NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS (Hansard, 4 March 1987)

§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the Minister will be aware, I have been in correspondence with him about this matter. In 1984 he and I exchanged letters on this point. The Minister will also be aware that this point was the subject of vigorous representations by Livingston development corporation in response to the 1983 White Paper and that therefore it has previously been on his desk.
It is a modest point. I do not pretend that it is a major point of political principle. However, it refers to what I regard as an anomaly in the law. Nobody intended the anomaly; therefore, no one is to blame. As no one is to blame, I hope that no one feels under any obligation to defend it. I certainly hope that the Minister will feel under no obligation to defend the anomaly. Neither he nor I qualified for the franchise when this anomaly was created. Therefore, I invite him to apply his native intelligence, legal training and natural acumen and an open and fresh mind to the problem that is before him, which I am sure he accepts requires attention.
The problem stems from the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 which in section 19 provided, no doubt sensibly, that any land which consists of a park vested in a local authority and from which the local authority does not derive profit shall not be entered in the valuation roll 927 for subsequent years. The difficulty that that gives rise to in my constituency and, no doubt, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent the other Scottish new towns is that that section is confined to local authorities and does not apply to the development corporations of the new towns. Indeed, the Act was passed in 1963 and Livingston development corporation was not designated until 1964 and, therefore, could not have hoped to come within the scope of the Act as an entity in its own right.
Our problem is that in West Lothian we have a recreation and leisure department of the district council, which is extremely active and imaginative and which has a far-reaching and wide programme providing facilities for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but which suffers from a limited budget. Therefore, it is unable to provide as many facilities as it would wish, and as many facilities as the new town requires. The net result of that is that quite a large amount of land held as open parkland and recreation spaces in Livingston new town is vested not in the local authority but the development corporation.
When I took this matter up with the Minister in 1984 his reply was that it is open to the development corporation and the district council to negotiate a transfer of the ownership of the land. That point has been explored with both parties. However, there is a legal difficulty, which no doubt the Minister can understand but, I am afraid, I cannot get my mind round it. It relates to the rating of car parks attached to local authority parkland and it makes the district council reluctant to accept ownership of more parkland for fear that it is lumbered with a rating charge for the car parking space. However, whatever the legal obstacles to the transfer may be, I put it to the Minister that, having recommended transfer as a way of solving that anomaly, he has recognised that the land vested in the local authority for recreation purposes and the land vested in the development corporation for recreational purposes is identical in purpose and nature and should, logically, be treated in an identical fashion for valuation purposes. As it is, the land is treated differently. The occupants of parkland vested in a development corporation cannot qualify for exemption under section 19 and, therefore, find themselves liable to a rating charge.
The occupant of the particular parkland which first drew my attention to this problem is Livingston rugby club, an institution of which I am proud to say that I am honorary vice-president. That is a post I am happy to fulfil, not in any mistaken view that I may ingratiate myself with the leader of my party, but because it recognises the substantial community contribution made by the club, particularly its work among youngsters through its junior teams.
Livingston rugby club finds itself faced with a charge on the use and occupation of its pitches which it believes to be almost unique. The clubs with which it plays which use parkland vested in local authorities do not find themselves liable to such a rating charge. If the club's pitch was two miles to the east it, in turn, would not be liable to a rating charge. Indeed, most odd of all, in the 1990s, when Livingston development corporation is wound up and ceases to exist and its recreation and leisure function is transferred to West Lothian district council, the rating charge will then disappear. I do not know what ground in 928 logic could be found to justify the present charge for the rugby club occupying the land now. There is no ground in public policy to be served by it.
The revenue which would be forgone by the local authority and, therefore, ultimately by the Government by making the modest change to law would be negligible. That brings me to the obvious question put to me by the Minister in 1984, which is that since the money that will be saved by the rugby club will be modest, why make the change?
7.15 pm
I shall digress slightly but I hope stay within order. The rugby club, like other sports bodies, faces a heavy burden of rates charges. It runs into several thousands of pounds. It regards that burden as unreasonable since it is nonprofit making, it provides a leisure facility and supplies a focus for the local community. I shall not develop that point since it is the subject of a later debate on an amendment on the Notice Paper. However, the fact remains that it faces a heavy rates charge arising not from the pitches, but from the ancillary buildings and club premises. Why, then, take particular exception to the rating charge that arises from the use of the parkland?
The reason I raise this point and why the club takes particular exception to this charge is that it is the salt in the wound. Not only does the club find itself with a heavy rates burden, which it regards as unfair and anomalous compared with similar clubs south of the border, but, on top of that, it has to shoulder an extra amount, which may be small but which is certainly distinctive and discriminatory. In the club's view—and I am bound to say that I have strong sympathy with it—it is the last straw. It is an anomaly which it has to bear but which other clubs do not have to bear. Although I have illustrated my remarks by reference to its particular position, it is an anomaly which applies to all parkland held by Livingston development corporation and, no doubt, it is an anomaly which exists in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish new towns.
I put it to the Minister that this is not a partisan point. I would not claim Livingston rugby club as the strongest bastion of my political support. For all I know, there may be people in the club who support the Minister's party. I put the matter to him in a non-partisan way and I invite him to approach it in a non-partisan manner. I ask him not to be prejudiced against my new clause because it is moved from the Opposition Benches. I should say in advance that I am perfectly prepared to be advised by him that my new clause is technically incompetent. One of the reasons why I am anxious that, at some stage in my parliamentary career, I may occupy the Treasury Bench is that I hope that some day I shall be able to move an amendment which turns out not to be technically incompetent. I would be happy to withdraw my new clause if those are the grounds of objection offered by the Minister. However, I would be happy to do so only if in replying to the debate he recognises the principle, accepts that there is an anomaly and resolves to seek whatever way may be open to him to meet that principle and resolve it, perhaps in another place.

§ Mr. Ancram
I was touched by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at the beginning of his remarks. I have to be careful not to be tempted into paths which I might not otherwise have strayed into. I have listened carefully to the arguments he has put 929 forward. As he says, section 19 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 provides that any lands and heritages consisting of a park vested in or under the control of a local authority, and from which the local authority does not derive any net profit, should not be entered in the valuation roll. The effect of that is, of course, that such lands and heritages are not liable to be rated. The term "park" is defined for the purposes of the section as including any recreation ground or pleasure ground. As a general rule, however, buildings situated within a park will still enter the roll, and be rated, unless they are used for purposes which are ancillary to those of the park. That, as I understand it, is what the new clause is trying to extend to parks which are vested in or under the control of new town development corporations.
It seems to me that, as a matter of general principle—I am sure that the hon. Member for Livingston will agree with me on this—where there is any case for extending a rating exemption it has to be made out very carefully. I do, however, take the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman about the differences in treatment under the present law between local authority parks and those of new town development corporations. On the face of it, the matter certainly warrants being looked into further. I could not obviously agree to the new clause now on the basis of this short debate, but I am willing to take the matter away to consider it further, not alone but in consultation with COSLA and the new town development corporations, because they have an interest in how this is developed in the future. I cannot give any positive undertakings to the hon. Gentleman that I will meet his point, but I hope that he will accept that I make this suggestion to him in good faith and that on that basis he will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
On that basis, I would of course be willing to withdraw my new clause. I am grateful for the positive way in which the Minister responded and obviously I shall hope to be informed by his office of the progress of his consultations and I shall report back to my constituents. I shall ensure that the consultations are pressed for. I hope that the House can now proceed to debate the rest of the Bill in the same amiable and agreeable style.
I beg to ask leave to withraw the motion.