Lords Sitting of 17 November 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

SALMON DISEASE
3.6 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the number of outbreaks of the Irish salmon disease so far notified in England, Scotland and Wales; whether the disease appears in all respects similar to that of the Irish rivers and what steps are being, and can in the future be, taken to reduce its spread.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, outbreaks of columnar is disease have recently occurred in salmon and sea trout in ten rivers in Cumberland and Lancashire, and in the Border Esk, which is partly in Scotland. An outbreak of disease on the Kirkcudbrightshire Dee is being investigated. In the summer similar outbreaks occurred among coarse fish in a number of rivers and enclosed waters, particularly in the Lincolnshire, Well and and Nene, Trent and Severn River Authority areas.
In these outbreaks similar organisms have been identified and the symptoms have also been generally similar. But in England and Scotland, unlike Ireland, sea trout have been more affected than salmon, and there has been a higher incidence of disease among coarse fish, though the disease has proved much less lethal to them than to salmon and sea trout.
The areas affected, in which disease has been confirmed, have been designated as infected areas under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, and the fishery authorities con-
1346
cerned have been empowered to remove and destroy all dead and diseased fish by the most suitable means, including methods normally illegal. Movement of all live fish and eggs out of the areas is prohibited or otherwise controlled. In addition, anglers have been advised to disinfect their gear as a precaution against the transmission of disease from one river to another.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his very full reply, may I ask him this question? Is he aware that there are grave misgivings felt by all fishing interests, private and commercial? While the emergency of this disease lasts, would the Government consider issuing a monthly communiqué to fishing associations, to river boards, and indeed to the public Press also, giving information on any new outbreaks during the previous month, what the position is in respect of those rivers where outbreaks have already taken place, and also information on improved methods of prevention or suggestions as to what river keepers and those watching rivers should do? Such a communiqué would stop ill-founded rumours and be of great assistance to those bodies I have mentioned.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord has made some really excellent suggestions, which I shall be happy to pass on to my right honourable friend. Clearly, the noble Lord would not expect me to answer any of the points, because he has not asked them particularly, but I certainly think the suggestions are well worthy of consideration by my right honourable friend.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, this is just about the time when the salmon are beginning to spawn. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any evidence that this disease is hereditary and can be passed on to the young salmon fry when they are hatched.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I do not think there is any such evidence, but naturally I will pass the noble Lord's thoughts on this matter to the scientific officers of the Ministry. Up until now such discussions as I have had with them have not indicated that this possibility is in their minds. But, of course, a scientist must consider everything.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind that a serious extension of this disease to the major rivers of Scotland would mean, if it lasted for any time, a great loss of rates to the local authorities which are known to take rates from fishings, and also to a great increase in local unemployment?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, all this has been very much in Her Majesty's Ministers' minds, and I think the answers that I have given in this House from time to time have indicated this to be the case. We certainly recognise the seriousness of this disease and wish to prevent it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it has yet been ascertained whether this is a bacterial or a virus infection?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there has been a lot of investigation into this. We are not wholly satisfied that this disease is columnar is. A number of organisms have been identified, but it appears that the symptoms indicate that the main one operating with the others is columnar is. We have named it in the Orders under the Act because we have to name a disease in order to issue the Order. But we are not absolutely convinced that columnaris is the cause, or the main cause.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as the incidence of the disease has grown to such a serious extent, and as the noble Lord will remember I asked him a question about the scope of research into the disease, I wonder whether he can tell the House just what the provisions are, and what is the prospect of extending the research arrangements, so that we know a little more about the cause of the disease and the best methods of prevention.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I should not like to give an answer on that "off the cuff". If the noble Lord would care to put down a Question, I will let him know exactly how many scientists are employed on this, the amount of time they spend on it and so on. We are, of course, seized of the seriousness of this whole problem.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say
1348
whether this disease has spread from rivers into lakes? If it has not yet done so, are there any special measures that might be taken to prevent the further spread into lakes and, indeed, into reservoirs as well?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there have been all sorts of suggestions for putting up barriers to prevent the spread, but this is rather difficult. I gather that if barriers were put up to prevent salmon from going up to spawn for three years in succession, it would kill the salmon and prevent that river from being again a salmon-producing river, unless special measures were taken to restock it. This problem is under consideration. The difficulty, of course, is to find the best means of so doing it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I, with some apprehension, ask my noble friend a question from the consumer's point of view? What possibility is there of this diseased fish getting into the shops?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, so far as the salmon disease is concerned, I do not think there is any possibility of its being transmitted to human beings. When this disease originated in Ireland, where they have an export of salmon valued at about £1 million a year, they took special measures to ensure that diseased fish were not exported from Ireland. But naturally it will be for the fishmongers themselves to make sure that nothing is sold to the public that ought not to be.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is it not a fact that boiling fish kills the disease and makes them quite safe for human consumption?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am not sure, but I rather think so. I believe that to he so in the case of germs. In any case, this disease is caused by bacteria, which I think would be killed by the act of boiling.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether this disease affects the salmon in the sea that are caught by the fishermen, or is it confined entirely to rivers?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I think there is some little evidence to show that the disease is caught or spread in

1349
the estuaries, rather than in the sea. But the fact that it has spread here from Ireland indicates, unless some other factor came in, that it must have travelled by sea.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
ORDER OF BUSINESS—UNSTARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee have considered the provisions of Standing Order 35 whereby Unstarred Questions have the same precedence on the Order Paper as ordinary Motions. This can be inconvenient for the House as, for example, if an Unstarred Question is put down on the Order Paper after a Motion and the Motion is then withdrawn, the Unstarred Question takes precedence over a new Motion which is subsequently put down for the same day. The Committee therefore recommend that Standing Order No. 35 be amended, so that Motions will take precedence over Unstarred Questions, as follows:—
In Standing Order No. 35, add at the end a new paragraph—

(6) Unstarred Questions shall be entered last.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of the Government's new approach to local government finance and rating. The White Paper Local Government Finance in Scotland, published last February, setting out Government policy in this field stated that the Government are satisfied that there is no immediate alternative to rates as a major source of local revenue. Nor is it possible to recast them radically. Although the system of rates and Government grants has therefore to continue for the time being, it must be made more equitable and efficient. While the reforms proposed in the Bill are well worth while in themselves, the Government have of course in mind that much more fundamental improvements may be considered after the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland has reported.
The Rating Act passed earlier this year introduced a system of rate rebates with the aid of a 75 per cent. Exchequer contribution likely to amount to £2 million this year in Scotland; it also improved the facilities for the payment of rates by instalments, for those who find lump sum payments a heavy burden. These measures are not, however, enough in themselves. The cost of local services has been rising—it has trebled since 1951—and the total sum required to be met from rates in Scotland in this period has increased in a like proportion. While, of course, everyone wants economy in local government expenditure, no one really wants to cut the services; in fact, public pressure is for improvement of the services. Recognising therefore that local expenditure is likely to continue

1351
to rise, the Government's approach is to assure Scottish local authorities that the Exchequer will meet, in aggregate, a rising proportion of accepted local expenditure, and to determine the share allocated to different types of grant and to different authorities in close consultation with the local authority associations.
Part I of the Bill introduces a comprehensive system—something which has not existed before—of looking at the probable expenditure of local authorities on all rating services instead of just a selection of them, so that the amount of Exchequer assistance can be related to the total needs of the authorities. Coupled with this, the Government have given an undertaking—that the percentage of accepted expenditure met by grant will rise each year, instead of remaining virtually static as it has done for a number of years (at around 55 per cent., or a little over 60 per cent. if housing expenditure and housing subsidies are left out of consideration). The greater part of the extra percentage grant will be devoted to assisting the householder in quite a new way, by giving him a lower rate poundage than that applicable to other categories of ratepayer.
Clause 1 discontinues the present Exchequer equalisation and general grants from 1967–68 and, as a transitional measure, gives Scottish local authorities an extra £700,000 general grant for the year 1966–67, an amount corresponding broadly to the grants which local authorities in England and Wales with a high proportion of old people in their area will receive under the Rating (Interim Relief) Act1964, which does not apply to Scotland.
Clause 2 introduces a system of rate support grants to replace the general and equalisation grants and certain specific grants—for example, for road maintenance and school meals. To arrive at the total rate support grant for any year, the aggregate Exchequer assistance to be received by authorities is first determined on the basis of forecasts of their revenue expenditure, excluding expenditure on trading accounts and on housing. Housing is being left to stand on its own as a new system of housing subsidies is being introduced. From the total amount
1352
of Exchequer assistance will be deducted continuing grants towards specific services such as Police and Civil Defence, and the difference between the two sums will be the total rate support grant. The rate support grant will be divided into three parts; that is to say, a needs element, a resources element and a domestic element, which will be distributed among authorities according to the provisions of Schedule1 to the Bill. The total rate support grant will be determined by Order for periods of two years. That is laid down in Clause 3.
The needs element will be apportioned among all county and town councils on the basis of population and other objective measurements of need, such as the effect of numbers of children under five and old people over 65 on the cost of the social services, and the different cost of pupils at different stages of education. The precise formula for this has been agreed with the local authority associations. A special portion for roads will be included in the needs element to support road costs in so far as they are not met by the capital grants on principal road improvement schemes. The resources element, the total of which will be one third of the needs element, will go, on similar lines to the old Exchequer equalisation grant, to those authorities whose rating resources fall below a certain standard.
The third element of the rate support grant is the domestic element, a new concept. In the Government's view spreading the extra Exchequer assistance beyond the domestic ratepayer would have destroyed its impact; and, moreover, industry is de-rated and in both industry and commerce it is possible to charge rates as expenses for tax purposes, which the domestic ratepayer cannot do. The effect of this domestic element will be that householders' rates in 1967–68 will be 10d. lower than the local general rate; in the following year they will be 1s. 8d. lower, and so on. The cumulative benefit of this to the householder will be considerable, and this innovation represents a considerable transfer of the burden of the cost of local services from the rates to the Exchequer, about £30 million in four years.
The remainder of Part I of the Bill includes provision (Clause 4) for the rate support grant originally determined for

1353
any year to be varied by an Increase Order, should there be unforeseen increases in the level of prices, costs or remuneration; that is, along the same lines as with the present general grant. Where an authority fails to maintain standards or spends excessively, power is given to the Secretary of State in common form (Clause 5) to restrict grants. It has never been necessary to use similar powers in the past, but it is considered that the Secretary of State ought to continue to have them to protect local authorities generally from any excessive claims by individual authorities on the general pool of grants. Clause 7 puts into effect the Government's proposal to have a special lower rate poundage for domestic property.
Specific grants will continue to be an important part of the system where expenditure varies widely from one area to another, and the Bill introduces four new specific grants. Clause 8 will enable specific grants to be paid to reduce the financial loss which planning authorities face, at least in the early years of a scheme. in acquiring and clearing areas for comprehensive development. This grant was in existence before, but was restricted in 1959 to "major redevelopment" schemes under which only Glasgow and Greenock have qualified. It has been particularly welcomed by the local authorities. Provision for an associated grant is made in Clause 9 towards the cost of acquiring and perparing land for use as open space outside redevelopment schemes. This grant should help towards the provision of more open space for public recreation, especially in congested urban districts.
Clause 10 introduces a specific grant for the reclamation of derelict land which will supplement the derelict land grants under the Industrial Development Act 1966 which have to meet certain economic criteria. Power is being taken in Clause 11 to enable grants to be introduced if necessary where local authorities have to make special provision because there are a substantial number of Commonwealth immigrants in their area and there is extreme pressure on the social services.
Part II of the Bill deals mainly with some long-needed improvements to the rating system, especially in Clauses 24 and25 and the Third Schedule, which make improved provisions for the rating of unoccupied property. Section 17 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act
1354
1956 enabled 25 per cent. of the rates to be levied on the owners of property left vacant for more than six months, but the section has not worked properly because it proved difficult to establish that property was being left unoccupied "without reasonable cause". The Government are now making a much more determined effort to ensure that any property left unoccupied without good reason—for example, solely to obtain an excessive price or rent—is rated. Clause 24 provides that where property is left unoccupied for a period of three months the local authority have discretion to charge 50 percent. of the normal rates, if they wish, or 75 per cent. in the case of houses. This 75 per cent. signifies that the community cannot tolerate the evil of houses left empty, and to assist local authorities to take steps, Clauses 26 and 27 enable local authorities to set up a registration system, under which landlords must notify houses which have been empty for more than two months. New houses will not be rated for a period of six months, and properties affected by closing orders, preservation orders, or likely to be purchased by public bodies will not be affected. The Secretary of State is given power to prescribe other categories of exempt premises.
Going back to Clause 15, this catches up a limited injustice to individuals at the present time where, if a new subject is valued, the law requires that it is valued as at the time of occupation. The general level of valuation over the whole area would, however, be as at the last revaluation so that the new subject in fact is being rated more than other peoples subjects are. The clause makes provision for all new valuations to be related to values in the previous year of revaluation. This does not affect a great number of people, but it at least puts everyone on the same basis.
Clause 16 and Schedule 2 provide that the valuation of water undertakings should be related to output. Under the present "revenue" principle of valuation of such undertakings (I do not know why it is called a "revenue principle", because it does not seem to have anything to do with revenue at all) the effect is that the more capital expenditure there is on the undertaking the larger the burden of loan charges and the higher the valuation which has been an immense burden on new and expanding undertakings. The clause is a step towards the general

1355
modernisation of water supply arrangements in Scotland.
Some important clauses were added to this Part of the Bill at Report stage in another place. They provided—for example, in Clause 20—for night-storage heaters to be exempt from valuation, as they were generally held to be until a decision of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court last year. Clause 18 will lead to a greater contribution to local finance from the nationalised industries, whose administrative offices will become rateable. Clause 19 makes gas and electricity showrooms rateable, again because of their similarity to ordinary commercial undertakings. A further need was to bring the "standard amounts" of the Electricity Boards, which correspond in a sense to a private industry's valuation, into line with the new level of valuations established this year, and Clause 17 enables them to be adjusted with this in mind.
Clause 21 places churches in the same position as church halls are under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. No rates will be payable on a church or church hall so long as the premises are used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with the religious body in question, and no profit is derived from use for any other purposes. The effect of this is that churches, like church halls at present, will be able to be used for things other than church services—for example, religious concerts or dramas—without losing their exemption from rates, even if a profit is derived from them. No profit can go to the church organisation, however, if the building is used for non-church activities.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Does that mean that church halls will be exempt in respect of sales of work and things like that. That is rather important for most churches.
LORD HUGHES: If it is for the church purposes, yes.
LORD SALTOUN: Thank you very much.
LORD HUGHES: Part III of the Bill deals with highway grants and functions, and does two main things. First it provides
1356
the legislative framework for a new system of highway grants, and secondly it modernises the administrative arrangements for road lighting. At present roads are classified as Class I, Class II or Class III for grant purposes, and specific grants are paid for the improvement and maintenance of all three—except for the maintenance of classified roads in large burghs. Under the revised system, specific grants, at 75 per cent., will be given only for the improvement of those local authority roads which are important to the national economy as essential routes for major traffic movements. These will be called "principal roads", and Clause 28 refers to this matter. Specific grant will no longer be paid for the improvement of roads which do not become principal roads but the improvement of these roads and the maintenance of all roads, including principal roads, will be assisted through the rate support grant.
It is worth noting that the assistance now to be given to the maintenance of roads in cities and large burghs, for the first time since 1929 and for which we are including an additional sum of £900,000 in the rate support grant, will remove a long-standing grievance of these authorities. It is also worth noting that "improvements" to principal roads for which specific grants will be made will cover all works designed to improve the potential capacity of the road or to lead to its more efficient or safer use. Besides works of major improvement, improvements may now include works required for traffic management, such as the erection of traffic signs and signals, and the provision of refuges and footbridges for pedestrians.
These changes in the grant system will mean that, subject to loan sanction and normal revenue grant controls, local authorities will become responsible for planning and programming the improvement of all roads other than principal roads, and for maintaining all roads for which they are the highway authorities. Assistance will be given through the rate support grant for this and for the rate-borne element of expenditure on improvements which qualify for capital grants. There will be no reduction in the total amount of Exchequer assistance, as special consideration will be given to highway factors in the needs element of the rate support grant.

1357
To provide an up-to-date basis on which the proposed arrangements can operate, the highway system is at present being reviewed so that the network of principal roads can he designated when the new system comes into operation on May 16, 1967. The Secretary of State's proposals were sent to local authorities in September, and their comments are now being received and considered. The intention is that the total mileage of principal roads will be broadly equivalent to the present Class I mileage, although, because of changes in the patterns of traffic over the years, not all Class I roads may be principal roads.
In addition to the grant changes, we propose in Clause 29 that road lighting should become a highway function because of its importance for traffic movement and safety. At present lighting authorities are generally the town councils of small and large burghs, and county councils in landward areas. Some lighting authorities are not highway authorities for the roads they light, and the standard of lighting provided is varied and uneven. Highway authorities for all roads, including the Secretary of State as highway authority for trunk roads, will now become responsible for road lighting—that is, lighting the primary purpose of which is to assist the safe movement of motor traffic—and specific grants, at 75 per cent., will be paid for improving road lighting on principal roads. The provision of lighting for other purposes, such as the lighting of footways for the benefit of pedestrians, will remain the responsibility of the present lighting authorities.
Part IV of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous local government provisions. For example, Clause 35 will allow local authorities to send members, within prescribed conditions, to any conference concerned with local authority functions or the promotion of trade or industry. This replaces the existing arrangements under which the Secretary of State must approve particular types of conference. Local authorities will thus have a proper degree of discretion as to choice of conference but the number of councillors attending will continue to be limited. Clause 36 provides that authorities in Scotland will have, as in England, power to spend up to a 6d. rate on the arts. Although present spending is below
1358
this level, it is increasing and there is no reason why Scotland should be restricted to a 4⅘d. rate. Clause 40 removes an injustice to Scotland by providing that, although dog licence money will continue to be collected by the Post Office, the net revenue will go to the Scottish local authorities as to authorities in England and Wales and not the Treasury. I do not anticipate that any local authorities will declare a dividend as the result of this. The total amount of money involved is £60,000. I suppose otherwise the Treasury would have got it.
To sum up, the major changes are the first really comprehensive system of Exchequer aid to local revenues based on the cost of all services; secondly, special relief for the domestic ratepayer; thirdly, the introduction of new and extended grants in the important fields of urban and other redevelopment and a system of roads grants which will reduce central control to the minimum. And, finally, the Bill contains a number of improvements to the rating system particularly in respect of unoccupied property, and introduces a new and fairer method of valuing water undertakings. I submit that these are important changes and some of them are long overdue. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation of the Bill. The main business set down for this afternoon is the Committee stage of the English Local Government Bill, and on this Scottish Bill, provided it is understood that we, too, shall require ample time on Committee, when we shall want to discuss a fairly wide range of matters arising from the Bill, I do not think we need detain your Lordships long on Second Reading.
None of the main political Parties has yet produced a full comprehensive scheme for transferring a major part of the heavy burden of social services from local rates to the Exchequer. The noble Lord mentioned that the burden in Scotland has multiplied by three since 1951. Although the Party opposite did, I think, indicate in their 1964 Manifesto that they would transfer a major part of the burden from

1359
the rates to the Exchequer, particularly for education, there is no indication yet that this is to be done, and the Local Government Finance White Paper last February to which the noble Lord referred, does not give any forecast of it either. This Bill simply follows the precedent which has been set by previous rating legislation. As I understand it, it continues in principle provision of the general purpose or block grant on a slightly extended basis, although at the time that was introduced the Party opposite did not seem to like it at all.
The only really novel feature of this Bill, I think, is the extraordinary coyness which the Government have shown about the formula of distribution. Up till now the formula of distribution has always been made clear before new legislation was passed, but on this occasion it has been shrouded in carefully preserved mystery. The noble Lord, in his remarks just now, told us that a precise formula had been worked out in consultation with local authorities. The only sign of that which I have seen is the Written Answer which the Secretary of State gave to a Question in another place on October 26, in which he said that
"the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met representatives of the local authority associations on October 14, and reached general agreement on a distribution formula which will be submitted for the approval of the House after the Local Government (Scotland) Bill becomes law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) Vol. 734 (No. 82) col. 181. 26/10/66.]
The statement ends by saying:
"The whole formula will be subject to reconsideration when a further Rate Support Grant Order is made."
I do not know what has been discussed or considered with the local authorities. All I know is that all the local authorities in Scotland of which I have any knowledge, all the town and county clerks and conveners, and everybody else, are in a state of complete ignorance as to whether they are going to do better or worse under this Bill. They do not know whether they are going to get more help in their education expenditure. They do not know whether they are going to get more or less aid for road expenditure, and some of them are particularly worried about the uncertainty of the new road classification, whether it
1360
will be more favourable or less favourable than the existing one.
As for rents, as your Lordships know, in Scotland, in order not to give large grants to local authorities who deliberately charge ridiculously low rents, there is a distinction between the actual rent, which may be anything, and the notional rent, which is supposed to be a fair rent. The definition of the notional rent up till now has always been a fixed percentage of the assessed rent which is put on the house by the assessor, the percentage of which has been rising year by year. But if your Lordships will look at page 32 of the Bill, at Part II of Schedule 1 which deals with the resources element, you will see that in paragraph 4(2), on rents, it is now stated that:
"the notional rent income of a council shall be calculated on such basis as may be prescribed."
I was reminded by this so forcefully of the prospectuses of those numerous bogus companies which started in the reign of Queen Anne. Your Lordships will remember the South Sea Bubble, and a company which invited shareholders to subscribe money in order to discover the use of perpetual motion and to utilise it for machinery. But the one which "takes the cake", which really took the prize, was the company which invited shareholders to subscribe money for a purpose "which shall hereafter be disclosed". We find the same sort of thing in Schedule 1:
"the notional rent income of a council shall be calculated on such basis as may be prescribed."
I hope that when this Bill reaches Committee stage we shall have a much fuller explanation of all these uncertainties.
I will mention two points in the Bill on which I give notice that they will be pressed in Committee. Only a week ago in another place two Amendments were introduced to this Bill on Report stage. One Amendment was suddenly brought in to bump up the rating percentage on unoccupied houses from 50 to 75 per cent. No good reason has been given for this in the other place. Since nearly 50 per cent. of rates are accounted for by education, it seems to me that it does not make sense to levy educational rates on unoccupied houses. We shall want to have a full justification for this sudden

1361
change which, in my view, has not been justified in another place at all.
The other matter relates to the provision to impose a penalty of £20 upon the owner of a house if he fails to report to the local authority the existence of an unoccupied house within a period of two months. This is a permissive scheme which may or may not be applied by a local authority, but for the man to whom it may apply it makes no difference whether it is permissive or not if the local authority suddenly applies it. Again, I see no useful purpose to be served by this provision. It is easy for large companies or large landowners with a full-time agent who can immediately find out what houses are unoccupied and give the necessary information, but for thousands of small house owners who may be going abroad for six months, or who may be serving in the Army abroad and who may leave their houses temporarily un-occupied, they may have no means of knowing—they do not read official notices and there is no reason why they should—that they are committing an offence if they do not write and report to a local authority that a certain house is unoccupied. This is a provision which has very little consideration behind it. I do not want to raise any argument about it now on Second Reading, but I earnestly suggest to the noble Lord that he consults with his colleagues about it. I think they may have made a mistake, and I hope very much they will reconsider this matter on Committee.
The noble Lord concluded his explanation of the Bill with a relatively trivial point on Clause 40 in relation to dogs, and I shall do the same. Clause 40 deals with dogs and Clause 41 deals with game licences, but I am surprised to see nothing in the Bill about gun licences. It may be that it can be dealt with by other legislation, but many of your Lordships have long held the view that it is high time that the issue and control of gun licences should be put in the hands of the police. That, in my view, ought to have been done long ago, and I hope that opportunity will be taken to do this under this Bill. I shall, if necessary, put down an Amendment to that effect, but it may be that the Government are contemplating doing it in another way. I do not mind whether it is done under this Bill or under some other Bill, so long as it is done.
3.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before I turn to my main theme which is related to Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill and to what the noble Earl has referred, I would say that something said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, attracted my attention, and that was his reference to Part III dealing with roads. He said that these provisions would now cover the cost of moving roads signs and the like. I should like to ask him whether the provisions of this Bill will in any way speed up the carrying out of decisions by local authorities in regard to the positioning of road signs. At the moment if a town wants to move its 30-miles-per-hour sign out 200 yards, it may take nine months to get the approval of the Secretary of State. It is most important that with the rapid increase in traffic in Scotland, due to the provision of road bridges, everything should be done to see that long delays are avoided when it becomes necessary to adjust road signs in order to promote road safety.
I turn now to deal with Clauses 26 and 27 which, as the noble Earl has said, were popped into the Bill on Third Reading—not only at short notice, but with no inkling being given to the Scottish Grand Committee when the Bill was before them earlier in the year that the Government intended to introduce these clauses. In the Third Reading debate in another place sonic of the stoutest opponents of the provisions of these clauses were in the Labour Party. I emphasise this to show that it is a broader matter than a purely Party issue. Clause 26 leaves it to the discretion of the rating authority whether the conditions of the clause should apply to an area. But supposing this power is taken—and of course it will be; that is the idea of having the clause there—what then? Under Clause 27 a new statutory offence is created. An owner has to notify an empty dwelling house or empty premises of any sort to an authority within a certain time, that is to say within a period of two months. Failure to do so renders him liable to a fine of £20. I do not seek to have the existence of empty accommodation concealed from the housing authority—far from it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It cannot be concealed.
LORD FERRIER: It cannot be concealed, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the object was that it should not be concealed. I do not seek to support any concealment, nor do I seek to defend the housing speculator who deliberately keeps much-needed accommodation empty, but surely even he could be controlled without recourse to the provisions of Clause 27(2). I speak for the property owner who has a house, a house, as the Minister said in another place,
"left empty for good reason, for example, because of the difficulty of getting tenants of farm cottages."
I speak for the Service man who is ordered overseas. I speak for the businessman who has to work abroad and who is contemplating retirement. Perhaps I should declare an interest because I was in that position, and, furthermore, I own two cottages which neither I nor my family occupy. They are not empty and I hope they never will be; nevertheless they might be classed as "tied". I speak for the small man who owns a couple of cottages "cheek by jowl" and who wants to pick and choose his neighbour. In this respect I speak with some force because the mischief does not end with a fine—or so I suspect—and my suspicion is based on the following. In another place the Minister went further than the noble Lord has done here, and grieved that without this provision local authorities
"will not be able to take effective steps to get empty houses reoccupied…"
What does this all mean? I do not like the look of it. Is this another one of the Government's "blunt instruments"? Surely the penalty of paying full rates would be sufficient penalty to make an owner think before deciding not to notify an empty house. We are shortly to take the Police (Scotland) Bill. Do we want to add another criminal offence to the thousands which already exist? Perhaps if this Bill is not a blunt instrument, it is another wedge to torment the owner of the tied house so hated by the urban, if not by the urbane, Socialist. If it is the latter, which I suspect—namely, a wedge—why is it not in the English Bill?
I have said enough to explain why I object to these clauses. But what about the Church property; the manses, for instance? The empty manse may present a problem here, and this requires to be
1364
looked into again. I do not suggest the rejection of the Bill, but I feel bound to say that I contemplate moving Amendments at the Committee stage if no one else does. However, I think the noble Earl has clearly said that he has it in mind to do something of the sort.
4.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I am not going to make a long speech. In fact, I shall take only about two minutes. My noble friend Lord Ferrier and I went into this Bill this morning, and we suddenly saw those two extraordinary clauses. It was very difficult to understand their meaning, but it seemed that whatever they did mean it was not very nice.
Just as much as any noble Lord on the other side of the House, I do not like to have empty houses, but I feel there are other ways of accomplishing their use without, as my noble friend said, creating another criminal offence. That seems completely unnecessary. Admittedly, the operation of these clauses is in the hands of the county council. But although my own county council is so good—I am a member of it—and I do not anticipate any trouble, there might be other county councils which are not so good and which might use these clauses in a very wrong way. I entirely supported the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he said he would produce some Amendments. Obviously, one is not going to try to obstruct the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a necessary Bill and a lot of it is extremely good, but these two clauses are just a very nasty and very unnecessary sting.
I would make one suggestion to the Minister about the lack of houses. Of course, I am talking about the Far North where we have many houses which are condemned, and I think quite wrongly condemned. We have piles of regulations on why a house should be condemned, but those regulations were usually made for Bermondsey or Manchester or somewhere else. I know of dozens of houses which, with a little expenditure, would be a great deal better than many houses built in the last three, four or five years. But because of these regulations we have to pull down and destroy perfectly good, beautiful houses for the reason that they are old—which means that they are probably much

1365
more solid—when a little money spent on them would bring them up to a decent condition, with water sanitation and so forth. If Her Majesty's Government would consider this, and perhaps reconsider some of the extraordinary regulations, which, as I say, are perfectly feasible in the East End of London but not in the Highlands of Scotland, that would do much to solve the housing problem.
4.4 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not want to say very much about this Bill, but I do want to say something about Clause 27. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is extremely proud of the housing record of the City of Dundee, and he knows that I know something about that record and am full of admiration for it and its tenants. Just in passing, I should like to say to him that I share the sorrows which I am quite certain he felt at the death of their wonderful Town Clerk, Mr. Lyle.
It is very important for a burgh or a city which is proud of its housing record—and most of the burghs in Scotland are proud of their housing record—that the amenities of the council tenants should be always as perfect as they can be. But burgh surveyors in Scotland have very often told me of the difficulty which they occasionally have, about which I expect the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows much better than I do, when they get tenants who are quite unfitted for the highly civilised conditions of local government housing. They cause great discomfort, and worse than discomfort, to their immediate neighbours. As a matter of fact, from time to time burgh surveyors have suggested to me that they should be allowed to build special houses into which they could remove unsatisfactory tenants, at any rate for a time, for the relief of their immediate neighbours in a housing scheme. I have actually suggested that to various Governments in your Lordships' House and have always been turned down, but the difficulty remains.
It seems to me that there is a temptation for counties and burghs in Scotland to put unsatisfactory tenants into houses in private ownership which happen to be empty, and so rid themselves of a very great difficulty. I think that it is a great temptation to put in the way of housing authorities. If it happened in
1366
a county, it might be that the neighbouring occupier would find his conditions made so much worse that he actually left, and if it happened in a tied house on a farm it might make it very difficult to run the farm. That is the kind of considerations which are in my mind and which make me extremely uneasy about Clause 27. I think the Government ought to have a careful look at it again. That is all I wish to say on the Bill at the moment.
4.7 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, if this is not a private debate, I wonder whether a poor Sassenach might have a word at this moment. I am impelled to say what I want to say because of the fact that on the Order Paper to-day there is the Second Reading of this Bill, while lower down there is the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill applying to England and Wales. This brings me to say things which I have said in another place and about which I have thought a great deal. Why on earth has this to be so? I am not expecting my noble friend Lord Hughes to answer this question, because I appreciate that it is not his responsibility, but a great deal of Parliamentary time and expense must be involved because of the fact that we are discussing on the same day two Bills which are in principle entirely the same, except for just a few details which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has mentioned.
I am one of those people who were opposed to the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Wales for exactly the same reason, and I asked the question: Are we one nation or are we not? After twenty years in another place, I must confess, with deep respect to those who were my Scottish colleagues there, that I should have been prepared to vote for Home Rule for Scotland at any time. But so long as we are not getting down to that, is it not time that we made up our minds to be one nation? I listened with a great deal of care to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hughes this afternoon, and he might almost have got up and said, "My Lords, I desire to say what my noble friend said on the other Bill last week, and there are very few differences indeed."
It seems to me—and perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may one day put this forward to his

1367
colleagues—that the time has come when we should declare ourselves, at long last, to be one nation. What was the date of Union—1707? Let us make it a reality in this present day. This is the protest I want to make at this moment, my Lords, because I feel that an awful lot of Parliamentary time is wasted.
4.11 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I would hardly agree with the point of view of the noble Lord who has just spoken. He does not seem to understand the problems we are up against in Scotland, or this dreadful drag of the South-East of England. They try to dominate the whole of the United Kingdom—
LORD ROYLE: Would the noble Lord permit me just one moment to say that his remarks in that respect might apply equally to Lancashire. They are worried about the South-East as well. Why Scotland, and not Lancashire?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, they might apply equally to Lancashire, they might apply equally to Cornwall; but in the case of Scotland we fought for our independence and held it, and we came into the United Kingdom of our own free will. We made a "U.D.I.", and we came back into the Union. We in Scotland are determined to maintain our individuality, and that is why we have maintained our system of law and our Church, and we are very glad that this is so, not only for our own nation but for what we have been able to give to the world at large through being distinctive and separate from the other half, the other part, of the Island.
My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friends have said about Clause 27. To my mind, it introduces a tremendous amount of quite unnecessary red tape. Local authorities are going to have more red tape to tie around the necks of the ratepayers. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to persuade his right honourable friend to take another look at this clause to see whether something can be done about it. There will immediately be exemptions, because some county councils will enforce it and some will not. Then there will be the further exemptions of those houses which are going to be exempted anyway, as
1368
well as local government houses, for which exemption is already provided. So it will be very difficult for any owner of property to know whether he is committing a criminal offence or not. In one county he may be, and in another county he may not be.
I hope the noble Lord will give special consideration to this problem of the tied house, and, in particular, the manses. No vacancy committee in a church can be expected to get its manse filled in two months and a fortnight; it is bound to run over that time. Is the session clerk to remember that he must make his report to the local authority that his committee have not been able to find a minister in the time? It just does not make sense. Again, take the tied houses of the university authorities and other educational establishments. The chances are that the occupant will go out at some time in June or July, and it may be that his successor will arrive in late August or September. There may be some delays which take him over the two months and a fortnight. All this has to be remembered by some hardworking secretary or under-secretary in the university at a time when he should be getting on with the job of organising the university for the next academic year. He will have plenty on his plate already, and here will be an additional piece of red tape being tied around him.
As regards the farm cottages—and here I must declare an interest—I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, who opened this subject, resides in a county where he has complete confidence in his local authority. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I reside and own tied cottages in a county where the local authority look at problems with an urban outlook and not with a farm outlook, and to be tied up with red tape under those conditions can put one into a very difficult position altogether.
There is one point that I should like to ask the noble Lord, and that is to what extent holiday chalets would be affected by this clause, because if we are to develop tourism properly in Scotland there must, I think, be a great extension in the provision of holiday chalets and they must be properly constructed, with all "mod. cons.". Finally, on Clause 27, I would say that the real problem is not the problem of the unoccupied house

1369
owned by a private person: the real problem of the unoccupied house is the length of time that it takes the local authority to fill a house once it has become vacant. The number of local authority houses which are vacant is almost as large at any given time as the number of private houses that may be vacant. The noble Lord shakes his head, and I should be very glad to be corrected if my information on that point happens to be wrong.
I welcome Clause 21, which makes the rate concession in respect of the churches and their manses. May I be told at a later stage, perhaps when we are discussing this Bill in Committee, whether this includes buildings such as the Scottish church houses, which are built for special social services and not primarily for religious services? They very nearly come within the definition of a church hall, because they are usually associated with a particular denomination; but there are, in addition, buildings which are used by inter-denominational organisations and which may be used under precisely the same terms as those laid down for the churches. I suggest that the noble Lord should look at the question of these buildings used by inter-denominational bodies.
I welcome Clause 32, on road lighting, which I think is overdue. Living in the country, and having had to provide the lighting for my own village, I know how important it is to have consistent lighting on the highways; and, of course, anything to do with dogs, as this is, is bound to meet with a certain amount of approval.
4.18 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, there are only two points to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and one is the question of the pensioner. Most of us have cottages which are reserved for men Who have given many years of service to the estate, having perhaps been born on it, as in many cases were their fathers before them. They retire, and then the cottage that they have occupied as a service cottage has to be re-occupied by another person who has come in to take over the job. There is no place to which that pensioner can go, and it is going to be a very real hardship for him. Under the present legislation we dare not let the cottage, or we shall never get it in our hands again for when the
1370
pensioner retires. Yet what are we to do? We shall be forced to let it and to move that man from the area where he has lived for years and where all his friends live, and an area in which he had looked forward to spending his last days. If some provision could be made for exemption in these cases where there is a limited period before the retirement of an aged servant, it would be a great relief to these people and also to many of us landowners.
The other point I should like to call attention to is on the cost of maintenance of farm roads which are in some cases a mile or a mile and a half across the moors from the nearest road. The bulk milk tanker weighing well over 10 tons, perhaps nearer 15 tons, travels up and down every day. Lorries weighing up to and more than 20 tons laden bring foodstuffs and take cattle and sheep. That road was never built for that purpose, nor was it ever built to allow the excessive speeds which in a great many cases are indulged in by these heavy lorries.
Is it possible to introduce a French casse at the beginning of the village, half-way through and at the end? This is a slight depression which so long as the lorry goes over it at a reasonable speed is not felt at all; if the driver attempts a faster sped it will break his lorry springs; and if he goes too fast it will break his neck. Some of us may be tempted in the circumstances to think this well deserved. It is a great problem in the countryside. The cost of these roads is becoming absolutely crippling on many of these farms and if some means cannot be devised for preventing excessive speeds by imposing limitations of the casse type those roads are going to sink into the bog in a very few years' time, possibly in a few months' time. Could not some solution be found to this problem? That is all I have to say. I hope the seed will fall on fruitful ground.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balerno has pretty effectively demolished the noble Lord opposite who suggested that this debate was unnecessary and that the two countries should have a joint Bill. However, I propose to complete his good work by putting a final demolition charge among the ruins by asking the noble Lord whether he does not realise that his

1371
particular advocacy of a policy of "Little England" has gone so far to lose the Empire and Commonwealth. The calm, indeed arrogant, assumption that England in particular, and South-East England more particularly, is the only region not merely of Great Britain but of the world which needs to be considered is one wreaking irreparable havoc in international relations. I do not suggest that there is any danger of Scotland separating entirely from England; we have much too great a sense of our responsibility. We realise that the results of such a separation would be a dire one for England because—
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a question. May I answer it by saying that I am advocating a larger England?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It would be a dire one for England; for Scotland has always recognised that the civilising of the English and of keeping them civilised is Scotland's share of the "White Man's burden." To change the metaphor, having once put our shoulder to the wheel in that difficult task, we intend to go on doing so, but not to drag at the coat tails of England.
There are not many questions that I want to ask, but I should like to follow up those on Clause 21 which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, because I am not quite happy about the position of church halls as laid out in this clause. It would appear that if a church hall is let—and mark the word, "let"—and is not permitted to be used for any purpose which is not fairly closely connected with the hall, it will be in danger of losing its rate relief. All of us who are aware of the conditions in rural Scotland—and I have no doubt this applies in rural England, too—must know that many of these small church halls have the greatest difficulty in carrying on because of the expense of running them on the small income they receive. We know also that in many cases they are the only hall the local population have for any form of recreation.
These halls are used not only for church purposes but for other entirely laudable ones, such as meetings of Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, or of the Boy's Brigade, of which my noble friend Lord Balerno knows well. They are also used for local
1372
flower shows and for other almost as worthy purposes. Furthermore, they are used, on occasions, for political meetings. I have in my time spoken in many church halls. If, therefore, you are going to say that the halls can only be used free, or perhaps with the payment of a small fee to cover lighting and heating, it will mean that local communities are going to be deprived of what is perhaps the only building which is suitable for their harmless local amusements in remote areas.
My Lords, my other main point is to pursue a little further this notorious Clause 27, speaking particularly from the rural point of view. There are many occasions when a rural landlord, large or small, may have a house vacant for considerably longer than two months, with perfectly valid reasons. Often an old house becomes vacant and the landlord has to decide what he is going to do with it, whether it is to be demolished or whether it is in a sufficiently good state of preservation to be worth his applying to his county council for grants. The time required for that, and the preparation of plans, may last much longer than two months.
Again, suppose a house becomes vacant and the landlord does not have someone to put in at that particular moment, though he knows very well that some old servant to whom he would like to allocate that house is going to retire within the next few months. Everyone knows that if, in the meantime, he lets it to somebody else it will be extraordinarily difficult to get it back again. Furthermore, there is the Agriculture Act and the question of seasonal workers; and there are a great many of these in my own part of the world particularly in regard to the raspberry trade. I assume that "a dwelling house" for this purpose would cover a bothy. As I have already said the question of chalets, which are occupied for only the summer months, which are often in picturesque areas and which are well-nigh uninhabitable in winter also cannot be overlooked. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will take a second and very much more profound look at both Clause 21 and Clause 27, and will not leave them as blemishes in a Bill which must otherwise be welcomed by us all.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I start by feeling that I ought at the outset to cross the Floor and join my Scottish colleagues in order to reply more effectively to my noble friend Lord Royle. I will, however, restrain myself, but will remind my noble friend that he has overlooked one rather trifling matter, that is, the Treaty of Union, under which we have a separate code of law in Scotland. Although explained in general terms, as I have done—and this, no doubt, my noble friend did earlier on the English Bill—the two Bills sound familiar, because of the different code of law there is hardly a clause in the Scottish Bill identical with the English one.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, in view of the intense patriotism that has been displayed this afternoon, may I ask my noble friend whether those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will on the next occasion wear their kilts.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, other noble Lords must speak for themselves; I have no such intention. But noble Lords opposite do not know that things went from bad to worse, because what my noble friend Lord Royle said incited another of my noble friends (who must in the interests of his own safety at the hands of noble Lords opposite remain nameless) to say to me: "Do you realise that you are now using English time?" At the risk of falling out with him I will take up a little more of this English time.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, alleged that the Government were being coy about the grant distribution formula. It may be that that is so, my Lords, but it is not out of any sinister motive on the part of the Government. It is precisely because local authority associations have made it clear to the Government beyond any doubt that they do not want the formula to be written into the Bill, because it could not be altered quickly or easily in the light of experience. Having regard to that, the Government have given the fullest possible information about the proposed formula in reply to a Parliamentary Question, the beginning and end of which the noble Earl quoted, leaving out—probably only out of regard for the time of the House—the whole meat of the Answer which gave the information sought.
1374
The noble Earl also criticised the fact that the basis for notional rent is left to be prescribed after consultation with the local authority associations who are the bodies concerned. The Government think it is better, that it should be done in this way rather than that it should be fixed by Statute as was done in 1963, because once it is fixed it becomes very difficult to alter it in the light of the changing circumstances; and circumstances may require appreciably substantial alterations in any such notional rent. The way in which we are doing it makes it possible to have the fullest regard to the considered views of the local authority associations in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in dealing with roads, asked whether this would make it quicker to get decisions on road signs. I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that it will not make any difference at all. I will in due course pass on to my honourable friend the views of the noble Lord about the delays in getting these changes effected.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to gun licences. They are done away with by Clause 39 with the change in relation to game licences. This is a change in the method of collection. The reason why we are doing away with gun licences is that it is not felt that they serve any useful purpose whatsoever. The police would very much prefer to have a better control of weapons through firearms certificates, and this is a change which the police authorities welcome very much.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will that be done in another Bill, such as the Criminal Justice Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, I think that is so. It does not need to be covered in this Bill. We are doing away with this particular form of Excise licence because it serves no Revenue purpose which is worth while, and does not help the police in their other activities at all.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It seems to me that the Government are agreeing to do exactly what we want.
LORD HUGHES: Well, my Lords, noble Lords opposite must be right sometimes, even though it is only by accident.

1375
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, made some complimentary remarks about my native city of Dundee and its housing activities. It will give me great pleasure to direct the attention of the Lord Provost of Dundee to those very friendly remarks which were made by the noble Lord. On the subject of Clauses 26 and 27, I had a feeling that noble Lords opposite would not necessarily express themselves with complete enthusiasm about these clauses. However, I do not think that the situation is as bad as they purport to make out. In the first instance, if one takes the case of the owner of a small amount of property who goes abroad for six months—the sort of case which is quoted—it is just as easy for that owner to make arrangements with his agent to notify a vacancy as it is to make arrangements with his agent to collect the rents. I am quite certain that the owner would not go abroad for six months and hope that the rent would find its way into his account of its own accord. So that presents no particular difficulties. Some of the other cases of absence are not more difficult, but some of the points which have been made are, I think, very valid. It is simply because there are such cases—the manse, university property, the tied house, the house for the old-age pensioner, the house which is being altered—that the Secretary of State is taking powers in the Bill to prescribe other classes of property which may be exempt from this need.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier suggested that full payment of rates would be a sufficient deterrent, I do not know whether he put it forward seriously as an alternative to registration after two months, because if so he was not in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. If the noble Lord is in due course intending to table an Amendment to the Bill, suggesting that all empty property should be rated in full, I must undertake on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to look very closely at it as an alternative to notification of empty properties, followed in proper cases by the levying of rates at 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. as the case may be ! and I am quite happy to undertake to look at the suggestion.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask about this? I am not sure
1376
that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has the point of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. If a house becomes vacant surely the occupier goes on paying full rates until such time as he does notify, and asks that it be derated or practically derated as an unoccupied house. I think that was the point which my noble friend was making.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is quite right. As for suggesting that a house should not be derated, I think that was proposed in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place and rejected. I would not suggest that. The noble Earl has put my point.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I knew that there must be a snag in it somewhere. I did not think that the noble Lord was going to give away money as easily as all that. I ought to have known better.
On the question of holiday chalets, the advice I am given is that holiday chalets are not generally in the valuation role as dwelling houses. There may be one or two cases where they are, but it would be only if a holiday chalet was in the valuation role that it would be affected. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, raised the question of the maintenance of farm roads. This is a point with which I have great sympathy but, unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bill which affects this at all. Farm roads are private roads and are not affected by any of these proposals. I doubt very much whether the owners would be happy if the alternative was that the roads should be taken over by the local authority, with all the cost that would be involved therein.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I realise that it is quite impossible, and is not within measurable distance of being an economic proposition, to have these roads up to the condition which would be required to carry this traffic. What I hope will be done is that some means of restricting the speed of lorries on these roads will be found, such as the casse, which may be very effective without in any way making difficulties for the lorry drivers. provided that they keep to reasonable speeds. It is the speed which destroys these roads much more than wet.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not know whether the owner of a private

1377
road would be at liberty to do this in his own road or not, but I will certainly have a look at the matter again. It takes me back many years. I remember that I had been a councillor only about two years in Dundee when there was a motion before my local authority, because of the excessive speed of motor vehicles going through the town, that the town council, instead of repairing the road to a proper standard, should deliberately dig potholes in it in order to slow up the vehicles. This is coming pretty near to it, though on a less widespread scale.
LORD ROWALLAN: It works in France.
LORD HUGHES: There are a number of things which work in France which would not necessarily work here.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that he was worried about Clause 21 in relation to church halls. I would remind the noble Earl that there is no alteration in this Bill with regard to the position of church halls. All the Bill does is to make clear that a church can be in exactly the same beneficial position as a church hall. On the point relating to inter-church halls, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I am sorry that I do not know the answer, but I will make inquiries so that I may let him know before the next stage. If the position is not satisfactory then, it will be possible for him to take such action as he thinks will be an improvement in that direction.
I think that I am entitled to say that in this general debate the Bill has received a good welcome from your Lordships' House. The criticisms have been intense on only one subject, and the criticisms of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, have been fear about the later prescribing of what will be done rather than about the present statement. I hope that what I have said will have allayed his fears to the extent that he will accept that it is not because of any innate wickedness in the Government, but rather because of the desires of local authorities, that things are done in this way.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Bill is not so far ranging as the one we have just finished discussing. In introducing this Bill, I do not think I need enlarge on the problems which face the police to-day, as we are all only too well aware of the disturbing growth in the incidence of crime. Ever increasing resources of money and ability are being devoted to the pursuit of crime, and the police must engage in a continuous process of improving their efficiency and of perfecting their organisation if they are not to lose ground in this battle. The motor car, in the hands of honest citizens and criminals alike, adds to the burdens of the police. Co-operation between police forces has increased greatly to take account of the breaking down of traditional boundaries which has been made possible by the use of the motor car and the greater mobility of the criminal classes, but there is a limit to what can be achieved by cooperation alone. In certain areas it is in the Government's opinion clearly necessary that the boundaries between police forces be swept away altogether. It is only by this means that individual police forces will be able to marshal the resources necessary to combat organised crime. As a first step in this process my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a Statement in another place which I repeated in your Lordships' House on July 6. In that Statement I announced a programme of amalgamations involving the disappearance of nine burgh forces and two county forces in Scotland, and I also announced the Government's intention to introduce a Bill to facilitate the process of amalgamation. This Bill is the one now before your Lordships.
It has long been recognised that some amalgamation of Scottish police forces is necessary. The Desborough Committee on the Police Service of England,

1379
Wales and Scotland recommended in 1919 that
"all separate police forces in burghs with less than 50,000 population should be merged in the county forces".
The need for amalgamations was later recognised by the Local Expenditure (Scotland) Committee (commonly known as the Lovat Committee) which reported in 1932 and in the following year by the Police Consolidation (Scotland) Committee—the Ormidale Committee. Finally the Royal Commission on the Police reported in 1962 that
"Scotland is an extreme case of the multiplicity of small police forces"
and recommended that the numbers of separate forces should be reduced from the then figure of 33 to between 15 and 20. Since the Royal Commission reported, two voluntary amalgamations—Perth City with Perth and Kinross and Ross and Cromarty with Sutherland—have taken place. Attempts to persuade other police authorities to amalgamate voluntarily have not met with success.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that, given the blessing of so many Committees over nearly half a century, the Government cannot be accused of acting in a rash or ill-considered manner in putting forward the present programme of amalgamations. My right honourable friend is firmly convinced that a reduction in the number of police forces in Scotland will be conducive to efficiency, and he has observed that there is strong support for this view in the police service, from public opinion and in Parliament. He hopes that the amalgamations which he considers to be necessary can be brought about voluntarily, and the police authorities concerned have been invited to submit proposals to this end. He recognises, however, that some authorities may not be willing to relinquish control of their own force. In such cases, if after full consideration and on the best advice available he remains convinced that amalgamation is necessary, my right honourable friend will himself make an amalgamation scheme in exercise of his powers under Section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956. If matters should take this course, the Government are of the opinion that in any public inquiry into a scheme made by the Secretary of State the onus should be on the objecting
1380
authority or authorities to show that their objections are valid rather than on my right honourable friend to show that each particular proposed scheme is in the interests of efficiency. He is fortified in this opinion by the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Police that
"at any inquiry held into the proposed amalgamation scheme the sole issue should be the objection or objections lodged against it and not the scheme itself".
The Bill now before your Lordships' House seeks to implement this recommendation, which I might add has already been implemented for England and Wales.
The Bill seeks to make two other changes of a minor nature in the procedure for making compulsory amalgamation schemes. The first of these gives to my right honourable friend the power to specify a time limit within which the police authorities concerned may object to a proposed amalgamation. The second change concerns the publicity to be given to a proposed amalgamation scheme. The Bill does not reproduce the requirement contained in the Police (Scotland) Act of 1956 that my right honourable friend should publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities affected a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme. This provision has been omitted from the Bill for the reason that the right of individual members of the public to object to an amalgamation scheme is excluded both under existing legislation and under the Bill.
This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial measure designed to facilitate the making of what my right honourable friend may consider from time to time to be necessary amalgamation schemes. The need for the amalgamations which I proposed in my Statement of July 6 is widely recognised, but it may not be possible to bring them into effect without the change in procedure which the Bill seeks to bring about. I hope that your Lordships will give to the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the clear explanation he has given of

1381
the background of this Bill. I think I can say at once that we all recognise the need for amalgamations and the need for what he described as the continuous process of improving the efficiency of the police forces and their organisation. There are one or two points on which I am not clear. I do not want to detain your Lordships for any length of time, and I will just outline them to-day and perhaps we can deal with them in more detail on the Committee stage.
The first point arises out of what the noble Lord said about the four amalgamation schemes. Section 18(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956 says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency of making an amalgamation scheme for any police areas should be considered, and no scheme satisfactory to him has been submitted to him by the police authorities for those areas under the last preceding section before such date as he may fix, the Secretary of State may in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section by order make such scheme as he considers expedient…".
There are two points which arise here. The first is: can the noble Lord tell us what date he has fixed within which the local police authorities concerned can get together and make voluntary schemes for the amalgamations?
The second point is to draw attention to the words of the existing Act I have already quoted,
"that the expediency in the interests of efficiency of making an amalgamation scheme for any police areas should be considered."
The noble Lord will be well aware of the litigation that took place as a result of the Ayrshire amalgamation which went to the Court of Session, and as a result of which, I think I am right in saying, an alteration was made in the 1956 Act. The then existing legislation, which was the 1946 Act, was altered, I think I am again right in saying, so that the orders which the Secretary of State may make can be made by Statutory Instrument and not be subject to annulment in either House. So the consideration that has to be given seems to be consideration only by the Secretary of State. For that purpose he can hold an inquiry if there are objections from a police authority.
Notice under this Bill is to be given only to the police authorities concerned
1382
and not as under the present legislation, which says:
"The Secretary of State shall give to the police authorities concerned notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme; and unless those authorities give notice to the Secretary of State that they assent thereto, the Secretary of State shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and shall cause a local inquiry to be held by a person to be appointed by him."
As I understood the noble Lord, he said that at the present time objections can be made only by the police authorities. This is not plain from what has been said in another place. I would ask the noble Lord to confirm that this is so. At any rate, we get the position that objections under this Bill will be able to be made only by the police authorities; that notice will be given only to the police authorities, and that, as at present, the notice will be describing the general nature of the proposed scheme.
I should like to refer to one observation that was made by Lord Birnam in the case of Ayr Burgh v. The Lord Advocate in 1950. He said:
"While it is unnecessary to the decision of the present case, I think that all parties concerned should have an opportunity of putting before the Commissioner not only their views to as whether there should or should not be an amalgamation, but also their comments, if any, upon the details of the draft scheme".
Considering that it is only the Secretary of State who is to consider whether the amalgamation should take place or not, it seems to be important that the local police authorities should have an opportunity of objecting to the draft scheme and the contents of the draft scheme, as well as just to the general nature of the proposed scheme.
This is something that we shall have to examine in Committee, and the purpose of our examination, I suggest to your Lordships, should be this: that if and when the Secretary of State decides that a scheme should go forward and he lays the scheme before both Houses of Parliament, which he has to do, together with
"a copy of the report by the person by whom the inquiry was held"
where a local inquiry has been held under this section, this may be meaningful to Parliament; that we shall not just have a draft scheme and a note of the

1383
objections, but that Parliament should be in a position to judge whether the Secretary of State is properly carrying out the functions that Parliament has laid upon him in this case. I say this subject to correction, but I think that under the English procedure there is power to annul an order laid by the Secretary of State, whereas, as I read the 1956 Act, that power no longer exists.
These are the points that I think arise mainly on the Bill. As I have said, we do not want to impede the process of amalgamation where this can lead to efficiency. We think it is a wise improvement to say that there shall be a time limit for objections to be laid. We think there should be a reduction in the number of police forces. But I, for my part, do not see that this process will be improved at all by a reduction in the right to make objections. I can quite see that there is a good deal to be said for limiting the power for objections to be made to local police authorities, but the scope of their objections ought not to be limited, in our view, to the general scheme; they should also be given full opportunity to examine the draft scheme and to make representations about it.
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not regard this measure as entirely un-controversial, as it is bound to cause a considerable amount of annoyance to some of the smaller police authorities that fall to be amalgamated. Nevertheless, this measure is absolutely necessary if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, we are going to be able to reorganise the police forces so as to make them able even more efficiently to combat crime. Everyone knows that they are at the present time facing the most difficult period in their history. Quite apart from the recent lamentable and shocking series of police murders, even in to-day's paper we read an account of two policemen being stabbed and another shot at in England. It is more than time that a reorganisation was brought into effect which will improve the position, from the point of view both of the police seeking to prevent crime and of the population who will be victims.
1384
I can speak with some inside knowledge on this subject because I have experience of one of the amalgamations to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, alluded; that is to say the one between the Perth County force and the City of Perth force. Not unnaturally the City of Perth were not at all pleased about the idea of losing control of their own force, but I am glad to say they were large-minded and public-spirited enough to realise that it was no longer really possible, and still less desirable, that there should be an enclave of a few square miles with 40,000 inhabitants of the City of Perth entirely surrounded by the force of the County. Also, relations between those two forces have happily always been very good. There was to some extent, of course, a certain lack of co-ordination when there were two separate headquarters. Now that these have been merged everything is going even more smoothly than before, and with our present admirable Chief Constable we have a highly efficient force.
Also I can speak with some knowledge on this subject having been the former chairman of the police committee of the Perth County Council and being now the chairman of the new joint authority. It may well be that further amalgamations will be necessary over the years, but I hope most fervently that nothing will be done to try to establish one police force. I think that would be a regrettable step, for a great many reasons, into which it would be foolish and out of place to go to-day.
There is just one point which is unfortunate, and that is that the amalgamation of forces reduces the number of top positions to which an able and ambitious policeman can attain. That, however, is unfortunately quite impossible to prevent and one only hopes that there will be other positions of a high administrative nature—although not that of Chief Constable—the creation of which will compensate to some extent for the loss of this position.
Of course, the former situation was quite absurd when, for example, the County of Kincardine had a Chief Constable with, I think, a force of fifteen men under him. It is now recognised that there should be a force of several hundred, if possible. At the same time, I

1385
trust that not too much attention will be paid to fixing an absolute minimum for the size of one of the amalgamated forces. To try to attain uniformity in that fashion may well mean that natural boundaries will not be paid attention to, and therefore administrative problems, instead of being eased, in some cases may be made more difficult than they were before. But, all in all, this is a measure which one can heartily recommend to your Lordships.
5.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was right in my belief that this Bill would receivea friendly welcome from your Lordships, and I should just like to say briefly that before the next stage of the Bill I will consider all the points which have been made, particularly those made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. On some of them I can offer a comment at this stage. First of all, I would refer to the date which has been fixed for the submission of voluntary schemes. So far as concerns the schemes which were announced on July 6, the Secretary of State has not yet fixed any date. He hopes that if there are to be voluntary schemes they may be forthcoming by the end of the year. If in fact he is disappointed in that hope then he will consider the fixing of a date some time after that. I think a reasonable amount of time is being allowed to these authorities.
In this connection, I should like to say how much I welcome the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, speaking as he does from an area where a most successful amalgamation took place, and if there are authorities where the Secretary of State now thinks an amalgamation would be equally in the interests of the police and the community in general we have only to look at it in the same way as we did then.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that for a long time I represented an area which was amalgamated very successfully.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): Give the noble Lord an acid drop, too.
LORD HUGHES: If there are any noble Lords who are in areas where
1386
amalgamations are wanted, these are two excellent examples to emulate.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, might I add the case of the police forces of the Lothians and Peebles as an amalgamation which has proved notably successful? I should like to add the point that it enables an outstanding Chief Constable to exercise his powers over a wider area than would otherwise be the case.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Hear, hear!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the existing law, I did say quite definitely that the provision about more widespread advertisement has been omitted from the Bill by reason of the fact that the right of individual members of the public to object to an amalgamation scheme is excluded both under existing legislation and under the Bill. That is the information which I have been given and if it is not right, it is a basket of raspberries for somebody!
On the question of the procedure about the Order, the position is that if a scheme is voluntary it is made by Order. The Order is laid before Parliament and is subject to Negative Resolution. If the Secretary of State makes a scheme under Section 18 of the 1956 Act the Order is still laid before Parliament and is subject to Negative Resolution. In this case the Order is accompanied by a copy of the report of the inquiry if objection is raised under the 1966 Bill, or assent is not received under the 1956 Act. The Order is also accompanied by a copy of the proposed scheme, and this would normally be in the form of a Schedule to the Order—that is, the whole scheme to which the Order applies.
Thus the role of Parliament in relation to the making of these Orders is the same in the 1956 Act and in the 1966 Bill. The report of the inquiry will, however, under the 1966 Bill relate to the validity of the objection and not to the merits of the scheme. Having said that, I must add that Parliament is in no way prevented from discussing the Government policy on amalgamations when they reject them in specific cases upon a Negative Resolution. So I think the noble Lord can be assured—and this is, I think, the point upon which he wished to be assured—that the

1387
authority of Parliament in these matters remains as strong as it is at the present time. I hope it will be possible as a result of further examination which I may make to satisfy noble Lords that this Bill may proceed without Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
5.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECERETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It proposes the continuance for a further period of twelve months of two whole Acts and parts of four others which would otherwise expire either on December 31 this year or March 31, 1967. The two well known, perhaps most important, are Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, and Part I and the First Schedule to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Your Lordships will recall that we had a very full debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, some two weeks ago in which these subjects were covered very well, and I feel you would not want me to say anything more about them now, particularly as nothing has happened in the last two weeks to alter what was then said.
I will content myself with making brief mention of the other four Acts. First, the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 makes it an offence to charge a fee for supplying information about houses and flats to let. This Act was aimed against fraudulent house agencies which charged a fee for registering people's requirements and then supplied lists of so-called vacant accommodation. These lists were often inaccurate, out of date, and even unauthorised by the lessors. The kind of agencies at which the Act was aimed flourished, of course, where there was a scarcity of housing, and since, unfortunately, conditions have not yet improved
1388
to a point where the Act can be allowed to lapse—and this is particularly true of the London area and other big cities—it is necessary to continue it for another year.
With regard to the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, I would simply say that the danger the Act was designed to meet, namely, a flood of "horror comics" which were coming into the country, is still as great as ever, and any relaxation of the law might well result in a recrudescence of a flood of filth. Hence, again, the Act's inclusion in the Schedule to the Bill.
Thirdly, the extension of Section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959, has a two-fold function. It gives the Minister of Aviation powers to procure "articles required for the public service" in an emergency, and also retains in force the compulsory powers contained in Section 10 of the Ministry of Supply Act 1939, by which the Minister of Aviation can oblige firms who have accepted contracts at prices to be agreed to give him access to any documents or records relevant to fixing a fair and reasonable price.
Finally, I turn to Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964, which confers on the Secretary of State power to constitute a licensing planning area where there has been extensive war damage, and to establish for that area a licensing planning committee. The Secretary of State, of course, may bring licensing planning to an end in any area where he is satisfied that it has served its purpose. There are at present 18 licensing planning areas out of an original total of 33. The other 15 have been brought to an end over the years, with the local committees' consent, during the period from 1955 to 1963. The whole future of licensing planning is at the moment under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, but in the meantime it is necessary to continue the present Act for a further year.
My Lords, I have just briefly mentioned the intention. If I have not covered any points that noble Lords would like dealt with, I shall be pleased to answer them after I have heard what they have to say. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, as we had only the other day a very good and far-reaching debate on immigration, I certainly would not suggest that we need hold up the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to press the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to tell us a little more, if he can, as to the time within which the Government will make up their mind on licensing planning. When I was Home Secretary I set up a Committee to consider the field of licensing planning. That Committee reported, if I remember rightly, more than a year ago, and I would express the hope that your Lordships will not be again asked twelve months hence to renew the existing provisions of the law without any indication as to when it may be put on a permanent footing.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us, I think, almost all that was necessary about the other measures that are to be continued, but I would remind your Lordships that the Accommodation Agencies Act, which has now been renewed annually for some twelve or thirteen years, was originally introduced in another place by my noble friend Lord Ilford, when he was there. I think he deserves a word of congratulation for having filled a gap in the law which at that time seemed liable to be only a temporary gap but has proved to be virtually a permanent one. I should have thought the Government might one day consider putting that Act, too, into the permanent law. Having said that, I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I desire to intervene for only one moment to thank my noble friend for what he has been good enough to say about the modest measure which I once introduced into another place. It is so many years ago that I had even forgotten its title. I was assured at the time I introduced it that it was unnecessary, and that there was no demand for the particular changes in the law which it made. The Act has lasted its time very well, and I am delighted to think that the noble Lord is proposing to continue it a little longer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his reference to the work of his noble friend Lord Ilford,
1390
in regard to the Accommodation Agencies Act. I can only say that it was necessary. It has the added great merit of having been about 100 per cent. successful in its operation. Whether it should be continued as a temporary measure from year to year or embodied in permanent legislation all depends on one's view of human cupidity and selfishness. If people did not attempt to take advantage of their fellows in this way there would be no need for this legislation; but it does appear, unhappily, that this Act will have to continue in this temporary form for some years to come, even if it is not embodied in permanent legislation.
With regard to Lord Brooke of Cumnor's mention of the Ramsay Willis Committee, it is true that they reported a little more than a year ago, because I remember that last year, when I had to move the Second Reading of this same Bill, we had not then had an opportunity to consider the Committee's report. The matter has been under very active consideration—a phrase with which the noble Lord will be familiar—during the whole of this year, and it is a matter we are still considering. The noble Lord will be aware perhaps that my honourable and learned friend Mr. Williams is proposing to introduce a Private Member's Bill in another place dealing with a particular aspect of this subject. On that, I cannot do more than repeat an assurance which has already been given in another place on behalf of the Government, that we shall give careful consideration to our attitude towards this Bill and take into account all the views that have been expressed upon it.
We are now about halfway, as it were, with the licensing authorities—18 are still in existence, out of 33. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are strong and divided views on this particular subject. But the Report of the Ramsay Willis Committee was of considerable value, and, while I cannot give any undertaking that I or some other noble Lord will not appear twelve months hence to perform the same task as I am now engaged upon, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall try hard to come to conclusions in this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
5.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Postponement of revaluation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg to leave out Clause 16. Let me say at the outset that I do not intend to embarrass either the Government or the valuers' profession by pressing this Amendment. The year 1968 is now so near upon us that I am quite sure we could not have a proper valuation completed by April, 1968, if this clause were omitted from the Bill. I seem to remember years ago that I was responsible for a Bill which, among other things, postponed a valuation. But my sin was for two years whereas the present Government's sin is for five years; and if this clause reaches the Statute Book, as I have no doubt it will, there will be no new comprehensive valuation between 1963 and 1973.
We must all recognise that this is a serious matter; that if valuations are long postponed it removes all buoyancy from the basis of the rating system. Values tend to rise (at least, they do under most Governments) with the increasing prosperity of the country, and that is reflected in the quinquennial valuation. We shall now still be continuing, as will rating authorities, rating up to 1973 on a valuation that came into force in 1963. That is not the only defect caused by postponement. A long postponement between one valuation and another prolongs the unfairness between one ratepayer and another.
Opinions may vary as to whether valuations arrived at in 1963 were in all cases correct or not. The previous Minister of
1392
Housing and Local Government, Mr. Crossman, used some rude words about the accuracy of the 1963 valuation in certain places. But whether it was done well or not at that time—and I think on the whole it was done well in most places—the fact remains that over the years the relative letting values of different premises tend to diverge. Some neighbourhoods go up in the world, some neighbourhoods come down. The popularity of a certain type of house or flat may increase; the popularity of other houses and flats may diminish. Yet each of them will be paying rates on a 1963 valuation for year after year; there will be no modification of their rateability which takes account of their relative letting value.
If there can be a divergence of this kind in five years—and we know there can—how much greater will be the divergence, and therefore the unfairness, as between one ratepayer and another over ten years? In certain circumstances this might be excusable. During the War, for example, everybody accepted that it would be out of the question to make a new valuation. But your Lordships will recognise that the reason why this Government are having to postpone the 1968 valuation is that they have diverted so much of the energy of the valuers' profession into other directions. They have imposed the capital gains tax, and now they are being so wise as to press through Parliament a Land Commission Bill! Consequently, the good of local government is being sacrificed to the operation of Socialist theories in other fields which are taking away valuers from essential work which they ought to be able to do in the local government field, and their services are now being earmarked for such matters as the development levy.
This is not the time again to discuss the Land Commission Bill, but it is the moment to ask the Government what they are doing to increase the supply of valuers. We may pass this clause postponing the 1968 valuation, but we are reiterating the opinion of Parliament that there should be a new valuation in 1973. I should think that in little more than four years from now the valuers will have to be starting work on that valuation, which must be completed by the end of 1972 in order to come into operation in April, 1973. This is no long interval, and it is absolutely essential that the

1393
supply of valuers should be increased between now and then in order that the 1973 valuation may be well done. If the Government imagine that their capital gains tax and their development levy will have completely worked themselves out by 1973, I think that is too optimistic. I am optimistic enough to think that the development levy may have disappeared by then through the action of Parliament. Even so, I am quite sure that it will leave a great many loose ends to be tied up. I am quite sure that the services of valuers will be required.
Seriously, and not seeking to make a Party point at all, I wish to urge on the Government the necessity for watching the strength of the valuers' profession most carefully, because action has to be taken quickly now if by the beginning of the next decade we are to have a sufficient number of valuers in the country.
5.30 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: I am impressed by what the noble Lord has said regarding the need to prepare for an increased number of valuers as much as I was by his confession of sins a short time before. We on this side of the Committee recognise that much that he said is quite valid; nevertheless, there is an explanation of it and I think that to some extent he already understands what that explanation is. We do not deny that too long an interval between revaluations can lead to unfairness between one ratepayer and another, if their rate liabilities fail to reflect the changes which the passage of time brings about in the relative values of their properties. All this we appreciate and we agree that it would be better, if it were possible to do so, to buoy up the rate base by carrying out the revaluation in 1968 instead of leaving it until 1973. In the course of his remarks the noble Lord rather chided us for the legislation which we have introduced which involves a great deal of work and has prevented valuers from being available for this particular purpose. I would say in passing, in a noncontentious way, that had the Government he would have supported been in power they might quite possibly have produced many measures to deal with the situation, which would
1394
have absorbed as much professional labour as ours will do.
Be that as it may, the ratepayers, rating authorities and the Government themselves have to live with the unpalatable fact that there are not enough trained valuers to carry out another rating revaluation before 1973. The Valuation Office is already short of its staffing needs for the existing work, the volume of which particularly on valuation for compensation continues to increase; and new burdens are being placed on it in connection with the capital gains tax and the Land Commission. This we freely admit, although without those the situation would still be acute. The professional strength of the office in England and Wales was at November, 2,312. This includes both established and temporary staff and trainees. The number of trained valuers in post has gone steadily down over the past four years, during only part of which time were the Labour Government in office. During the current year recruitment has barely kept pace with losses through resignation or retirement. This, of course, reflects the serious shortage of valuers outside the Valuation Office as well as inside, and with the additional burdens already referred to the profession as a whole will be hard put to it to meet the demands placed on it. This would have been the case whatever the complexion of the Government in power.
In spite of the difficulties, every effort has been made to recruit suitable valuers for the Inland Revenue, and I will give some information to the noble Lord regarding the point which he stressed. The Inland Revenue's aim is to recruit 18year-old school leavers who have at least two G.C.E "A" level passes. For four years they will receive a course of practical training in one of the local offices. They can then qualify as valuers. The new scheme has gone off to a promising start. Fifty-one candidates were successful in the first of the open competitions which was held in April this year, and it is expected that almost twice that number will he recruited from the second competition which has just been held.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment? He says that after four years' training they would qualify. Qualify for which particular professional examination?
LORD SORENSEN: I could not give the specific information for which the noble Lord has asked. Obviously it would be some examination relevant to this particular profession. Precisely what examination I do not know, but I will certainly see that the noble Lord has the information.
The introduction of the new grade of cadet valuer also widens the opportunities for clerical staff already serving in the Valuation Office to receive professional training. Clerical trainees have been assimilated in the new grade and its total strength is now 129.
The Inland Revenue have also looked carefully at the extent to which rating can be devolved upon the clerical staff, thus saving professional time. Among the tasks that it has been found possible to devolve are those of inspecting and measuring properties and suggesting values for new and altered properties which are closely similar to those already appearing in the valuation list. The devolution stops short of the substantive work of valuation, including the ascertainment of fresh levels of value on a revaluation. Valuation officers must carry the final responsibility for the values appearing in the list, and in particular must appear in appeal proceedings. The Inland Revenue keep the question of devolution under review, but it is unlikely that any material further saving of professional time can be achieved, though it is hoped that this particular subsidiary device will be of some assistance.
Consideration has also been given to the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should, as they did for the 1956 revaluation, farm out some of the revaluation work to valuers in private practice. As has already been said, the shortage of valuers is national—not simply in the Inland Revenue—and private firms could hardly undertake any great quantity of additional work unless they were to attract valuers from the Inland Revenue. I hope that my explanation will be of some satisfaction to the noble Lord and to the rest of the Committee.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I apologise for intervening when I did not hear the beginning of this debate. Some of the
1396
things which the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, has said have shaken me to the core. He has at least spoken about training in the valuation profession, but when he talked about qualifying and I asked him what particular form this qualifying was going to take, he had not the smallest idea. I gather he thought that it was roughly like Ministers; somebody was just put on the Bench and it did not much matter—somebody put you on, and somebody else was put off. You were called a valuer, and that was that, after having served on the "back benches" for a certain length of time.
As one of the few Members of this House, I suppose, who has served some apprenticeship in an office which did valuation work, and as somebody who has passed some examinations, even if it was a long time ago, I took the greatest exception to that point of view which the Government seemed to think met this particularly difficult situation. It is true you start with clerical assistants and slowly grade them up by giving them other names and other titles, and they then work in an office for a certain length of time; and it is possible from the Front Bench to try to represent that you have a staff of skilled valuers. But the truth is that you have not anything of the kind. There is no mystique in this any more than there is any mystique in any other profession. What is important is to have experience of working closely with members who have been for a long time skilled in this profession, to learn the way their minds work, and also to learn to command the confidence of Her Majesty's subjects.
The present somewhat smaller service of the district valuers in the Inland Revenue is a superb service. What I fear, if what the noble Lord has suggested is right, is that we shall find this service being watered down by all sorts and kinds of trainees, who sit about in offices for four years, and who then, he says, have qualified, without being able to tell us what shape or form the qualification takes. They are then to be expected to do the most complicated job which the service has ever been asked to carry through in this country. I think the noble Lord opposite should give us a better explanation of this before he asks the House to accept this clause.
LORD SORENSEN: I assure the noble Lord that I thoroughly appreciate his deep concern in this matter, and what he has said about this type of professional officer is quite true. This perhaps will ease his concern in some measure, for information has now reached me that in fact those who are to be trained in the way I have described will qualify by sitting for the professional examinations of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute.
LORD INGLEWOOD: That is all right.
LORD SORENSEN: I trust most earnestly that the noble Lord is satisfied.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think that at this stage I should intervene to thank both my noble friend Lord Inglewood, for stressing the importance of the question which I asked, and the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, for making two bites at the answer. We are indeed grateful for the amount of information that he was able to give us, although it may not have been all that we should have wished. However, I do not think he will take it amiss if I say that this is a matter to which we may have to return on other more appropriate occasions, because it is extremely important for the discharge of Government business, as well as for all the professional work which valuers have to do, that in this country there should be a sufficient supply of valuers for both public and private practice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SORENSEN: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I thank both noble Lords for their interventions, and also add, in all humility, that I cannot give them information until I myself receive it.
On Question, Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Liability to be rated in respect of certain unoccupied property.
21.—(1) Where any relevant hereditament in an area in which this section is in operation is unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding three months, the person entitled to possession of the hereditament (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the "owner") shall, sub-
1398
ject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, be rated in respect of the hereditament for any relevant period of vacancy; and the enactments relating to rating and valuation shall apply accordingly as if the hereditament were occupied during that period by the owner.
(3) In this section—
"relevant hereditament" means any hereditament consisting of, or of part of, a house, shop, office, factory, mill or other building whatsoever, together with any garden, yard, court or other land ordinarily used or intended for use for the purposes of the building or part; and
"relevant period of vacancy" means, in relation to any relevant hereditament, any period beginning with the day following the end of a period of three months during which the hereditament has been continuously unoccupied and ending with the day preceding that on which the hereditament becomes or next becomes occupied.
5.42 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "three" and insert "six". The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may mention to your Lordships that Amendments 9, 11 and 13 are consequential. This Amendment concerns the time for which a property may be left vacant without incurring liability to rates. At present, vacant properties in England and Wales outside the City of London are not rateable. The Government now propose that after a period of three months they should become rateable at 50 per cent. of the normal rates.
In moving this Amendment I am not challenging the principle of what the Government are doing I think there are pros and cons with regard to the rating of empty property. Hitherto, it has been accepted that you pay your rates for services rendered, and that if the property is unoccupied it is unreasonable that you should be asked to pay a heavy charge for rates. But we on this side are prepared to accept an experiment with the rating of empty property. We appreciate that in the case of houses it may be particularly desirable to have an experiment of this kind, against the small numbers of owners who might keep their houses unoccupied for a long time, seeking to obtain a price which is really above the market value. This clause is optional for local authorities and there is no need for any local authority to adopt it if it does not wish to do so.
My Amendment is based on my own conviction that if you are going to try an experiment of this kind, three months is too short a period. I am therefore suggesting that the liability to rates should arise only when property has been empty for six months. I am not seeking to argue against there being any deterrent at all to keep property empty, though I note that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, instanced only the case of house property as being property which was liable to be kept empty in the hope of getting a higher price, and I think nobody has suggested that that would be liable to happen, and to happen harmfully, except in a small number of areas.
But, accepting the desirability of some deterrent against a man refusing to sell and holding out for a higher price, it seems to me extremely important that justice should be done in respect of the period for which the house may remain empty. The sale may be delayed for all kinds of reasons quite unconnected with the price that is being asked. I know to my cost, because I have recently been seeking to sell a house, that sales just now are considerably delayed by the difficulty of would-be purchasers obtaining mortgages. I am not seeking to make a Party point there, but that is the case and we have to recognise it. Whichever Government is in power, there may be times when mortgages are more easily come by than at others. I may say that I have now sold my house, so I do not have to declare an interest in this case.
There may be difficulties, quite apart from the price or the mortgage, over the contract. However hard the two firms of solicitors may work, the buyer's solicitors may perfectly reasonably have to pursue various enquiries before they can advise their client to sign the contract or the conveyance. All this takes time, and the house is vacant meanwhile. Moreover, after the sale has taken place there-occupation of the house may be postponed for perfectly normal reasons. Very few of the larger houses, at any rate, are ready to be re-occupied the moment the sale is complete. In the great majority of cases, some work must be done on the house. It maybe only internal and external painting and re-decoration, but frequently there is neces-
1400
sary structural work—something going beyond mere redecoration—which naturally needs to be completed before a new family moves into the house. It seems to me that three months does not take sufficient account of this.
I came across a case only last week, where somebody had bought an old house which had obviously, at one time, been a charming house, but it had fallen into decay, to say the least, and this person had been willing to spend a certain amount of money and to wait for quite a long period in order that that house might again be made fully fit for habitation. The result of that delay and that money spent has been that a house which was virtually lost to the housing accommodation of the country will now make a good house for a family for many, many years to come. But even if everything had gone through as quickly as possible with regard to the sale, purchase, conveyance and everything like that, I cannot think that it would have been possible to keep the period of vacancy of that house down to less than three months. There are many cases in which nobody could conceivably be blameworthy if a house were to be unoccupied for more than three months.
It is for these reasons that I suggest to your Lordships that it would be far better, when we are trying this experiment—an experiment which should, if possible, be carried through with general good will—to fix the period at six months. I do not suggest anything longer than that, because that seems to be a reasonably fair average in every case. But there are going to be so many cases where genuine hardship and injustice will be felt if we leave the period at three months that I think your Lordships should seriously consider accepting this Amendment and making the period six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 45, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
House resumed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Family Provision,

Veterinary Surgeons,

Barbados Independence,

Sea Fisheries Regulation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
6.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD ILFORD: I cannot claim to be a great admirer of this proposal to bring empty property into rating. Rating of empty property has not proved particularly successful in those places where it has been introduced, and I do not think it is going to prove particularly successful in this country. It gives rise to a good deal of trouble, and the result is very sparse. But I am quite sure my noble friend is right in allowing the experiment to be made and not opposing it.
There is in the country, I know, strong feeling in some quarters, strong feeling in some local authorities, that it is not just that a person should be allowed to keep his property empty for a protracted period in the hope of getting either a better price for it or a more satisfactory tenant. But there is, of course, nothing wicked about this action on the part of a landowner. There is no reason why a landowner should not do that if he desires to. When we make these changes in the law it is, I think, essential that we should be sure that the changes will work fairly. I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite desire to act fairly, even towards landlords. For the reasons advanced by my noble friend with such clarity and, I thought, with such force, I am sure that we should be acting more justly if we amended this proposal and made the period six months instead of three months as proposed in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree to do that.
LORD INGLEWOOD: When my noble friend on the Front Bench proposed this Amendment he spoke largely as if it concerned property for sale and the owner of a house which was empty chiefly had in mind the question of a larger price if he left it empty for a certain length of time. There may be some who think in those terms, but I am sure that does not apply to the main part of the people concerned, and I do not think most of us would have a great amount of sympathy for those who did want to keep property empty for a long time in order to get a larger price. At present, if they did that, they would be more likely to get the reverse, a lower price, for reasons which we need not develop here.
There are a number of other reasons why a house may be empty for a certain length of time. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not present. I used to be his trustee, and I am sure he would appreciate what I am going to say. Whatever time we choose to insert in this Bill we must have a figure which is going to be accepted as fair. There is no particular magic about the figures 3, 4 or 6. What we want is a figure which will be accepted generally as being fair. As my noble friend said, we are here introducing a new principle. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will appreciate the sort of reasons that I have in mind why property is empty.
It might be that the noble Lord who is to reply had a house in a village which was empty and which he thought would be extremely useful for some relative of his who was about to retire or coming back from abroad. This might be due to happen in, say, six or nine months. It would be a great mistake to let the property on a short term and then have difficulty in obtaining possession again, and it might be very unfair on the family who went into the property for a short time. That is a perfectly legitimate reason why a house might be empty for more than three months.
Or again (as is the case in the county in which I live) there might be a motorway planned right across the county and near to a number of villages. No one knows what will happen in the future. In one village which I know there have

1403
been several rumours from time to time about where the line of the road is to be. It would be pointless to spend money on improving a house and putting someone in it if the property was to be acquired compulsorily shortly afterwards. That is not an argument for extending this period of three months indefinitely, but it is an argument to show that three months is too short a period. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that many local authorities and central Government Departments take more than three months to make up their minds on what might be a simple but none the less vital issue. I suggest, therefore, that the figure of six months proposed in the Amendment is infinitely preferable to the figure of three.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I briefly support my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in his Amendment to extend this period from three months to six months? I agree with the general principle which lies behind this proposition, but my experience in London has been that, however willing the two parties may be to agree to conclude their bargain, it is often not possible, either for legal or for personal reasons, for them to do so within the very brief period of three months. I am quite certain that, while people would accept this proposition for a period of six months, they would think it grossly unfair on both owner and tenant if the period were restricted to three months.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer briefly. My noble friend mentioned the period which often elapses before people are able to occupy property when alterations are being carried out and redecoration being done. I am able to speak with close and rather bitter experience of this, because I am in process of moving into a new property. I have discovered something that I had not realised before, that alterations and decorations involve extremely intricate operations. You have such people as plumbers, electricians, heating engineers, builders, plasterers—the lot. Any one of these men who fails to do his job within the allotted time can completely hamstring the other people. They cannot get on with their work until, shall we say, the heating pipes have been provided or the electric wiring has been installed. Very
1404
often, through no fault whatever of the owner, there will be a delay which is protracted over three months; either because there is a lack of a technician being immediately available or because one of the technicians has been held up for some reason, perhaps because of the weather or the failure of materials to arrive on time. Through no fault of his own the unfortunate owner cannot get into his house within the period of three months. Having heard the speeches from this side of the Committee, I am quite confident that the Government will accept the Amendment moved by my noble friend in the interest of fairness to the people of this country.
LORD CHESHAM: I hesitate to add much to what has been said by various noble Lords on this side of the Committee. I realise that this is a measure which is permissive and that local authorities may choose whether to bring it into force or not. I am quite prepared to believe that there are large areas of the country where nothing is going on which would require a local authority to do so. At the same time, we must try to safeguard things a little in case it becomes necessary for the measure to be operated.
I do not dissent from the argument that bad things go on and that this measure is aimed to prevent them happening, but in view of all the examples that have been instanced by noble Lords I think there is every reason to believe that it could cause just as much inequity and injustice as it seeks to cure. That the cure should be applied where necessary, I do not disagree. But where houses are being repaired or put in order, there are so many instances where the building operations take several months, as my noble friend Lord St. Helens has just said, that I would add my voice to the plea that six months is a more reasonable period than three months.
LORD LEATHERLAND: As all the speeches that have been made on this Amendment have been against the proposals in the Bill, I rise to assure my noble friends on the Front Bench that there are those in the House who support the Government's proposals. In opposing a period of three months and suggesting six, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, went out

1405
of his way to assure the House that property owners were not all wicked. One does not have to be wicked in order to have the privilege of paying rates. I am the most virtuous person alive, and I have been paying rates for 30 or 40 years. In our local government debates we are constantly talking about the need to provide local authorities with additional sources of revenue. This proposal of the Government would provide them with additional sources of revenue, albeit they may be small.
In supporting three months against six, I suggest that if a property is left void for a longer period than three months it tends to deteriorate, and that is not good for the property owner, the local authority or the community at large. Within a few hundred yards of my own house there is an attractive house that has been standing empty for seven years. It was originally, to use the estate agents' modern terminology, a good middle-class family house, a desirable residence. It was bought up by a man who desired eventually to open up another branch of his business there. He has not allowed anybody to occupy it. The house has been standing vacant for these seven years and there has been no pressure, naturally, of a financial kind such as this clause might impose. The whole building is going to waste.
Fifty or sixty yards farther along the road there is a row of shops with housing accommodation over them. They are gradually being emptied, because the man who has bought them plans to redevelop the whole block at some future stage. The result is that this property is also tumbling down. Two miles away, there is a block of property, 300 yards long and 200 yards deep, comprising about 20 Victorian houses of the type that used to be occupied by City merchants of the last century. I know what is going to happen there. They are going to be pulled down, and a block of new luxury flats will be erected on the site. That is good development, but for some considerable time these houses have been standing empty. So the local authority has lost the revenue from the old houses and is not yet able to receive revenue from the new houses. As one who has been chairman of the finance committee of two local authorities, I have an eye on revenue, and I
1406
feel that it is only fair that these properties should be made revenue-producing, not only from a financial point of view, but from the purely social point of view, as well, for the benefit of the community. I oppose the Amendment.
6.27 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I am grateful to my noble friend who spoke last because I thought that we were going to get examples of only one side of this case. The point resides in this: that there are different situations in different places, and for that reason, the Government have decided to make this clause permissive. If the Committee pass this clause as it stands, it will give power to local authorities to decide whether or not to apply this provision in some areas after making their own assessment of what are the greatest social needs in their areas. In the case where the dominant social need is to free property that is being deliberately withheld from occupation by landlords, they may adopt this power. If, on the other hand, they find that the dominant social need is any of the others mentioned by noble Lords opposite, and there is no particular trouble about property being kept empty on purpose, they may not adopt it.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood suggested the lengthening of the period because of the construction of a motorway or other development. I think that this point should really be made in connection with planning applications and could more properly be taken on Amendment No. 14.
The Bill does not require rates to be paid in respect of an empty hereditament until it has stood empty for three months, or, if it is a newly erected dwelling house, for six months. These Amendments would make the free periods six months and twelve months, respectively. The point is that rates are, in a way, payment for services, and the owners of empty properties are benefiting from local authority services, though not to the same extent as owners of occupied property, and it is therefore not proposed that rates should be levied on empty property to the same extent. This seems a just arrangement to the Government. The owners of empty property benefit from such services as police, drainage and road lighting. We

1407
can think of beneficial applications of all these services to empty property.
The Government recognise, of course, that it takes time to arrange the selling or letting of empty property and that while the property is empty the owners are less able to pay rates, presumably because they get no income from the property. This is the reason why the provision of three months and six months was introduced. The Government also accept that three months will not always be sufficient for the selling or letting of property, and when the owner becomes liable to rates after that period this does not imply that he has been acting antisocially in any sense. Failure to sell or let a property may have been due to circumstances entirely beyond the owner's control. It is for this reason that the Government have decided to restrict the rates to one-half of the normal amount.
Let us see how this works out. If a property is unoccupied for less than three months the owner will pay no rates at all. If it is unoccupied for four months he will pay half of the rates for one month, which is the equivalent of paying rates for the whole period at one-eighth of the rate poundage. If it is empty for six months—and the noble Lord has proposed six months as the period for property other than new houses—the owner will be paying the equivalent of rates for the whole six months at only one-quarter of the normal rate poundage. Rates, as originally conceived, are not really a payment for services, though they have that effect. They are a tax on property; and an empty house is property.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, wound up his speech upon the Amendment by saying that if we lengthen the period justice will be done, and that where the owner of empty property had to pay rates after three months nobody would be blameworthy and therefore it would not be proper to impose rates after three months. In the view of the Government, nobody is blameworthy whatever we do about this provision. Rates are not a fine; they are a tax. We are simply discussing at what point it is opportune to start imposing a tax on empty property, as we already impose it on occupied property. The concept of blame, I think, should be entirely absent from our minds in this discussion. In
1408
conclusion, I must say that the Government believe that the clause as drafted ensures that justice is done. All these things being so, I must advise your Lordships to reject the Amendments as enumerated by the noble Lord in moving.
LORD CHESHAM: Before the noble Lord leaves the subject, may I put this question to him? It is not what benefit street lighting is to an empty house, but if for some reason which seems good property has to be left empty for a prolonged period, in excess of three or six months, is there anything that can be done to render it, so to speak, rate-free? Would it be sufficient to remove the doors or windows, to cut off the water supply, or as I believe accords with the present law in Scotland to remove the roof?
LORD KENNET: First of all, on the point of street lighting, in the case of an empty house it does enable the police or anybody else to see if somebody is trying to break in. I do not know the full answer to the noble Lord's question about taking the roof off. The Government would be sorry if this provision had that effect. If anybody has to leave his house empty for a good reason for a long time, it is open to that person to ask for a reassessment of the rateable value on the ground that he is unable to obtain the rent on which rates are theoretically calculated.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not know whether the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, satisfied your Lordships generally, but certainly it did not satisfy me. Just before he spoke, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said that this would be a new source of revenue for local authorities. It is going to be a pretty small source. And the Government, both here and in another place, went out of their way on the Second Reading of the Bill to say that they were not thinking of this primarily as a revenue raiser, but were thinking of it as a means of reducing waste of accommodation. I cannot think that any local authority would choose to adopt this discretionary provision because they thought it might substantially increase their rate revenue.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, went on to argue that it was very kind of the

1409
Government to impose rates at only 50 per cent., and suggested that this would help to pay for the police, street lighting and so on. But, of course, if you own empty property, you do not need education services or domiciliary health services: there are many expensive local services on which you will not be making any call at all.
Going on from the 50 per cent., the noble Lord argued that if a house was vacant for four months the owner would have to pay only one-eighth of the rates due. But if the house had changed hands at the end of three months, a new owner who could not occupy the house because it was not ready for occupation would have to pay rates at the full half-rate, as laid down in the Bill. If I may respectfully say this to the noble Lord, I really think that this argument about paying only one-eighth of the total rates if the house is empty for four months is a completely misleading and fallacious one.
The noble Lord went on to say that nobody was suggesting that to keep a house empty for a period of three months was blameworthy. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, spoke of a house that had been empty for seven years. I should have thought that that definitely was blameworthy. When the noble Lord,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Kennet, says that no blame is being attached to anybody, I must say—
LORD KENNET: If I may intervene for one moment, I did not say that it was never blameworthy, or that no blame could be attached to anybody. I agree that it sometimes can. I merely said that this provision did not intend to suggest that there was always blame attaching to everybody who left a house vacant for more than three months.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: What the noble Lord said on Second Reading was that the primary purpose of this provision was to reduce waste of accommodation, and I think waste of all kinds is blameworthy. What I am saying is that in cases where there can be no question of waste this clause will nevertheless bite if it remains at three months, and rates will have to be paid on a house which could not reasonably be re-occupied within that period. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the noble Lord's reply, I must ask my noble friends to divide the Committee.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Dudley. L.

Mancroft, L.

Amulree, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gage, V.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carrington, L.

Harlech, L.

Redmayne, L.

Chesham, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Howe, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Daventry, V.

Jessel, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Citrine, L.

Latham. L.

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Morrison. L.

LORD HENLEY: In view of the fact that Amendment No. 6 to some extent cuts across the Amendment we have just dealt with, I think it would be better if I did not move it at this stage, but of course I reserve the right to do so at a later stage.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "relevant hereditament", to leave out "shop, office, factory, mill or other building whatsoever,". The noble Lord said: My next Amendment, No. 8, is consequential on this Amendment. This is an Amendment to leave out of rateability all rated vacant shops, offices, factories, mills or other buildings whatsoever. The principal reason given by the Government for bringing in the rating of empty property after a period was that there would otherwise be waste of accommodation. I confess that I thought, from what had been said both here and in another place, that the Government particularly had in mind the waste of housing accommodation kept vacant for long periods in areas where there was a housing shortage, and that therefore it seemed desirable to give the local authority optional power to bring this clause into effect.
I find it difficult to conceive that anybody voluntarily keeps a factory vacant for an indefinite time. It would be no use to him; there would be no production going on, and he would not be drawing rent from it. Surely any owner of an empty factory would wish to sell or let it at the earliest possible moment. Similarly anyone who purchases or rents an empty factory presumably is not doing it for fun; he wants to make it productive as quickly as possible. Frankly, in the case of many of these buildings, I do not see that any deterrent is needed. Indeed, I seem to remember that in the debate in another place the Minister himself said that he would be prepared to consider exemptions by way of amendment of this list. It is because the argument with regard to factories and the like seems to be wholly different from the argument with regard to houses that I move this Amendment, in order that I may discover exactly what purpose the Government have in mind in regard to many of these other types of
1412
buildings which are not dwelling accommodation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, leave out from ("house") to ("together") in line 15.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the main purpose of this provision is to discourage house-owners from withholding their houses from the market. But it did not seem right for the Government to introduce a distinction between the owners of house property and the owners of other types of property, such as factories and shops, which the noble Lord mentioned, since this is in essence a taxation measure.
I should also remind the Committee that if it is true that an empty dwelling house benefits from local authority services, it is equally true that shops and factories benefit from them while empty. Indeed it is obvious that shops may benefit more from street lighting and police protection because they have bigger plate glass windows which need protection. It seemed to the Government that although the main social purposes related to dwelling houses, there was not a sufficient reason why the owners of other types of property, accounting for about half the rateable value in the country, should not make some contribution to the local rates when the scheme is introduced, on the same basis as the owners of house property.
Having said that, I should like to add that between now and the next stage of this Bill my right honourable friend and I will examine together once again the justification for including factories, shops, et cetera, with empty houses in this connection.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for what he has just said. This is in no sense a wrecking Amendment. It was intended as a probing Amendment, and I hope I have established to the satisfaction of your Lordships that there should be further examination of this policy of making the rateability of vacant premises extend over all premises of every kind, seeing that the argument is so much stronger in the case of empty housing accommodation in an area of housing

1413
shortage than it is in regard to these other types of purely commercial premises. Moreover, if the experiment is to be a success at all it must be such that the local authority will feel it is acting justly in adopting the power.
I believe that there are some areas of the country where a local authority might reasonably feel that it should adopt this power, particularly now that we have extended the three months' period to six months. But I seriously think that it might be deterred from adopting this power if it found it had to charge rates on various kinds of property where it would seem unreasonable to do so. Having said that, and in view of the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This Amendment is consequential on the passing of No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. Subsection (3) of Clause 21 defines the "relevant period of vacancy" during which an unoccupied hereditament will be liable to be rated. As defined, this is a period beginning on a certain day and
"ending with the day preceding that on which the hereditament becomes or next becomes occupied."
It may be, however, that the hereditament will never be occupied again. It might cease to exist by being converted into a different hereditament or hereditaments—for instance, a large house might be broken up into flats; and in such a case it might be argued that there has never been a "relevant period of vacancy". This defect in the Bill will be cured by the addition of the words "or ceases to exist", to the definition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, at end insert ("or ceases to exist").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This may be only a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me to be a very good Amendment and I am happy to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Supplementary provisions, exemptions and reliefs
22.—
(2) In relation to a relevant hereditament being a newly erected dwelling-house within the meaning of the said Schedule 2, the said section 21 shall have effect as if for references to a period of or exceeding three months there were substituted references to a period of or exceeding six months.
(3) No rates shall be payable under the said section 21 in respect of a hereditament for, or for any part of the three months beginning with the day following the end of, any period during which—
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This Amendment is also consequential on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "six" and insert "twelve" [months].
The noble Lord said: This is not quite consequential on Amendment No. 5, but is clearly related to it. The Bill as presented by the Government provided that rateability at 50 per cent. shall start after three months in the ordinary case but that in the case of a newly erected dwelling-house (which is defined in Schedule 2), the period shall be six months. I have no doubt that is because a person who builds a house may find it very difficult indeed to judge how soon he will find a purchaser. Indeed, it seems to stand to reason that the period before rateability starts ought to be longer for a newly erected house than for an existing house. As we have now substituted six months for three months in regard to existing property, it would seem to be logical to substitute a longer period than six months in the case of a newly erected house.
Apart from the logicality of it, I have made certain inquiries and I am certainly led to think that it would be a discouragement to private builders if they knew that whatever happened, whatever the state of the market, a new house which they built was going to be liable for

1415
rates within six months, assuming that they had not sold it by then. I know—at least, I think I know—that the Government are not anxious to bring speculative house building to an end. Indeed, any Government which cares about the housing of the people must want the assistance not only of public authorities but also of the private builder, including the so-called speculative builder. I say "speculative" builder, but I think it is a pity if that adjective is thought to be a disparaging one, because there is a great deal of valuable building done by those who have no guarantee beforehand that a housing estate which they are building will all be taken up quickly by purchasers. There is at many times of the economic cycles a great deal of doubt and uncertainty in the mind of a builder as to whether he will be able to sell his houses quickly. On all these grounds it seems to me desirable that we should fix a longer period for the new house than for the existing house.
I am sure that in any case six months would be too short a period for a newly erected house, if we are not to discourage building of private houses in advance of immediately apparent demand. So far as I can judge, twelve months would be a fair period. No period can be defined as being absolutely right, but one must take a reasonable average. If we were to say that rateability of 50 per cent. started after twelve months it would not be reasonable, it seems to me, for any builder strongly to object. But I am quite sure that if we leave it at six months not only will it be anomalous in relation to the change we have made for the existing property, from three to six months, but it will also be a definite disincentive to a number of builders, particularly some very good builders, to go ahead. On those grounds I think we should make an Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD ST. HELENS: I cannot but believe that the Government will be overjoyed to accept my noble friend's Amendment. After all, by the Bill we were discussing the other day, the Land Commission Bill, the Government have "scared the pants off" every builder in the country. Builders do not know what
1416
is going to hit them next; and the eight million owner-occupiers in the country have suddenly realised they were sold a pup at the last Election when the Land Commission was put in the prospectus before them. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Government, by accepting this Amendment, to reassure the eight million owner-occupiers and a great many builders that the Government are definitely not out to "do them down."
LORD KENNET: There is obviously force in what the noble Lord says about changing three to six and then six to twelve, and moreover I think if we do not pass the Amendment the noble Lord is now moving, a provision of the Bill a little further back (I refer to subsection (2) of Clause 22) will not make sense. Nevertheless, the Government will clearly have to reconsider the whole of this clause as a result of the Amendment just passed which changed "three months" to "six months". In those circumstances I do not feel I should advise the Committee very strongly one way or the other about whether or not we make this Amendment now, since we shall, as I say, be reconsidering the whole question before Report and Third Reading stages.
I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding, but, if he does not, I should not be unwilling to accept it this afternoon without prejudice to further consideration and further discussion in this House at a later stage.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: After a speech like that, I should greatly wish that I could accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But the fact is that if I did, subsection (2) of Clause 22 would make absolute nonsense, and I do not think that I should ask your Lordships to pass a clause in that condition. For that reason, in addition to the reasons which I gave in my earlier speech, I do not feel able to withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This, also, is consequential on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 45, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.1 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"() an application by the owner for planning permission or an appeal by the owner against a planning decision is awaiting determination;".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment can, I think, be stated quite shortly. Clause 22(3) enumerates a number of different sets of circumstances in which a house may be empty without the intention of the landlord to secure better conditions when it is reoccupied and, indeed, without the fault of the landlord. Your Lordships will see that one such circumstance is where
"the owner is prohibited by law from occuping the hereditament or allowing it to be occupied",
Then the subsection goes on to set out a number of other circumstances in which there must be a lapse before the three months or six months begin to run.
My Amendment proposes to add to those circumstances the case where an application has been made by the owner for planning permission, or an appeal by him against a planning decision is awaiting determination. Both of those are circumstances in which the property may remain vacant without the intention of the owner to obtain better conditions when it comes to be reoccupied. We all know that planning permission sometimes takes a long time to obtain.
In the debate on the Land Commission Bill the other day some figures were given which showed that the period of time within which town planning consent can be obtained is gradually getting longer and longer. It surely is not fair that a landlord should be liable for rates during a period when he is awaiting the consent of the town planning authority. In the same way, it is surely not just that he should be liable for rates while he is waiting for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to give their decision on a planning appeal. Both of those are sets of circumstances which are not altogether out of his control, but the fact is that the house remains empty, albeit not as part of the purpose which the landlord has in view.
I should have thought it was so obvious that these planning delays ought to be
1418
treated in the same way as the other circumstances set out in subsection (3) that I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment. It is, I think, an Amendment which does no more than justice to the owners of property, and I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to meet me about it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: I had viewed this Amendment with some degree of sympathy when I first read it, and I am equally sympathetic towards its background, after having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, but I should have to feel that any delay which had been caused by an appeal or by a planning permission was really genuine. I have only two sentences to say. Would it not be possible for a man, when he finds that his house has become vacant, immediately to ask the local authority for planning permission to build a greenhouse and thereby to cover himself? There could be trickery in dealing with this clause if it were amended in this way. I am not going to say that it is not drawn with the verbal tightness that we expect from the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, but if it were drawn still more tightly I should be prepared to give it objective consideration. At the moment, however, I can see that hordes of tricky people would drive horses and carts through it.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I speak briefly in favour of my noble friend's Amendment? I am not so sure that everybody is out to "diddle" the law by putting forward a spurious planning application. I had a case for planning permission which I have just recently obtained and which entirely confirms all that my noble friend has said. I obtained planning permission in principle from the county authority in regard to a piece of land, but I had to wait several months before that planning permission was confirmed by the local authority who had the last word. That was through no fault on my part. This must happen to masses of applicants, and I think it quite unreasonable that the owners should be made to suffer because of these possibly perfectly warrantable delays in exercising I a higher authority.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: As every noble Lord has said, this Amendment draws attention to a genuine problem which I hope the Government will recognise. As one who, for over four years, was responsible to Parliament for the determination of planning appeals, I am only too well aware that what seems to the applicant an inordinate time is liable to elapse between the time when he lodges his appeal and the moment when the Minister gives his decision. This is on top of any period for which he may have had to wait after he had put in his first application to the planning authority.
At the same time, I recognise, as I am sure does my noble friend Lord Ilford, a genuine difficulty, in that this Amendment as it stands contains no protection against the rather unscrupulous owner who, whenever he thinks he is coming up to the moment of having to pay rates, puts in for another planning permission. As your Lordships may or may not be aware, even when you have put in a planning application, had it rejected by the planning authority, and appealed to the Minister and had your appeal dismissed, you can instantly put in exactly the same planning application again; so that it would he possible for a certain type of person to play this for rather a long time. At the same time, it seems extremely hard that somebody who is genuinely seeking what may he a desirable development of his property should find himself sliding over into the period of rateability simply because he cannot get an answer from the planning authority. With the best will in the world, we know that some planning authorities are so heavily pressed with planning applications that they cannot give decisions as quickly as the elected members of the authority would no doubt wish.
Therefore, I greatly hope that we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the Government have given thought to this matter. I feel sure that the Government will appreciate the excellent motive for which my noble friend has moved the Amendment, and I greatly hope that, maybe not in these exact words but with some modification, perhaps with necessary provisos, the Bill may be amended in the sense which has been suggested by my noble friend.
LORD ILFORD: I desire to make only one observation in reply to the point
1420
which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and to which my noble friend has referred. If the planning authority or the local authority receive a planning application which they believe not to be a genuine application but an application which seems to them to have been made for the purpose of securing the benefit of this clause, the remedy is in their own hands. They can expedite their decision and not keep the applicant waiting for any great length of time. That would appear to be a simple answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland.
LORD LEATHERLAND: But if they expedite their decision and rule against the applicant, could not the applicant then appeal to the Minister? That gives him another six months.
LORD ILFORD: The Minister could expedite his decision, too.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Ah, you do not know Ministers.
LORD KENNET: We all know, that, unfortunately, expedited decisions are often bad ones and delays are not always due to papers mouldering in in-trays.
I should like to take up the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, but he did not say why he was not getting any income from his piece of land pending his planning application. The general point here is that we all know the determination of planning applications can sometimes be very slow indeed, and nobody knows this better than the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is the reason why at present he is spending many hours a week preparing a major overhaul of the system which will get rid of these delays. And noble Lords who closely follow town and country planning matters will know the sort of thing we have in mind.
The important point is that it is not normally the case that properties have to stand empty while planning permission is being sought to alter them. This is so in only a minority of cases. There is no prima facie reason to suppose that they should be empty. If you want planning permission to change something that is yours, you would be wise to continue using the property up to the moment when the builders move in.

1421
For this reason the prudent owner will make his application well in advance, as it is very much in his interest to keep his house occupied or his factory ticking over to the last minute, to the day when the planning permission finally arrives. The other aspect to this question is that planning permissions are not normally sought in order to make changes which will render the property less profitable or to keep it at the same level of profitability. They are normally sought to make changes to increase its value and enable greater profit to be extracted from it.
The main objection to the Amendment was described very vividly by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, and was one which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, freely accepted. It is the fact that, if we accepted the Amendment, owners would be able to ensure that their empty property paid no rates by putting in a nice little planning application which it would take six months to determine; and then they could appeal against the decision, which, I regret to say, might take anything up to fourteen or sixteen months and then when the appeal was turned down they could submit another application to the local council, which would take another six months to determine, afterwards appealing to the Minister. It costs nothing to make a planning application: it does not even have to be properly drawn out. You can do these things very sketchily, and if we were to pass this Amendment it would give absolute carte blanche to anybody to evade the part payment of rates, the principle of which is admitted by noble Lords opposite.
I find it very hard to see any way of splitting the difference on this. The Government are extremely anxious to avoid laying on local authorities the burden of judging the intention or the bona fides of a given property owner. This would so much complicate their lives that, desirable as it would be in the interests of abstract justice, we have felt that true justice over the broad field would not be served by laying this burden on them. That being so, I do not see any half measures, as what has been sought for cannot be declared not to exist. In view of the noble Lord's words about its not being necessary to pass this Amendment in exactly the words in which it is drafted,
1422
I do not know whether he will feel inclined to withdraw it, with the possibility of a further discussion later.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think the Government have recognised that there is a genuine problem here, but that this Amendment as drafted would leave too many loopholes for evasion. I must accept that as regards this particular Amendment, and I would respectfully urge my noble friend not to press it to a Division to-night, but I think that this is a subject on which we all might seek to do some more work between now and Report stage. I hope, for instance, that one could at any rate insert words to guard against repetitive applications. It seems to me that when somebody has put in a planning application the moment he is in a position to do so and is still waiting for a final determination of it, it is hard if through no fault of his own he has to succumb to rateability. I hope that there is sufficient common ground on which we might work further at this. If I am right in thinking that is the view also of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, perhaps we might leave the Bill as it stands now and think about it further before we let it go.
LORD ILFORD: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.17 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved to add to subsection (3):

"(g) the owner has vacated the hereditament or kept it vacant in consequence of an intention to demolish or reconstruct the hereditament or to carry out works of improvement, alteration, conversion or construction on the hereditament or part thereof and he could not reasonably execute those works without keeping the hereditament vacant:

(h) the hereditament is in the course of demolition or reconstruction or works of improvement, alteration, conversion or construction are being carried out thereon which could not reasonably be executed without keeping the hereditament vacant.

(i) the hereditament is subject to a planning condition imposed under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 to 1962 which limits occupation of the hereditament to persons employed in agriculture or forestry or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture and the hereditament is unoccupied because for the time being there are no such persons available or ready to occupy it."

The noble Lord said: I am in a little difficulty in moving this Amendment, because it should really be two Amendments. Paragraphs (g) and (h) deal with reconstruction and conversions. Paragraph (h) is subsidiary to paragraph (g), whereas paragraph (i) is a separate subject altogther and deals with houses for agricultural workers. I may need the guidance of the Committee to tell me what to do about this. In regard to paragraphs (g) and (h) which deal with reconstruction and conversion, it seems to me that there is no provision in the Bill for property which is undergoing reconstruction. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, had to say in regard to his Amendment. He thought some assistance might be found within the Bill to provide for this, but I think his eventual answer was that it could not. I myself cannot find anything in relation to this, though there is something in one of the Schedules which might help. Again perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell me whether he thinks there is anything in the Bill relating to this matter.
Everybody will agree that there is a problem involved here in regard to houses which have to be reconstructed. The principal difficulty one faces is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, on the last Amendment, the point about the danger of abuse; there is also the point raised by Lord Kennet, about profitability. When one is reconstructing a property one is presumably reconstructing it with a view to making a profit out of it. This applies less where demolition is concerned. Nevertheless, there is a problem here which I do not think is met in the Bill, and paragraphs (g) and (h) are designed to add these matters to the list of exceptions. As I say, these two paragraphs ought to be one Amendment by themselves.
Paragraph (i) deals with the matter of agricultural workers' houses. It is sometimes difficult to get a man, or the right man, and it may be necessary to leave a house empty for longer than three months. I have had some personal experience of this problem. I do not think my proposed paragraph would lay any great burden on the local authority, and I feel that it would possibly be of some help to agriculture. I wonder whether the noble Lord would tell me if
1424
any part of that Amendment would be acceptable to the Government. As I say, it should be two totally separate Amendments, though it is down as one. On the one hand, there is the part which deals with the reconstruction of buildings, which I think may be acceptable to many noble Lords; and, on the other hand, there is the part about agricultural cottages, which possibly may not be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Henley.)
LORD KENNET: We must, I think, discuss the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, and the Government see an objection to each of the three classes of hereditamcnts which it is proposed to exempt from part-rate payments. However, I will, as is becoming familiar this evening, undertake to reconsider the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment under the two headings which he described in his speech. But for the moment we must keep the three together.
The first of these additions, the first of the classes which the noble Lord asks to add to exempted properties, is hereditaments which are left vacant because the owner intends to demolish or to reconstruct them entirely. Once again, I am afraid that this would provide an opportunity for evasion of liability. How can you tell whether the owner really intends to demolish them or to reconstruct them entirely? The only way out of this difficulty would be to leave it to the local authorities to gauge his intention, and this task the Government are most unwilling to lay upon them.
As regards the second category, once demolition has begun the liability to rates ceases in any event because the building will cease to be capable of beneficial occupation—the concept on which all rating depends—and in any case will very soon cease to exist at all. It will no longer be a hereditament. So it seems that there is no need to make the second proposed addition to the list of exempted classes of buildings. Where the building is being reconstructed or improved—it is actually at the moment when the builders are in—by means of works which prevent its beneficial occupation, the owner will be able to have recourse to the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, and will be able to

1425
obtain a reduction in its rateable value by a nominal amount, because it has to be assessed as it is at a given moment and it will not be susceptible of beneficial occupation. It goes without saying, of course, that if it is a fairly short repair or reconstruction job the owner will not find it worth doing, nor, presumably, will he too much resent having to pay rates on it during this period.
The third case is the hereditament subject to a planning condition restricting occupation to a person employed in agriculture or forestry; in other words, tied cottages. Permission to build cottages to which these restrictions apply is usually given only because of a pressing need for accommodation for agricultural workers, and since these permissions are only given because of the existence or alleged existence of a shortage of accommodation for this specific type of occupier, it would seem somewhat indefensible to allow relief from rates when they were empty. This is precisely the kind of property which we want to see occupied all the time. If the particular farm in question no longer has a use for a given tied cottage, there may well be other agricultural workers in the area who would be glad to move in, and this is what we hope to encourage by not exempting it from rates. The farmer may want to keep a cottage empty for some specific or personal need of his own, because he wants to have another sort of farm labourer of his own there rather than somebody else's employee who is seeking accommodation round about. I do not think it should be the purpose of the House to amend Government legislation in such a way as to make it easier for him to do this. The purpose should be to get the cottages occupied.
In any event, as I said in the case of the second proposed exemption, if a cottage really cannot be relet and the owner cannot attract a tenant who is his own employee, or is otherwise employed in agriculture or forestry perhaps on the next farm, there will in that case be evidence that the property cannot command a rent while it is subject to this restriction, and the owner will be able to make a proposal for the reduction of the rating assessment in accordance with that situation. In view of the explanations which I have given, I hope the noble Lord may feel that it is not neces-
1426
sary to amend the Bill in the directions he has proposed.
LORD HENLEY: With regard to the first part of my Amendment, I think the real point of the noble Lord's rejection is this question of his not wanting to put local authorities in what is, to him, the invidious position of having to make judgments. I do not see the force of this argument. In fact, my earlier Amendment which I withdrew, because the preceding Amendment had been carried, was to ask that local authorities should be given very much greater latitude than they already have. Nevertheless, that is not the Government's view. The Government do not accept that and I have no option but to bow to their decision.
With regard to what the noble Lord had to say about tied cottages, I take his point. There are certain difficulties. I know that the argument is that we have these tied cottages because there has been a pressure for them, and we must keep them full. Very often, in the rather remote areas where we are dealing with stockmen, shepherds and so on, it is sometimes extremely difficult to get a man at all, and it is necessary to keep the place empty for a long time. I agree that six months is quite a long time, but I should have liked to see this made part of the exemption. Nevertheless, I do not intend to press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 22, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to make a brief intervention. On an earlier Amendment, the noble Lord opposite diverted an argument which I used, and said that it applied more appropriately to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ilford. But when we came to the discussion on that Amendment he ignored it. I do not wish to repeat my argument now. I just wish to remind him that I thought that argument was relevant, and I am going to ask him to consider this again when he considers parts of this clause, as he said he would, before Report stage.
It is an important feature that certain houses are empty because they are under the shadow of some action by a public authority. They are not prohibited from

1427
occupation (I think such houses are provided for here) but they are under a shadow. I mentioned the policy with regard to motorways. Another example might well be of a water undertaking, about which we know so much in this House, proposing to construct an impounding reservoir. If the noble Lord opposite had a house which was in such an area, he would certainly not find it easy to sell should it become vacant. It certainly would not be worth while spending any money in order to improve it so as to be able to re-let it, and it might well, owing to the processes that we know only too well, remain empty or remain in this state for well beyond these few months. May I ask the noble Lord, when he looks at this clause again, to consider that not unimportant group of circumstances in which property may become empty. Because it would be foolish in the extreme to try to occupy such property, since it would simply add to the compensation which the authority might have to pay for the improved property when a decision was finally made.
LORD KENNET: I apologise to the noble Lord, but I expected him to get up on the Amendment I had in mind. I quite forgot the point. I will do as he asks and look at the matter between now and Report stage.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Rating of certain office premises of nationalised boards, &s.]:
7.28 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(1A) In determining the rateable value of any office premises which are to be rated by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, any part of the premises which is not used as an office or for office purposes, or for purposes ancillary to the use of the premises as an office or for office purposes, shall be disregarded."
The noble Lord said: When my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary moved at Report stage in another place that this clause be read a second time he let it be known that alterations to it might be required. This is precisely what has happened. The Amendment which I am now going to ask your Lordships to pass is the alteration of which he gave notice at that stage. Its purpose is to meet a grievance
1428
of local authorities, that where a new "spec"-built office block in their area happens to be occupied by a nationalised industry, they do not get any rates directly from it.
The intention, as my honourable friend explained, is separately to rate the offices of nationalised industries which are away from railway stations, generating stations, or gasworks, but not those which are within the operational areas of the under-takings concerned. Although this proposal is easy enough to express in general terms, as I expressed it myself in introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House, it has proved highly complicated to put into statutory form. I can assure the Committee, however, that this Amendment and the consequential ones that I shall be proposing are all consistent with the explanation I have just given. The Amendment provides for the case where office premises which are liable to be rated under the clause are used partly for the direct operational purposes of the undertaking. It is not the intention of the clause to secure the separate rating of operational premises, and the Amendment accordingly provides that the parts so used shall be disregarded in determining the rateable value of the office premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think that it is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, may wish to say something before we leave this clause. I should desire only to thank the Government for having taken trouble about this whole difficult subject. If I remember rightly, this clause which we are discussing was introduced at the Report stage in another place, and on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said that they might not have got it exactly right but that it had to be produced under some pressure—pressure exerted by the Members for Croydon and certain other places, in particular, which are much affected by this difficult matter. I certainly do not wish to criticise the Government in any way for having had further thoughts since the Report stage in another place, and for having tabled these Amendments to improve the clause. At this hour I certainly shall not seek to detain the Committee about it, but I

1429
should be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Citrine (who, for obvious reasons, has taken an interest in the subject over many years), may wish to say about these further Amendments to the clause.
LORD CITRINE: I was going to reserve what I had to say until we came to the Motion, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", but if it is opportune to introduce my remarks here I will certainly do that. On Second Reading I drew attention to the Annual Report of the Electricity Council in which they complained very strongly about the excessive burden they found on electricity consumers due to the payment of rates by the electricity supply industry. They pay £30 million a year, which is a huge sum by any kind of calculation. In saying what I did, it was not my purpose to embarrass the Government or to deprive the local authorities of any additional revenue to which they were legitimately entitled. The electricity supply industry has been—I will not say the victim, but the subject of considerable additions to its costs which are not due to its own controlled policy. They have been due to the policy of Governments—although not of the present Government. I make no complaint about that, but it is a fact that they have added some millions of pounds to the costs of the electricity supply industry.
In reply to what I said, the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, was good enough to say that this was an interim measure and that a drastic review would be undertaken by the Government, as it was felt that the position was unsatisfactory. I should have thought the logic of the situation demanded that anything which would increase a burden which was already extremely heavy would have been postponed until that review had taken place—or at least that part of the review bearing on this question. I said that the Electricity Boards, so far as I knew their mind, had no objection to the separate rating principle. What they did object to were the additional costs which this would involve unless some provision was made in the Bill to avoid that. It would mean an additional £3 million which the electricity consumers would have to find; and I should have thought that the proper course for an industry already over-burdened would be to pro-
1430
vide in the Bill for a deduction from what is the aggregate or global total of rates which are paid by the gas industry and the electricity supply industry. As I pointed out, a precedent was set under the Local Government Act 1958 when the showrooms for gas and electricity were separately relieved. A special provision was then inserted to permit that separate rating to be deducted from the aggregate sum of rates paid by the two industries, and I should have thought that it was equitable to treat the Electricity Boards—and, indeed, the other Boards if they are paying excessive rates—in the same way.
The electricity supply industry is undoubtedly paying too much now, by any kind of comparison that can be made. The last figures I have seen other than those in the Annual Report for 1964/65, which I quoted, show that the amount of rates paid by the electricity supply industry was £26 million, four-and-a-half times as much as the gas industry pays and seven times as much as British Railways and London Transport put together pay. By that standard, the waterways rating is negligible. In point of fact, nearly three times as much is paid in rates by the electricity supply industry as is paid by the various bodies enumerated in the Bill itself. Even if the rates of the coal industry and the Post Office—two other nationalised industries which are outside this Bill—were added, it would still be found that the electricity supply industry was paying rather more than they were so far as concerns England and Wales, which this Bill covers. It is estimated, on the best information that I can obtain, that if this measure is passed, then, in two years' time the electricity supply industry will be paying £38 million, probably, in rates, and I think it is going a little too far, with an industry that is struggling to give a good and an economical service to its consumers, to keep adding burdens in this way.
I am not suggesting that the other Boards pay too little: what I am suggesting is that the Electricity Boards pay too much. If you compare it with private industry and take the rates per employee, which is one comparison it is safe to make, the electricity industry is paying in rates six times as much per employee as is the manufacturing industry. What

1431
I hope is that the Government will consider this position and will take steps in the later stages of the Bill to enable this question to be reviewed at greater length, and that they will make some possible revision in the direction that I have asked.
LORD KENNET: I had hoped that the present Amendment (which we are still discussing, I think) would make the clause as a whole slightly less unpalatable to my noble friend than it would otherwise have been, because it does let off from rates any portion of the city centre offices which are not really used as offices at all. But I realise, of course, that it does not make it half unpalatable enough for him; and, in view of his exceptional experience and knowledge of the field in question, I undertake to convey his views immediately to my right honourable friend.
LORD CITRINE: I thank my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: There are several more Amendments to this clause which are down in my name. They follow, more or less, after the first one. I do not know whether your Lordships would think it appropriate if I were to move them formally, without making too lengthy an explanation in each case, but, if so, we could then have a look at the whole clause, as amended, at Report stage. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("from time to time").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 18 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out from ("lists") to second ("of") in line 10 and insert ("so as to give effect to the foregoing provisions").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 19 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 10, at end insert—
("() A valuation officer may if he thinks fit, before making a proposal in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section in respect of any premises,—
1432

(a) raise a question as to whether the premises are situated on operational land of an authority to which this section applies; and

(b) make an application to the appropriate Minister for the determination of the question in pursuance of the following provisions of this section;

and where a valuation officer certifies that a proposal made by him for an alteration of a valuation list is so made in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section in consequence of a determination given on an application made by him by virtue of this subsection on a date stated in the certificate, the proposal shall have effect as if it had been made on that date.
() Any question as to whether, for the purposes of this section, any premises are situated on operational land of an authority to which this section applies shall be determined—

(a) where the authority is the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board or the British Waterways Board, by the Minister of Transport;

(b) in any other case, by the Minister of Power.")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, at end insert (", as respects office premises situated in England, the South of Scotland Electricity Board.
()").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 21 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("under-taking") to ("not") in line 24.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 26, leave out ("or in which interests are held").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 23 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 30, leave out from ("work") to ("'clerical") in line 32 and insert ("and handling money").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock