RATING OF UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY (Hansard, 23 January 1974)

§ Mr. Bray
I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 18, line 33, at end insert: '(5) The owner of an unoccupied and nonresidential hereditament may apply to the Courts for a remission of up to three-quarters of the rates payable to the rating authority if it can be proved that every effort has been made to find an occupier for the hereditament and that hardship would be suffered'. The clause seeks to rate unoccupied property irrespective of whether it is residential or industrial. My amendment refers more specifically to industrial properties and whether they should be rated when they remain unoccupied after a certain time. It reverses the procedure which is conventional when rates are not paid. As I understand the position 1712 —and I hasten to add that I have not been sued for non-payment on either private or industrial premises—the rate demand note is sent to the owner or occupier. If he fails to pay he is in due course summoned, appearances are entered and in due course a judgment may be obtained and so on.
Under the Bill if the local authority wishes to reduce the incidence or impact of the rate it may do so at its discretion bearing in mind the situation which is represented to it by the ratepayer as and when he comes to court, on the ratepayer's ability to pay and on the efforts he has made to find a tenant for the unoccupied industrial premises.
However, another factor enters into the matter where an industrial estate is being developed and a number of factories are being built on speculation. With the best will in the world there is no guarantee that all these factories will be let overnight. It might take a week, a month or, in many cases, even a year or two before all the factories are let. Is it fair to expect the individual who has taken the risk of building these factories to pay the full rateable value at the whim of the local authority? On the other hand, whether he occupies the premises or not he must accept that they are subject to certain rating services. The police must protect the premises from vandalism, and the fire services and, to an extent, the public health services are involved. Therefore, the clause provides that the ratepayer may receive only up to 75 per cent. rebate on his assessment. The 25 per cent. is seen as a contribution towards the cost of these essential services.
The proposal embodied in my amendment is far more clear-cut. Under it a ratepayer would receive a demand for the unoccupied property and he would then apply immediately to the courts for the remission of up to 75 per cent., stating that he has used his best endeavours to let the premises—or hereditament, as it says in the Bill—and that having to pay the rates in full would cause him or the company severe financial embarrassment. If the court decides that the ratepayer has no ground for deferring payment there is no excuse thereafter for the rates not being paid. That is the substance of the amendment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear another point in mind. The Bill 1713 enables a local authority to decide whether or not to press for the rates. When a ratepayer applies to the court, however, he is dealing with a wholly impartial body which will decide on the merits of the case, and according to the facts presented by the ratepayer, how much rate must be paid.
By accepting the amendment my right hon. Friend will be taking a great step forward in encouraging the continuation of industrial development.

§ Mr. Graham Page
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) has explained, the amendment would give the owner of unoccupied non-residential property the right to apply to the courts for remission of up to three-quarters of the empty property rate on the grounds that he had made every effort to find an occupier and that hardship would be caused by the imposition of the full amount. Clause 15(4) would already allow a rating authority to remit or reduce the empty property rate on grounds of hardship.
In effect, the amendment would operate as an appeal against the authority's decision not to remit or reduce the empty property rate on grounds of hardship. My hon. Friend said that the ratepayer who wished to avail himself of that would apply to the court but if the right to apply to the court were given in such cases those cases might never come before the court. It would be a matter of, perhaps, exerting a little force on the local authority to reconsider the decision not to remit and thus a settlement might be reached.
It is easy to think up a number of arguments against the proposal embodied in my hon. Friend's amendment. It applies to unoccupied and non-residential hereditaments, but it could be said that the owner of residential property suffers just as badly. Some residential property is hard to dispose of and the owner might be put to financial hardship in that case. Hardship is interpreted as financial hardship and my hon. Friend has argued his case from that point of view.
Another argument against the clause is that one of the main reasons in favour of rating empty property is that such property makes some call on local authority services, as my hon. Friend pointed out. 1714 Normally, 100 per cent. rating properly recompenses the local authority for the services which it must have ready to deal with vacant property, so that it is possible to criticise the figure of 75 per cent. remission in those cases. Nevertheless, one might have sympathy with the principles of the amendment.
One of the purposes of Clause 15 is to make empty property rating more attractive to rating authorities and therefore applicable more widely than at present. Complaints at present from local authorities have been that the law relating to empty property rating is not flexible enough, that they are too tied down and therefore they are frightened to apply it. For example, we have provided in Clause 15 that the seven-year period need not apply. This provides increased flexibility and from that point of view my hon. Friend's amendment is constructive. However one wishes to leave as much discretion as possible to the local authorities, some of them might not use their power to reduce or remit empty property rating on grounds of hardship, or they might exercise it capriciously, and it may be that we should give the ratepayer the right to bring a decision quickly. This is the important point. The ratepayer can then take the initiative to get a decision and not have the full rate hanging over his head for a long time.
On those grounds I ask my hon. Friend to let me look at this further, because it seems to be an attractive course to follow. I shall try to see whether anything can be drafted on these lines. I will not promise the 75 per cent. I will not promise anything firm. I should like to look at it, accepting the principle, to see whether some amendment on these lines can be introduced.
My main worry is the time-tabling of the Bill. I should not like to overload another place with complicated amendments. Whatever assurance I give, any amendment introduced must be simple and must be one which gives a person suffering hardship the right to get a quick decision on the question whether he has to pay the full 100 per cent. or can get some concession.

§ Mr. Bray
I thank my right hon. Friend for being so co-operative. This issue concerns me greatly from the point of view of redevelopment taking place in North-West 1715 England, particularly in the Greater Manchester area. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.