REBATES FOR INSTITUTIONS FOR THE DISABLED (Hansard, 12 May 1978)

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 39, leave out Clause 2.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 18, in page 3, leave out lines 2 to 10.
No. 22, in page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
No. 21, in page 3, line 19, leave out from 'question' to end of line 24.
No. 43, in Clause 5, page 6, line 42, leave out from 'question' to end of line 3 on page 7.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I am moving this amendment only to provide an opportunity to speak on the other amendments which are grouped with it because, in the light of the assurance given earlier, I do not wish to propose the deletion of Clause 2.
I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 18. I am puzzled by the wording of the Bill when examined in relation to the notes on clauses, a document which was circulated to Members in Committee. The notes on Clause 2(2) read: It requires local authorities to grant rebate on rates chargeable on any hereditament which is occupied by a local authority or other body and used wholly or partly for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)". In my reading of the Bill, the "wholly or partly" aspect does not arise, and the predominant purpose does not seem to me to cover "wholly or partly". Accommodation might be provided predominantly for disabled persons, but that accommodation might include provision for residents who are not disabled or who have ceased to be disabled. In those circumstances, would those running the home say to the person who was not disabled or who had ceased to be disabled "we are sorry, but you will have to leave, or we shall lose our rating relief"? That seems to me wholly undesirable.
On the other hand, presumably it is not intended that an ordinary residential 1678 home for the elderly and infirm, whether operated by a local authority or commercially, automatically will qualify for rebate if among its residents it contained one person registered as disabled. It is not clear what the qualifying circumstances will be. My reading of the provision is that it will have to be wholly in respect of the care of the disabled. I am wondering whether this is a satisfactory arrangement.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
In regard to Amendment No. 22, it is clear that a line can be drawn in respect of surgical or dental work. However, a problem arises in respect of activities within a medical establishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has mentioned the difficulty over the word "predominant". Will the Minister address himself to the question at the margin, so to speak, otherwise there may be an unfortunate effect in terms of the proportions of activity within an establishment?

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
The intention of the Bill is to make relief available to institutions where the primary purpose is the care of the disabled. If the primary purpose is to deal with the elderly, including many local authority residential homes for the elderly, such homes are not included within the scope of the Bill. This is not a Bill which imports a whole new principle of treatment for rate rebate. It is primarily an attempt to tidy up the great confusion into which the law has fallen over the years in respect of the interpretation of Section 45. The Bill does not wholly repeal or embrace some of the specific cases which have reached the courts.
In Committee the opposite argument was canvassed. Hon. Members were concerned with the fact that if there were a residential home for the disabled and some or indeed all the occupants of the home in time became elderly, it would take them out of the scope of the Bill. It clearly does not do so, and we have made arrangements to ensure that that is not the case. Similarly, the fact that some people within a residential home become disabled would not automatically bring them into the Bill if the activities were primarily for purposes other than dealing with the disabled.
1679 I shall be in some difficulty in replying twice to the debate, but if I have got myself into deep water perhaps the Minister will help me. We are trying to set out clearly the intention of Section 45 in respect of the disabled, and that must be the primary purpose before any qualifying conditions can be applied in respect of rebate.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
As the Bill stands, does that mean that if an old people's establishment or a nursing establishment decided to build a wing for handicapped people it would not be eligible for partial relief?

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is leading me into even deeper water relating to whether an extension at an existing home would qualify for partial relief. If the primary purpose were changed—in other words, if a change of use were applied for—I believe that it would bring that establishment within the ambit of the Bill. However, before I could give a firm assurance, I should require to be given the specific circumstances of what might happen.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
It appears that in the circumstances suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) it would open to the body which decided to allocate a wing specifically for the disabled to get that wing rated separately and to obtain relief in that way.

§ Mr. Hughes
I think that is the position, yes.

§ Mr. David Price
May I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)? In Committee we were concerned about the problem and it appeared that the existing provisions would be covered by Clause 2. We were concerned about the situation where a large number of people in a home, due to successful welfare activities, reached old age, and that is by no means an unreal situation. For example, it will be known to all hon. Members present that the Cheshire Homes are not essentially homes for the elderly but are homes for the disabled and chronic sick, but in some of the Cheshire Homes, due to the circumstances there, people do happily reach old age.
1680 This was a matter which concerned us in Committee, and I confirm what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has said. We wanted to get the matter clear. Therefore, with respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) need be too worried. Certainly, as regards the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I am absolutely clear that in the circumstances which he envisaged there need be no problem. If an establishment basically designed for the elderly set up a separate wing as a distinct hereditament, it would come under the clause. I think that the Under-Secretary of State confirms that.

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Price
But one cannot pick out a few rooms off a ward or along a corridor in sheltered accommodation. It would have to be a distinct hereditament. I think that this is normal practice in rating law, and no new principle is involved.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will think again about the word "predominant" to make sure that it is the best to use to avoid possible trouble in the future. However, in view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Newton
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 3, leave out lines 36 and 37.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It will be convenient to take at the same time the following amendments:
No. 38, in Clause 4, page 5, line 37, leave out from 'facility' to end of line 39.
No. 44, in Clause 5, page 7, line 15, leave out from 'period' to end of line 17.
No. 61, in Schedule 1, page 11, line 13, leave out paragraph 10.

§ Mr. Newton
These amendments are all directed to the same purpose, namely, to remove the provision that where the hereditament qualifies…for part only of a rebate period the rebate shall be proportionately reduced. 1681 First, this is an unnecessary complication in view of the relatively small sums involved. It seems to me that in most cases, if there is an attempt to reduce the rebate proportionately to some part of the rebate period, it will add extra work and make very little difference to the net result. Moreover, it will be unnecessarily mean.
Given that local authorities can decide for themselves what the rebate period is—it is not defined in the Bill as being a year—to have some fiddling calculation about whether the rebate is needed for 10 days, two weeks, three weeks or two months is simply wasting everyone's time. This is the kind of unnecessary complexity and attempt at finesse which has made utter wreckage of most of our social security and tax legislation. We can well do without introducing it into rating legislation. Therefore, in the interests of simplicity, I urge that we forget it.
Second, at least in most cases, this provision will be redundant. For example, central heating installations are not rateable at all until the next revaluation under present rating law, and that, by definition, will be the beginning of a rate period, so no question of their being rateable for part of a rate period will arise. There will be no extra rates when such an installation is put in, and the extra rates arise only at the start of the rating year following the next revaluation. In these circumstances, the whole question of a proportional reduction is literally meaningless.
I am not sure whether that applies to the other types of modification covered in the relevant subsection of Clause 1, but it certainly applies to central heating plants. Therefore, with that subsidiary query about whether the provision is needed at all, I repeat my basic objection that this is an unnecessarily mean and complicating requirement in a piece of legislation which we want to make as simple as possible.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
I understand the need to keep things simple, and I understand also why the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) takes the view he does about the reduction of the period. Nevertheless, in some circumstances it might be as well to allow for a reduction.
1682 For example, if a disabled person moves house during the period, it would not seem right that he should have a rebate on two different properties at the same time because he has moved. Someone else may have gone into the house. Similarly, institutions may close or open during the year. Therefore, I think it necessary to keep the provision in. At least, it is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and it is not just a matter of bureaucracy.
However, I shall look at the matter between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place to see whether the points raised need to be taken into account. A local authority still has a fairly wide discretion in this matter, and I hope that authorities will deal with these questions sympathetically. Given the assurance that we shall, without commitment, look into the question, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Newton
I take the points which the hon. Gentleman makes, and I have no wish to make great trouble for him or for anyone else. But I add one observation before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment.
In a sense, it is unfair or not right if a man has rebate on two different properties over the same period, but it is the attempt to cope with that sort of theoretical legalistic unfairness which has brought us to a social security system which cannot be understood either by those who administer it or by those subject to it. In my view, we ought to take a firmer line about what is broadly fair and sensible and keep things as simple as possible.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has undertaken at least to look at the matter again, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.