LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 29 November 1966)

HL Deb 29 November 1966 vol 278 cc621-76 621

§ 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 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;
(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 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.

629

§ 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 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—

630

§ 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.

637

§ 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

640

§ 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.

641

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 DRUMALBYN
had 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 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.)

644

§ 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 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.

651

§ 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

654

§ 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.

655

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 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.)

659

§ 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 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.

661

§ 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 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.

663

§ 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 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 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.
(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 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 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 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.)

672

§ 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 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 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.)

675

§ 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.