Clause 19.—(APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 20 AND 21.) (Hansard, 20 October 1966)

§ Mr. MacColl
I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 14, line 37, after 'operation', insert 'or cease to be in operation'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, there was discussed the Government Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, and Opposition Amendment No. 33, in page 14, line 42, at end insert: (2) At any time after the following provisions of this Part of this Act have come into operation in the area of a rating authority in pursuance of a resolution under the foregoing subsection, the rating authority may resolve that their previous resolution be rescinded and those provisions shall cease to apply to the area of the authority after such day as may be specified in the amending resolution, being the last day of the current or any later rate period for that area. and the Government Amendments Nos. 66 and 68.

§ Mr. MacColl
This takes us to another aspect of the Bill, dealing with the very important reform of the rating of empty property. The Bill makes the provisions for rating adoptive and they have to be adopted by resolution of the rating authority. In the Bill, as I put it upstairs, the vows are permanent—once one has decided to rate empty property one 520 cannot stop doing it. There was some discussion then between my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who took the view that it was wise to allow an opportunity for a change of mind after this had been tried.
9.15 p.m.
As I understand the Opposition's proposal, they would allow the rating authority to do this at will. I said then, and I still think, that this is a little unreasonable. We want to get some stability into our system of local taxation and it is more desirable to have a period before the adoptive provisions can be abandoned.
We propose an extension of that, because we are applying it both ways. If one can drop the rating powers, one can get them back again if necessary. At the same time, we propose a period of seven years as an appropriate period to give people time to try them out seriously and to see how they work. But we reserve to my right hon. Friend the power to dispense with the seven years if he thinks that desirable. This seems to us a reasonable compromise. I think that this will be an improvement in the Bill.

§ Mr. Murton
We are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some way to meeting our Amendment No. 33. However, we still feel rather unhappy about the situation.
The only point which I wish to make is this. The Bill is supposed to be, on the Government's own admission, a temporary measure. If this is so, why should a rating authority have seven years before being able to abandon its powers? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would answer that question, because it sums up our views as neatly and shortly as possible.

§ Mr. MacColl
There is no magic about the period of seven years. It was the time which Jacob used for obtaining the services of Leah and Rachel respectively. Therefore, it has a good historic foundation.
We did not want a period which was too short. We want to avoid having a change in the taxation system every time there is an election. On the other hand, we want something which is reasonably flexible. If it is found that seven years 521 is too long and authorities find that they are getting into difficulties, my right hon. Friend can intervene. This is a reasonable balance between permanent powers and complete freedom.