HL Deb 10 February 1976 vol 368 cc60-75

5.30 p.m.

Bill read 3a.

Clause 3 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 4, line 16, at end insert (" (a) ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all three Amendments together. Your Lordships may recall that I have, at various stages voiced concern over the need to avoid dsiadvantaging any person who occupies a caravan which is constructed or adapted for the use of a disabled person. This relates only to Scotland since, in the English system, this situation is covered in Clause 1(7).The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, enthusiastically supported me in finding an Amendment to deal with this point.

This aspect of the law is extremely complex and my difficulties in preparing these Amendments were compounded by the very recent judicial decision to which I referred at Report (Hansard, 5th February; col. 1480). The effect of the Amendments is to remove from the scope of the Bill any caravan whose occupier would in the past have benefited from the provisions of Section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, which provides for the exclusion from valuation of certain structures provided or adapted for disabled persons. In this way, the benefits available to disabled persons will be continued. Even though they come at the eleventh hour, I imagine that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House, and I am therefore very happy to move them. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I would commend these Amendments to the House and I should like to thank the noble Baroness for having brought them before us at this late stage, while the Bill is still in this House. As she said, we have expressed concern about the disabled and have gone into the Bill in some detail as it was introduced into this House. I know that the Government have been under some difficulty because of the legal case which went as far as the highest court in the land—that is, your Lordships'House—and has only recently been settled. I believe it to be helpful that Amendments should be made to clarify the position in Scotland in the light of that judgment. I trust that the Amendments deal appropriately with caravans for the disabled. As I understand what the noble Baroness has said, they mean that the situation is clear. That will he welcomed by all who are concerned about the state of the disabled.

I should like to take this opportunity also to recall that I indicated on Thursday, at Report stage, that I had only that morning received some further points in relation to the discussions at Committee stage and that, because of the short time allowed between the various stages of the Bill, it was not possible for all the points to be raised. I understand that the Government want to get the Bill through by a certain date and, therefore, rather than put down Amendments on Thursday for the Third Reading today—which would have given the Government only the weekend in which to consider them—I felt that these points would be better dealt with in another place because there will be more time. There are two or three more points which we should like to raise and I shall ensure that the Government are informed of them as soon as possible so that they have plenty of time to consider them before the matter comes up in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 19, at end insert (" and (b) as excluding a caravan thereon which is any such structure as is mentioned in section 8(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (which relates to structures for the use of persons suffering from certain disabilities) ").—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move the third Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 21, leave out ("Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act ") and insert (" said Act of ").—(Baroness Birk.)

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness for having dealt with the Bill, which is half Scottish. I feel that she certainly deserves the gratitude of the Scottish Office Ministers for having handled Scottish legislation, which this is. I believe that it was convenient to take it all in one Bill rather than have a separate Scottish Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should like also to thank her for having stated categorically at Report stage that the question of rate rebates does not arise. We are dealing only with leisure caravans and I believe that it will be helpful to those who deal with the Bill in another place to know that that complication will not ensue because rate rebates do not arise on the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his kind remarks about my explorations in Scottish waters. Many years ago I went up to Edinburgh for a conference. That was at a time when tartans were very much in fashion and I was wearing a tartan suit and hat to which, I must hastily add, I was clearly not entitled. In the 'plane returning an American woman said to me, "Oh, thank goodness I have met you! I have been up here for a whole day and seen as much of Scotland as I could but I have not spoken to a Scottish person. Now I have met you! "I thought it better not to disillusion her because she was very taken with the combination of the tartan and the red hair. I thought she had better go home thinking she had met a Scot.

This was a more complicated Bill than appeared at first sight. Although we had a rather prolonged Committee stage, I believe that it paid in the end for we had a thorough discussion which enabled us to improve the Bill, as I believe we have done, and it will prove to have been extremely useful when the Bill is considered in another place. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will let me know as soon as possible the points which he is to raise in broad outline, even if the Amendments are not already drafted, so that I can pass them on to my colleagues. I should like also to thank the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his help in getting the Bill through in what I appreciate was a rather short time. Though it was a short Bill it was highly complex.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. She deserves much kinder remarks because she has often had to lead us by the hand through terrifying thickets. She has done so with great success. Those who have helped her have also helped us, especially on one notable occasion by preventing me from making a startling misinterpretation in this Chamber. For that, also, I am grateful.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ORDER 1976

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) AMENDMENT ORDER 1976

OECD FINANCIAL SUPPORT FUND (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1976

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1976

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) (REVOCATION) ORDER 1976

5.40 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the draft European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Amendment Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) (Revocation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg Organisations Act 1968; one of them, the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, being a revocation of an order made in 1961 under the previous International Organisations Act of 1950. The Inter-American Development Bank (the subject of one of the orders) whose membership was originally restricted to members of the Organisation of American States and Canada, was founded in 1959 to promote the economic and social development of those of its members who were developing countries. The Bank's resources consist partly of contributions by its members to a fund out of which it makes loans on soft terms, and partly of funds raised commercially. Some years ago, the Bank began to consider ways of amending its Articles of Agreement to enable non-regional countries to join as donors. The United Kingdom, and other non-regional countries, were engaged in negotiations over a period of years, and a package of Amendments to the Agreement, and of subscriptions to the Bank's resources, was finally agreed.

Financial provision to enable the United Kingdom to subscribe to shares of the Bank's stock was approved in another place on 17th December 1975. Once the present order has been made, we shall be able to apply formally to join the Bank. Our membership will become effective when the Bank's governors have approved the Amendments to the Articles and the Bank has accepted our application. It is hoped that all these processes will be completed by the middle of the year. The Bank has its headquarters in Washington and a European office in Paris. It is very shortly to open a small office in London to which an official of the Bank, at present serving in Washington, has been appointed as manager. It is not at present intended to appoint any other overseas staff to this office, but to recruit secretarial help locally.

The purpose of the present order is to confer on the Bank and its staff a scale of privileges and immunities similar to those we at present accord to other development banks, such as the World Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank, in respect of which similar orders have been made. The privileges consist mainly of taxation relief for the Bank and its overseas staff, but the only immunity accorded is that in respect of official acts performed by members of the staff on behalf of the Bank. This would not, of course, apply to any breach of the traffic laws, or to claims for damage caused by motor vehicles belonging to the Bank.

I now turn to another order in this list. The OECD Financial Support Fund is being established to provide mutual assistance to member countries of OECD in the event of balance of payments difficulties. It was designed as a relatively short-term measure to counter the dangers of economic disruption arising from the increase in oil prices. The Agreement setting up the Fund accordingly provides that authority to make loans from the Fund shall continue for two years only; that is, two years from the entry into force of the Agreement. It is popularly known as the "Safety Net Fund". The machinery will in practice work only if activated by a request for a loan by a member in financial difficulties. The OECD Financial Support Fund Act 1975, which received the Royal Assent on 19th December last, enables Her Majesty's Government to implement certain financial provisions of the Agreement. We intend to ratify the Agreement as soon as the present order has been made.

The Fund will be established within the framework of OECD and will use the organisation's premises in Paris for its meetings. As it will also be serviced by the OECD Secretariat, the draft order does not provide for any privileges or immunities to be granted to individuals. To the Fund itself it accords exemption from direct taxes and the inviolability of its official archives. As in the case of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Development Banks, its immunity from jurisdiction is limited in regard to its lending operations to ensure its credibility as a borrower in commercial markets.

The draft order relating to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts amends the order made a year ago, which enabled Her Majesty's Government to ratify the convention establishing the centre. The convention entered into force on 1st November, and in accordance with its terms a Headquarters Agreement, elaborating the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities annexed to the convention, has now been negotiated between the centre and Her Majesty's Government, and was approved by the centre's Council during its first meeting in London. The present order makes slight adjustments to the earlier order, and these are required to enable us to sign this Agreement. The centre at present occupies temporary accommodation at Bracknell, in Berkshire, and will later move to permanent headquarters at Reading.

The present draft order amends the existing order in three respects. In the first place, it restricts the inviolability of the premises of the centre so that legal process can be served on the centre by post. This could be of practical help since the staff of the centre do not enjoy any immunity from jurisdiction in regard to their private acts. Secondly, it extends to advisers and to members of the Scientific Advisory Committee attending meetings in this country, the privileges and immunities quite rightly accorded by representatives of Member-States and their alternates. Thirdly, it accords to all these categories of persons the same baggage facilities as are accorded to diplomatic agents. As your Lordships will have noted, traffic offences are specifically excluded from the immunities conferred by this order on representatives.

The order revoking the 1961 order in respect of the European Free Trade Association is necessary in order to avoid any doubt as to whether it could be regarded as still being in effect, despite the fact that we are no longer members of EFTA. It is a revocation order.

Finally, the Miscellaneous Provisions Order is also in the nature of a tidying-up order. It relates to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Finance Corporation, the International Development Association, and the Western European Union, and enables them to obtain relief from car tax and value added tax. We are already committed to granting this relief by the various international agreements we have concluded with the organisations. Similar provision was made last year in respect of a number of other international organisations.

Our representatives in the negotiation of the Agreements to which three of these orders give effect, have been mindful of the views expressed by your Lordships on similar occasions as to the need to limit privileges and immunities to what is needed to enable the organisation to operate effectively. From time to time I have given full assurance that complete care will be taken in that regard. I hope your Lordships will agree that these orders certainly raise no difficulties in that regard. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Amendment Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.

That the Draft European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)

5.48 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his explanation of the purposes and provisions of the draft Statutory Instruments requiring affirmative approval by your Lordships. These draft orders are symptomatic of, and are a reminder of, the increasing interdependence of States and of the many international activities in which we, as a country, participate. As the noble Lord has explained, these orders are in effect implementations of agreements or conventions, either already signed, or waiting to be signed, relating to our international obligations. I wish to thank the noble Lord for giving such a clear explanation of the immunities and privileges which are to be conferred by these orders. They are very much more limited than is sometimes the case, particularly in relation to traffic offences, which is an element which sometimes causes concern, not only to your Lordships but to other citizens, too. So we are very grateful for the care that has been taken in the drafting of these new orders and agreements.

I had given notice that I would raise the question as to the number of persons who would be affected by these orders, and the noble Lord has given a very clear indication of the numbers; they are indeed very few, and in one case only one overseas employee will be involved. With regard to the fifth order, concerning EFTA, I think perhaps we should just note it as an historical event. It is the end of the period when we were apart of EFTA, which really stood us and our economy in very good stead throughout that time. It served its purpose, and this is just a passing word to the people who remain in EFTA.

There is one point I should like to raise, of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. It concerns the exemption from tax. I understand, of course, that it is something that could not be altered now, retrospectively, but nevertheless it does give rise to some concern that those who work in international organisations are put in a position analogous to those who are diplomatic representatives. In the case of United Kingdom citizens, even if they are employed by international organisations, they are not exempt, as I understand it, from the tax laws of this country when serving in this country. I think this must undoubtedly cause discrimination in the take-home pay of a United Kingdom citizen vis-à-vis an alien employed in the same organisation, possibly with the same family set-up and possibly of exactly the same status.

As the noble Lord will I am sure agree, taxation in this country, whether direct or indirect, and regardless of the complexion of the Government, takes a very large slice out of the income, either earned or unearned, of a United Kingdom citizen. I was wondering whether, at some time, some consideration might be given to the proposal that a United Kingdom citizen employed in an international organisation should be exempt from tax solely on the salary that he is getting while employed in that international organisation. I put this only as a point which might be considered when future agreements are being considered, because I think that undoubtedly at the moment it creates undesirable discrimination—a kind of discrimination which is recognised in many areas of our national life as being totally unacceptable—that people doing the same work should be getting different salaries. I would therefore put this to the noble Lord, so that, in the future, when immunities and privileges are being examined. this point may be taken up. On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his very clear explanation.

5.52 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, may I commend the noble Baroness on the brevity and cogency of her remarks? If I may say so, I think she has made a model speech in response to a Motion of this kind. I join her in a passing salutation to EFTA—still going strong, and in an increasingly mutually profitable relationship to the EEC. I join her in thanking our partners in EFTA for having stood us in good stead, as she so rightly put it, in past, rather difficult years.

The noble Baroness raised one or two important points. Relating to tax, the position is that in regard to most of these international organisations the internal system applies whether the staff is British national or external; but the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that there are some "more-old-standing" organisations—and, indeed, one of them is mentioned here; the Inter-American Development Bank, founded in 1959—which do not have this provision. So there is this anomaly, this dichotomy of tax, between local and external staff. There are one or two other old-standing organisations of this kind which were founded before there arose this generality, this consensus about applying to everybody, whatever their country of origin, the same internal system, in lieu of national taxation. It is very possible indeed that this could be looked at. There may or may not be a substantial anomaly here. On the face of it, it would seem that there is, and the noble Baroness is quite right to raise this in connection with this Motion. I shall certainly bear in mind what she has said, and I thank her once more for the way in which she has supported this Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE (RATEABLE VALUES) ORDER 1976

POST OFFICE (RATEABLE VALUES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976

5.55 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.

That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the first order before your Lordships concerns the rating of property belonging to the Post Office and used for telecommunication services. Certain kinds of Post Office hereditaments are rated by formula. These hereditaments are, first, property, not within a building, used for telecommunications purposes and, secondly, the Post Office underground railway in London; but we are concerned today only with telecommunication services. The sorts of installation involved are telegraph posts and wires, underground cables and ducts and telephone kiosks.

The current formula was laid down in the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1972, which was made under Section 52 of the Post Office Act 1969. Quite a number of other public utilities, such as the electricity and gas industries and the National Coal Board, are rated by formula, and it is a convenient method where the ordinary methods of assessment would be difficult and cumbersome to apply. Some of the formulae are laid down in detail in the General Rate Act 1967, but Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974, under which the orders before us today are made, enables all of them to be amended by order.

The purpose of the order before the House is merely to remove a minor anomaly in the formula for rating the telecommunication services of the Post Office, although in doing so it sets out the whole formula in its revised form. The problem concerns the television relay schemes run by the Post Office by which television is brought over Post Office lines, which are not telephone lines, into people's houses. There were about 10,000 television relay lines at the 31st March 1975, although only about 9,000 were actually in use. At present these lines escape assessment for valuation and rating purposes. This is because television relay lines are used for the purpose of telecommunication services and therefore fall to be rated by formula laid down by order. However, when the aggregate rateable values of the relevant hereditaments were determined by the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1972, few television relay lines existed and no amount was included in the aggregate values to cover them.

The 1972 order makes provision for the aggregate rateable value to be adjusted annually by formula in proportion to the increase or decrease in the number of exchange connections. Television relay lines do not constitute exchange connections, so that no account is taken of them in the adjustment of the aggregate value of Post Office hereditaments under the 1972 order. The first order before us today brings television relay lines, defined as the number of subscribers to such lines, into the adjustment formula for 1976–77 and subsequent years. In practice, this addition will make little, if any, difference to the aggregate rateable value for 1976–77. This is because of the rounding provisions in Article 4(2) and 4(5) of the order. Although there were only about 9,000 subscribers at the 31st March 1975, I am told that the scheme is expanding and that at some point the inclusion of the television relay lines will affect the aggregate rateable value of the Post Office hereditaments covered by the order.

At this point I should mention the other order before us today, the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order. The sole purpose of the amending order is to make it clear that the rounding provision I have just referred to in Article 4(5) of the main order applies to the sum of the number of exchange connections and one-third of the number of television relay connections for the purposes of the certificate by the Inland Revenue. I am sorry that in the drafting of the main order it was not sufficiently clear in this respect.

Returning to the main order, on the rating of the Post Office telecommunications network, the order replaces the relevant parts of the 1972 order and repeals the relevant provisions in section 52 of the Post Office Act 1969, under which the 1972 order was made. In both documents the provisions relating to the Post Office underground railway are left unchanged. My right honourable friend has consulted all those affected, and they do not object to what is proposed. I therefore beg to move that these orders be approved.

Moved, That the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.

That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)

6.0 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be indebted to the noble Baroness for the lucid way in which she has explained the complex instrument before us. When she tells us that it relates principally to telegraph poles and such, it is amazing that such a large structure can be supported on so small a base. There are one or two serious points that I should like to raise. One of them I have not given prior notice of because I was not a party to the explanation which has just been given and it arises from that. I should like to know whether the adjustment to the formula which takes in the adjustment of value as to the hereditaments to which or in which these relay lines are attached, leaves unchanged the other adjustment for the rest of the formula; in other words, are we looking at an order which only alters the rates payable on installations which include these lines to the extent that they do include these lines and otherwise leaves them the same?

The second matter that I should like to raise is one of drafting or wording. It is not the one raised in the amending order; but in both Article 4(2) and Article 4(5) there is a rather extended phrase which I take it to mean that the figure to be arrived at shall be calculated to the nearest £100,000 in the first instance and the nearest £500 in the second. While I accept that it is important that Parliamentary language be precise and that that may sometimes make it appear to be prolix, I cannot detect any difference in meaning between what I have just said and what the order says.

The third point may be pre-empted by the reply of the noble Baroness to my first point. I should like to be assured of the equity of the arrangements for the ratepayers in Hull and in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We refer frequently to one-tenth only of the acreage of things in Kingston upon Hull. I am looking at A2 of Article 5(2). It recurs throughout that formula. I take it that the one-tenth relates to the delightfully named parishes listed in the Schedule, finishing with Sproatley and Swine. The word "Gadarene" is not included. When I first read this order I would have joined them.

Finally, it might be of interest to your Lordships if the noble Baroness could outline how it was that the amending order became necessary a month, I think, after the original order was laid—not that I am raising objection to that, but the process by which such orders are scrutinized is of interest because in a sense this process of scrutiny anticipates what we are now doing at this particular point of the procedure.

6.3 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice of some of the points that he has raised. On the first, the order merely affects potentially the apportionment of the rateable value of the Post Office network to places with television relay lines. The other apportionments remain unchanged. The rounding that he referred to in the order of the £50,000 and £100,000 and £500 and £1,000 must be spelled out in this way. This is the way in which the Parliamentary draftsmen like it, to make it certain. The noble Lord is right: where it is less than £50,000 it is disregarded, and where it is more than £50,000 it is rounded to the nearest £100,000. It is the same with the figures in the following paragraph.

Another point that the noble Lord made was on the question of the effect of the acreage provisions relating to the Hull telephone area. Kingston upon Hull area is exceptional because the main telephone system is operated by the city council. The Hull system and the Post Office system have, for obvious purposes, to be linked in some parts. For this purpose the Post Office have some installations in the Hull area. It was accepted in the discussions preceding the 1972 order that counting the acreage and all the other relevant factors in the Hull area, the non-domestic rateable values, the number of domestic hereditaments at one-tenth only of their actual value would produce an appropriate apportionment of the elements of the total rateable value for the network which are apportioned by reference to these factors.

The other point was why we had to make an amending order only one month after the first. This was because the Government were advised that it was not possible to withdraw an order once it had been laid before Parliament. A simple amending order appeared to be the most convenient method of proceeding in such circumstances.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. She has given me almost everything I wanted to know. I hope that she will be kind to the feelings of a number of us that language is important in these measures and if the opportunity arises to simplify, as it might have arisen here, that she will apply her own gentle offices to our louder and more raucous persuasions at an earlier stage.

Baroness STEDMAN

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I share his view that sometimes Parliamentary documents might be termed in a simpler way for people like him and like me who cannot understand all the many words that we have to use for what appears to be a simple phrase. I will bear in mind and pass on to my colleagues what has been said. I am grateful for the way the House has received these two orders.

On Question, Motion agreed to.