§ 7.23 p.m.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1973, laid before the House on December 19, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Order, I should like to speak also on the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1973, which I propose to move immediately afterwards. The purpose of these draft Orders, which I commend to the House, is to maintain broadly the coverage of the rate rebate scheme which was introduced in 1966. It is just one year since the House last debated a Rate Rebate (Limits of Income) Order. The need for the 1973 Orders stems directly from the decision of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, to have annual upratings of National Insurance retirement pensions and other social security benefits—an improvement in the social security system of immense importance to many people in this country. The object of the rate rebate scheme is, as the House knows, to help those with low incomes, whose rates are 485 not already paid in full by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, to pay the rates on their homes. Rate rebates are granted to those whose gross income falls within certain limits.
§ I will explain how the scheme works. Under the scheme the ratepayer has to pay the first £3.75 of his half-yearly rate bill. Provided his gross income does not exceed prescribed limits, the ratepayer is entitled to a rebate equal to two-thirds of the difference between the £3.75 I have just mentioned and his half-yearly rate bill. At present, the prescribed income limits are £12.00 a week for a single person and £14.75 for a married couple. Those income limits are increased by £2.50 a week for each dependent child. If the House approves the draft Orders, these limits will be increased to £13.50 a week for a single person and £16.50 a week for a married couple. The addition for each dependent child will go up to £2.75 a week.
§ In England and Wales entitlement to rebate in the half-yearly rate periods beginning in April and October is based on gross income in the previous periods July to December and January to June respectively. This means, for example, that the rebates payable from April, 1973, will be based on gross income in the period July to December, 1972. In Scotland, the rating year begins somewhat later and the six-monthly income assessment periods begin in April and October. Thus the increase in social security benefits from last October will be matched by an increase in income limits bearing on rate rebate for the period concerned. This is why nobody has yet lost as a result of last October's increase in pensions. I think that that explanation may be sufficient, but if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, or any other noble Lord wants further details I shall be happy to give them. Needless to say, I commend these Orders to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1973, laid before the House on December 19, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
§ 7.28 p.m.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, the House will be very grateful to the 486 noble Lord for the explanation which he has given. He has reminded the House that a year ago we considered the very same matter, and he has said, quite rightly, that it has been agreed that there will be an annual review, which has proved very necessary. The inflationary spiral has risen at such a rate that it would have been quite shocking if there had been no review of the rate rebates scheme. I am wondering what effect the new valuations will have on claiming rate rebates. If the Press of last Thursday (I think it was) were correct, many tenants living in council houses are in for a very lively and unpleasant shock, and it may well be that there will be a considerable increase in the number of people applying for relief under this rate rebates scheme. Accepting the necessity for a rate rebates scheme in the existing inflationary situation, but regretting that the increase is based on earlier income and not on present income, it would be churlish to do other than give a welcome to these Orders. But one hopes that the Government, having been persuaded to abolish policies which they opposed at the last Election and fought desperately to resist, and now being compelled, as it were against their wishes, to carry out those policies, may be a little more successful in containing this inflationary pressure which bears so heavily on those with the smallest incomes.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the welcome which he has given to these Orders. The noble Lord chided the Government, and I should just like to say that, in theory, the new rating valuations should not necessarily mean that councils will have to increase their demands. If a council needed £1 million before—
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, I think the noble Lord has missed the point. It is the incidence of rating which matters, and it will fall more heavily on the domestic ratepayer, and much more heavily on the council house tenant, than has heretofore been the case, if the figures in last week's Press are anywhere near correct.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords; I take the noble Lord's point. I think we shall have to wait and see whether these gloomy tidings are borne out by the facts. For myself, I do not think they will be. There is one other point I should like to make. Rebates are not of themselves a means of giving social benefits; they are a means of moderating a tax. Of course, if the rates were to be greater, so the Government's portion would be greater still. My Lords, I think I have probably said enough, and with that I again commend this Order to your Lordships.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.