lighthouses, and also in the 1948 Act. These Amendments, therefore, maintain the necessary powers, and put the charges in their correct perspective, and the Government are prepared to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McInnes

I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out from the words last inserted to "the" in line 8.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think we can consider together this Amendment and the next following, in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), in line 7, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "ten".

Mr. McInnes

I am extremely disappointed at the proposal in the Clause that the amount of rate leviable should be only 25 per cent. of the total rate. I want to try to show that what the Clause will do will be to leave the owner of such unoccupied property in a very much better position than he is at present.

Let us take an unoccupied house with the rates chargeable at 8s. 2d. per owner and 12s. 10d. per occupier. Under the law as it stands, if the house has been unoccupied for nine months, the owner would become liable for owner's rates at 8s. 2d. per £ and they would amount to about £16 6s. 8d. He also becomes liable for a proportion of the occupier's rates and that proportion, according to my calculation, would be £17 2s. So under the law as it stands at present the owner of unoccupied property which has been unoccupied for a period not exceeding nine months will be liable for rates to the extent of £33 8s. 8d. If and when this new Clause becomes law, the owner of such property will be liable only for the sum of £10.

This Clause was ostensibly designed to impose, as it were, a penalty on owners because, without reasonable cause, they were keeping property unoccupied and, by so doing, were in essence withholding rates which would have been payable to the local authority by the occupiers if the houses had been occupied. The 25 per cent. proposal is grossly unreasonable. It is unfair. It destroys the whole intent of the Clause.

The more I consider the Clause the more convinced I become that the Government are merely playing ducks and drakes with the Opposition, and that the Secretary of State has not kept faith with the promise he made in the Scottish Grand Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I reiterate what I said. The Secretary of State clearly indicated in the Grand Committee that he would introduce a Clause on the general lines of the Sorn recommendation. Sorn did not recommend 25 per cent. Sorn commended they should be liable for a portion of the rates. We must realise that because the property is deliberately kept unoccupied the local authority is denied rate revenue which would have been payable by the occupier.

Now we face a situation in which the Government are going to encourage the owners of property to keep that property unoccupied. That is the effect of the Clause. The Government are going to encourage it, instead of trying to destroy this problem of unoccupied property in Scotland. They are saying: "Whereas under the present law you will be liable for £33, we are introducing a Bill to discourage you from keeping property unoccupied and henceforth you will have to pay only £10". It is all wrong. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be disposed to accept the Amendment which in effect means that the owner of such property will become entirely responsible for all the rate element in that property.

Mr. J. C. George (Glasgow, Pollok)

When we in Scotland realised that owners' rates would disappear when this Bill became law we were all delighted. I believe that that applied to both sides of the Committee. In the course of the Committee's debates we have heard about houses being kept empty for the purpose of sale and about the need to retain owners' rates in order to penalise those who act unsocially. We felt that there was not a great deal in these arguments because of the effect of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. We felt that if local authorities believed that landlords were being unreasonable the remedy was in their own hands. They could acquire the property. But if owners' rates are to re-appear in any form at all, we believe that they must re-appear in a strictly limited manner. Therefore, agreeing that something on the lines of the new Clause is necessary, we object to the scale of the proposed levy.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not keep faith with the promise he made in Standing Committee. Some of my hon. Friends, on the other hand, believe that my right hon. Friend has gone too far. My right hon. Friend said at the Scottish Standing Committee: One of the main principles of the Bill is to get rid of owners' rates and, in a sense, this is a breach of that principle … there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services such as the police and the fire services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.] My right hon. Friend also said that he would introduce a new Clause on the general lines of the recommendation made in the Sorn Report which said: We therefore recommend that … the local authority may … levy such proportion of the new single rate as they may see fit … I come back to the Secretary of State's own proposition that some levy should be made for police and fire services. In answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), it was ascertained that the average rate levy in Scotland for fire and police services was 9 per cent. Therefore, we can arrive at a figure which the Secretary of State said is a form of insurance policy, by a clear system of mathematics. Here is a figure which is derived from facts, but the figure of 25 per cent. in the new Clause seems to have come out of the air and is related to nothing at all.

I also noticed in the Secretary of State's speech a desire to widen the scope of this levy. He said in Standing Committee "fire and police services", but in his opening speech today, after mentioning the fire and police services, he added that local authorities maintained water to unoccupied property and therefore they should also pay for water. But any water which might be required for the fire service would be drawn from a main, which is kept open in any case.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State went still further. I am struck by the progressive enthusiasm of both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for something which they both accepted with reluctance in the earlier stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend added to the reference to police, fire and water services, and said that the owners must make some contribution to rates. I and some of my hon. Friends maintain that the Secretary of State's promise would be properly honoured by a figure of not more than 10 per cent., which would cover the average cost of police and fire services for an unoccupied property.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis

There is a fallacy in the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George). It is that whilst it is true that police and fire services are necessary to maintain the value of a property, it is also necessary to operate every other local government service if that property is to maintain its value. If those services disappear the property loses part of its value. The hon. Member for Pollok knows that as well as anybody.

Mr. George

Over a short period.

Mr. Willis

Over a short or a long period, if these local government services disappear the value of the property disappears.

The crux of the matter—and we have had no reply to it—is that we are dealing here with somebody who is acting unsocially, against the interest of the community, and nobody takes action against him unless he is so acting. That is the essence of the new Clause. Here is a man who purely for reasons of greed is willing to ignore housing needs, however serious they might be, so that he may satisfy his desire for a bigger profit. He is convicted of being unsocial by the very fact of becoming liable under the new Clause. Why should he not have to pay the rates which he is denying to the community? By keeping the property empty he is preventing the local authority from obtaining rates which it would have received if he had acted as a good citizen. Why should he not pay the lot?

Mr. George

Why do the local authority not buy the property?

Mr. Willis

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has pointed out what a small amount the landlord will have to pay under the Clause, if he becomes liable to pay rates at all. We are mainly concerned with the problem of slum properties becoming empty and being sold, and with a number of other properties which we want to see occupied.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)

The hon. Member said "slum property".

Mr. Willis

No.

Captain Duncan

Yes.

Mr. Willis

No, I spoke of slum property becoming empty and being sold—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

This private debate should stop.

Mr. Willis

I was speaking of slum property and was about to say that people were buying them because of the acute housing shortage. These people may be misguided but it is an urgent need that compels them to do this. Does the Secretary of State think that the new Clause will do anything to stop that practice? Suppose, for example, that I am the owner of old property which might be condemned at any moment by a local authority. It becomes empty. I decide to sell it and I keep it empty. Even on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, if I am caught by the local authority, and there is no guarantee that I should be, I shall have to pay £10.

I can keep that property empty for about nine months before this actually happens. Am I not going to take the risk of keeping it a bit longer if I am likely to make a profit of £300 or £400, and pay the £10? In other words, I might make a few hundred pounds simply by paying to the local authority a sum of £10. So I cannot see that this meets the problem which concerns so many of us. Indeed, if we accepted the Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of paying £10 in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, the owner would pay only £4, so that the gamble would be even more worth while.

Mr. McInnes

He could buy Premium Bonds with that money.

Mr. Willis

In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman ought to accept the recommendation of the Sorn Committee and at least leave this to the discretion of the local authority.

Mr. J. N. Browne

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) pointed out that the owner would be in a better position under this Clause than he is at present. I agree with him—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman agrees?"] In many cases I think he is right. He will remember that the intention of the Bill is to eliminate owners' rates, and for the good reasons fully set out in the Sorn Committee Report. I appreciate the certainty with which the hon. Gentleman believes that it is wrong to implement the Sorn Report, so I can understand that he would not agree to the proposals in this Clause, and would not agree with the attitude of the Government in this matter.

I think he will agree, however—though this may be if not cold comfort, only cool comfort—that from his point of view the Bill is better with than without the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) made a case for further limitation. I assure him that my progressive enthusiasm, to which he has referred, is an enthusiasm for greater accuracy and fairness in the light of fuller investigation.

What are the facts? The Sorn Committee recommended that the local authority should levy such proportion of the new single rate as it might see fit, and the view of the Government is that the proportion should not exceed 25 per cent. In reaching this decision the Government had to balance two conflicting interests: the view of the local authority that it should be protected from reduction of income by unjustified inaction on the part of the owners, and the view of the owners that under this Bill they now pay no rates when they are receiving income by way of rent and also providing the local authority with the ratepayer, whereas under this Clause they now risk incurring a charge on property for which they receive no income and for which they provide the local authority with no ratepayer. Both views are irreconcilable, and both views have force. Some charge is clearly justified under certain circumstances. There is a clear case for police and fire. There is a clear case for something for loss to the authority of occupiers' rates. There is some case for public water and there is some case for street lighting.

We feel that it is unwise to fixe a charge on the cost of any particular local service, not so much because this may differ widely with different authorities, but because it is contrary to the principles of taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, for example, a ratepayer without a family must meet his share of the cost of education, and in fixing anything other than a blanket 25 per cent., that is what would happen. Nevertheless, the rate charged must have some regard to the cost of protection of empty property, and 25 per cent., is fair in all the circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that 10 per cent. is clearly too low. He has forgotten the loss to the local authority in occupiers' rates. Therefore, with all these points of view in mind, I suggest that the Government in suggesting 25 per cent., have, like Agag, walked delicately, and I recommend the Committee to accept what the Government recommend.

Mr. Woodburn

I want to suggest to the Government a way out of their mental dilemma about what has been called a breach of the principle of owners' rates. We are not anxious that they should be called owners' rates. I suggest that the Secretary of State should introduce an Amendment in another place to ensure that when a place is not let the owner will be presumed to be the occupier, and will then pay occupiers' rates. That would conserve the principle and would eliminate the dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are placed. In that case the only thing included in the Bill will be occupiers' rates.

My hon. Friends feel rather strongly about this point. If a person is deliberately unsocial and anti-social in keeping a place deliberately empty, and thereby depriving the local authority of rates, that person should be paying the local authority the rates. The local authority should not suffer because that person wants to indulge himself in the luxury of keeping his place empty, and he ought not to have power to deprive the local authority in this way. Therefore, Sir Rhys, with your permission we will register in the Division Lobby our opinion on this matter.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "twenty-five" in line 7, stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 130.

Division No. 242.]	AYES	[7.28 p.m.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Gower, H. R.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Graham, Sir Fergus
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Grant, W. (Woodside)
Arbuthnot, John	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Armstrong, C. W.	Crouch, R. F.	Green, A.
Ashton, H.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Atkins, H. E.	Currie, G. B. H.	Gurden, Harold
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Dance, J. C. G.	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Balniel, Lord	Davidson, Viscountess	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Barter, John	Deedes, W. F.	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Doughty, C. J. A.	Hill, Rt. Hon, Charles (Luton)
Bidgood, J. C.	du Cann, E. D. L.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Bishop, F. P.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Boothby, Sir Robert	Duthie, W. S.	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Hope, Lord John
Boyle, Sir Edward	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hornby, R. P.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Horobin, Sir Ian
Brooman-White, R. C.	Errington, Sir Eric	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Finlay, Graeme	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Bryan, P.	Fisher, Nigel	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Burden, F. F. A.	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Campbell, Sir David	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Channon, H.	George, J. C. (Pollok)	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Gibson-Watt, D.	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
	Godber, J. B.	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Mawby, R. L.	Shepherd, William
Kaberry, D.	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Keegan, D.	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Moore, Sir Thomas	Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Kerr, H. W.	Nairn, D. L. S.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kershaw, J. A.	Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)	Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.
Kirk, P. M.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lambton, Viscount	Oakshott, H. D.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Leavey, J. A.	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim N.)	Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Osborne, C.	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Page, R. G.	Touche, Sir Cordon
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)	Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Partridge, E.	Vane, W. M. F.
McAdden, S. J.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
McKibbin, A. J.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Vosper, D. F.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Wade, D. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Powell, J. Enoch	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Profumo, J. D.	Wall, Major Patrick
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Raikes, Sir Victor	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Rawlinson, Peter	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Redmayne, M.	Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Maddan, Martin	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)	Ridsdale, J. E.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Markham, Major Sir Frank	Robertson, Sir David	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marples, A. E.	Roper, Sir Harold
Marshall, Douglas	Russell, R. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mathew, R.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.	Col. J. H. Harrison and
Maude, Angus	Sharples, R. C.	Mr. Hughes-Young.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hoy, J. H.	Paget, R. T.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hubbard, T. F.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Balfour, A.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pearson, A.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Benson, G.	Hunter, A. E.	Probert, A. R.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Proctor, W. T.
Blyton, W. R.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Pryde, D. J.
Boardman, H.	Jeger, George (Goole)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Randall, H. E.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Rankin, John
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Redhead, E. C.
Burke, W. A.	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Reid, William
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Clunie, J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coldrick, W.	King, Dr. H. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)	Lawson, G. M.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Royle, C.
Cove, W. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Sorensen, R. W.
Deer, C.	Logan, D. G.	Sparks, J. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Steele, T.
Edwards, Robert (Bliston)	MacColl, J. E.	Stones, W. (Consett)
Fernyhough, E.	McGhee, H. G.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Fienburgh, W.	McGovern, J.	Sylvester, G. O.
Finch, H. J.	McInnes, J.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Fletcher, Eric	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thornton, E.
Forman, J. C.	McLeavy, Frank	Timmons, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Gibson, C. W.	Mahon, Simon	Warbey, W. N.
Greenwood, Anthony	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Weitzman, D.
Grey, C. F.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianally)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)	Messer, Sir F.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hamilton, W. W.	Mitchison, G. R.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hannan, W.	Monslow, W.	Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Moody, A. S.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hastings, S.	Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hayman, F. H.	Mort, D. L.	Winterbottom, Richard
Healey, Denis	Moyle, A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Herbison, Miss M.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Zilliacus, K.
Holmes, Horace	Oswald, T.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Owen W. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Simmons.

Amendment proposed: In line 9, at end insert: Reasonable cause" shall mean either— (a) that the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer; or

(b) that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value.—[Mr. D. Johnston.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 177.

Division No. 243.]	AYES	[7.36 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hoy, J. H.	Pearson, A.
Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)	Hubbard, T. F.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Probert, A. R.
Balfour, A.	Hunter, A. E.	Proctor, W. T.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Hynd, H. (Acorington)	Pryde, D. J.
Benson, G.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Randall, H. E.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Jager, George (Goole)	Rankin, John
Blyton, W. R.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Redhead, E. C.
Boardman, H.	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Reid, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Burke, W. A.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	King, Dr. H. M.	Royle, C.
Clunie, J.	Lawson, G. M.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Coldrick, W.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lindgren, G. S.	Sorensen, R W.
Cove, W. G.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Sparks, J. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Logan, D. G.	Steele, T.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stones, W. (Consett)
Deer, G.	MacColl, J. E.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McGhee, H. G.	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	MoGovern, J.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Fernyhough, E.	McInnes, J.	Thornton, E.
Fienburgh, W.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Timmons, J.
Finch, H. J.	McLeavy, Frank	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fletcher, Eric	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Warbey, W. N.
Forman, J. C.	Mahon, Simon	Weitzman, D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Gibson, C. W.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Wheeldon, W. E.
Greenwood, Anthony	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Grey, C. F.	Messer, Sir F.	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mitchison, G. R.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Monslow, W.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hamilton, W. W.	Moody, A. S.	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hannan, W.	Mort, D. L.	Winterbottom, Richard
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Moyle, A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hastings, S.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hayman, F. H.	Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)	Zilliacus, K.
Healey, Denis	Oswald, T.
Herbison, Miss M.	Owen, W. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paget, R. T.	Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Duthie, W. S.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Bryan, P.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Burden, F. F. A.	Emmet, Hon Mrs. Evelyn
Arbuthnot, John	Campbell, Sir David	Errington, Sir Eric
Armstrong, C. W.	Chichester-Clark, R.	Finlay, Graeme
Ashton, H.	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fisher, Nigel
Atkins, H. E.	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Balniel, Lord	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Barter, John	Crouch, R. F.	George, J. C. (Pollok)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Gibson-Watt, D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Cunningham, Knox	Godber, J. B.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Currie, G. B. H.	Gough, C. F. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Dance, J. C. G.	Gower, H. R.
Bidgood, J. C.	Davidson, Viscountess	Graham, Sir Fergus
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Deedes, W. F.	Grant, W. (Woodside)
Bishop, F. P.	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr, R. (Nantwich)
Boothby, Sir Robert	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Green, A.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Doughty, C. J. A.	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Boyle, Sir Edward	du Cann, E. D. L.	Gurden, Harold
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Dugdale, Rt Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	McKibbin, A. J.	Robertson, Sir David
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Heath, Rt Hon. E. R. G.	McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Roper, Sir Harold
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Russell, R. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Macleod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Sharpies, R. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Shepherd, William
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Madden, Martin	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Hope, Lord John	Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hornby, R. P.	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Spens, Rt Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Horobin, Sir Ian	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Marples, A. E.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Mathew, R.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)	Maude, Angus	Studholme, Sir Henry
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.	Mawby, R. L.	Sumner, W. D. M (Orpington)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Moore, Sir Thomas	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)	Nairn, D. L. S.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Oakshott, H. D.	Vane, W. M. F.
Kaberry, D.	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Keegan, D.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Vosper, D. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wade, D. W.
Kerr, H. W.	Osborne, C.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Kershaw, J. A.	Page, R. G.	Wall, Major Patrick
Kimball, M.	Pannell N. A. (Kirkdale)	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Kirk, P. M.	Partridge E.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lambton, Viscount	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Leavey, J. A.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	Powell, J. Enoch	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Profumo, J. D.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Raikes, Sir Victor
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)	Rawlinson, Peter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Redmayne, M.	Colonel J. H. Harrison and
McAdden, S. J.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Mr. Hughes-Young.
	Ridsdale, J. E.

Question put and agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in line 9, at the end to insert: (2) A rating authority shall, before considering the question of whether the owner of any lands and heritages is allowing these lands and heritages to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, invite the owner on fourteen days' notice to state in writing the grounds on which he is allowing the lands and heritages to remain unoccupied and shall take the grounds so stated into consideration. Earlier in the proceedings, the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that a rating authority, if it had in mind the question of serving a notice on the owner of an unoccupied property, would require a period of a few weeks in which to make up its mind whether the owner was unreasonably—the wording of the Clause is "without reasonable cause"—withholding the property from the market. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a rating authority, in making up its mind, asks the owner why the property is not being sold or let, as the case may be. Some of us cannot understand how a rating authority can decide whether or not an owner has reasonable cause for keeping a property unoccupied unless it has the owner's reasons before it. We think it right that it should ask the owner "Why has your flat, bungalow or house been on the market so long?"

It has been said that an owner has a remedy and can always go to the court. I object to that, and I think many of my hon. Friends do, as it involves the owner in expense which may be unnecessary, because he may have a perfectly good reason which he could explain to the rating authority, if it asked him. There is nothing in the Clause to compel the rating authority to ask the owner for his reasons. The Amendment provides that the rating authority, before deciding that an owner is allowing lands and heritages to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, shall ask the owner what his reasons are. This seems to be eminently reasonable. It is probably something which is already done. I cannot imagine that many rating authorities will not do this, but we want to be sure that they will.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

While I sympathise with the reasons for the Amendment stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), there are two grounds which are conclusive against it. First, it is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend indicated, in practice—in normal practice, at any rate—local authorities will go to the owners. If a local authority did not do so, and decided, without having heard the owner's explanation, that there was no reasonable cause, it would be in an awkward position when the matter came to appeal, for it would have prejudiced its own case.

Secondly, the Amendment might have a result rather opposite to that which is intended. If the owner were unable to produce his grounds within the fourteen days, the local authority might justifiably hold that, the grounds not being submitted, the non-occupation was unreasonable. There are bound to be cases where, for example, legal advice has to be taken or, more frequently, a meeting of trustees has to be called, when fourteen days would be much too short a time for an owner to produce his case.

For those reasons I think that we can leave the matter to the good sense of local authorities, who in practice will be bound to take those steps which my hon. Friend wants them to take, and I therefore advise the Committee against accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I feel that there is no great purpose in further arguing with my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In line 11, leave out "rates" and insert "charge".—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in line 12, to leave out "six weeks" and insert "twenty-eight days".

Consideration of this Amendment need not take much time. In subsection (2) of the new Clause it is provided that where an owner of any land or heritages is aggrieved by the decision of the rating authority to levy rates upon him, he may, within six weeks from the date of the notice sent to him, appeal to the sheriff against that decision. The Amendment proposes to reduce the period from six to four weeks, or twenty-eight days.

We have put down this Amendment, because we can recall that quite recently the Government proposed to give certain other people two weeks to appeal to the sheriff, but we succeeded in convincing them that two weeks was too short a period and that it should be twenty-eight days. That was in the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, which provided that a tenant who had been given notice of a 40 per cent. increase in his rent on the ground that certain repairs to his house had been carried out should be given twenty-eight days within which to appeal to the sheriff.

We thought that if that was an adequate time for the tenant to appeal to the sheriff against such notice increasing his rent by 40 per cent., it should be an adequate period for the persons concerned in this Clause to appeal to the sheriff. We think that twenty-eight days should be long enough. It is not a large point, and I hope that for once the Government can make a concession to the Opposition.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

There is not very much between us on this issue, but I feel that in the circumstances six weeks is the better period. There are two reasons. One is, as I have said earlier today, that there is the period of six months before the notice takes effect, and having a period of six weeks to appeal against the notice in no way cuts down the time between the notice and the decision in such a way as to keep the notice from coming into effect at the due date. There is plenty of time with the six weeks' period in which to appeal to deal with the appeal and have it over by the time the six months are up and the notice comes into effect.

The other reason is the same as that which I gave when speaking on the last Amendment. It is that in the cases of trustees of property—and there are many such cases; the trustees may take over the property on the death of the owner or may have held it for a long time—especially during holiday seasons, it is very difficult to get the trustees together in twenty-eight days. Six weeks give a better opportunity for cases like that for people to meet and decide what they are to do, and it in no way prejudices the running of the six months' period.

Mr. T. Fraser

I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has used that argument. He assumed that there will be six months from the issue of the notice to the rates becoming payable, but earlier he was seeking to convince us that the period would not necessarily be six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser

I am sorry, but I believe that the hon. and learned Member said that there must be six months. Even so, it does not seem to me that that period has anything to do with the period within which an aggrieved person shall have the right to appeal to the sheriff. It is merely a question of giving an aggrieved person a reasonable time in which to make up his mind, with the advice of his solicitor, whether to appeal.

However, it is not a very large question, and I do not want to delay the Committee by arguing it. Although I am not entirely convinced by the Solicitor-General's arguments, I do not even want to go to the trouble of having the Amendment negatived, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Duncan

I beg to move, in line 15, at the end to insert: (3) In any case where in pursuance of this section a charge is being levied on the owner of any lands and heritages and such owner is of opinion that such lands and heritages are no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause he may apply to the sheriff to annul the decision of the rating authority in pursuance of which the charge is being levied as aforesaid and if the sheriff is satisfied that such lands and heritages are no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause he shall annul such decision as from the end of the year then current and the decision of the sheriff on any application made in pursuance of this subsection shall be final. We have reached the position where we have "scrambled" the house. The landlord has had his notice and has been to the sheriff who has decided that the landlord should pay up to 25 per cent. of what in fact are his rates, but what is now called a charge. New circumstances arise. It may be a case of trustees who have a buyer who will not be able to fulfil his contract to purchase for another three or four months. It would therefore be thought reasonable, owing to the change of circumstances, that for the remaining period the owner should be allowed to be free of the charge.

It seems to be only complementary to the Clause that there should be words to that effect. It is not a very important proposal, but it does complete the picture. It permits the landlord an appeal back to the sheriff in altered circumstances or where he has other reasons for being allowed to be free of the charges. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The Amendment fills a gap in the Clause, because the principle of the Clause is that it is the unreasonable man who should make a payment, and if the man ceases to be unreasonable, he should cease to make it. I can envisage cases where the man has been unreasonable and is paying the charges and then makes a genuine effort to let or sell the house at a reasonable price, but finds that in changed conditions he cannot do it. I think that he should have the right to go back to the sheriff and say that he has mended his ways. There is the further provision that it is only from the end of the current year that he will be allowed a free pardon, as it were. Apart from that, this Amendment would be some kind of incentive to people at least to try to let or sell their houses.

Mr. T. Fraser

On this side of the Committee we at once accept that there may be cases where an owner who has been unreasonable ceases to be unreasonable. When we saw the Amendment on the Order Paper, we thought that it pointed to weaknesses in the Clause, but the Amendment does not seem completely to fill the bill. Where circumstances have changed, and the owner has reason to believe that he would not now be regarded as unreasonably withholding the property from occupation, he should go to the local authority. The local authority might easily agree with him. There does not seem to be any reason at present for the local authority withdrawing the notice which it had previously issued.

As the Clause is drawn, the notice becomes operative not less than six months after the notice, and so long as the property remains unoccupied. It would seem reasonable to provide in the Clause that the local authority should have the power to cancel the notice or withdraw a notice. It would seem better that the owner should go to the local authority when circumstances had changed and that the authority should look at the matter again rather than that the owner should go to the sheriff. That seems a rather high-handed way of dealing with the matter.

8.0 p.m.

We are not against the principle which the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) seeks to estab- lish, but there seems to be a weakness in the Clause inasmuch as after a notice has been served if the house is unoccupied, and that is no longer due to unreasonableness, the only remedy is to go to the sheriff and have the decision annulled. Could the Clause not be amended so that the owner could go the local authority?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I think the local authority could probably do it by administrative action. I should not like to say that definitely offhand, but I think in effect the result would be the same. Formal application would be made to the sheriff and, if the local authority did not object, the sheriff, without having to hear the parties, would automatically rescind the decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 20, leave out "rates are" and insert "any charge is".—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Mr. Elliot

I beg to move, in line 21, at the end to add: (4) This section shall not apply in the case of lands and heritages being—

1. (a) lands and heritages in relation to which a building preservation order under section twenty-seven of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, is in force, or which are included in any list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under section twenty-eight of that Act; or
2. (b) lands and heritages which are the subject of a preservation order under the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 to 1953, or which are included in any list published by the Minister of Works under the said Acts.

I trust that I shall have better luck with this Amendment than with the other Amendment that I moved. I think it will commend itself to the Committee. These buildings are already covered by other legislation. They are covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts, and I think it would be unreasonable to bring them under this Measure as well. Some of them are under special Regulations, and some could only be made fully habitable by the expenditure of considerable sums of money, or a great deal of alteration to their character, which would be inadvisable. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. D. Johnston

I, for my part, hope that the Amendment will not be accepted. I hope so for two reasons. The first reason is that the Clause can have no effect on buildings comprised in the Amendment unless they are being unreasonably withheld from occupation. The hypothesis is that those buildings are being unreasonably withheld from occupation.

The second reason arises from my membership of the Committee set up by the Ministry of Works and Secretary of State to look after such buildings as are mentioned in the Amendment. It might weigh with local authorities and possibly with the Historic Buildings Council and those responsible for making up the list—I am not talking about ancient monuments but the more habitable type of building—if those buildings were automatically to be exempted from any proportion of charge which ex-hypothesi is due because of their being unoccupied unreasonably.

Mr. Elliot

Is it not rather difficult to bring that within the mischief of this Clause? It is not in the first instance proved that occupation is unreasonably withheld. That is only someone's opinion. We all know of some local authorities which are very Philistine in their actions. I would have hoped that it would be possible to withdraw such buildings from this Clause altogether. I do not think control should be exercised under this Measure if that can be done through other legislation dealing with these buildings.

Mr. J. N. Browne

I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) but I think the benefit of the Amendment outweighs the fears which he has.

Mr. D. Johnston

Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, may I ask whether he has consulted the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland on this matter? I may say that I am a member of that Council.

Mr. Browne

I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Johnston

May I answer for the hon. Gentleman? He has not consulted the Council.

Mr. Elliot

I have at any rate consulted the Lyon King at Arms, and he has given his counsel.

Mr. Browne

I can now confirm that we have not consulted the Council. This Amendment proposes to exempt from these provisions any property which is subject to a preservation order under the Planning Acts or the Ancient Monuments Acts, or is included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under the Planning Acts. A preservation order may restrict the demolition, alteration, or extension of any building unless planning consent is obtained, and any building included in a list may not be demolished, altered, or extended unless two months' notice of the intended works is given to the local planning authority. In such an event the planning authority may decide to make a preservation order restricting the proposed works.

In both cases the property is subject to provisions of a restrictive nature, which places it in a special category. It is not unreasonable that the owner of such property—whatever his reasons for keeping it vacant—should be relieved of an additional financial obligation which might make it more difficult for him to maintain it in good preservation. The Government, therefore, are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 21, at end add: (4) A charge under this section shall be leviable and recoverable as if it were a rate and shall be treated as money paid as rates.—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.] Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.