HL Deb 13 December 1966 vol 278 cc1557-68

3.7 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order). Clause 24 [Liability to be rated in respect of certain unoccupied property]:

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords with permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5 which are identical in character. These Amendments restore the period of grace on empty property to what it was before Amendments were carried against the Government during the Committee stage on November 29. The period of grace before empty property can be rated would become three months as in the Bill when first introduced. The House of Commons has already disagreed with the Lords Amend- ments on the English Bill providing for a six months' period of grace, and your Lordships yesterday agreed not to insist on these Amendments to the English Bill. In these circumstances it is hoped that the present Government Amendments will be accepted by the House in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the Scottish Bill's becoming law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Lord Hughes.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, one of the strongest reasons we had for carrying this Amendment in Committee was that a similar Amendment had been carried into the English Bill, and it would have been unfortunate if Scotland had been placed at a disadvantage. As the noble Lord had said, another place has now disagreed with your Lordships' Amendments to the English Bill, and it may be that the argument which we had for giving Scotland equality with England in this respect is therefore less compulsive than it was. I still think it would have been an improvement to the Bill, but it is not an issue on which we think it right to press the matter further. We will not, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), after "Act", where that word occurs first, to insert: the amount of any rates payable by an owner in respect of a dwelling-house by virtue of this section shall be three-quarters of the amount which would be payable if he were in occupation of the dwelling-house, and".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which are connected. These Amendments restore the rates payable by the owners of empty houses to three-quarters of the normal rates. One-half was inserted by an Opposition Amendment at the Committee stage, and this was carried against the Government, on a Division. The Government's arguments in favour of three-quarters rating for owners of empty houses, as distinct from other property, were given fully during the Committee stage, and if the House were not prepared to accept the present Amendment the Government would feel bound to ask the Commons to disagree with the Lords Amendment providing for 50 per cent. rating. This would inevitably delay the passage of the Bill, and would jeopardise the chances of a rate support grant order being promoted under the Bill in January in order to give local authorities the earliest possible notice of the nature of the new grants system. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 46, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I still think it is not really justifiable to increase the rating on this unoccupied property from 50 to 75 per cent., and that it would have greatly improved the Bill if the Amendment which your Lordships passed in Committee had been allowed to remain. But it is not, I think, an issue on which we would be right to pursue the disagreement. Our object was to give both the Government and another place the opportunity of reconsidering what we thought was a blemish in the Bill, and of accepting the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has, I think, done his best to meet us on various points which are not disconnected in principle with this, particularly in one Amendment, No. 10, which he has now put down on Report, and in a further Amendment to the Schedules. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be right for us, in view of the very definite feeling which the Government have and the very definite advice which they would give to another place, to press the point any further now.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the question of grant, and I think this may be the appropriate occasion for me to ask him one short question concerning the provision of school milk and school meals. I take it that the fact that this is again going to be done by the local authorities will not mean that great attention will not be paid to this important service. I refer particularly to the school milk service, because I understand that once more cases of rickets are appearing on Clyde side, where they have not been seen for a very long time. I therefore trust that when grant is being given these points will be considered, and that local authorities and the Government will encourage these services to be kept up as much as they can.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl has said. I am also happy that, as he has indicated, I have been able to come some way in the direction of noble Lords opposite in subsequent Amendments. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, strictly speaking, this Amendment does not deal with grants, but as I used the word "grants" in my opening remarks on this Amendment it seems quite an appropriate occasion on which to raise this point. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that adequate control over the school milk and meal service will continue to be maintained.

Under Section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 an education authority have a duty to provide milk and a mid-day meal, and the Meals Service (Scotland) Regulations, supplemented by Departmental circulars and memoranda, lay down standards for the service, and give the Secretary of State power to determine the charges to be made for school mid-day meals. Building standards are governed by the School Premises (Standards and General Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations. All these controls will still be exercised by the Scottish Education Department, and there is no intention of allowing standards to fall. Full allowance will be made for school meals expenditure in calculating rate support grant and in the weighting for each education authority in the distribution formula, and it is intended that authorities should be as well off under the new arrangements as they are at present.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 47, leave out ("the relevant") and insert ("other").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 25, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Provisions supplementary to Section 24]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords I beg to move.

Amendment moved— >Page 17, line 37, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment restores the period of grace on empty new dwelling-houses to six months, as in the Bill as first printed for your Lordships' House, thus reversing the Amendment which was made at the Committee stage. This Amendment is a corollary of the Amendment to page 16, line 38, preserving the position that new dwelling-houses should have twice as long a period of grace as other empty properties. The Commons have already disagreed with the Lords Amendment on the English Bill to introduce a period of grace of twelve months, and your Lordships yesterday decided not to insist upon that Amendment. I hope your Lordships will agree to accept this Amendment today. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 39, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved to add to subsection (3): In paragraph (a) of this subsection the reference to a legal prohibition does not include a prohibition which arises from the failure of the owner to apply for a certificate under section 9 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to prevent an owner from escaping the empty property rate by refraining from applying for a building certificate. Under Clause 25(3)(a) the empty property rate may not be levied at any time when the owner is prohibited by law from occupying it. This was intended to apply to cases of bankruptcy or statutory incapacity to manage his own affairs. But under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 the occupation of new property is prohibited until a building certificate has been obtained, and as the Bill stands now an owner of new property awaiting a tenant could escape the empty property rate by deliberately refraining from applying for a building certificate until a tenant was in view. Under the building legislation this is quite acceptable, but it was not intended that an owner should be able to escape rating by this means.

The Amendment therefore provides that failure to apply for a building certificate does not constitute, for rating purposes, a statutory prohibition on occupying the building. If, of course, an owner applied for a certificate but was refused one, he would be protected from being rated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27 [Notification of unoccupied dwelling-houses]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment restores the notification period for empty houses to two months, as it was before the Committee stage. It is consequential on the earlier Government Amendments to restore the provisions of the Bill in regard to empty property as first introduced. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 29, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.21 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), after the first "shall" to insert: ", subject to the next following subsection,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. These Amendments give effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee to ensure that liability for 100 per cent. rating of empty houses could be removed when it was reasonable to do so. The rating authority will have power to make the reduction when it seems to them fair and reasonable to do so. In addition, a rating authority retain at all times their discretion, under Clause 24, not to levy the empty property rate at all. There will thus be several courses available to them, according to the nature of the circumstances. The rating authority could insist on maintaining 100 per cent. rates in cases where there had been a wilful attempt to conceal that a house was empty; they could reduce the rates to 75 per cent. as soon as the owner explained why he had failed to notify, or at some time afterwards, when the owner had, as it were, expiated his failure to notify; or they could remit rates entirely if the owner convinced them that it was genuinely impossible to find a tenant.

In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, suggested that 100 per cent. rating should extend only until notification was given. This, in fact, has proved not to be possible because it would mean that as soon as a local authority informed an owner that they intended to enforce 100 per cent. rating the owner would obviously notify. The attitude the Government take in this matter is that they do not wish or expect local authorities to exact an unreasonable financial penalty for failing to notify, but, at the same time, they do not want rating authorities to be, as it were, stymied by the owner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 36, after ("shall") insert (",subject to the next following subsection,").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord for having gone some way to meet us in this matter. But I should like to ask him to confirm that the question of rating rests entirely in the hands of the local authority; that it is entirely for them to say what is fair and reasonable in any particular circumstances. Would he indicate whether there will be any means of challenging the local authorities if, in fact, they did not act in a way that was fair and reasonable? Secondly, may I ask him to confirm what he indicated were his views on the last occasion: that there can be no question of double rating in cases like this?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I would confirm that the purpose of the Government in these matters it to give local authorities the fullest possible measure of discretion. The discretion given to local authorities in the Scottish Bill is wider than that given in the English Bill; but this is reasonable, because there are such great variations in circumstances in Scotland. What would be a reasonable rate in one authority area might be unnecessarily severe in another; or, alternatively, what would be reasonable in one might be regarded as absolute neglect in another. The only way in which justice can be done throughout the country is to give the local authorities the widest possible measure of discretion in what may be done. That can vary, in the circumstances described, from 100 per cent., to 75 per cent. rating, or to no rating at all. On the subject of double rating, I confirm that there is no possibility of rating being exacted twice at the same time for the same property.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10 formally.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) A rating authority may, if in all the circumstances it seems to them fair and reasonable so to do, reduce the amount of rates payable in respect of any dwelling-house for any period by virtue of subsection (2) above to the amount payable by virtue of section 24(2) above.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32:

Transfer of road lighting systems

(2) There shall not be transferred to a highway authority by virtue of this section any right or liability of a lighting authority in respect of work done, services rendered, goods (including gas and electricity) supplied or money due for payment before the said date, and there shall not be transferred to the Secretary of State by virtue of this section any liability of a lighting authority in respect of loans or loan charges.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 together. These are drafting Amendments only, taking account of the fact that the phrase "road lighting system" occurs in both Clauses 32 and 33. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 11, leave out from ("system") to ("was") in line 12.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to delete all words after "date". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the liabilities for service of loan, and so forth, connected with a lighting system to be transferred to the Secretary of State when the lighting system itself is transferred. The principle here seems to be a sound one: when the assets are transferred the liabilities that go with them should be transferred as well. It has been argued in another place that where the assets have been provided by a local authority for local use it is right that the service charges should remain to be paid by that local authority. But the same people will be enjoying this lighting system whoever has installed it, and it will not matter whether the Secretary of State adds to that lighting system at a later time or whether the highway authority adds to that system; for in that case it will be the highway authority who will own the assets and be liable for the charges. Since, for systems that are already installed, the assets are to be transferred, the lighting system itself is to be transferred, it seems only reasonable that the liability for the payment of outstanding loan and the service on the loan should also be transferred at the same time.

I understand that in this case also a comparable Amendment which was carried in this House to another Bill was rejected in another place. But it would have been a good argument for the noble Lord to put this forward in this case had he not made the difference as between the 75 per cent. and the 50 per cent. that applies to England. If Scotland is to have a higher burden in regard to the percentage of the rent that is to be paid in respect of a vacant house, then there is something to be said for making in this case also a difference as between the Scottish and the English Bills. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23 line 28, leave out from ("date") to end of line 30.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment because the Government would be bound to ask another place to reject it. There is no difference at all in the principle in this Bill and the one in the corresponding English Bill. As the noble Lord stated, the Commons disagreed to your Lordships' Amendment to the English Bill, and your Lordships yesterday agreed not to press the Amendment. I must say that, when I realised that the noble Lord was to speak to this Amendment, I won- dered what he could possibly find to say which would be different; and I must congratulate him on the ingenuity, at least, of the argument he produced. If I may be tempted to be ingenious also, but without in any way affecting the merits of the proposal, I would say that it could be argued that the owner who has property which he leaves empty is in fact deriving greater advantage from the lighting system because he does not have an occupant to look after it, and it is therefore all the more necessary that his property should be well-lit. That could be advanced as an argument, but I think that it is just as irrelevant as what the noble Lord said. I am merely working on the principle of the give-and-take we are having on this Bill: one irrelevancy deserves another. I hope that your Lordships will feel able not to press this Amendment, for the very sound reason that the other place will find it impossible to accept it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, there is force in the noble Lord's argument. The only additional argument I can adduce is that Scotland, with the exception of Edinburgh, is a development area and therefore entitled to different treatment from that given to the rest of the country. However, I do not suppose that that argument would weigh with the Government either, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) In this Part of this Act 'road lighting system' means a lighting system which is not a footway lighting system.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Rating of unoccupied property]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment improves the position of owners of empty new property by ensuring that when a completion notice is served on them by the rating authority—that is, a notice saying that the building is deemed to be ready for occupation from a certain date—a statement of the rights of appeal to the sheriff is included with the notice. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 11, at end insert ("; and the authority shall along with the completion notice send to the owner a notice of his right of appeal by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) below").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together. They are all drafting Amendments. As a result of changes made at earlier stages, there is no longer any reference in Schedule 3 to "dwelling-house". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 36, leave out ("or dwelling-house").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 37, leave out ("or dwelling-house").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 41, leave out ("or dwelling-house").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, during the Committee stage, that buildings undergoing improvement should be exempted from the empty property rate, but that the rating authority should be allowed to serve a completion notice. Buildings undergoing improvement (which includes alterations) will, by virtue of this Amendment, be exempted from empty property rating in the same way as new buildings until the rating authority serve a completion notice stating that the building is deemed to be ready for occupation as from a given date. This will allow necessary improvements to be carried out without the owner becoming liable to rates and at the same time ensure that an unscrupulous owner cannot avoid rates by protracting improvement work indefinitely. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 43, at end insert— (". The provisions of this Schedule relating to newly erected buildings shall apply to buildings which are being improved by the owner and are thereby rendered temporarily unsuitable for occupation, and references to erection of a building shall be construed as references to improvements; and those provisions shall so apply with any other necessary modifications. In this paragraph 'improvements' includes alterations other than such alterations as are described in paragraph 5 above, and 'improved' shall be construed accordingly.").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. If I may say so, I think it is a very sensible way of meeting the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun and by myself in the Amendment that I put down.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.