Lords Sitting of 29 November 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the lock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol

PROFITS: GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.36 p.m.
LORD BYERS: 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 whether they will explain the meaning of the phrase
"The Government are pledged to use their fiscal powers or other means to deal with any excessive growth in aggregate profits"
in paragraph 43 of Command 3150; and what are the measures which they propose to use in such an event.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the total profits of all companies appeared to conflict with the needs of a prices and incomes policy the Government could take action in various ways. As to the second part of the Question, I cannot comment on what measures might be appropriate in a hypothetical situation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for replying to the Question, may I ask him whether I can take it that this confirms that the Government have no intention at all of trying to control in detail the profits of individual companies? May I further ask him whether it would not be in the interests of the nation at the present time to survey the field to find out whether certain measures could be taken to increase competition and to increase efficiency? Is it not right that we should encourage people to make profits, provided they are made in circumstances of full and fair competition?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord has put on the Order Paper and which arises
612
from the Statement which I made last week refers to "aggregate profits"; that is, total profits of industry and commerce generally. I would confirm that the Government have no powers, and do not intend to seek powers, to deal with individual profits as such. In fact, there are no powers within the Prices and Incomes Act on that matter. However, perhaps I might explain—because I believe there was some difficulty about what I said in reply to a supplementary—that when I spoke last week I had particularly in mind the Government's call for the reduction of prices through efficiency and other ways.
Where increases in profits accrue without apparent regard to the criteria for price reductions or increases, the circumstances might be such as to warrant further examination. Thus, for example, paragraph 16 of the White Paper on The Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 2639), which was published in April, 1965, states that cases
"Where the growth of profits or dividends is based on excessive market power"
could be referred to the Board as indicating scope for price reductions. Such a reference to the Board would be on prices and not profits per se, and, again, dividends could be referred as part of a price reference.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that address. Would he be prepared to say, having used the word "excessive" on several occasions, what is meant when the Government say "excessive"? Also, if by some mischance some companies make greater profits, is it the Government's intention to encourage others to make a loss to keep the balance straight?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. What we hope to see is increased efficiency from which profits would arise. But we should also hope and expect that part of that increased efficiency would be passed on to the consumer by lower prices.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, had not the Government done enough to discourage industrial investment even before they wrote this paragraph? Why do they wish to discourage investment, or does this result of their policy still fill them with surprise?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are times when the noble Lord is completely "off beam". He is off beam now. The Government have never set out to discourage investment. The noble Lord will be aware of the Industrial Development Act which this House passed a few months ago. This was one of the aids to increased investment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government want to discourage imports, and how is that to be accomplished if prices are kept down? Surely, it is in their interest that prices should rise and that consumers should therefore import less.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should carefully consider this problem. Certainly we wish to contain imports, but if we are to have a rising standard of living, which I believe we all want, it can be obtained only by increased productivity and increased efficiency.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware, is he not, that the Act to which he referred is very much less favourable than the old investment allowances which it displaced?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly do not accept that appreciation of the noble Earl.
LORD BYERS: Then would the noble Lord at least accept that "profit "is not a four-letter word?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not certain which four-letter word the noble Lord is referring to. But I believe that profit is a good thing when it is used in the right way.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister think that if increased investment is not allowed to be followed by increased profit, that will not discourage investment?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have repeatedly said that we believe in investment and increased investment, and we are not opposed to profit. What we want to see is profit used properly in the national interest. We also wish to see that the third party—the nation and the consumer—benefits from that increased investment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, am I to understand from that that if there
614
is increased investment, the Government desire to see increased profit?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, my Lords.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the Government recognise and bear in mind the whole time that sometimes profit is made at great risk of making no profit at all, sometimes of making a heavy loss?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, my Lords. This is risk capital. But the noble Lord will also appreciate, if he reads some of the Monopolies Commission's Reports and also those of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, that considerable profits have been earned by certain companies with little or no risk whatsoever.

DISEASE IN FISH
2.43 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: 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 to state the scope of research into the columnar is disease in fish, including the annual expenditure for the current year and past three years and a forecast of expenditure next year, and similar particulars of the number of scientists engaged in this research whole- or part-time.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, research into the disease in Great Britain and Northern Ireland started this year, when the seriousness of the outbreaks in the Irish Republic first became evident. The work so far, which has been done in close collaboration with scientists in the Irish Republic, has been directed mainly to elucidating the nature and causes of the disease and means of transmission. The three Fisheries Departments in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Torry Research Laboratory of the Ministry of Technology, the Central Public Health Laboratories and the Freshwater Biological Association are all co-operating in this work.
I am afraid that it is not possible to estimate the proportion of the total time and resources of the organisations concerned which is devoted to this work. In

615
all, eleven scientists, with their supporting staffs, are now concentrating on the investigation of the disease, though this is not in all cases their exclusive responsibility. It is planned to intensify the effort, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is recruiting an additional full-time bacteriologist to work full-time on fish disease.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the country will be glad to hear that there is to be at least one bacteriologist engaged on this work? Am I not right in thinking that he is the first one? Did the noble Lord observe that the annual conference of the Salmon and Trout Association was held last week, and did he note the observations they had to make about the urgent need for more research and more information on this disease, which was then followed up by a leading article in The Times? Is he aware that the mortality rate is heavy not only in salmon and trout—particularly in salmon—but also in coarse fish as well? There was a very serious outbreak in the summer on the Trent. So this is a disease which affects all the fish in this country. Will the noble Lord put a little more "pep" behind the Government's efforts to inquire into and find proper methods for dealing with it?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords, the Government are always prepared to be "gingered up" if they think that the "gingering up" will serve any useful purpose. I may say, in answer to the point about bacteriologists and biologists, that two Ministry of Agriculture scientists and one of the Northern Ireland scientists are biologists, and the others are bacteriologists. We have read very carefully the statement in The Times of Saturday last, and we have also given some consideration to what was said at the Salmon and Trout Association's conference. We realise the desire, and we accept the necessity, for doing as much as possible in this field, but I am bound to say that there is a shortage of scientists who could be turned immediately to deal with this problem.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether these
616
scientists are investigating one disease or more than one; and, if more than one, how many?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we have not yet finally decided whether this is columnar is, whether it is caused by bacteria or a virus, or is due to some other cause. It is this question that is being very carefully and closely investigated at this time. We hope that eventually, when replies are received to the questions that have been asked of the scientists, we shall be able to take preventive measures.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us an assurance that there is a sufficiency of qualified scientists to deal with these several diseases which are afflicting fish?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I have said that there is a shortage of these scientists. We should like to have more, but unfortunately they are not available. We are even having some difficulty in filling the post I have mentioned, which is being advertised at the moment by the Ministry of Agriculture.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would the noble Lord very kindly ask his noble friend Lord Kennet to read that answer and to study it in connection with our discussion about valuers yesterday?
LORD CHAMPION: That, my Lords, is also slightly "off beam".
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will collaborate with the Government of Eire on these fish diseases? Because there, of course, they have had quite a lot of experience.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. That was the starting point of the investigations that are going on; and, of course, we shall continue the very close collaboration which has taken place up to now. If there is a necessity for further international co-ordination, this can be done through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, as is being done at the moment in connection with the investigation into Greenland salmon.

ADVENTURE TRAINING INTHE ARMED FORCES
2.49 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: 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 to what extent opportunities are provided in the Armed Forces for expedition and adventure training.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, expedition and adventure training is an integral and valuable part of the general training of young Servicemen, and it is also carried out on an individual volunteer basis as a spare-time activity. Its scope varies from quite short and modest schemes in the vicinity of particular stations to ambitious projects such as the Joint Services Expeditions, the last of which went to South Georgia and the next of which will go to West Central Australia next year. This form of training develops in young Servicemen, both officers and other ranks, basic qualities of character—self-reliance, self-discipline, initiative and leadership. It does this by presenting a physical and mental challenge; and this is why it is not only popular but also excellent military training.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but I noticed that he referred twice to Servicemen. Are not women allowed to participate in these schemes where appropriate? Secondly, can he tell us the degree of the cost involved; whether there is any worthwhile scientific work done; and whether, in fact, any further schemes, in addition to those he has mentioned, are contemplated?
LORD SHACKLETON: Service women do take part in these expeditions, perhaps not in the most arduous of them, although I can see no reason why they should not take part in the most arduous. The noble Lord also asked me about the cost and the scientific content. I think that perhaps the easiest way to answer that would be to refer to the West Central Australia Expedition. There is a strong scientific content; they are proposing to survey the area, and to do accurate mapping, to establish some basic survival
618
techniques and equipment, which is primarily a Service matter, and to collect geological specimens and examples of desert flora and fauna.
Financing is partly from Government funds. The custom is that the Treasury usually pay for the travel. In the case of the Australian expedition, about one-half of the £7,000 comes from the Treasury. As has been the established principle of all expeditions of this kind over the last thirty or forty years, the participants themselves contribute and considerable sums of money are obtained from bodies like the Royal Geographical Society and other scientific bodies—all of which demonstrates that there is a scientific content. The noble Lord also asked whether there were any other expeditions in view. I should stress that there are continuous expeditions, some on a very small scale, some even in this country, in parts of the Highlands, and elsewhere. There are one or two bigger ones. The R.A.F. are in fact planning an expedition, which will be quite a big one, to Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, next summer, in which I am particularly interested because they will go to parts of the Canadian Arctic which I do not think have been visited since I was there thirty years ago.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government are doing the same sort of thing for the Territorial Army, in particular the A.V.R. 3, who have been deprived of so many weapons and need such tremendous encouragement?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord's Question is at all relevant, because the T.A. need all the time they have available for carrying out their military training. This is essentially training for Regulars, but I am sure that if any of the T.A. units put up plans of this kind we should be interested. They are, however—let us face it—civilians who spend some of their time doing military training. I do not think they would have the time for expedition training on top of their military training.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, in regard to these excellent schemes and the more far distant visits under them, can the noble Lord say about how many young people are engaged at a time in visits of this type

619
and whether there is any chance of increasing their frequency?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is an interesting question. I cannot say how many are so engaged. On the big expedition to South Georgia, for example, there were, I think, about 12 young men, officers and other ranks, from all the three Services, taking part. This is the likely figure, for instance, for next summer's Ellesmere Island expedition, which, although it is an R.A.F. scheme, will include a soldier and a sailor. The overall number is very large. I will find out how many individuals actually participated in this type of activity during the last year and will let the noble Lord know.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to make certain that those participating in the expeditions are fully prepared physically and mentally for the undoubted strains that will take place.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, speaking with some experience in this field, I would say to the noble Lord that the expeditions are, generally speaking, better-trained and better-led than a large number of non-Service expeditions. This is a matter which, as always, is the responsibility of the leader; but there are certain criteria which are well understood in the Services. This is not to suggest that, as with any activity—and a life was lost on the recent naval expedition to North Greenland—accidents do not occasionally happen.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the two young men who rowed across the Atlantic were engaged in this form of training or whether it was a matter of private enterprise?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it was entirely private enterprise; and I understand, and hope, it was fairly profitable.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of the products of adventure training in the R.A.F. are the excellent mountain rescue teams, some of which are located in Scotland, and will he ensure that there is adequate
620
financial provision for their proper continuance?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is a Question down for tomorrow, I believe, on mountain rescue teams; but the noble Lord knows that I share his sympathy in this matter.

FUTURE BUSINESS
2.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a short business statement? Last Thursday I indicated that it might be necessary to sit late on some days next week for the Committee stage of the Land Commission Bill. On that occasion, noble Lords opposite asked me whether I would reconsider the suggestion. Following upon the good progress made yesterday, and after discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I am pleased to inform the House that on Monday, December 5, and Tuesday, December 6, it is intended to take the Land Commission Bill to approximately 7.30 p.m. I understand that it ought to be possible then to complete the Committee stage of the Bill on Thursday, the 8th.
In regard to to-day's business, it is hoped that we shall adjourn the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill between 6 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. and proceed to the Report stage of the Local Government Bill; then to adjourn at about 7.30 p.m. and to recommence at 8.30 p.m. to conclude the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's remarks, would he explain the reason for the rather messy procedure that has been adopted yesterday and to-day? Yesterday the Committee stage of the Land Commission Bill was interrupted by the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill. Today, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill Committee stage is to be interrupted by the corresponding stage of the English Bill. Why should it not be possible to take the whole of the Committee stage of one Bill right through and then proceed to the other?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this method has been adopted over a good number of years, more perhaps for the

621
convenience of the Opposition, than for the Government. It makes it possible for those who lead for the Opposition on a long Committee stage to have a break. It was certainly my experience in Opposition that it was generally welcomed.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to legal aid and advice in Scotland and connected matters. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: With the leave of the Committee, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak on any of Clauses Nos. 1 to 17 inclusive, I shall put the Question on those clauses together.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would it be convenient if I raised a Question on Clause 2?
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rate support grants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be right to raise on this matter the question of the manner of dividing out the rate support grant. Noble Lords will
622
remember that on the last occasion when we legislated on this subject, in 1958, the1958 Act actually contained a definition of the way in which general grant was to be divided out and a formula for it. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages in that. If there is a formula it cannot be changed without other legislation—unless, of course, powers are taken in the Act itself to change the formula by Order. On the other hand, it does enable local authorities to know where they are for some years to come, and that is an important advantage that has to be set against the advantage of not being able to change. There are advantages both ways.
On the last occasion, there was considerable Opposition pressure for the Scottish Office to make available figures to show how the proposals would affect different local authorities. Very manfully, on that occasion the Scottish Office got out figures to show, on the basis of the last available year, what would have happened had the new proposals been in effect. Instead of their being thanked, the information produced gave rise to a good deal of criticism, and I have some sympathy with the Government in not wishing to encounter that kind of criticism again. On the other hand, surely it is necessary for Parliament to know roughly how the rate support grant is to be divided up; how it will affect local authorities in general and, where there is a marked effect in the case of some local authorities, what transitional arrangements are to be made.
On the last occasion when we dealt with this kind of subject, transitional arrangements were made, and even though they are not incorporated in this Bill one would hope that transitional arrangements will be made as a result of the consultations which the Government are now having with the local authority associations. There are, therefore, two questions which I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The first is, how far have they got with consultations, and is he in a position to say anything about the way in which the division of the rate support grant will be made; and, secondly, what transitional arrangements does he envisage?
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the way in which he has referred to this

623
matter. He kindly pointed out that there is no clear dividing line where one can say that all the advantages lie on one side or the other. Whichever way the Government decide to adopt, whether it is that chosen in the Bill or what was done on a previous occasion, they will undoubtedly be subjected to criticism from local authorities. In these circumstances, I am sorry that it is not possible for me to give the noble Lord an answer to-day to the questions he has put. I will consider the matter with my colleagues and with our advisers, and I shall certainly be in a position to answer his questions at the next stage in the progress of the Bill. I do not guarantee that I shall be any more successful in answering them to his satisfaction than I guarantee that whatever course we take will meet with the universal approval of Scottish local authorities.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. It is not always as easy to raise debate on Report as it is on Committee stage, and I hope that the noble Lord will not be too shocked if he sees an Amendment to leave out Clause 2.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Rating of certain office premises of nationalised boards, &c.]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) In determining the 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 assessor for the area in which office premises occupied by an authority to which this section applies are situated or the occupier of those premises may apply to the appropriate Minister for a determination of the question whether the premises are situated on operational land of the authority, and if the Minister determines that the premises are not so situated the occupier thereof shall be liable to be rated in respect of the premises from the date of that determination.
( ) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the appropriate Minister in relation to premises occupied by—

(a) the British Railways Board or the British Waterways Board, is the Minister of Transport;

624

(b) the Gas Council or any area board constituted for an area in Scotland under the Gas Act 1948, is the Minister of Power; and

(c) any other board, is the Secretary of State."

The noble Lord said: Clause 18 provides for the general administrative offices of the nationalised industries to be separately rated like commercial offices, and this Amendment introduces certain improvements, which have been suggested by the nationalised industries, without damaging the principle of the clause in any way. The first subsection pays regard to the fact that blocks of offices used for general administrative purposes (that is, not on operational land) sometimes contain rooms which are not offices. It would be wrong to rate them separately as if they were offices, and the subsection therefore exempts them. The second and third subsections deal with the problem of deciding whether offices are on operational land, and therefore exempt from separate rating.
"Operational land" is defined in Clause 18(3) as being land used for the carrying on of the nationalised undertaking which is not comparable with land in general, that is, ordinary commercial and industrial buildings. This is a definition which has long been used in town and country planning law, but it is not free from difficulty, and the Government's view, as embodied in the subsections, is that such a question is best determined in case of dispute by the Minister responsible for the nationalised industry. The assessor and the nationalised board are each given the right to apply for a determination, and the appropriate Minister is the Minister of Transport in regard to the railways or British waterways, the Minister of Power in relation to the Scottish Gas Board, and the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the Scottish Electricity Boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: With the leave of the Committee I will speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. These are little more than drafting Amendments. The definition of "operational land" at

625
present refers to land used for the carrying on of the nationalised undertaking, and land in which the undertaking holds an interest for that purpose. This is correct in planning law, from which the definition was borrowed, but is inappropriate in the case of rating, where the only consideration should be whether the land is in fact used for the carrying on of the undertaking. The question of land in which the nationalised board holds a legal interest is irrelevant. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, leave out from ("undertaking") to ("not") in line 23.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 25, leave out ("or in which interests are held").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment prevents the definition of "office purposes" from going too far; for example, by including telephone and telegraph operating, such as the telephone and telegraph systems operated by the railways, and computer installations, which are, in the work of the nationalised industries, more operational than administrative. The definition of "office purposes" as amended will be:
"for the purposes of administration, clerical work and the handling of money"—
thus corresponding more closely to the ordinary meaning of the term. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out from ("work") to ("'clerical") in line 31 and insert ("and handling money").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Liability to be rated in respect of certain unoccupied property
24.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 243 of the Local
626
Government (Scotland) Act 1947, where any relevant lands and heritages in the area of a rating authority are unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding three months, the person entitled to possession of the lands and heritages (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the "owner") may, if the rating authority think fit, be rated in respect of the lands and heritages for any relevant period of vacancy; and the enactments relating to rating shall apply with any necessary modifications as if the lands and heritages were occupied during that period by the owner.
(2) Subject to section 25 of this Act the amount of any rates payable by an owner in respect of a dwelling-house by virtue of this section shall be three-quarters of the amount which would be payable if he were in occupation of the dwelling-house, and the amount of any rates payable by an owner in respect of other lands and heritages by virtue of this section shall be one-half of the amount which would be payable if he were in occupation of the lands and heritages; and no reduction shall be made under section 7 of this Act in respect of any rates so payable.
(5) Where lands and heritages which are unoccupied become occupied on any day and become unoccupied again on the expiration of a period of less than six weeks beginning with that day, then, for the purpose of ascertaining any period of three months during which the lands and heritages have been continuously unoccupied and any relevant period of vacancy in respect of the lands and heritages, they shall be deemed to have remained unoccupied on that day and during that period.
3.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), after "unoccupied" to insert "without reasonable cause". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, and I would ask that this should be taken together with No. 15. Under Section 17 of the existing Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, if a local authority are satisfied that the owner of premises has left those premises unoccupied without reasonable cause, they may levy upon him, in respect of the period only between the date which they specify and the date when the premises ceases to be unoccupied, a charge not exceeding 25 per cent. In another place the Government have claimed that this has proved difficult because the onus of proving that there was reasonable cause is laid on the local authority.
In this Amendment, we reverse the onus of proof and lay it on the owner. That seems to us to be fair. It also seems to us that it would not be right to give the local authority complete discretion to charge rates, or a proportion of rates, on property which was left vacant with

627
reasonable cause. In general, we recognise that rates are a form of taxation on the individual, even though they are actually charged on property. The philosophy of rating, certainly since the Sorn Report, has been that rates are chargeable on the occupancy of property and not on the ownership of property. We recognise that at a time and in places where accommodation is short, there may be a good deal to be said for encouraging the maximum occupation of property. But there must be cases where the owner has good cause for leaving his premises vacant—cases other than those specified in Clause 25—and we believe that the owner ought to be given an opportunity of making his case. We cannot accept that the local authority should be entitled to judge in its own cause. There should be the right of appeal to the sheriff, who could then arbitrate between the local authority and the individual. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, after ("unoccupied") insert ("without reasonable cause").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: In moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, stated that it transferred the onus from the local authority to the owner of property. It has not appeared in that way to my advisers, because the advice I have been given is that the Amendment still leaves on the local authority the onus of proving what has up till now proved to be impossible, and at this stage I must proceed on the basis of the advice I have been given. It has been impossible up to the present time for a local authority to rebut the proposition that Section 17 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act has been ineffective, and the advice which I have is that if the Government accent this Amendment of the provisions in the present Bill will also be ineffective.
The onus would remain with the local authority to show that the property was being kept empty without reasonable cause and, as the courts have already decided in a case some years ago, it would be almost impossible for a local authority to do this. An owner can always claim that he had no reasonable offer for the property, and there would be no way for the local authority to establish the truth or falsehood of that statement.
628
The time the property need necessarily remain empty depends on the state of the market at the time and in the particular area, and it is the Government's view that the local authority are in the best position to judge this fairly. It is not the Government's case that reasonable considerations should be ignored in deciding whether empty property should be rated, but simply that it must be left to the local authority to decide what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. The complete failure of Section 17 of the 1956 Act is something which we simply cannot afford to repeat. In these circumstances I have no option but to invite the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, so far as it goes. He says that his legal advisers tell him that we have not succeeded in shifting the onus. That brings us to the question: if we succeed in shifting the onus, would he then be prepared to consider the introduction of "without reasonable cause"? The point at issue between us has come out clearly. The noble Lord considers that this should properly be left to the local authority. That is allowing the pendulum to swing right across to the other side of its range. What I am asking him to do is to consider between now and Report stage the possibility of keeping the "reasonable cause" condition, while maintaining at the same time the appeal to the sheriff, but with the onus on the owner to establish the reasonable cause. That certainly would not wreck the Bill as it is now.
I think I have said enough to convince the noble Lord that this was not intended to be a wrecking Amendment, but merely to retain the right of the individual to prove that he had reasonable cause for a house remaining vacant. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be good enough to have a look at this matter, to see whether it would be possible to take a medial course which would satisfy both sides of the House. In the meantime, if we can devise a means midway between the present position and the position which the Bill now seeks to establish, we will do so. But I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to say that he will consider this and whether he will put down an Amendment to establish the medial course.
LORD HUGHES: The proposal made in this Amendment is, on the face of it, so eminently reasonable that it would be wrong for me not to give an undertaking of some kind along the lines which the noble Lord has asked for, and I certainly say without hesitation that I will look at this matter urgently to see whether it is possible to do something along these lines. But having said that, I must say, in fairness to the position which the Government have taken up in this matter, that the first consideration must be to make certain that on this occasion we do not import into the Bill something which will make the provision a dead letter, as the previous Act was. If we can do something along the lines which the noble Lord suggests, or if he speedily puts in something to us which can be examined, so that if it is not correct from a drafting point of view it can be altered before the next stage is taken, then I will certainly undertake to do this. But I would not wish to raise hopes too high, because it is extremely difficult, whether you transfer the onus one way or another, when you introduce something of this sort into a Bill to be certain in advance that it will work out in the way the Government want.
What the Government want in this connection, quite frankly, is not to raise more revenue for local authorities, but to have the minimum number of houses standing empty at any given time. Having regard to that, we will certainly look at this matter as quickly as possible, and I will communicate with the noble Lord within a few days and inform him of the conclusions at which we have arrived, so that if he is not satisfied it will be done in time for him to take an alternative course of action on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think we both reserve our positions, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "three" and insert "six". The noble Earl said: We are all working under very heavy Parliamentary pressure at the present time—
LORD HUGHES: May I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed Amendments Nos. 6, 14, 16 and 17 together, as they are all on the same subject?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was going to suggest that. In fact, I think some of them are almost consequential Amendments on this one. We should certainly discuss them together. I was just going to say that we do not complain at all about working under heavy pressure. The only thing I regret is that we have not had time to consult, as I often like to do with the noble Lord, or with whichever members of the Government are responsible, about the Amendments on the Marshalled List, because that always helps us to save time. I hope that we on this side will do all we can to get through this Committee stage with reasonable speed.
The Amendment that I am now moving is to leave out "three" and insert "six" in line 25 on page 16; that is to say, that
"where any relevant lands and heritages in the area of a rating authority are unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding"—
and I propose six months instead of three months, as it is now in the Bill—they shall be liable to rating. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are not at all enthusiastic about Clause 24. We think it is unnecessary, and we believe that the law as it stands is much better. However, we are not proposing to press any Amendment to leave out Clause 24. We have agreed to accept the principle that unoccupied dwellings in certain circumstances shall be subject to rates. But we want to make it as easy to work as possible, and to reduce the time spent by both owners or their agents and local authorities to a reasonable minimum. It seems to us that three months for unoccupied property, or six months for new unoccupied property, is too short; that if we have so short a period it is going to lead to a vast amount of redundant, superflous correspondence and unnecessary inconvenience both to those who are concerned with the owners and management of the property and also to the officials who are doing the business of the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be I aware that in the English Bill the period

631
has been extended, as it now stands, to six months. Of course, that might not be agreed to by another place. However, I think that we would at least give another place the same opportunity of considering Scottish improvements as they have been given the opportunity of considering English improvements to the Bill, and that we should be failing in our Parliamentary duty if we did not press strongly for this to be done.
As the noble Lord has been kind enough to point out, with this Amendment go Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, and also No. 17 on Clause 25, which refers to new property, and proposes to substitute twelve months instead of six months. Again, we suggest in the case of new property that six months is an unreasonably short period. I am sure that the noble Lord is much more familiar than I am with the new Over-gate development in Dundee, the Murray field Real Estate Company's new buildings which are being erected in stages under the development plan. He knows infinitely more about this than I do, because I think, for one thing, he was largely instrumental in getting this development plan started, or at least the plans for it made, at the time when he was Lord Provost.
I thought that it might be interesting to get a few figures about what has happened so far. On phase one of the scheme, which has been completed for some time, I am informed that it comprises 40 shops and five floors of offices; that there are still two shops, one single unit and one double unit, and two floors of offices, not yet occupied, although the first shop was occupied in September, 1963, and the first office in January, 1964. I am told that phase two comprises 34 shops, of which only 14 are occupied. Of the 20 which are still empty, one shop is a triple-unit supermarket, two are double units and the remaining 17 are single units. The first shop in this phase was occupied in December, 1965, and therefore the interval has not been so long. As the noble Lord knows, the third phase has hardly begun.
I do not think that these offices and shops have been left unoccupied for any reason other than the natural difficulty of finding tenants speedily for new build-
632
ings of this kind, and I think that it would be undesirable and unfair to subject empty property like this to rating too soon. I would suggest that the period in the Bill of six months for unoccupied property is too short, and similarly that the period of three months for property which is not new is too short, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider accepting these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("three" I and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to the fact that an Amendment in similar terms to this has been made in the Local Government Bill for England and Wales. At first glance, therefore, it would appear that I have a somewhat difficult task in attempting to persuade your Lordships to adopt a different course in relation to Scotland. But that is not in fact so. The noble Earl has argued that the period of three months is too short for people to relet or resell their property, and that there would be hardship or unfairness if they began to be rated after that time.
I would remind your Lordships that in this case we are not following the practice in the English Bill of making it mandatory upon local authorities to levy rates at the end of three and six months. We are continuing the existing practice where this is at the discretion of the local authority. It can therefore be taken that the period of three months in relation to existing property, and the period of six months in relation to new properties, should be the minimum periods at which local authorities could exercise their discretion. It may be that the noble Earl knows the answer.
I must admit that I am no longer as closely in touch with local affairs in Dundee as I once was, but while I have no cause at all to doubt the accuracy of the statements which the noble Earl has made about the number of unlet shops and offices, I do have evidence from time to time—because the church I attend is in that area. What I do not know, and what the noble Earl may know, is the extent to which the Dundee Corporation have exercised their discretion to levy rates on these unlet new properties. It may be that in the exercise of their discretion the local authority have levied no rates at

633
all. This is the beauty of the Scottish position from the point of view of the owner in circumstances like this. We are giving this discretion to local authorities. In a case such as the noble Earl has mentioned, the local authorities are anxious to encourage developments of this kind, and I can imagine nothing more discouraging to developers than to know that at the end of six months the local authority, whether it wants to or not, is going to levy a rate upon them. That will not take place.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We are not proposing that. We are proposing that it shall still be discretionary, but that the minimum shall be six months.
LORD HUGHES: I am pointing out that the noble Earl cannot extract from the English Bill something which he likes and use it as a precedent, and then seek to retain something in the Scottish Bill which the English do not have as a compensation.
THE EARL or DUNDEE: This has been done very often before in favour of Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: I have not the slightest doubt that when the noble Earl was on this side of the House he was arguing exactly as I am to-day. We believe quite sincerely that if we make it a long period in the beginning it becomes much more difficult to make it a discretionary period. Quite frankly, because of our circumstances, which may not in many ways make the proposals so suitable South of the Border, I should not like to depart from the discretionary principle in this.
For that reason, although on the face of it it appears to be quite inconsistent to say three months and six months in Scotland, and six months and twelve months in England and Wales, there is in fact no inconsistency, because I suggest to your Lordships that this is not a new principle which we are importing into the Bill; it is a continuation of the principle, which exists and works well, that the local authorities do not as a rule—they may well be exceptions to this, I must admit—exercise the discretion to levy rates on empty property without very good cause indeed.
The Government feel that the proposal before the Committee is fair to the owners
634
of property and is consistent with the Government's object of keeping the number of unoccupied houses down to the irreducible minimum. We do not maintain that at any given time all houses are capable of being occupied. But what we wish to enforce, in as reasonable a way as possible, is that no house is kept empty while there are thousands of people waiting for houses if it is feasible for that house to be occupied. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw this Amendment, having regard to the considerable advantages which the clause contains.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, have argued this matter on the principle of experience in Dundee, and I know—
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords. The noble Earl gave an example in Dundee, but I was most careful not to confine my remarks to experience in Dundee. I said that this was the position up and down the country, although I said there might be exceptions.
LORD SALTOUN: That does not much affect what I was going to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I, know that the people of Dundee probably have a higher standard of conduct and morals than the rest of the world. That is what I was going to start by saying. What I have to say now is that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will think about this matter a little more, because it often happens that when a house is vacated and the owner goes to look at it he finds that there is a great deal of work to be done to that house. He has to find people who will do the work, he has to get that work carried out, and it may take a great deal longer than he reckons. I am not thinking of a great city like Dundee; I am thinking of the conditions which often obtain in quite small places. I will not go into them in detail before your Lordships, but I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can think of a great number of conditions which might make it very awkward to stick to the period of three months. There is nothing to be lost by an extension of the period, and in many cases it may make it possible to put a house in proper tenantable

635
repair for a new tenant much more conveniently, because if the house is rated the owner may have to rush the improvements and they will be scamped.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, admits that there may be exceptions, but the trouble is, as with all local authorities, that not all Scottish local authorities are as reasonable as others. I know perfectly well that the county council of my own county of Perth will administer these regulations with the utmost sympathy, but there are other county councils, which shall be nameless, which are by no means as reasonable as we are. While we certainly wish to keep the discretion that is allowed to the county councils, we feel that that discretion should come into operation only at a somewhat later date than the Government propose, and I would strongly support my noble friend Lord Saltoun in asking the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to re-examine this question to see whether at a later stage he cannot make at least some concession in the time allowed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put forward an admirable case for rejecting this Amendment, or, rather, I should have said it would be admirable if it had been founded on fact. Unfortunately, he is totally misinformed. The English Bill is discretionary, and therefore there is no difference between the English and the Scottish Bill in this respect. If the noble Lord would look at Clause 20 of the English Bill, he will there see that it is discretionary.
Secondly, the noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that the English Bill at the start provided a period of six months. That, of course, was not so. Here I think we are in a technical difficulty, because the Committee who are examining the English Bill have not yet reported to this House what has occurred in that Committee. I understand that the original period mentioned in the Bill was three months and in Committee it has been changed to six months. We are seeking to do the same in this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: There is a misunderstanding, and it is my fault for not having made myself perfectly clear. The position in the English and Scottish Bills is the same, in that the local authority have
636
discretion whether to apply these provisions; but once the provisions are applied, no further discretion is given in the English Bill. In the Scottish Bill there is no obligation, even where the local authority bring the proposals into operation, that they must apply a rate in three months or six months, and it is simply because of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, namely, that conditions in Scotland vary so enormously from one area to another—one cannot, for instance, equate conditions in Buckie with conditions in Glasgow—that there must be a considerable amount of discretion given to local authorities. If that is done, it is reasonable that the starting period should be a relatively earlier one than if no discretion is given to them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The local authorities have that discretion at the present time and the period is six months, therefore what the noble Lord would have to establish is that there is a good reason for changing from six months, as at present, to three months under the Bill. In my experience—and I do not for a moment dispute that his experience is more intensive, although perhaps no wider than mine—once a local authority have passed a resolution to adopt this right to levy rates on an unoccupied property they are likely to apply it. As I remember a local authority in my erst-while constituency once told me, they apply it logically, and by that they mean that in principle they apply it everywhere unless there is an overwhelming reason for departing from it. Therefore the discretion is more illusory than real, and once "three months" appeared in the Bill I think noble Lords would find that those local authorities which adopted that procedure in general would adhere to the three months unless there was an overwhelming reason why they should not do so.
If I may say so, I do not think the noble Lord has produced any reason at all for resisting this Amendment. If he wanted to resist it he would have to establish that three months was a better period than six months and not simply that if you are retaining and not introducing the discretionary period it is right to have the lower period, because the discretionary principle exists at present and the period is six months.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but I cannot yield on this matter. The basis on which the noble Lord is now arguing is that if something is being done at the present time it is correct, and therefore to depart from it is in some way wrong. Part of the basis of the legislation on this matter, as I have now mentioned twice, is our desire to have empty houses made available for occupation at the earliest opportunity. Since the last legislation was passed there has been a long period of years during which it has been quite obvious that the existing law is not sufficient to produce occupation of as many of these empty houses as is possible. Therefore we wish to strengthen the law in these various directions.
Having said that I must frankly admit that there is not magical formula attaching to the words "three months" or "six months" in the one case, any more than there is attaching to six months or twelve months in the other case. We are seeking to make the law tighter and to do so in a way in which we believe that no injustice will be done to any individual owner. Here I would say that I have a greater faith in the local authorities to exercise their discretion in a reasonable way than the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would appear to have.
It is not many years ago that noble Lords opposite were using against members of the Party now forming Her Majesty's Government the argument that their attitude was that "the man in Whitehall knows best", and their argument was that in fact it is often the man in the town hall who knows best. This is a case where we accept that point of view: that the man in the local authority is best able to decide what should be done. After all, if the local authority exercise their discretion in a harsh and oppressive way those who are being oppressed have the opportunity to attempt to vote them out of office, and at the end of the day, in a democratic system, the fear of that penalty often produces the sort of results we expect to get from local government. We should be placing the owners of unoccupied property at grave risk if we did not continue to leave it at the discretion of local authorities.
This was a point on which there was considerable discussion in another place and I cannot offer the slightest hope that
638
anything that has transpired to-day is likely to change the situation. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: If I may return to the charge once again, I am not thinking so much of the effect of the period of three months on the members of the local authority but of the effect on the owner of the property. He knows that he will be rated, whether the local authority are going to do so in the future or not; he has the three months hanging over his head, and the chance is that he will do as little as possible to render the property fit for a new tenant, so that the property will gradually deteriorate, as will the unfortunate circumstances of the tenants. That is the kind of pressure I am trying to alleviate. With regard to what the noble Lord has said about turning out members of local authorities, I will extend his knowledge of Scotland a little in order to point out to him that if he were to roam through Scotland he would find how difficult it is to get people to become members of local authorities in quite a number of places, and therefore there is what one might call a fixity of tenure of those who take the trouble to become members of local authorities.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord knows full well that in some of the small places there is nothing more conducive to finding a candidate for the town council than that there is a man who has a grievance.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: If the Minister does not mind having a question from an Englishman, I am interested in the statistical evidence behind this provision. Can the noble Lord tell us what sort of proportion of houses in Scotland are unoccupied and, much more important, has that proportion been increasing or decreasing?
LORD HUGHES: Without notice I am quite unable to give an answer to that question. I would invite the noble Viscount to take a walk through the Glasgow streets and observe how many houses in perfectly good areas are standing empty in the hope that they can be let at higher rents, or sold, at a time when many people in Glasgow are waiting for a house. Whatever the statistics are, the facts, I think, are accepted by all Scots—and this is not something

639
which is confined to members of my Party; it is equally held by people in all Parties—that with the housing situation we have in Scotland we just cannot afford to have the number of houses we have empty continuing empty for no good purpose.
LORD SALTOUN: In that case will the noble Lord consider a very useful amendment to the law? He has to remember that council houses are built with the aid of very considerable subsidies, and privately owned houses are built without any subsidy at all and they have to show some sort of return on the cost of building. If the noble Lord really wants to make it more easy for people to let private houses at a remunerative rent, he should consider giving a subsidy to the people who own them.
LORD HUGHES: Even with the wide-ranging discretion we have in this House, I think the noble Lord will admit that that is far away from the subject we are discussing to-day.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid I cannot altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that those local authorities in Scotland, which we all agree are in a minority; who might act
harshly and unreasonably in prescribing too short a period before an unoccupied house is rated, would be deterred in the least from this unreasonable or harsh measure by the possibility that they might be defeated in two years' time at a local county council election. I do not think that would play a very great part in most of the areas which might be affected.
I am sorry that we cannot withdraw this Amendment because I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has done his best, and a very good best, to make a reasonable case against it. I would only point out to him that we on this side have not been entirely unreasonable, because we have refrained from opposing the principle of Clause 24. So we are not maintaining that because something has existed up to now it must therefore be the best state of affairs. Although we are doubtful of the wisdom of Clause 24 as it stands, we are trying to help the clause to work as fairly as possible and with the least friction and unnecessary trouble to all concerned.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Newton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Polwarth, L.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Rowallan, L.

Brocket, L.

Gridley, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Harlech, L.

St. Helens, L.

Caccia, L.

Hastings, L.

Saltoun, L.

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Cawley, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jessel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Swinton, E.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Thurlow, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dudley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Citrine, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Gardiner, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Burden, L.

Chorley, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Mitchison, L.

Soper, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Moyle, L.

Sorensen, L.

Hughes, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Inman, L.

Pargiter, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Kennet, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Latham, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Reay, L.

Wade, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shepherd, L.

Williamson, L.

Maelor, L.

Silkin, L.

Wise, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYNhad given notice of his intention to move, in subsection to leave out "rated" and insert "charged". The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is by way of being a technical and drafting Amendment. In order to save time, I suggest that I should not move it, but perhaps the noble Lord could discuss it with me between now and the Report stage so that we can decide what steps to take in the matter.
LORD HUGHES:Yes
4.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection after "25"to insert "and section 27(2)". The noble Lord said: I am in considerable difficulty in relation to this Amendment, No. 8, which is quite without meaning unless it is looked at in relation to Amendment No. 20, because although it appears earlier in the Bill than Amendment No. 20 it is a consequence of that Amendment, and I would wish the leave of the Committee, therefore, to talk to Amendments Nos. 8 and 20 together. No. 8 is an Amendment to Clause 24, but the main Amendment which gives rise to it is to Clause 27, and what I have to say will therefore be related to Amendment No. 20.
I would start off by admitting quite frankly that there has been considerable criticism, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, about the fact that Clause 27 imposes a new statutory penalty in relation to failure to notify empty houses. I think noble Lords opposite may well be disposed, however, to accept that some type of sanction is required, and having given further consideration to this matter, the Government now propose, in Amendment No. 20, that this should take the form of a liability to pay rates at 100 per cent., instead of 75 per cent. I am almost obliged to share paternity in regard to this proposal with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, because it was through a misunderstanding of a
642
proposal which he put forward that the idea of this as another alternative emerged.
If the Amendment is accepted, there will be no question of prosecution for non-notification of entry. When the rating authority found their man—as they would equally have to do under the present laws—they would have power to charge the full rates, with the same powers of recovery as for ordinary rates. It means this: that if the owner of a property, for reasons which appear good to him, does not wish to notify the local authority that it is empty, then the penalty he will suffer is not to be prosecuted for committing a new offence, with the possibility of being fined a sum of up to £20, but that, so long as he does not notify the local authority, he will be paying rates at the full amount.
It seems to the Government that this will be an effective deterrent, and will be a much more satisfactory deterrent than seeking to create a new offence punishable by fine. It is implicit in this Amendment (this is as I understand the working of it; and if it does not in fact work this way, then I will make certain that at another stage it does work this way) that the 100 per cent. liability would be removed on notification or at the earliest possible opportunity after notification. It is not intended that if a man failed to notify he would be levied rates at 100 per cent. in perpetuity for all the time that he might leave the house empty.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord forgive me interrupting him, just for clarification? I noted down his words. He said that the 100 per cent. liability would be removed on notification. Does he mean by that, notification either by the local authority to the owner, or by the owner to the local authority? In other words, there is not much point in notifying the local authority of something they already know.
LORD HUGHES: I said "on notifying". I meant the procedure under

643
Clause 26. Then I said "or at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter". It may not be that the rate would alter from 100 per cent. to 75 per cent. immediately notification takes place. What I want to make perfectly clear is that we are not seeking to impose a penalty that 100 per cent. rating shall continue for ever, and that the man will lose the opportunity of being rated at the lower percentage of 75 per cent., as it stands in the Bill at the present time.
There is a further point, which I think in this case will appeal to noble Lords opposite: that it again brings into operation the discretion of the local authority. The Bill as it stands creates an offence which, if found proven, would attract a fine of up to £20. That is definite. But under the clause as we propose to amend it, the local authority are not compelled to charge the extra rates, or any rate at all. This remains at the discretion of the local authority.
We accept the principle that in different parts of the country there will be many occasions when a house stands empty, not out of any wickedness on the part of any owner but because it is physically impossible for it to be occupied at all, either because of the condition of the property or because the owner is unable to get a tenant for it. In those circumstances it would be wrong to compel rating at 100 per cent. or any other figure at all. Therefore we maintain the full discretion of the local authority in this matter. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite will feel that the Government, in seeking to pursue the objective of getting as many houses as possible occupied, have made the sanction a much more acceptable one than the one which is in the Bill at present. We have no desire to add needlessly to the work of already harassed police forces; we have no desire to add to the work of the courts if we can find an acceptable alternative which will help us to achieve our objects. In this Amendment in the 100 per cent. rating during these limited circumstances we think we have found a much more acceptable alternative which I hope will commend itself to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 33, after ("25") insert ("and section 27(2)").—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I wonder whether the Committee would agree that, in discussing this Amendment, we should have latitude to discuss Clauses 26 and 27, without which this Amendment would be quite meaningless. We have put down a number of Amendments to Clauses 26 and 27 and also Motions to leave out those clauses, but they all impinge on the point which is involved in the content of the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved. I should like to make plain to the Committee our intentions in putting down the subsequent Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. We are thinking chiefly of the man who may be a commercial traveller, or the man who is sometimes sent abroad on business, or the Serviceman who is sent abroad on military duty for a year or two years and who is able to take his wife and family. That sort of person may let his house for a period while he is away, so he is no longer the last occupier; it may become vacated and he may not be aware of the requirement to notify. We feel that it would be unfair if such a person were to be subject to any penalty for leaving the house unoccupied for any period which he cannot ascertain, without notification to the local authority. We also objected on Second Reading to the introduction of a new legal penalty of £20 on summary conviction for doing something which, very often, would not be due to any fault or negligence on the part of the accused person.
I believe that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and any consequential Amendment thereto, would go a long way towards meeting our point, and if we are satisfied that this is so we may save a good deal of time by noting the noble Lord's assurance now and not resisting Clauses 26 and 27, in view of the fact that his Amendment deals with the gravamen of our objection about those clauses. What should be made clear—and I think the noble Lord made it fairly clear when replying to my noble friend's interruption—is for exactly how long a period this rating would last. I should not regard it so much as a penalty, but rather as a consequence of not informing the authority that a house has become unoccupied.
It seems to me that if the rating were to extend only until notification were

645
given, and if also it were applied to notification given by the local authority, that would sufficiently meet our point. The reason that my noble friend mentioned the local authority's notifying the owner was to cover the case of, let us say, a Serviceman who has gone abroad and who might not be able to discover for a long time that his house had become unoccupied. He might not get a notice saying that the tenant had left and might not be aware that he was doing anything wrong, even if he did hear about it, in failing to write and inform the local authority. In that case the onus of informing the owner of the house that his house had become unoccupied should rest on the local authority, which, in the circumstances I am imagining, would be much better able to ascertain the unoccupancy of the house. I think that the onus of giving the information should be put upon the local authority and not the owner.
In the case of a man who is living at home or in the neighbourhood and who ought to have taken reasonable care to find out that his house is unoccupied, our point would be met if the rating extended only until the time when the man decided to change his mind and notify the local authority. I do not think he should be penalised by having to go on paying rates until the end of the rating year, or worse still, until a new tenant had been found, simply because he was a few weeks behind in his notification. I gather from the noble Lord that these two points will be met. I hope he will be able to confirm this officially, because if that is so I would advise my noble friends not to press their opposition to Clauses 26 and 27. Indeed, if we were to do so, it might then be impossible to insert this new proposal of the noble Lord, and it might not be constitutionally possible for another place to do so either. Provided the noble Lord can give that assurance, I should prefer that the matter should be dealt with in the way I have outlined.
LORD SALTOUN: I understood the noble Lord to say that full rates would remain only until the true situation became plain to the local authority. I think that meets the point about which the noble Earl was asking. I must say that I have always objected to severe penalties being incorporated in new Acts
646
of Parliament. They are very useful politically, because the political Party always loves a drastic penalty, but I have always been of the opinion that much milder penalties as a rule would be more effective and would lead to a great deal less bitter feeling in the country.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The debate has started to range rather widely, but I propose to confine myself, at any rate for the moment, to one narrow point which is Amendment No. 19 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Dundee and Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD HUGHES: With respect to the noble Earl, that does not arise on this point. This is really a consequence of the three months and six months—
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord alluded to that Amendment, but I am quite prepared to take it later.
LORD HUGHES: It will come later.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Is it not consequential on the Amendment which your Lordships voted for a few minutes ago? I think it is.
LORD HUGHES: It arises, does it not, from the fact that, having made the rating period six months, you are proposing to make the period for notification five months instead of two months?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl has been so reasonable in the way in which he proposes to take all his own proposals along with this point that I hesitate to do anything which could in any way make him wish to change his mind. However I feel obliged to mention one matter. As I understand it, the law at present is that when a house has been tenanted during the year the responsibility for the rates for the whole of that year rests upon the tenant. Being aware of that, while I have stated the way I wish to see my proposed Amendment working, I wish to be quite certain, in discussions between now and another time, that it is, in fact, working in that way and that noble Lords opposite are prepared to accept it. If that is not so, then we must consider the position at the Report stage.

647
I am accepting the position that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will not press his Amendments to Clauses 26 and 27, on the basis of the assurances that I have given in relation to the Amendment. But if it should prove that those assurances do not go far enough to satisfy the noble Earl, then, of course, he will be completely free to reopen the subject at the next stage. I will certainly undertake to contact the noble Earl as speedily as possible, so that he is not in any way hampered in proceedings for the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should like to make it clear that if as he says, it is the present law that the tenant is responsible for the rates for the remainder of the rating period, we are not objecting to that. What we should like to make sure of is that if the tenant goes out, not only will the owner not have to pay rates after he has notified, but if it is not reasonably possible for him to notify, then the local authority will notify him and not put the onus on him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I raise a point before we leave this subject? Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the tenant is responsible for the rates for the rest of the year, and that, in addition, 100 per cent. rates will be levied on the owner if he fails to notify within fourteen days; that is to say, under our Amendment as it now stands, fourteen days from five months after the date on which the premises were vacated? If that were so, it could be a very severe penalty, indeed, because although we are talking only about dwelling-houses they might be rated very highly, and that might be a much higher penalty than the penalty which this Amendment would replace.
LORD HUGHES: It is simply because I am not certain whether this means double rating during that period—rating on the tenant and, in addition, rating on the owner—that I do not wish to be held absolutely to assurances on the position. It may be—and I believe this to be the case—that this is a penalty being placed on the owners, and it may not have any relation to the fact that there is also a responsibility on the tenant to pay rates. But one must remember that while the
648
local authority have a right to collect the rates from the tenant during the whole period of the year, although he may be in occupation of the property for only say, the first three months, the same principle applies. The local authority have to catch the man and, while they may have a right to collect their rates from the tenant, he may not be in a position to occupy the property.
But the point is one of those to which I wish to give consideration, and I should no more expect noble Lords opposite to be bound by the result of that than I should wish to be bound by it myself. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is something which cropped up a very short while ago, and it may be that we do not have all the details finally ironed out in the Amendment as it presently stands. What we wish to establish is the principle that we are putting in a penalty which is a more reasonable one than the penalty which is in the Bill at the present time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has been extremely accommodating, and I wonder whether I could trespass on his kindness to look a little further at this matter. Those of us who were trying to see our way through this Amendment were decidedly worried about the very sharp period of two months, which will now be five months, with notification within fourteen days thereafter. It seems implicit in the type of Amendment which the noble Lord is now making that the sharp edge of that period should be mollified quite a bit. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so good as to look at the period of notification, bearing in mind that, as he himself has said, in many cases—indeed, probably in most cases—where there is failure to notify it will not be deliberate; it will be entirely inadvertent. It is an extremely artificial arrangement, just to take a period of five months, as it is now—or even two months as it was—and to prescribe that within a period of fourteen days the owner must notify or submit to this penalty. I hope the noble Lord will look at that point again.
LORD HUGHES: I think the best undertaking I can give is to read most carefully to-morrow all that has been reported on this matter, and to take it all into account in the letter which I will

649
then write to the noble Earl at the earliest opportunity after this debate. I think that is the fairest way of dealing with the matter, and it will place noble Lords in the most satisfactory position for deciding their course of action for the next stage of the Bill.
4.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out words after first "Act" down to and including "dwelling-house, and".
The noble Earl said: The two principal matters which I indicated on Second Reading we should wish to press the Government about on Committee were the sudden raising in another place at the very last moment of the rateable percentage from 50 to 75, and the introduction of the new penalty which we have just been discussing. As a result of our discussion which has just finished, I think that the latter point is now settled, so far as the Committee stage is concerned, and that when we have disposed of this Amendment—although it is fairly high up in the Marshalled List—we may have got through the major part of our task.
The purpose of this Amendment—and those consequential ones which follow it—is to leave out of subsection (2) the words:
"the amount of any rates payable by an owner in respect of a dwelling-house by virtue of this section shall be three-quarters of the amount which would be payable if he were in occupation of the dwelling-house, and".
If I may again refer to the English Bill, I do not know what other differences there may be, but certainly the percentage of rating upon unoccupied houses is limited to 50 per cent. in the English Bill, and it was also so in the Scottish Bill until the very last day of discussion, at the very end of the Report stage, just before the Third Reading in another place, when an Amendment was introduced to raise the percentage from 50 to 75.
I do not wish to take up much of the Committee's time on this matter, because I think there is very little to be said in favour of this increase. It was one of which hardly any explanation was given and which, in my view, was entirely unjustifiable. One consideration, of course, is that owners of unoccupied
650
houses in Scotland would be paying much higher rates than corresponding owners in England, which I think would be unfair having regard to the relatively worse housing position in Scotland. In the Committee stage of this Bill I am not going into any such matters as the Sorn Report, but your Lordships will be aware how the Sorn Report brought out very clearly what a strong deterrent the rating of owners (and Lord Sorn also mentioned unoccupied houses in certain circumstances) would be to housing progress and to the progress of other building. I think we ought to give the Government a further opportunity of reconsidering the Amendment which they introduced so late in another place.
Even under the old system of rating in Scotland, when owners paid the full rates, although their share of the rating varied from one authority to another, it was usually roughly half and half—sometimes it might have been a little more and sometimes a little less. If owners of unoccupied houses are now charged a rating of 50 per cent. it means that they will be paying about the same as they would have done under the old system, which was abolished as a result of the Sorn recommendations. If the owner is charged 75 per cent., it means he is being charged 50 per cent. more than he would have had to pay under the old system, which was universally recognised to be a deterrent to the building of houses in Scotland and which was reformed—with, I think, entirely beneficial effects—about ten years or more ago. Another consideration which your Lordships might bear in mind is that in the case of most local authorities something like 50 per cent. of the rates is spent on education, and I would hardly have thought that unoccupied houses were a particularly appropriate means of raising local revenue for that purpose.
I think this is a point on which we cannot be accused of being unreasonable. We are not here objecting to the rating of these unoccupied houses, although we do see many objections to it. But we are agreeing to it, and we are agreeing that the amount should be as high as 50 per cent. I think that your Lordships' Committee ought to ask the Government to think again about this sudden, and so far entirely unjustified, rise to 75 per cent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 33, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 36.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, and the consequential ones that follow, provide for the owners of empty houses to be rated at 50 per cent., like the owners of other property, instead of the 75 per cent. stipulated in the Bill. The reason why the higher rating has been brought in is to import into this matter, quite definitely, the fact that it is a penalty. The Government consider that, in the existing circumstances, keeping houses empty without good cause is a social evil, and that it must be made perfectly plain that this is an evil which is going to attract penalty rating.
As to the reference which the noble Earl made to the old rating system, I think that if he erred at all he erred on the side of overestimating the proportion of the rates which were levied on the owners. I think they would tend to be less than 50 per cent., rather than over; but that is beside the point. The fact is that it was the law, pre-Sorn, that, in these circumstances, all properties and all owners of property had to pay rates. They were not having rates levied on them at one percentage or another because they were good or bad in the performance of their duties towards the community; this was one of the conditions relating to the ownership of property in Scotland at that time. What we are seeking to do is to give the local authorities the opportunity of levying rates at 75 per cent. in those cases where, against the interests of the community, property is kept empty. It is therefore a penalty rating, and cannot possibly be compared with the previous system.
The noble Earl has argued that, apart altogether from this, it is not reasonable to charge education rating on an empty house. But this, of course, is an argument which can be employed in many directions. There are many elderly people who have no children at school who argue that they ought not to have to pay education rates; there are childless couples who argue that they ought not to have to pay education rates, and so on. But it has never been maintained at any time, by any Government, or by any local authority, that the system of levying rates is on the basis that everybody benefits
652
from all the services provided. Rates are a tax on land, and are not a payment for services rendered. The fact that it happens to be a local tax rather than a national tax does not alter this position.
Whether this 75 per cent. is justified or not must depend, at the end of the day, on the point of view from which the matter is observed. If we observe it from the point of view of whether it is a good or a bad thing for the owner of an empty house, then obviously 50 per cent. is to be preferred to 75 per cent. But if we are to regard it from the point of view of the community, which is so heavily charged with financial responsibility for providing, at the expense of the ratepayer and the taxpayer, new houses for those who are in need of housing accommodation, we diminish that liability on the public authorities by the extent to which we bring into use houses which are capable of being occupied but which, at the decision of the owner, are unreasonably kept unoccupied. If the owner has a good reason for keeping the house unoccupied, he need not be paying any rates at all, if he so persuades his local authority—and,as I have remarked on previous occasions, we are giving local authorities complete discretion in this matter. I would not go so far as to say that there will be no local authorities which will exercise this discretion unreasonably, but, by and large, the vast majority of local authorities will exercise this discretion reasonably.
Finally, I would point out to your Lordships' Committee that although this matter came up at a late stage in another place, the 75 per cent. was accepted there by the Opposition as well as by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, looks surprised. The note I have is that 75 per cent. rating for housing was accepted without debate by the Opposition in the House of Commons, who said that their chief objection was to the notification procedure. In these circumstances I should be completely misleading the Committee if I led noble Lords to believe that there was any possibility that reducing this 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. would be acceptable in any circumstances to Her Majesty's Government. Our prime objective is to tenant as many empty houses as possible. We do not believe that we should be enabled

653
to do so satisfactorily if we put the percentage at 50 per cent. rather than at 75 per cent. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
4.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I realise that the noble Lord has a desire, as always, to be reasonable; but I am bound to say that what he has said in regard to this Amendment seems to make it all the more desirable that the Amendment should be accepted. I do not believe in this idea that you can get what you want done by imposing penalties on people. It is perfectly reasonable, we have agreed, that empty houses should be rated; but now the noble Lord is saying that, in addition to paying what he agrees to be a fair amount of rate, owners should have imposed on them an amount of rates which, according to his arguments, is admittedly unfair, in order that they may be punished for not more quickly finding tenants for those empty houses. That is a principle which I do not feel able to accept. I do not think it is the case that most owners of house property deliberately keep houses empty for a long time. I have never been given any figures on the matter, but I do not think that is at all usual. And there are some cases—again, I do not think many—in which local authorities might not act with reason and fairness in a matter of this kind. I submit to the Committee that the protection of the law, the protection of an Act of Parliament, which we are trying to give, is preferable to the discretion of some local authorities, even in Scotland.
LORD SALTOUN: I am bound to say that I was rather distressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, because he was quite definite that this was going to be a penalty. After all, we are not passing a criminal Statute; we are passing a law which affects the whole social fabric of Scotland. I very much deplore the political habit of labelling certain classes of people as wicked and others as not. When a politician is challenged on this he says he means only the bad ones of that class; but in effect he is labelling a whole class of people with an opprobrious epithet. I would
remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of the terrific scorn which reasonable people have always poured upon the attitude of the generation of Dr. Arnold, which had a category of people called "the good poor". The Government are falling into exactly that error in dealing with the people of this country. I am bound to say that I am rather saddened by Lord Hughes's defence of the Bill as it stands.
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is being rather unfair to me. I have made no attack on owners of property by admitting, or claiming (whichever word is preferable), that this is a penalty. It is deterrent against houses being kept empty. Property-owning is a very much wider field; if I were to stigmatise all owners of property I should be attacking a large section of the community. I have not attacked any—not even those owners of property for letting. What I have stigmatised as being a social evil is that a house should be kept needlessly empty when there are so many people urgently needing housing accommodation. The Government are not seeking in this Act to make this a criminal offence—we have taken that aspect away in the Amendment which your Lordships have accepted; but we are seeking to impose a deterrent.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said he did not wish to have a penalty. But whether we fix the figure at 50 per cent. or 75 per cent., it is still a penalty, and the Government argument is that 50 per cent. is not sufficiently high. We want to make it 75 per cent. in order to encourage people not to have empty property, but to find a tenant for it at the earliest opportunity. I do not think I am adopting an unreasonable attitude at all, given our objectives of seeking to have the houses occupied. In any event, this improves the position of the owner of the property because he is going to be collecting rent for it.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balerno, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Brecon, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Molson, L.

Carrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hacking, L.

Newton, L.

Conesford, L.

Harlech, L.

Oakshott, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Redesdale, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Redmayne, L.

Denham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rowallan, L.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Dudley, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandford, L.

Effingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sandys, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kilmuir, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lothian, M.

Teynham, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mar, E.

Vivian, L.

Ferrier, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Reay, L.

Amulree, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Inman, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowles, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L,

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Stow Hill, L.

Citrine, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mitchison, L.

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Granville-West, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hall, V.

Perth, E.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 10 is on the same point as Amendment No. 7, and we agreed to discuss this.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the next Amendment is consequential on the Amendment on which we have just voted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("other") and insert ("the relevant").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If Amendment No.12 is agreed to, I shall not call Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
4.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said:
656
As the noble Lord will probably appreciate, this is by way of being an exploratory Amendment. Subsection (5) deals with lands and heritages which are unoccupied and becoming occupied for a short period which is to be put at six weeks.
One can see the purpose of this clause. It is designed to prevent an illusory, so to speak, occupation of the house; one designed simply to prevent the operation of the rating provisions. For example, somebody may put an employee into a house for a few days just to say that the three-month or the six-month period, as the case may be, was broken and therefore would have to start again from the last day of the intervening occupation. But is not six weeks much too long a period? It would certainly be too long a period in relation to the three months. If one is going to put people in houses solely to have the houses occupied and not to give protection to the people, one

657
would do it for a period much shorter than six weeks. I should have thought the period of three weeks a much more suitable time. Certainly it would be a much more suitable period in relation to three months.
We have increased to six months the period for which a house must stand vacant before being subject to these rating provisions. But even in relation to the six months' period the six weeks' period seems unnecessarily long. Take, for instance, a house in the Highlands which may be standing empty. It may not be possible to get a let for the summer of more than one month, which is a perfectly genuine occupation of the house, and it seems unreasonable that it should be subject to this severe rating condition of 50 per cent. at the discretion of the local authority, if it stands vacant for the rest of the year. While we recognise that there must be some limit on the number of days and weeks during which a house must be occupied, we think that six weeks is too long and that three weeks would be more appropriate.
If I may speak to Amendment No. 13 in conjunction with this one, I would ask the noble Lord to explain how he thinks Clause 5 would work, what is the justification for the six weeks' period, and whether he is prepared to accept the lower period of three weeks? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am relieved at the way in which the noble Lord has proposed this Amendment. As he has indicated, it would nullify the clause because occupancy could be as little as one day and an unscrupulous owner wishing to defeat the purpose of the Bill would just have to keep on putting in a man of straw or one of his employees for as little as a day at a time and on each occasion start a new period of three months' grace. The Amendment, therefore, is totally unacceptable.
There is no overwhelming reason why the period should be six weeks. I understand that this is a period which has particular importance in English law, though it has no corresponding importance in Scottish law. I suspect that six weeks is in the Scottish Bill simply because we seek to have as few differences from the
658
English measure as we can and that, where we have differences, we seek to have them for peculiarly Scottish circumstances. I cannot pretend that the Government would die in the last ditch over this Amendment. I think that six weeks is probably better, but beyond that I have no desire to go.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In that case, I take it that the noble Lord will not object to this Amendment. He is saying that this six weeks' period has no particular reference to Scottish conditions. It is plainly a substantial period, though unlikely to be one simply to defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is something we do not seek to do. It looks to me as if the noble Lord intends not to oppose this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I would confirm that I believe that the period of three weeks will serve the purpose of the Bill just as effectively as six weeks. I do not see that it makes much difference either way. I cannot see what the noble Lord gains by the alteration from six to three, and I cannot see what I lose by the alteration the other way round.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provisions supplementary to section 24]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is consequential on one which has been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 32, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
5.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (3):
"( ) the owner is in course of developing or improving the lands and heritages and that the works in course of being carried out render them temporarily unsuitable for occupation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to one moved in another place and deals with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised earlier to-day. It seems reasonable, when an owner is in course of carrying out substantial works to develop or improve lands and heritages on property, not to impose any rates on the property at that time where they would not otherwise be rated. I do not think that it is necessary for me to expand on this, because the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has already made the point. Obviously it is desirable to ensure that when a property is to be re-let it should be put in good condition first and this may take more than six months. There is no point in starting to rate it in the period between the end of the six months and the time when the work is completed. The onus seems to be firmly on the owner to show that he is carrying out this work and I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am very much in sympathy with this Amendment, and on the face of it is very reasonable, but I cannot accept it as drafted and I doubt whether it is possible to improve on the drafting. It would create much too large a loophole in the new provisions for the rating of empty property. An owner would be able to escape the rating by prolonging the alterations and it would be extremely difficult for the local authority to prove in court that there was deliberate delay.
Where a property is genuinely not available for occupation because alterations are being carried out, in practice the Government would prefer to rely on
660
the local authority not levying rates. Obviously if a house was not capable of being occupied because alterations were taking place it would be grossly unfair to levy rates upon it, and in those circumstances one would doubt whether any local authority would attempt to do so. But they must obviously have discretion in the matter, so that they may differentiate in the case where it is obviously fair not to levy a rate and the case where someone is seeking to take advantage of a provision of this kind to prevent themselves from becoming liable to rates.
The motive behind the Amendment is one which I accept without reservation. The advice that I have, equally without reservation, on the part of my advisers is that this would create, not an opportunity for the good landlord to get away with something, because he would not need to do so—he would be getting the reasonable protection from the local authority—but a wonderful loophole for the small minority who would seek to drive a horse and cart through the law. For this reason I cannot accept the Amendment. But I do not think the sort of person who is doing this legitimately has the slightest ground for apprehension as to the course of action which the local authorities will follow in a case of this kind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I cannot quite lay my hand on the provision—I think it is in this Bill, not the English Bill—that where a house is being constructed, and it looks as if the construction is being prolonged, it is open to the local authority to deem the house to be completed or to name the day when the house will be completed. Could they not do the same in regard to improvements? I wonder whether the noble Lord could look at this proposal between now and the Report stage. I will not press him further, but perhaps he could look at it again.
LORD HUGHES: I admit that there is the germ of possibility in that latter suggestion, and I shall be happy to look at it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Application of section 27]:
On Question: Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In view of our discussion on Clause 8. I do not now propose to move in regard to Clause 26.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in regard to this clause. Can the noble Lord say what precedents or parallels there are for this period of seven years? Under this clause, as I understand it, if a resolution is passed by the local authority it remains for seven years unless the Secretary of State is prepared to shorten the period. It could quite easily happen in the council that in one year the balance suddenly swung the other way—and it does not matter which way, either from Labour to Conservative or Progressive, or whatever it might be, or vice versa. A resolution may be passed, and the following year the balance may swing back. It seems extraordinary that this seven years' period should be imposed on an almost fortuitous change of opinion in a town council or a county council. I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the Secretary of State proposes to exercise his powers to shorten the period in appropriate cases either way.
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lord has correctly interpreted the reason for the insertion of the period. Obviously, in a decision of this kind it would render the position of property owners in an area completely impossible if they did not know from one year to another what was going to happen. In some authorities, with the see-sawing of control in a council, a decision might change from one way to another in alternate years, or every two or three years, which might be totally unreasonable. The period decided upon, therefore, must be one during which there could be reasonable expectation that the purposes of the provision would be substantially attained. After all, over a period of seven years there could be a considerable change in the housing position and the housing needs in an area. The period obviously has to be made sufficiently long to give reasonable prospect of substantial change taking place. On the other hand, as soon as you make a period sufficiently long
662
to accomplish that objective, there is the danger that you make it too long in particular circumstances.
It is because of the fact that it could be too long in particular circumstances that it was felt right that the Secretary of State should have discretion to alter it. I do not know all the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might wish to alter it. He might wish to alter it at his own hand because of the advice he is given as to the circumstances existing in a local authority. It might be that the local authority which had originally imposed the period, rather than failing to exercise the discretion after a particular time would wish to have it brought to an end, and therefore ask the Secretary of State to do this. There is a variety of circumstances. But fixing a long period is, in the first instance, reasonable, and, having made it long, we think it equally reasonable that the Secretary of State should have discretion to alter it.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Notification of unoccupied dwelling-houses]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved a Manuscript Amendment, in subsection (1) to leave out the first "unoccupied" and insert "empty". The noble Lord said: have to apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for putting down a Manuscript Amendment at the last moment. I move to delete the word "unoccupied "and to substitute the word "empty", holding the opinion that an unoccupied house might be a house which has been let by its owner for a holiday, or something of that kind, and is not properly unoccupied; or it might have been sub-let furnished to a friend who had to go to a nursing home and left it. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has assured me in private conversation that "unoccupied" has a statutory meaning, to be found in another Statute, and does not need definition in this Bill. It means the same as I do by "empty", and as he did by 'empty" at an earlier stage in discussing this Bill. I am ready to accept that explanation if the noble Lord will confirm it. I now formally move the Amendment in order to have that explanation confirmed, and then I will withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("unoccupied") and insert ("empty").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HUGHES: For the benefit of other noble Lords, I will read out what I have already told the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. Although "empty" is a simple term, rating and valuation law depends on the concept of "occupation" throughout, and it is better to be consistent. Furthermore, inserting "empty" in Clause 27 might increase the number of houses which had to be notified, since under rating law property can be physically empty and yet have a legal occupier. If the Amendment were accepted, the owner would have to notify a house as empty if the occupier, although still retaining his tenancy, had temporarily removed the furniture for some reason. The Amendment would also increase the scope for evasion, since an owner could leave some articles in a house and claim that it was not empty. So there are considerable disadvantages from the point of view of the bona fide occupier and the bona fide local authority which would arise by substituting the word "empty" for "occupier". I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: One of the necessities for this Amendment is that unfortunately under this Bill rural Scotland is being dragged at the tail of the big cities, particularly Glasgow, in a way which I am sure is not intended but which may well be difficult to avoid. The situation which I can see arising is that there may be farm cottages which are unoccupied for a considerable period of the year but which are essential at other times for the occupation of people like lambing shepherds, berry pickers, harvest workers, potato lifters, and the like. It
664
would be an intolerable burden upon a farmer if he were to find that, merely because a building like that was occupied possibly for less than half a year, he was liable to have a tenant put into it compulsorily by a local authority—a tenant whom, of course, he could not possibly remove—which would mean that the working of the farm would be made much more difficult, if not imperilled. Further, many of these houses are in the farm towns themselves, and the occupation of them by outsiders, totally unwarranted and probably quite uncongenial to the farmer, would lead to friction. I do not feel that this matter has been entirely understood by the framers of the Bill, although possibly it is inevitable that the country areas should have exactly the same treatment as the towns. However, I feel that this Amendment is a necessary one if we are not to have quite unjustifiable interference with farming operations.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment is consequential upon the one which has already been carried in a Division. I do not like the Amendment any more than I liked the Amendment which was carried, but I do not propose to resist it at this stage.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment has already been discussed on Amendment No. 8, so I beg formally to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out from second ("be") to end of line 38 and insert ("liable to be rated under section 24 above in respect of the dwelling-house as if he were in occupation of the dwelling-house; and no reduction shall be made under section 7 above in respect of rates payable by virtue of this subsection.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to add to subsection (3):
"or to a dwelling-house which falls within any of the categories of lands and heritages described in section 25(3) above or which is for the time being exempted from rates under section 24 above by virtue of regulations made under section 25(4) above".
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which the Government feel will commend itself to noble Lords. The Amendment provides that notification of empty houses will not need to be made

665
if they are in any case exempt from the rate leviable on empty properties. Your Lordships will recollect that the Bill includes provision that the liability to rate empty property is excluded from certain types of property. These are listed in Clause 25, and they include properties which the owner is prohibited from occupying by law: for example, property under a clearance order, property for whose purchase a Government Department or local authority is treating, property which is listed as of architectural or historic interest, or is subject to a preservation order under the Ancient Monuments Acts, and manses and other clergymen's residences. The Government stand by their view that local authorities in whose areas there is an acute housing problem must have the right to be told as soon as possible of houses which fall empty, if they are to ensure that those houses will be put to use again, but we are ready to recognise that there is no need to notify if the 75 per cent. rate cannot be charged for any of the good reasons laid down in Clause 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 34 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Placing of staff etc. of local authority at disposal of Secretary of State or of another local authority
".—

(1) A local authority may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State or another local authority for the placing at his or their disposal, for the purposes of any function of a party to the agreement under any enactment (including an enactment in any local Act) or any instrument whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, on such terms as may be provided by the agreement, of the services of persons employed by the local authority and of any premises, equipment and other facilities under their control.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for superannuation purposes, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, service rendered by a person whose services are placed by a local authority at the disposal of the Secretary of State or another local authority in pursuance of this section is service rendered to the first-mentioned local authority.

666

(3) In this section "local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 113(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, and "premises" includes land and buildings."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to legalise the position of local authorities who lend staff to other local authorities or to the Secretary of State for the performance of statutory functions. It is fairly common for local authorities to lend staff to each other at times of crises—for example, an assessor might lend his staff to another assessor who is not so far on in completing the revaluation of his area. There is no compulsion under the clause for a local authority to lend its staff, and it retains complete freedom as to the terms on which it will do so: for example, in regard to reimbursement and the length of time the staff are to be seconded. The same considerations would apply to premises and equipment. Subsection (2) is a technical provision to ensure that continuity of employment for superannuation purposes is preserved.
The clause applies to county councils, town councils, district councils and all types of joint committees. Although the definition in subsection (3) is borrowed from the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, this does not mean that it is confined to local planning authorities. This is safeguarding the local authorities, and I hope the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD BURDEN: Although the wording of the new clause which the Minister has proposed is different, it seems to be on the same lines as the new clause which was proposed to the English Bill, the purpose being, as I understand it, that road construction units similar to those dealt with in the English Bill should be formed in Scotland. When the English Bill was under discussion I raised a matter in regard to the staff, pointing out that the staff would not be parties to the agreement. I suggested that the conditions of service which were agreed upon as between the County Councils Association and the Ministry seemed to be quite satisfactory. But as the staff were not parties to the agreement, I am sure that the Minister would not differ from the

667
suggestion that the terms and conditions of employment of officers should not be worsened as a consequence of entering into the proposed arrangements.
I should like to have an assurance—and that is not asking too much—that should any difficulty arise in the application of the service conditions, the Ministry will confer with the officers' trade union in most instances in order that a difficulty or difficulties may be overcome. A similar assurance on those lines was given by my noble friend Lord Champion in regard to the English Bill. He gave it quite unhesitatingly, and I am sure that Scotland in this matter will not be behind England but will march forward with them.
Finally, may I say what I said in connection with the English Bill: I think the road construction unit is an imaginative and practical proposition and I wish it well. I am sure we shall watch with eagerness what happens so far as the application of this Bill is concerned. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure me that they will not allow difficulties in any way to obstruct the good work, but that the officers of the trade unions will be consulted in order that any difficulties may be overcome.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot recollect ever finding it necessary to disagree with my noble friend, Lord Champion, and this is not going to be the first occasion. I am happy to associate myself with the assurance he gave.
Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Amendment of section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after "subsection" to insert:
"(1) thereof after 'town council' where it first occurs there were inserted the words 'or district council', and in subsection".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring in a new provision relating to Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, subsection (1) of which states:
"A county council or a town council may with the approval of the Secretary of State make any payment for any purpose which in the opinion of the council is in the interests
668
of the council or of the area of the council or any part thereof or of the inhabitants thereof:".
I understand that the district councils, which are not mentioned here, have been given an assurance from time to time that if ever Section 339 was altered consideration would be given to including them as one of the bodies with this authority to make payment. It may be surprising to noble Lords to learn that district councils cover one quarter of the population of Scotland in 200 districts, and their average size is greater than that of small burghs, which have this power, and district councils quite naturally do not see why they should not also have the power. Of course, some of them are very large indeed, a couple of them having populations of well over 60,000.
This is a power which district councils feel they should have. It enables them to give honour where honour is due, it gives them power to make financial contributions to local societies' funds or to assist in an epidemic, to recognise athletic achievement or to give hospitality to guests. The absence of it can give rise to some rather peculiar situations. For example, there was a cup final in the national junior championship in Scotland, and the losing side received a reception because they came from a burgh and the winning side received none at all because they came from a district. I hope the noble Lord will see his way clear to give the district councils this power which they desire.
LORD HUGHES: There is no obvious solution to this matter. I accept immediately that the sort of example to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has referred is one which eminently justifies the conferring of these powers upon a district council. But I think I have to point out the other side: that when a county elects to use its powers under Section 339, whatever expenditure it has under that is payable by all the ratepayers in the landward part of the county, including these district councils. If, therefore, there was a district council electing to make a contribution for a purpose to which the county subsequently contributes, the ratepayers in that particular section of the area comprised within the district council's responsibility would be rated twice for the same subject. So it is not as simple as one might think,

669
although I would not wish to pretend that it is a matter of very great moment to other than the district councils.
Unfortunately, this is one of the matters where the precedents which we have inherited, and which our predecessors inherited from their predecessors, going back for a long time, require consultation with the local authorities, and the result of these consultations is that it is only the district councils that wish this change to take place. The county councils have maintained their strenuous opposition to this proposal. The Convention of Royal Burghs has also opposed it.
This was one of the matters which came in at a fairly late stage in another place, and it may well be that the district councils have in fact taken the earliest opportunity available to them to bring forward the point of view that Section 339 should be amended in their favour. In fact, a letter from the District Councils' Association asking that this course of action should be followed reached the Secretary of State only to-day. It would obviously he extremely difficult for the Secretary of State for the Scottish Office at this stage to accept a proposal which goes against the overwhelming volume of local authority association opinion which has been expressed to the Secretary of State.
As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows, Secretaries of State consult the local authority associations, but they do not always necessarily accept the majority advice. Sometimes they may find it is right to disregard it, and it may well be that this is a case where it would be right to disregard the opinion of the majority of local authority representatives, but it could only be done after further consultation had taken place. If we were not to make a mock of consultation with local authorities we could not throw overboard the consultations which have already taken place. In saying that I am conscious of the fact that it means that it is not in fact possible, we are to conform to those traditions, for an Amendment of this kind to be incorporated in the Bill. We either have to put it in now or at Report stage as the district councils want it, or have to leave it as it stands because it would be quite impossible for these further consultations
670
to take place while this Bill is before your Lordships' House.
In this case, therefore, I must throw myself on the mercy of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in the knowledge that whatever is done, if it is done without agreement—and we would hope to be able to get agreement to some proposal of this kind for a future occasion—whoever is responsible for it, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (although I believe he will escape opprobrium and it will fall on the Scottish Office), will be the target for great resentment. There will be great resentment one way or the other, on the one hand on the part of the county councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs if we alter it, and on the part of the district councils if we leave it as it stands. In these circumstances, we at the Scottish Office have no option but to continue the existing position until we have explored the matter further.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I am sure we do not want either ratepayers or property to be valued twice over. In view of what he has said I think it would be unreasonable for me to press my noble friends on this side to support me in this Amendment. I think the right course now that this has been brought before the House again is for the noble Lord to explore the matter further. I think there is a strong argument for doing something here, even though possibly not going quite as far as this Amendment but making some kind of discrimination, and I would at any rate commend the thought to the noble Lord. In view of what he has said, I do not think it would be justifiable to press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of "public utility undertaking" in section 379(1) of Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947
". For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the definition of public utility undertaking in section 379(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 does not

671
include an aerodrome undertaking or any business ancillary there to."
The noble Lord said: This clause is designed to assist local authorities, particularly the local authorities in the Highlands and Islands, to provide landing strips and airfields, as they are doing to an increasing extent in order to develop communications. Under Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 local authorities are restricted in the extent to which they can cover the cost of public utility undertakings out of the rates. "Public utility undertaking" is defined in the 1947 Act as meaning water, gas, electricity or transport" or any such revenue-producing service". It is fairly clear that even as this stands it does not cover airfields, which are not directly revenue-producing, but the new clause is being inserted in order to put the position of local authorities beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:
Payments by local authorities to offset effect of selective employment tax
". A local authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 may make to any person such payments as the authority consider appropriate for the purpose of offsetting, either wholly or in part, payments by way of the selective employment tax made by that person in respect of persons employed for the purposes of any contract entered into by the authority before 4th May 1966."
The noble Lord said: This clause allows local authorities to make extra payments to contractors to offset their costs by way of selective employment tax. Contracts entered into since S.E.T. was announced on May 4 will, of course, have taken account of the effect of the tax, unlike those entered into earlier. Without this clause there would be doubt about the powers of local authorities to revise fixed price contracts entered into before that date. This new clause places beyond doubt their power to make payments, in addition to fixed price contracts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
Clauses 39 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Amendments and repeals]:
LORD HUGHES: With your Lordships' permission I will speak to Amendments 27 and 36 together. Section 41(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1934 was repealed because we considered Clause 29 of the Bill gave county councils adequate powers to light roads for which they are responsible. On further examination, however, it appears that there could be a situation where a county council might wish to light a road for which they are not the highway authority and for which the power under Section 41(8) would be necessary. It is therefore considered desirable to retain the power and not to repeal it. I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3, leave out ("the Road Traffic Act 1934").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Rate support grants]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in Part I ("The Needs Element"), to add to paragraph 2:
", or in the case of a year of revaluation, in proportion to their said products, whichever is the higher, estimated in relation to that year under section 12 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to ensure that within a county grant is distributed in a revaluation year on the up-to-date valuations and not on the valuations for the previous year, which may by then be badly out of date. Clause 12(2) ensures that the same principle is followed with regard to other financial apportionments within a county, but it was overlooked that this had not been achieved in the case of the distribution of rate support grant.
The background is that the needs element of rate support grant is first of all apportioned between counties and cities. Within a county the money is then apportioned between the burghs and the landward area in proportion to the product of a penny rate. In normal years this is more conveniently done in relation to the product of a penny rate for the preceding year, for which full

673
data are readily available. In a revaluation year, however, it is obviously fairer to use the new valuations rather than the old ones which by that time are virtually five years old. The principle behind Clause 12(2) and this Amendment was discussed with the Local Government Finance Working Party and agreed by them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 18,at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Rating of unoccupied property]:
5.49 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in paragraph 1(2), to leave out
"and ends at or after".
The noble Lord said: I would speak here to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34, which all hang together. These Amendments, which on the face of it are complicated, are designed simply to protect the owner of empty property which was empty at the time revaluation takes place or in the preceding year. Under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, a rating authority can serve a notice on the owner of a building that they regard it as completed, even though it may not have been finished off to the liking of a future tenant, and propose to rate it in retrospect as soon as a rateable value is attached to it. Paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule then provides that if part of the period of vacancy fell in a previous valuation quinquennium, the assessor shallcertify what its value would have been in the earlier quinquennium as well as its new value. The Amendments give a complete right of appeal against the value certified for the earlier quinquennium, and make sure that the owner knows of this right.
In detail, the Amendment to page 39, line 12 (that is, No. 29) corrects an error; it was wrong to provide that the procedure comes into operation only if the period of vacancy ends at or after the new valuation roll comes into force. The Amendment to page 39, line 16 (No. 30), enables the owner to apply for a
674
certificate. The likely order of events is that the local authority will serve notice that they regard the building as completed; a valuation notice will follow in the normal course of events, and the owner asks for a certificate of value within 28 days. Under the statutory valuation timetable he will still have at least a month in which to decide whether to appeal against the value certified. The Amendment to page 39, line 21 (that is, Amendment No. 32),gives the right of appeal to the owner, and a corresponding right to the rating authority to object against the certified value. Subparagraph (b) in this Amendment requires the assessor to tell the owner that he has a right of appeal. The Amendments at page 39, line 23, and page 39, line 42, are consequential.
I may say that Amendment No. 31, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is on this same subject; so the Government and noble Lords opposite were thinking of this aspect at the same time. Amendment No. 31 would not completely cover the situation, as is obvious from the fact that the Government have had to table so many Amendments. The effect of this multiplicity of Amendments is to do what the noble Earl wished to do in his Amendment No. 31, but a little more comprehensively than he had contemplated. So in this case the Government are not merely agreeing to what the noble Lord is asking, but are giving him a bonus on top of it. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 12, leave out ("and ends at or after").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Amendment moved—
Page 39,line 16, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 17, and insert—
("(a) if within 28 days of the receipt by him of a notice under section 9(4) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 or of a completion notice in respect of the lands and heritages concerned the owner so requests the assessor, the assessor shall certify to him and to the rating authority the gross annual value and").—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph 1(2)(a), after "year" to insert:
"and section 9 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854 shall apply".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment was put down in order to call the Government's attention to the Valuation Acts, but in view of the last two and the next three Amendments, which have just been explained to us, I do not think it necessary that I should move it.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 21, at end insert—
("the owner and the rating authority shall be entitled to appeal or complain with respect to the value so certified as in manner provided by or under the Valuation Acts,
(b) the assessor shall, when he issues a certificate under head (a) above, send to the owner of the lands and heritages a notice of his right of appeal by virtue of the said head (a), and").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, after ("certified") insert ("or determined as the result of an appeal or complaint").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 42, leave out ("hereafter").—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment remedies an omission from the Repeals Schedule. The effective provision that the Acts dealt with in the Amendment should cease to have effect is in Clause
676
39 and Schedule 4, but for completeness this should be repeated in the Repeals Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 41, at end insert—

("51 & 52 Vict. c. 33.

The Hawkers Act 1888.

The whole Act.

55 & 56 Vict. c. 55.

The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892.

In section 275, the word "porters".")

—(Lord Hughes)
LORD HUGHES: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, leave out lines 4 and 5.—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment to the Long Title is necessary in order to cover the clause on the placing of staff, and so on, at the disposal of other local authorities or the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 3, after ("expenditure") insert ("and functions,").—(Lord Hughes.)
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the House will know, I informed your Lordships that we were intending to adjourn at about 7.30 for dinner; but in view of the remarkable progress on the Scottish Bill it seems to me that we could carry on and finish at an early hour. Therefore I would suggest that we do not adjourn for dinner but proceed with the business on the Order Paper. However, dinners are still available in the Dining Room.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
5.56 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Reduction of grants in case of default
4.—(1) If in the case of any local authority or joint board the appropriate Minister—
(a) is satisfied that the authority or board have failed to achieve ormaintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions, regard being had to the standards maintained by other authorities and boards; and
he may, after affording to the local or constituent authority in question an opportunity of making representations, make and cause to be laid before Parliament a report stating the amount of and the reasons for the proposed reduction and setting out any representations made by the authority with respect to the proposed reduction; and if the report is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament the Minister may reduce the elements of the grant accordingly.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "boards" to insert "and by the Civil Service". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment enables me to draw your Lordships' attention to a practice which I believe to be quite widespread with local authorities. I could give the Minister specific instances of it if he would like. It is a practice which I feel perhaps is not desirable, whereby junior officials of a local authority appear to be permitted to sign the name of their superior on letters and documents which are issued from the council.
The effect of this practice can be that you write to the clerk to your local authority about some problem, and get back a letter apparently bearing the signature of the clerk to the council. You may be familiar with the signature of the clerk to the council, and may know that this letter does not bear his genuine signature. In the event no harm is done. But you may not be familiar with the signature of the clerk to the council and you receive a letter purporting to be signed by him, a letter which perhaps does not altogether satisfy you, but you say to yourself, "Well, this appears to
678
have been dealt with personally by the clerk to the council, and in those circumstances I cannot very well take the matter any further." But had you known that the matter was dealt with perhaps by a gentleman who arrived in the department only the previous week, who was no doubt doing his best but had not yet mastered all the problems his department had to deal with, and that he had sent the letter with the name of the clerk to council, you would perhaps raise the matter again and say, "I wish this matter to receive the personal attention of the clerk to the council".
This practice does not, so far as I know, obtain in the Civil Service. If a civil servant writes to you he signs his own name, you know with whom you are corresponding and at what level the matter is being dealt with. I feel it would be extremely desirable that local authorities should adopt the practice followed by the Civil Service. It seems to me that if a junior official of a local authority has not the authority to sign his own name upon a document, then certainly he has no authority to sign the name of the clerk to the local authority. This Amendment would enable Her Majesty's Government to ensure that local authorities should conform with the much more satisfactory practice which the Civil Service adopt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, after ("boards") insert ("and by the Civil Service").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD SOMERS: I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as it is possible for me to do so. Some years ago I put down an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House apropos a case in which a friend of mine had failed to get satisfaction from his local authority and, although it had not been discovered at the time I asked the Question, it was later discovered that his application for consideration had never reached the council at all but had simply had a rubber stamped signature put to the letter refusing consideration, presumably by a junior clerk. It was eventually discovered, by access to the minutes, that the council had never considered it. I think that this is a most undesirable practice and I heartily support the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, it is, of course, quite usual for local government officers to send letters over the purported signature of the town clerk, the borough treasurer, the divisional education officer, or some other chief officer. It may be that the constitutional theory that the chief officer sends all the letters issued by his department is being observed, or it may be a carry-over from the practice in the legal profession—because most town clerks are solicitors—of "signing" the name of the firm under letters, or indeed both. Letters from Government Departments are sent on behalf of the responsible Minister, and formal letters begin by stating that they are sent by direction of the Minister, and there follows the signature of the official who is sending the letter.
Whatever I or my right honourable friend may think about local authority practice, I think that this is a matter which authorities ought to be left free to decide for themselves. When this clause was discussed in Committee this Chamber resounded with protests at what were thought to be various invasions of local authority independence. I hope the House will understand if I say no more than that I am confident that notice will be taken in the local authority world of the views expressed here to-day. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that our discussion of this matter to-day has served his purpose, and will agree to withdraw his Amendment. I feel that the imposition of outright requirements defining how letters should be signed and recalling the practice in this matter would be a matter of "leading strings" and that any threat to withhold grant on account of a difference of view over the signing of letters would be going too far.
Loan SOMERS: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, may I just say that I am a little puzzled at the noble Lord's reply. Individual citizens of this country are constantly having less and less liberty to decide upon their own actions, but for some reason there is this constant anxiety to allow local governments to make their own decision as to whether they shall do the right or the wrong thing. I must confess that I find it a little puzzling.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his support. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, chose as an example in support of his own argument the practice adopted by firms of solicitors, because my experience of their practice is quite different from his. My experience is that when one receives a letter from a firm of solicitors it is either signed by one of the partners with his own signature, or, if it is not signed by one of the partners, signed with the name of the firm—"Yours faithfully, John Smith and Co.". That seems to me to be a quite unexceptionable practice. I am not certain that the Minister has dealt with this Amendment as helpfully as he might, but I did get one or two grains of comfort from what he said. I certainly should not wish to divide the House on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "authority" to insert "which they are required by statute to perform". The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 4 deals with the powers of the Minister—which, of course, means the Departments of the central Government—to make regulations and to exercise control over the whole of the services for which local authorities are responsible. That is not the case at present. At present the Minister can only make regulations prescribing standards of service, and so forth, and exercise control through the regulations in respect of those services the cost of which is borne in part by the central Government in the sense that the cost of the services is one of the factors upon which the general grant is now calculated. It is now proposed to extend control over the whole of the functions of the local authority.
In future, grants will be calculated in a rather different manner from the manner in which they have been calculated hitherto. I think it is because of this change that this alteration in the powers of the Minister is proposed. Grants are to be calculated in a different manner under which the costs of all the different services administered by the local authorities, and not merely some of the services, will enter into the calculation of the

681
grant. It seems to me that the opportunity is being taken of that change to extend the powers of supervision of the central Government to the whole of the functions of the local authorities.
I put down this Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill because it seems to me to raise a matter of major importance. This clause extends the power of the central Government to supervise and control the whole of the administrative acts of the local authorities. In recent years the relationship between the central Government and the local authorities has been the subject of a good deal of discussion. Generally speaking, it can fairly be said that the view has been accepted that the continued extension of the powers of the central Government to interfere with the administration of the local authorities has gone far enough and ought not now to be further extended.
When my noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was a Minister, he did a good deal to check the growth of this, as I think, undesirable practice. But now a further extension of this interference seems to be evolving. If the administration of a local authority is not good, it is surely for the electors to exercise the power which they possess to tell the local authority so, and when the time comes to seek for councillors who will aim at a higher standard of efficiency.
This clause will make it possible for the central Government to make regulations, and generally to exercise supervision over the most trivial of the services performed by the local authorities. No doubt it will be said that the Minister has no intention of extending his powers to any very drastic extent. Indeed, in his reply when this Amendment was moved on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that, provided the powers were exercised sensibly—by which he meant very little—he could see no objection to this clause. He also said, by way of example, that at present local authorities have a statutory obligation to make arrangements for vaccination against smallpox and diphtheria, but that they have no statutory obligation to make arrangements for immunisation against polio or for vaccination against measles. That is the present situation, and it does not seem to me to call for any amendment.
I find it a little difficult to understand the noble Lord's view, that it is not desirable that some diseases should be subject to regulation and that others should not be, as he said, "potentially regulatable"—and I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Conesford was not in the House when that observation was made. I really cannot see that on either of those grounds there is any justification for extending the functions of the Minister in the manner proposed.
I do not wish to employ exaggerated language about this matter. This is not, of course, a major invasion of the liberties of local authorities. But it does raise, and I think raises very clearly, this question of principle: whether it is desirable that Departments of the central Government should be given these extensive powers to regulate even the most trivial service performed by the local authorities. I think that this matter raises a principle of some importance, and it is for that reason that I thought it right to put down this Amendment at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("which they are required by statute to perform").—(Lord Ilford.)
6.15 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I took the liberty of intervening in the debate on this matter during the Committee stage because I thought there was a certain misunderstanding about the general purpose of the clause. The subsection which we were then discussing was the one about standards, where there is no particular statutory obligation on the local authority. This Amendment raises the same point (it is, I think, the same Amendment), but it has been put to-night on rather different grounds. It is said that at present the Ministry, or Ministries—because more than one Ministry is involved—have extensive default powers, but that as a question of principle those default powers ought not to be further extended. I doubt whether that can be a question of principle. If there were no default powers already in existence, I should have thought that the case for imposing them might be a question of principle. But where there are other default powers—quite considerable powers—now in existence, then their extension would not involve the same question of principle,

683
although it might involve another question of principle.
I looked through what was said about this matter in another place. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment said that the excuse was the amplification of grant. But it was rather more than that. It was the reason given, and I think it is the reason which ought to govern your Lordships' consideration of the matter. I am quoting from what was said during the Report stage in another place, when the matter was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary who was dealing with it. At the bottom of column 487 he said this:
"Although the honourable Member for Hemel Hempstead may feel that it is a triviality, we are for the first time extending this grant"—
that is to say, the general grant—
"to virtually every aspect of local authority expenditure. That is very important and generous, and it should be emphasised."
I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, to differ from that. I think he would welcome the extension and the Association of Municipal Corporations, who seem to be concerned about this, certainly would.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on:
"As we are going into the field of grant in this way, it does not seem unreasonable that we should have a residuary power to ensure that the standards are maintained. No sensible Government would go out of its way to have a whole pile of regulations applying to every small aspect of local government services. I therefore feel that the House would be unwise to accept the Amendment."
He then went on to deal with a slightly different aspect of the matter, and he ended up by saying:
"It is not a curtain opener for a devastating onslaught on the freedom of local authorities, and I do not think that any responsible local authority would think for a moment that it was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 734 (No. 78), cols. 487–8; 20/10/66.]
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, put his argument in that way. I do not think he considered that it was a savage onslaught, but he did say something about principle. The principle which seems to me to be involved is that, where you have grant-aided expenditure, it is reasonable that there should be proper default powers properly phrased. I looked at what was said here the other day when this matter was
684
under discussion, and my impression was that, in general, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would have agreed with that opinion. But whether he does or does not I should have thought it would commend itself to the House as a whole.
The reason here—the excuse, if the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, prefers the word "excuse"—is the extension of grant-aided expenditure, and it is by reason of that extension that the default powers are also extended. That was said quite clearly by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and I find no fault with it. I should have thought that what the Association of Municipal Corporations were trying to do in this case was to get the benefit of the grant without the control which ought to go with it—in this case a default power. This happened directly after the 1914–18 war with early attempts in housing, and the local authorities were at one time put in the position of being able to spend the money to provide the houses without there being adequate control. Apart from the question of how many houses they built, they certainly overspent, and I think that any reasonable Government, of whatever complexion, ought to keep that measure of control over local authorities.
I agree with the conclusion of the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place, that any responsible local authority would not regard it as an onslaught on the freedom of local authorities. I agree, too, with what was said in another part of the same speech. I can see the case for saying that any local authority would feel irritated by this sort of power, but I cannot believe that anyone else would. If I may say so, all those comments seem to me to be only reasonable on what is not, as I see it, a question of any other principle than that where you are spending public money (in this case, by way of grant) you should take steps to see that you have a reasonable control over the authority who have actually to do the immediate spending. In fact, I feel that the A.M.C. are asking to have the jam without the slight pill which is intended to accompany it, and that (to use another metaphor) they cannot have their cake and eat it.
6.22 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a very small pill indeed. When this matter was discussed during the Committee stage in this House I said we would take it away and look at it again to see whether we could find a way of doing what this Amendment proposes to do without creating the anomalies which, as it is drafted, it would create. I very regret to report that we have not been able to find a way of doing this. After our last discussion on this topic, the A.M.C. asked me for a meeting, but did not suggest any formula which would solve the problem. I said that of course I should be delighted to meet them, but asked if they had got a new formula. So far, however, they have not produced one.
I do not want to take the House again through all the arguments we had last time, but I would remind your Lordships that the power to which exception is now being taken already exists over part of local government activity by virtue of the Local Government Act 1958. It is true that in that Act it is limited to services giving rise to relevant expenditure for the purposes of general grant, but among these services is, first of all, local health, part of which is optional—and I would remind the House that we are talking about whether regulations should be, applicable to optional services or only to services which local authorities are statutorily bound to render. Also among those services which the central Government can control by regulation but which are optional to local government are school crossings and road safety. Local health is only partly optional to local government, but school crossings and road safety are wholly optional. The power in question, therefore, already exists under the present law, and to my knowledge its existence has not given rise to any friction between central and local government.
The arguments advanced against the present clause, about invasion of the independence of local authorities and about the stultifying effect of regulations in general, apply, it seems to me, just as much to the existing power as regards most of the major functions of local authorities which they are bound by Statute to render. But it has not been suggested that the present powers have been abused; nor has any reason been
686
offered to suggest that a very small extension of these powers would be abused.
I would also remind the House that the power to make regulations (which is what we are talking about) is in any case ancillary to the power to withhold grant where a local authority fail to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard. The Minister could in some cases, with the approval of Parliament—and the approval of Parliament would be necessary to him—"turn the tap off" if standards were not maintained. It is, of course, quite unthinkable that any Minister of any Government would ask Parliament to agree to the withholding of grant because of default by a local authority in respect of a function in which there was no national interest. The incentive for Ministers to make these regulations must be assessed in that context, and if that is done the fears which have been expressed will, I suggest, be seen to be groundless.
Nevertheless, I agree that powers of this sort ought not to be wider than is necessary, and I can assure the House that I have satisfied myself that the clause is as it is solely because our attempts to find a satisfactory means of distinguishing between functions which are, or might properly be, a concern of Ministers and those which are of purely local interest have not been successful. We considered the possibility of limiting the power to the general grant services. That would have involved including minor though essential services, such as school crossings and road safety, and also the registration of electors, while excluding, for instance, such a major service as the disposal of sewage. Also, local government functions are not fossilised. They change, and their relative importance continually changes, so that any definition which consisted of a list of particular services which were of national interest, as opposed to those which were not, would soon become out of date.
On the other hand, a definition which depended on a general description, such as "services in which there is a definite national interest", which has been used by the Association of Municipal Corporations in correspondence with my Department since our last discussion on this topic, would be too vague. Indeed,

687
since its meaning would presumably depend initially on the interpretation put upon it by Ministers, the effect would be much the same as simply allowing Ministers to regulate.
The attempt to distinguish between duties which authorities are required to perform and those which they are merely permitted to perform—those which are optional—upon which this Amendment is based, seemed promising at first; but, for the reasons I gave during the previous discussion, it has still not been found possible to find some way of making this distinction. Nevertheless, the Government, of course, claim no monopoly of ingenuity, and if, even now, at this late hour between Report and Third Reading, the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment or his friends can find any formula that will allay the anxieties which exist to a certain extent. I shall be very ready to consider it. On that assurance, I would ask the noble Lord whether he would agee to withdraw his Amendment and may I also say that I shall count upon the support of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on this, who complained a moment ago that we were insisting on giving too great liberties to local authorities.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in his argument the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, seems to have effectively refuted the principal argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in defence of the clause as it stands.
LORD MITCHISON: With respect, adduced by the Parliamentary Secretary.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: But there is a point here, and I think both sides of the House recognise it. This is an aggravating, offensive pinprick for the local authorities, although the point at issue in the pinprick is not a very large one. However, small pins can be as painful as big ones.
LORD CHAMPION: But not as damaging.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Not as damaging, I quite accept. I agree that no great damage is going to come to local authority services whichever way we decide this matter, but I think that some damage is liable to be done to the relationship between central and local
688
government. It is exactly this kind of treatment—this grandfatherly treatment—of local authorities which I made a point of seeking to avoid when I was Minister of Housing and Local Government; now it is creeping back.
I confess that I cannot see why the right of a local authority to receive grant should be jeopardised if it conducts a service that the central Government do not require it to conduct, and conducts it in a way which does not precisely fail in line with the recommendations of the central Government to any local authority which, at its discretion, adopts this service. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is no compulsion on a local authority to provide street crossings, but if we do not pass this Amendment a local authority which is considering whether or not to use its discretionary powers is apparently to be told by the Government that if it decides to adopt that service, then, unless it carries out that service in precisely the way required by the central Government, it may be damaging or jeopardising its receipt of grant. There seems to me to be no logic—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it was told that by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he introduced his Act of 1958.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not follow that argument. The point here is that it seems to me that, unless we make this Amendment, it is a discouragement to a local authority to use its discretionary powers. If it is desired by the central Government that these powers should be used and used up to a certain standard, then it should be made a statutory duty; but if a local authority has discretion whether or not to initiate some service it should also have discretion as to the standard to which it raises that service.
I do not regard this as a very profound matter. I cannot understand why it is not possible to devise words which would meet the point, but I think my noble friend has been entirely right to bring it again to your Lordships' attention. It seems to me to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of good relationships between central Government and local government that central Government should be seeking these additional powers.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt very fully and I think not unsympathetically with the point which my Amendment raises and I am very much obliged to him for the consideration he has given to it. I observed in the course of his speech that he did not adopt the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for, I suspect, the very good reason that the block grant was introduced for the express purpose of preventing the kind of situation which he thought might arise.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I rise only to say that my argument was absolutely and literally in terms of the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. I found nothing whatever inconsistent—it required the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to find that—between what I was saying and what my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary here was saying.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am ready to accept that; but the fact remains that the factors on which the block grant is calculated are not actually expenditure but notional figures which cannot be affected by any defect on the part of the local authority or by any superabundance on their part. I was saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord for the sympathetic manner in which he dealt with the Amendment. If it is possible for us to find a formula we will communicate with him again. As I say, this is not a major matter; I have no desire to press it on the House, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Application of ss. 21 and 22]:
6.34 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which with the permission of the House I will take together, are drafting Amendments consequential upon the inclusion of new clauses in Part II of the Bill since its presentation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out line 2 and insert ("The provisions of the next two following sections").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, leave out from third ("the") to (" 'rate' ") in line 41 and insert ("next two following sections").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 21 [Liability to be rated in respect of certain unoccupied property]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 46, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("and the next following section").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("section and to the provisions of the next following section").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon one made in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Brooke of Cunmor.)
Clause 23 [Rating of certain office premises of nationalised boards &c.]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. It spells out more clearly what was broadly implied in that part of Clause 23(4) which the Amendment proposes to leave out. I do not think I need read it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("officer") to end of line 30 and insert ("makes such an application he shall, before the expiration of the period of seven days beginning with the date of the application, serve notice of it on the occupier of the premises and the rating authority for the area in which the premises are situated; and section 59 of the Rating and Valuation Act 1925 (which relates to the service of documents) shall apply to such a notice as it applies to the documents mentioned in that section.
( ) Where it is determined in consequence of an application under subsection (4) of this section that the premises to which the application relates are not situated on operational land of the relevant authority to which this section applies, then—

(a) the valuation officer may make a proposal in respect of the premises by reference to the same considerations as would have been applicable if the proposal had been made on the date of the application; and

(b) any alteration in a valuation list made in pursuance of a proposal certified by the valuation officer to have been made by him in consequence of the determination shall have effect as if any notice of the proposal served on the occupier of the premises had been so served at the same time as the notice of the application served on him under subsection (4) of this section.")—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD KENNET: My Lords, as noble Lords know, the general rule is that nationalised gas, electricity, and canal industries do not pay rates on the actual land or bricks and mortar which they occupy but make a single payment to each rating authority—either directly or through my right honourable friend—covering all their properties in the rating area. There are, however, exceptions. We have just made one by adding Clause 23 to the Bill providing for the separate rating of offices not on operational land. This Amendment is needed to enable my right honourable friend to make regulations to bring some coherence to the assessment of the excepted properties under the various enactments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) The Minister may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for securing, in the case of premises liable to be rated under this section and under another enactment and premises of which a part is liable to be rated under this section and another part is liable to be rated under another enactment, that the premises are included in the valuation list as a single hereditament with a single rateable value; and the regulations may make different provision for different circumstances and may contain such supplemental, consequential and incidental provisions, including provisions modifying any enactment, as the Minister considers expedient for the purposes of the regulations.")—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 24 [Power to alter distribution of certain payments made by nationalised boards in lieu or by way of rates]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 24, after ("premises") insert ("occupied and").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 24, to
Insert the following new clause:
Calculation of rate products
". The Minister may, after consultation with any local authority or association of local authorities with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, make rules as to the manner in which the product of a rate of one penny in the pound for any area is to be estimated or determined for such purposes of this Act and of any other Act, whether passed before or after this Act, as may be specified by the rules; and rules under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes;

(b) repeal any provisions of, or an instrument made under an Act passed before this Act which the Minister considers will become unnecessary in consequence of the rules;

(c) amend any provisions of an Act passed before his Act or of an instrument made under such an Act in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of the rules;

(d) provide that the provisions of any instrument having effect by virtue of an enactment repealed or amended by the rules shall continue in force as if they were contained in the rules."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to make it possible to tidy up the variety of statutory provisions requiring the determination of the product of a penny rate in readiness for the consolidation Bill relating to rating and valuation which the Government hope to introduce very shortly after the present Bill receives the Royal Assent. There is a good deal of inconsistency of approach in the existing provisions, which deal in detail with some aspects and leave others completely at large. To a considerable extent this is the result of an accumulation of provisions in the nineteenth century fashion which tended to cross every last "t" and dot every last "i" and those in the current fashion which leave all detail to subordinate legislation—as, for example, the provision in Section 16 of the 1958 Act for determining penny rate product for county boroughs for the calculation of rate-deficiency grant.
The object of the new clause is to make it possible to deal with all the

693
estimates and calculations of penny rate product in one set of regulations, with different provisions for different circumstances where these are necessary. The clause contains the same provision for consultation as is included in the main rule-making power in this field, for example, that contained in the Rating and Valuation Act 1925; and the linked Amendment to Clause 39 secures that the statutory instrument containing the rules shall be subject to Negative Resolution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think I ought to invite the attention of your Lordships to the fact that this new clause will enable the Minister to make rules to repeal provisions of Acts of Parliament. I am not bold enough to say that, when I was responsible, I never introduced legislation of this kind to Parliament. It is something which Parliament views somewhat critically—and rightly so, because Acts of Parliament are Acts of Parliament and ought not to be amended or repealed by statutory instrument or in other ways which do not attract full Parliamentary scrutiny. I am not making complaint about this. It seems to be a reasonable proposal, but I thought I should mention it to your Lordships.
My Lords, there is one question about this new clause which, out of pure curiosity, I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Why do the rules make different provisions for different purposes? It sounds very much as if the "home team" could change the rules at half-time if it was not winning. I do not imagine there is anything sinister in it, but I think it might be of some interest to your Lordships if the noble Lord would explain this particular provision.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, more in his comment about regulations which change enactments. I hate them, too; but, as he has just indicated, he knows as well as I do that one has to do it if one is to keep Parliament "ticking over". I fully share his view that this ought to be kept to the absolute minimum. I would point out that the regulations in question are,
694
as should always be the case in such circumstances, subject to Resolution. About why they allow a different approach to be adopted in different circumstances, let me say first of all that there is no intention at all of using this new provision to make changes of substance in the existing rules, and they already make different provisions for different purposes, because the statutory provisions to which they relate require them to. I have here an interesting budget of different circumstances. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whether he would wish me to read the budget, or send it to him privately later.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if the Parliamentary Secretary would give your Lordships just one case of an administrative character, I think that it would suffice.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, under Section 6 of the Rating (Interim Relief) Act 1964, any relief granted to ratepayers on account of hardship and any grant paid to the rating authority in respect of that relief have to be disregarded in calculating a penny rate product for the purposes of rate-deficiency grant—and will be similarly disregarded in calculating it for the purposes of the resources element. The 1964 Act had left the rates to bear one half of the cost of this relief (grant being at the rate of 50 per cent.), and this provision ensured that the authority did not recoup that half through the rate-deficiency grant. But the same provision—Section 6 of the 1964 Act—goes on to provide that, subject to that provision relating to rate deficiency grant, the relief granted is to be treated as a loss on collection and the grant in aid of it treated as part of the authority's rate income; the object being to see that the half cost of the relief falling on the rates is spread over county precept as well as district rates.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
6.44 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Nothing in subsection (5) of this section shall affect the provisions of section 237 of the Highways Act 1959 (which relates to contributions by county councils to the cost

695
of maintaining and improving claimed county roads); but for the purposes of that section—

(a) the cost of the maintenance and operation of a road lighting system for a claimed county road in exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be treated as part of the cost of the maintenance of the road; and

(b) the cost of the provision and improvement of such a system for such a road in exercise of those powers shall be treated as expenses of an improvement of the road unconnected with its maintenance,

and the cost of the provision, improvement, and maintenance and operation of a footway lighting system for such a road in exercise of those powers shall not be included among the costs and expenses in respect of which payments and contributions are to be made under that section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down in response to an undertaking to consider an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury. The intention is to clear the way in which Section 237 of the Highways Act will operate in regard to the exercise of lighting powers of highway authorities under the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that on claimed county roads (a) county councils should reimburse to claiming authorities the whole of the agreed cost of operating and maintaining road lighting; (b) county councils should contribute to the cost of providing or improving road lighting installations; and (c) claiming authorities should retain full financial responsibility for footway lighting installations. The Minister is advised that as the Bill is at present drafted there would not necessarily be full reimbursement of maintenance costs, but county councils would have to make an agreed contribution to the cost of installing, improving, operating and maintaining all lighting installations of road lighting or footway lighting which claiming authorities provide or maintain under the powers in this clause.
The Government were, however, impressed in particular by one of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, when he moved his Amendment in Committee. As he said, the effect of the Bill would not be entirely free from doubt. While this doubt would not be new, because it would apply equally in relation to the lighting powers that highway authorities already have under the Highways Act, it
696
is clearly better to avoid extending the area of doubt if we reasonably can. We understand it will help the authorities to make the change over to the new arrangements for lighting on April 1 next year, if they know exactly where they stand in regard to these financial arrangements. Unfortunately this means creating an inconsistency between the financial arrangements for claimed county roads under this clause and those which apply in the case of lighting provided by claiming authorities under the Highways Act. After further consideration, however, the Government have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage is in favour of having provisions which are certain in their effect.
The Amendment now proposed differs from that put forward in Committee by the noble Lord in one important respect; it excludes footway lighting installations entirely from the operation of Section 237 of the Highways Act, and claiming authorities will therefore retain full financial responsibility for them. As I explained in Committee, the noble Lord's Amendment would have the unfortunate effect of setting up unfair discrimination between, on the one hand, claiming authorities providing and maintaining footway lighting under the powers of this Bill, and, on the other hand, other authorities providing and maintaining footway lighting under their existing powers. By excluding footway lighting from the scope of Section 237 of the Highways Act we have found a way of getting over this difficulty while meeting in substance the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord will have studied this Amendment and I sincerely hope that it will be acceptable to him and to the House.
Amendment moved—
Clause 27, page 24, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the care and courtesy with which he has gone into the point which I raised on Committee stage. I am very glad to see that he has been able to draft an Amendment which meets the anxieties of the Association on whose behalf I spoke and which also takes care of the anomaly which he explained on Committee stage

697
and to which he has referred again now. I am very glad that he has put this Amendment down and I again thank him for the trouble he has taken to meet the point.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I hope I shall not be out of order in saying that I am sure this Amendment will be most acceptable to the local authorities and that they will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his action, and to my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury for having raised the matter.
Clause 30 [Transfer of road lighting systems]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 44, leave out from ("system") to ("was") in line 45.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I was proposing to speak on the Question, whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I was rather shocked, because on Report we do not discuss the Question whether the clause shall stand part. We can discuss here only Amendment No. 13 and the technical point of this Amendment being necessary to give effect to Amendment No. 12 which I previously moved. I hope my noble friend will see the point.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "date". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from the changes which the Bill proposes to make in responsibility for highway lighting. The highway authority is not at present the lighting authority upon all the roads for which it is the highway authority. There are certain roads where non-county boroughs and urban districts are the lighting authorities. This Bill proposes to change that arrangement and to make the highway authority the lighting authority in respect of the whole of the highways under their control. With this proposal there is no disagreement.
But the Bill goes on to provide that the lighting apparatus—the lamps and all other things which are involved—should
698
be transferred from the lighting authority to the highway authority. The Bill then proceeds to make a provision which seems to me to be most undesirable. It provides that the outstanding loans and loan charges incurred by the lighting authority whose property is to be transferred to the highway authority shall remain with the lighting authority; that is to say, if the lighting equipment owned by a non-county borough is transferred, as it will be, to a highway authority, any outstanding loans or loan charges in respect of the transferred equipment for street lighting will remain with the non-county borough. I would have thought that that was a most unjust arrangement.
When transfers of property take place between local authorities it is an invariable rule that the outstanding loans and loan charges go with the property that is transferred. I would have thought that that was the right accounting and the most equitable way of dealing with it. So far as I know, there has been only one precedent to the contrary and that was in the Trunk Roads Act 1936. Then the loans and loan charges in respect of the equipment on roads transferred to the trunk roads authority were retained by the authority which had previously been the highway authority. There are many precedents the other way. When the gas and electricity services were transferred to new authorities, the loans and loan charges followed them to the new authorities.
The Parliamentary Secretary said in another place that he did not want to be judged by the precedent of the Trunk Roads Act 1936. I can quite understand that. He went on to say that he preferred to justify what was being done upon principle. When I read that I confess that it filled me with alarm. Is this an attempt to establish a new principle? There may be big transfers of property between local authorities and the central Government. In those transfers are the loans and loan charges still to remain with the authority that provided the service? I should have thought that it was almost elementary to say that when a property is transferred from one authority to another, even if the authority to which the property is transferred is a Government Department, the outstanding

699
loans and loan charges ought to be transferred with it. I hope that your Lordships will say that the principle in the Bill is not a principle which makes any appeal to you. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 16, leave out from ("date") to end of line 18.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like strongly to support my noble friend Lord Ilford in this Amendment. There seems to me to be a point of principle here. The only possible defence that I can see for the Government is to quote the precedent of the Trunk Roads Act 1936—thirty years ago, and in my view, a bad bit of work so far as this provision is concerned. Certainly in normal life outside Governmental and Parliamentary circles, it is accepted that when assets are transferred, liabilities are transferred with them.
In this case the assets of the lighting authorities on trunk roads are being expropriated by the central Government and the Government are refusing to take over the loan charges. The argument has been used on behalf of the Government that this is not a revenue earning service and therefore the comparison with the nationalisation of electricity and gas is invalid. But neither are the hospitals a revenue earning service and I cannot conceive that Parliament or the local authorities would have accepted it if the Government when they took over all local authority hospitals, had said that the loan charges on these hospitals must remain with the local authority—I repeat, that was not a revenue earning service. That would have caused an explosion of anger.
There the issue in terms of money was a large one. Here the issue in terms of money is relatively small. But the principle is quite clear. Moreover, the correct principle is embodied elsewhere in this very clause, which provides that when lighting responsibilities and assets are being transferred from one local authority to another the responsibility for loan charges will be transferred likewise. It is inconsistent for the same Government Bill to enunciate one procedure where there is a transfer between one local authority and another, and a different procedure where there is a transfer between the local authority and the central Government. Those are the grounds on
700
which I suggest to your Lordships that there is an important principle here, and I warmly support my noble friend's Amendment.
6.58 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the case for this Amendment has been argued cogently by both noble Lords who have spoken. On Committee stage I said that I would discuss this with the Minister and ask her to consider this in the light of the discussions which then took place. The Minister has carefully considered her policy on this matter—I can assure the House of this—in the light of the arguments and facts brought out on Committee stage. However, she has come to the conclusion that—with all respect to the knowledge of both noble Lords—there are no grounds on which she feels she can change her mind. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments for the Minister's view which I put earlier. I am sorry that they did not completely convince noble Lords opposite, in spite of the fact that I did my best with them. But I do not withdraw any of the arguments that I used then. I believe they were germane and right.
I would invite noble Lords to look at the fundamentals of the problem. What, after all, are noble Lords opposite asking the Minister to do? They are asking her to make, as it were, retrospective payment to local lighting authorities in respect of the capital liabilities which they voluntarily chose to incur in the past in the exercise of their statutory powers. There is no question of this payment being necessary in order to relieve financial hardship to these authorities, or in fulfilment of a pledge or agreement, explicit or implied. On the contrary, it must be admitted by noble Lords who support this Amendment that the authorities will, in any case, gain financially by the lighting provisions of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, talked a good deal about the transferring of assets. It is true that posts and things will be transferred, but what is really being transferred here is obligations, rather than assets—obligations, that is, to provide a lighting system
I feel that the proposal in the Amendment is a very difficult one for any noble Lord to justify. What are the reasons given by noble Lords for this Amendment? As I understand the situation,

701
there are two: one, that it would be anomalous to have one arrangement in this Bill for local authorities and another for the Minister; and two, that because the transfer of loan charges with assets is the normal practice among local authorities, this practice ought, therefore, to apply to central Government as well.
The first of these reasons need not, I suggest, detain us long. I have already explained at some length in the Committee stage the way in which this difference came about—namely, at the express request of the local authority associations. I have also explained how one can find a rational justification for having a difference in this matter between central and local Government. But the main reason for this transfer as between local authorities is simply that this is what the local authority associations asked for, and the Government, I think rightly, acceded to their request in this matter.
On the second argument in favour of this Amendment, we recognise that the transfer of loan charges in these circumstances is normal practice among local authorities, but we do not feel that this by itself is an adequate reason for central Government: to adopt the same practice without regard to the merits of the particular case. That is what the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Brooke of Cumnor, seem to be saying, if I understand them correctly. If the practice were in itself an appropriate one in all circumstances, this would no doubt be a good reason for the central Government to adopt it. I do not know if it is always an appropriate practice to adopt as between local authorities: obviously it is so in some cases, as when the assets transferred earn revenue, or when they are transferred together with rateable values, following a boundary change. Whether it is appropriate in the present circumstances seems less certain, but there is no need for me to go into that, as I am talking about local authorities. What the Minister feels is that it is quite clear that it is not an appropriate practice in regard to the transfer of lighting systems as between central and local Government, which is of course what this Amendment is about.
I am not sure whether noble Lords supporting this Amendment still maintain that the transfer of loan charges is an established practice in all circum-
702
stances when assets are transferred between central and local Government. If so, they have, I suggest, completely failed to make their case. Indeed some of the precedents they have quoted—not to-day—are rather unfortunate from their point of view. For gas and electricity for example, full compensation was paid because the assets transferred were commercial assets, and the loan charges taken over with the assets were, of course, taken into account when the compensation was assessed. Hospitals provide a better example, but in their case this was clearly part of a quite exceptional arrangement which covered local authority health services generally and voluntary hospitals as well. Trunk roads? Certainly not, as even noble Lords opposite admit. Nor was this, as some noble Lords seem to suggest, an isolated example that somehow slipped through the net.
At an earlier stage of this Bill, in another place, the spokesman of the Party opposite mentioned the takeover of fire services in 1941 as another example. This was a very poor example to support the contention, and I can quite understand why we have not heard anything about it in this House in support of this Amendment. It is possible that many more doubtful precedents could he dragged up on either side, but I suggest that all they would establish is that, when this question has had to be dealt with in the past as between central and local Government, it has been dealt with ad hoc in what seemed to be the fairest and most sensible way in the circumstances of the particular case. And that, my Lords, is precisely how the Government propose to deal with it in this Bill.
Finally, my Lords, may I repeat once more that the principle adopted by the Minister on this matter will involve no financial hardship for anyone because it is obligations that are being transferred, rather than assets. On the contrary, the lighting authorities concerned will still stand to gain financially by being relieved of their responsibility to maintain and operate the existing lighting and to contribute their share towards the cost of providing new lighting If any compensation were appropriate, it would need to be assessed in some quite different way. But in fact there is nothing to compensate. In the Government's view there

703
is no rational case for this Amendment, and I have to ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
I feel that we have carefully reconsidered the matter in the light of the discussion. The Minister, after the most careful consideration, has felt that this is a matter of principle to which she would adhere. I would just say to the House, if I may, with a feeling for the House, that I hope we shall not get into the habit too easily of dividing against the Government on too many of these matters which are not matters of major principle, because the last thing I want to see is anything growing up between the two Houses that would act to the detriment of this House.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Minister, rather than before him, but I must say, in a few words, having listened to the argument, that in my opinion this Amendment is right and ought to be supported.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I feel that, too: and I also apologise for speaking after the Minister, but I wanted to hear what he had to say. It seems to me that local authorities have had to spend quite a lot of money since the war on putting in new lighting installations. While it may be a small amount of money to the central Government, it is a good deal of money to the local authority. These new lighting installations cost a considerable amount of money. It was always a difficulty, in the years when I was on the local authority and the county council, that sometimes on a trunk road where the parish council were the lighting authority they could not afford it, and they had to be helped financially to install lighting which was vital on these trunk roads. Although they had some grant, at the same time they had to spend ratepayers' money to put these installations in. I am sure they will be pleased that
the liability of having to provide lighting and the maintenance of it is now to be taken over by central Government. If the central Government are taking over the assets, I cannot see why they should not take over the loan charges, many of which have some years to run, because many are new installations and fairly expensive. The central Government are to get the use of the assets, and I do not see why they should not take over the liability of loan charges.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has evidently taken great trouble to inform himself about this matter, and I regret that his researches still seem to me to lead him to a wrong conclusion. I would, in particular, dissent from the view that by removing a service from the local authority you are confirming a benefit on it by saving it the cost of carrying on the service. Other considerations besides cost are involved. I will not attempt to deal with the other arguments advanced by the noble Lord, except to say this. The noble Lord said that he would regret a difference of opinion with another place on a matter of this kind. It seems to me that this is just the sort of point which ought to he raised in your Lordships' House. It is just the sort of revision of Bills passed elsewhere, perhaps rather hastily, for which this House ought to make itself responsible. I should have thought that this was precisely the sort of point on which your Lordships' House displayed its utility. I regret that I am not convinced by the arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord, and I must ask your Lordships to divide on this issue.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 49; Not-Contents 31.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Aldington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falkland, V.

Auckland, L.

Conesford, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Audley, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Brecon, L.

Daventry, V.

Fortescue, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Derwent, L.

Furness, V.

Glendevon, L.

Mar, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Goschen, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Merthyr, L.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Milverton, L.

Shannon, E.

Hastings, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somers, L.

Ilford, L.

Napier, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Kilmany, L.

Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Helens, L.

Wolverton, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L

Shepherd, L.

Arwyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Blyton, L.

Latham, L.

Sorensen, L.

Bowles, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burden, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Moyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L

Hall, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 12 which has already been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In this Part of this Act 'road lighting system' means a lighting system which is not a footway lighting system.").—(Lord Champion.)
Clause 39 [Orders and regulations]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with new Clause 1 which we have just added to the Bill. Its effect is to make subject to Negative Resolution any rules made under the new clause with respect to the estimation and calculation of the product of a penny rate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 34, after ("regulations") insert ("or rules").—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 1 [Rate support grants]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the addi-
706
tion of new Clause 1 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 28, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Kennel.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment last adopted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, leave out line 5 and insert ("section (Calculation of rate products) of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment also is linked to new Clause 1. The words sought to be left out direct how the domestic element is to be taken into account in computing the product of a penny rate and also provide that the reduction in rate poundage for householders is to be disregarded in that process. These are matters of detail which can now be left to rules made under the generalised new power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 7, leave out from ("rates") to end of line 12.—(Lord Kennet.)

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of section 18(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956
1.—(1) For subsection (2) of section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956 (procedure regarding amalgamation schemes) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2)(a) Before making a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall give to the police authorities concerned a notice describing the general nature of the proposed scheme and specifying the period within which objection may be made thereto.
(b) If, within the period specified in the notice, a police authority to whom notice has been given gives notice to the Secretary of State of an objection to the proposed scheme or any feature of that scheme, the Secretary of State shall, before making the scheme, cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of that objection by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government department).".
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the proposed new subsection 2, in paragraph (a), to leave out all words after "shall" down to and including "specifying", and to insert:
"send a copy of the proposed scheme in draft to the police authorities concerned and shall specify".
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that for the present provision, which says that the Secretary of State
"shall give to the police authorities concerned a notice describing the general nature of the proposed scheme"
there shall be substituted these words:
"shall send a copy of the proposed scheme in draft to the police authorities concerned".
As I mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill, Lord Birnam, in the case of The Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of Ayr v. The Lord Advocate, in 1950, said the parties should have the opportunity of putting before the commissioner not only their views as to whether there
708
should or should not be an amalgamation but also their comments, if any, upon the details of the approved scheme. It seems to follow that the details of the draft scheme should be available to the police authorities.
The Bill as drafted does not provide for this, but the noble Lord opposite has been kind enough to send me a note about this and he says that even in the Ayr case a copy of the draft scheme was sent and there is no reason why it should not be sent in this case. However, I should have thought it was better to send a copy of the proposed scheme in draft so that the police authority could consider the whole scheme as it is in draft and also its details. It is true, of course, that as the Bill is drafted it is open to a police authority to object not only to the scheme as a whole but to any feature of that scheme. However, unless they are given the complete draft scheme, of course they will not be in a position to object to any feature of the scheme. Therefore, it seems to me that on balance it is better to provide for the proposed scheme to be sent as a whole in draft, rather than simply a note of the general nature of the scheme, with or without the draft scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("shall") to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("send a copy of the proposed scheme in draft to the police authorities concerned and shall specify").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has explained, his Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to send a draft amalgamation scheme rather than a notice describing the general nature of the scheme to the police authorities concerned. The noble Lord has referred to the case of Ayr Burgh v. The Lord Advocate, in 1950, and has quoted Lord Birnam in that connection. In the Ayr case the Secretary of State prepared a draft scheme before the inquiry was held and placed it in the hands both of the police authorities concerned and of the commissioner who conducted the inquiry. Counsel for Ayr Burgh argued that the Secretary of State should not have prepared a draft scheme until after the inquiry had been held and that it was premature and misleading to place a draft scheme in the hands of the Commissioner.

709
Lord Birnam's remarks appear therefore to have been directed to counsel for the pursuers and not to the Secretary of State. His opinion would seem to support the conclusion that the Secretary of State should supply the police authorities not only with a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme but with a draft scheme of amalgamation as well, and that both should be available to the person conducting the inquiry. If Lord Birnam's opinion is followed—and I should say that any Secretary of State would surely hesitate to disregard it—police authorities would be provided with a draft scheme of amalgamation before the inquiry is held and the draft would also be given to the person holding the inquiry. The noble Lord's Amendment bears precisely on this point and makes specific provision by Statute for this practice.
The Government have no difficulty, therefore, in accepting the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment. However, if the Bill were amended in the form of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, certain consequential Amendments later in the Bill would also be required. For this reason I invite the noble Lord not to press his Amendment, so that I may have an opportunity to consider a slightly different form of words before we return to the matter at the next stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I willingly accede to the noble Lord's invitation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the proposed new subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
"and may, if after considering the report submitted to him by that person he so determines, make the scheme either in accordance with the aforesaid draft or with such alterations as he may think fit."
The noble Lord said: May I preface this Amendment by saying that I apologise to noble Lords opposite for detaining them at this comparatively late hour. This is a matter of considerable importance to Scotland. We are very anxious to get on with these amalgamations of police forces, and the fact is that a Court of Session case brought amalgamations to a rather sharp halt some twenty years
710
ago, and we do want to be quite certain we get the law right on this occasion.
This Amendment seeks to make quite certain that after the report of the commissioner has been submitted to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State proceeds to make a scheme by order, he may make such alterations in the draft scheme as he thinks fit. In other words, there must not be any question at all of the scheme as submitted to inquiry having to be either accepted in full or rejected in full. The Secretary of State should have the power or right to make modifications in it following upon the report of the commissioner. That is the purpose of this particular Amendment. I am certain that this is a power which the noble Lord opposite is determined that the Secretary of State shall retain, and I am a little doubtful whether, under Section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act, as drafted at the present time and as amended by this Bill, that power would subsist. There is some doubt about it—I do not go further than that. But we want to make quite certain this power does exist. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: Lord Drumalbyn's second Amendment is designed to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State, in laying a draft order before Parliament is not bound to lay the identical draft amalgamation scheme which he sent to the police authorities and which was in the hands of the person holding the inquiry. Instead, he may modify it in the light of the report of the inquiry, upon representations by the police authorities concerned, or in such other manner as he thinks fit. This is, of course, no more than common sense, and I should have no hesitation in going along with the noble Lord were it not for the fact that I am advised that Section 18(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1956 already has the effect which this Amendment seeks to achieve.
However, having been given that advice, which was followed by reference to another section of the same Act, it has continued in my own mind the same doubts which arose in the mind of the

711
noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and without further proof I am not disposed at this stage to accept the advice which I have been given. I wish, therefore, to have the matter further looked into. But I will add this. I share Lord Drumalbyn's taste for making explicit what is implicit, and I should welcome the opportunity to give the point further consideration before Report stage. I should therefore be grateful if the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment upon this assurance, that he and I are thinking completely alike in this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I willingly accept the invitation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to take this opportunity to correct a point on which I inadvertently misled your Lordships on Second Reading, and to deal more fully with certain points which I was able to answer only perfunctorily at the time. I was asked by Lord Drumalbyn about the role of Parliament in relation to amalgamation orders and whether there was power to annul an order laid by the Secretary of State under the 1956 Act. Under that Act,
"A draft of any statutory instrument embodying an order"
under Section 18
"together with a copy of the proposed scheme to which the order applies, shall be laid before Parliament; and where a local inquiry has been held under this section with respect to the proposed scheme a copy of the report of the person by whom the inquiry was field shall also be laid before Parliament with the said draft."
The Police (Scotland) Act 1946 went on to say explicitly that
"…if either House within the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft scheme is laid before it resolves that the scheme be not made, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon."
But the 1956 Act, which repealed the 1946 one, does not add this.
However, if the noble Lord will refer to the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Police (Scotland) Bill
712
1955 (Command 9435) he will find in the notes on Clause 18 the following passage:
"The reference in Section 2(3) of the Act of 1946 to the resolution procedure in Parliament has been omitted because Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, automatically applies that procedure."
The statement which I made on Second Reading is therefore correct in so far as orders made under Section 18 of the 1956 Act are concerned, and the procedure under the 1956 Act does not differ from that under the 1946 Act. This procedure is not affected by the Bill now before your Lordships and the role of Parliament in relation to the making of these orders is, as I said earlier, unchanged.
To reassure your Lordships in this connection, I cannot do better than quote from Lord Birnam's opinion in the Ayr case, when, in referring to Section 2(3) of the 1946 Act, he said:
"The provisions of this subsection make it plain that Parliament has not delegated to the Secretary of State but has expressly reserved to itself the final decision as to whether a police authority shall or shall not have its autonomy extinguished and its powers merged with those of an adjoining area".
Here I come to the point on which I was led into error, and this relates solely to the procedure for orders implementing voluntary amalgamation schemes submitted under Section 17 of the 1956 Act. In this case, the Parliamentary procedure is governed by Section 36(2) of the 1956 Act which provides that:
"Any power conferred by this Act (except section one thereof) to make regulations, rules or orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and except where otherwise provided any such statutory instrument shall be laid before Parliament after being made."
In this case the orders are not subject to further Parliamentary proceedings, and I must apologise for saying that they were subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as soon as I discovered the error which had been made, but I thought it would be better, the wrong statement having been made at the preceding stage, that the correct information should be stated by me so that the Record becomes correct.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that statement, but my reaction to it, I am bound to say, is that if such a statement is needed,

713
then would it not be much better to make explicit in the Bill the fact that a statutory instrument made in the case of a scheme which has been the subject of an inquiry is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in this House? Would it not be much better to make that fact quite clear in the Bill? Both the noble Lord and I have been misled by the terms of the 1956 Act and, looking back on this, it is difficult to see why the 1956 Act omitted what was explicit in the previous Act and left it to interpretation only by experts. Would it not be much better to have the terms of the Bill made clear on the face of it?
I can see how the noble Lord's mind is working at the present time, and I accept that this was a Conservative Party Bill. But, all the same, we live and learn; and here it is: both he and I have been misled by the absence of specific provi-
714
for Parliamentary procedure, for the annulment Negative Resolution procedure in this House. Would it not be better to have this put in the Bill?
7.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I also live and learn, and, having been led into error in the last minutes of the last stage by giving an answer to a query like this from Lord Drumalbyn, on this occasion I should prefer to read it tomorrow and then communicate with him further afterwards.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House without Amendment.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock