LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (Hansard, 12 December 1966)

§ LORD KENNET
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments be now considered. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move this Motion formally, so that the main discussion may take place on the next Motions which I propose to move; namely, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the first of these Motions were to cover Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 en bloc and the second to cover Amendment No. 7, that being a different subject. I beg to move.

§ LORD KENNET
My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, to which the Commons have disagreed. As the House will remember these Amendments extended the period for which unoccupied houses would be free from rates from six months to one year, for new houses, and from three months to six months, for other properties. We discussed these issues at length in Committee. Briefly, the Government believe that their proposals are already so moderate that they may do all too little towards the objective of discouraging owners from keeping properties empty for long periods. The provisions are adoptive: they cannot produce rates on any empty property before next July at the earliest; no property will be rated until it has been empty for three months, and then rates will be payable at only half the normal level. There are a number of exemptions, cast in fairly generous terms, and power for the Minister to extend the exemptions by regulations if experience shows that to be necessary.
It is a matter of judgment whether the provisions are too hard or too soft, or whether, as my right honourable friend and I believe, they strike about the right balance. The Opposition, both in this House and in the House of Commons, have contended that in this one particular, the length of the free period, they are too hard. The Government do not accept that view, and the House of Commons have rejected it. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is not an issue on which they feel it necessary to delay the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I have no intention of delaying the passage of this Bill. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for making a statement to the House on the merits of this case, though he and I are in disagreement as to those merits. For my part, I believe that this is a part of the Bill which will be found to work unsatisfactorily in practice, and a future Government may have to amend it.
There is one matter of some importance to which I think I should invite your Lordships' attention before we let these Amendments go. If your Lordships will read the Commons Reasons you will see that the Commons disagree to these Amendments Because they affect rates levied by local authorities. I think your Lordships should know that in another place it was not argued that the Commons should disagree with these Amendments on grounds of privilege. Indeed, it is not surprising that it was not, because in fact the Commons agreed to a number of other Amendments made by your Lordships to the Local Government Bill which affect the rates levied by local authorities to no less extent than this set of Amendments do. If your Lordships will read Erskine May, you will find on page 838 this sentence: The Commons now generally waive their claim regarding amendments made to Bills that they have sent to the Lords dealing with municipal, county and local rates and assessments. However, on this occasion the Commons did not waive their claim to privilege, and therefore there is no more to be said.

§ LORD KENNET
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment, to which the Commons 1503 have disagreed. The House will remember that this is the Amendment about loan charges on lighting on trunk roads. If the noble Lord opposite agrees, I think perhaps there is no reason for me to go once again into the merits of the case. The case for the Government was stated fairly fully, and the case for the Opposition equally fully in Committee in this House, and we are now faced with the Commons disagreement.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, in this case again I do not wish to delay the proceedings. The Commons have stated that they disagree with this Amendment "Because it involves a charge on public funds". Therefore, there is no more to be said.