HL Deb 28 June 1978 vol 394 cc353-66

5.9 p.m.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord ALPORT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Rebates for hereditaments with special facilities for disabled persons]:

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 12, after ("garage") insert (", carport").

The noble Lord said: I wish to associate with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 and 16 which in due, course I shall move formally. The purpose of these Amendments is to carry out a promise which I made on Second Reading that Amendments would be introduced to make it perfectly clear that the intention of the Bill, when reference was made to garages and land, was to include "carport". It is believed that it would have been so regarded, but the matter having been raised I have felt—and I have had the consent of the Government in this connection—that we should insert "carport" to remove any doubt about the matter whatsoever. I beg to move.

Baroness VICKERS

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I believe that this matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on Second Reading. Unfortunately, she is unable to be here today; she had hoped to arrive in time. I should like to offer her thanks for this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 16, at end insert (",carport").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SANDYS

As we are about to pass Clause 1, this would be a convenient opportunity to refer to one particular very small problem of which I think your Lordships should be aware. In Clause 1 we refer to a very important item, the wheel chair. That expression occurs in line 9 on page 2. We are not normally given to correcting the way in which words are set out by means of an Amendment. Therefore, I would ask at this stage whether, when the Bill is reprinted the two words could be set together to form one word. That would be very much better for the rest of the Bill and also its interpretation on future occasions. That same expression, "wheel chair", recurs again on page 5 and once more at a later stage in the Bill at line 30 of Schedule 1.

Lord HUGHES

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for drawing attention to this. At line 9 on page 2 of the Bill "wheel chair" is printed as two separate words, but at line 10 on page 5 that useful piece of punctuation, a hyphen, has been inserted. I presume that the noble Lord would accept the insertion of a hyphen; that would meet his purpose. At any rate, whichever way it is done, it should be the same throughout the Bill.

My attention was drawn to a sheet of paper headed "Corrections" which was issued, and on which, having made inquiries, I find that no action needs to be taken because they are corrections to the print which can be made automatically. I would assume that the correction of the expression "wheel-chair" can similarly be made without the need for any Amendment being put down. I would agree with the noble Lord that the idea should be conveyed that it is one word, and that would be met by the use of the hyphen that is used on page 5.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Administration and appeals]:

5.14 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 4, line 25, at end insert— ("(5A) The Secretary of State may refer any question of law arising under this Act to the High Court for determination and on any such reference or on any appeal to or beyond the county court under subsection (5) above the Court may order the Secretary of State to pay the costs of any other person, whether or not the decision is in that other person's favour and whether or not the Secretary of State appears on the reference or appeal.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of determination of disputes. It is an important matter with which we are here concerned. In this Amendment we return to Section 94(8) of the Social Security Act 1975, which repeats, in rather different terms, essentially what was in the National Insurance Act 1946. The 1946 Act has stood the test of time in regard to disputes of this sort. We believe that it would be beneficial to introduce the Amendment as printed. It would be a matter of some doubt at the present moment, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will perhaps he able to advise us in this regard. I beg to move.

Lord HUGHES

I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baronesses who have supported him in this Amendment that this would not be a desirable Amendment to make. The comparison which he has made is not a valid one because in that case the Minister is a party and, therefore, it would be appropriate for a court reference to take place. However, those reasons do not apply here.

The Secretary of State will not he a party to a rebate application, and will have no reason to be involved in any particular case. It is, in fact, basic to the British legal system that issues in the court should be brought by interested parties, and there is no provision for seeking general rulings by Ministers or anyone else on issues in which they are not directly involved.

However, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Clause 3(5) of the Bill already provides access to the County Court by way of appeal against the decision of the rating authority to refuse an application for a rebate. If the County Court rejects the appeal, the applicant can appeal further to the Court of Appeal and could even bring it to your Lordships' House. I also understand that legal aid would be available in appropriate cases for such appeals. This seems to me to be the right way for appeals to be handled, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that the Bill makes provision in the proper way, whereas to involve the Secretary of State would not be normal practice at all.

Lord SANDYS

Although recognising that provision appears to be made in Clause 3(5) for this situation, the situation is a little more complicated by the fact that, although the Secretary of State should not be involved in a situation of this sort, cases can arise where he may be advised to do so. However, I think that it is unlikely and with the permission of the Committee I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4: After clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Forgoing of attendance allowance in certain circumstances.

(".—(1) Where an attendance allowance is paid to or in respect of a disabled person or where a disabled person who is substantially dependent upon a wheelchair for indoor locomotion resides in a hereditament within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act the person entitled to a rebate by virtue of any one or more of those paragraphs may elect to forgo such rebate and receive instead an alternative rebate equal to one half of the rates chargeable on the hereditament for the rebate period.

(2) The rating authority may, if they think fit, increase the alternative rebate specified in subsection (1) above by an additional amount up to the whole of the rates chargeable on the hereditament for the rebate period.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord HUGHES

I am afraid that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment. The basic underlying principle of the Bill in relation to disabled persons living in private houses is that they should be given rate relief in so far as their disability makes it necessary for them to have special features in their accommodation that makes it more expensive and hence, more highly rated than it would have needed to be if they had not been disabled. Thus, if a disabled person needs a second bathroom, or a separate bedroom, or space for treatment facilities, or extra space throughout for a wheel-chair—I should perhaps point out that in my brief the word "wheel-chair" is spelled as one word—then these features in so far as they make the house more expensive and more highly rated than it would otherwise have needed to be are to be relieved of rates. This is the principle followed in Clauses 1 and 4.

The new clause now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness departs altogether from this basic principle and proposes instead a 50 per cent. rate relief for all disabled persons receiving attendance allowances or substantially dependent on a wheelchair, with an option for the rating authority to give additional relief up to 100 per cent. of the full rates. This would in effect, put disabled persons on a par with charities which, under a different section of the General Rate Act, are entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief, with a discretion for local authorities to give additional relief up to 100 per cent.

I would suggest, however, that this is not the right analogy. Disabled people living in houses and flats receive benefit from local authority services in the same way as other householders, and it does not seem right that they should be relieved of the obligation to pay rates on such a large scale just because they arc disabled. The Bill already provides that they should be given relief in so far as their disability makes their accommodation more expensive than the normal person's. But I do not think that they ought to have more favourable treatment than that.

If I understand the feeling aright, there is a strong desire among disabled people that they should have sufficient income from whatever source—and I fully recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that this is so for all disabled people. But having obtained a sufficient income, I should have thought it better that disabled people should then pay their rates in the same way as other citizens, subject only to the special relief given under the Bill for the extra rates they incur because of their disability.

This is the principle, but if the Amendment were to be effected it would really take the measure of relief far beyond the present position. The object of the Bill is not to extend relief, nor to diminish relief, but to remove the doubts that have been brought into the existing legislation as a result of court decision. It is to make sure that the reliefs which it was believed disabled people were entitled to in the original legislation should be made absolutely certain.

In this connection, perhaps this would be an appropriate time when I might refer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, in relation to the relief for garages. She pointed out that in some cases the figure of £25 in the Bill could, in fact, mean that there would be a reduction in the amount of relief given, because although £25 was accepted as being generally acceptable, the noble Baroness pointed out that, for instance, in London the cost of a garage might be very much in excess of this, and the effect of the Bill, if it were unchanged, would be to cause a reduction to be given in the amount of relief which hitherto has been granted. I accept—and in consultation with my noble friend Lady Stedman I have found that the Government agree—that it is not the intention of the Bill that anyone getting relief at present in a case such as this should be deprived of part of it, and I intend to submit at the next stage of the Bill an Amendment to make it clear that such a reduction will not take place.

With these remarks, I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the purpose of the Bill is to place present reliefs beyond doubt, and because of the Amendment that I shall be moving to make certain that this present relief on garages is in no case diminished. I hope, with these explanations, that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that if there is a drawback in the present situation it is that there are perhaps many disabled people who do not have an adequate income. But it is not the purpose of the Bill—and it was never pretended to be the purpose—to put their income into a satisfactory position; it concerns their rating position, in so far as extra requirements which they have are concerned.

Lord SANDYS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for making clear a number of matters which arise out of the whole purport of the Bill. At this stage, I think we ought to return to the purpose of the Bill, which is to put right Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967. We have previously referred to the case which was known as Vandyk v. Oliver which gave rise to the situation leading to the promotion of this Bill, and I think it would he difficult at this stage to press this Amendment. However perhaps I should refer once again to the remarks made on the parallel case of Almond v. Birmingham Corporation in 1968 which brings this particular situation into sharp relief. This is what Lord Reid said: if the scope of section 45 was to be extended far beyond local authorities and charities to many thousands of citizens, many of them ill or handicapped, or if the contrary was the case, Parliament really ought to make its dispositions intelligible. I quoted that extract on Second Reading. It is an important point, taking the whole scope of the Bill and what it seeks to do.

Clearly, with the provisions as set out in this particular Amendment—and there is no question about it—the wish is to extend the scope of the Bill. Having taken the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who, together with his honourable friend in another place is promoting the Bill, I think we would place the Bill in real jeopardy if we sought to extend the remit of what is intended. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Rebates for lands and heritages with special facilities for disabled persons]:

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5: Page 5, line 13, after ("garage") insert (", carport").

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 18, after ("garage") insert (", carport").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7: Page 6, line 7, leave out ("rebate shall be proportionately reduced") and insert ("rating authority may, if they think fit, reduce the rebate by the proportionate amount or any lesser amount.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and I would wish to associate with this Amendment, Amendment No. 15, which is to achieve the same purpose. The Bill at present requires rating authorities to reduce the amount of rebate where the entitlement to it stops during the currency of a rebate period. The Amendment allows them to exercise discretion in the matter of reduction for part of a rebate period for domestic hereditaments. I undertook at Second Reading to table an Amendment which would remove this mandatory requirement on local authorities and give them instead a discretion in the matter. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Rebates for institutions in Scotland for the disabled]:

5.29 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 8: Page 6, line 39, after ("occupied") insert ("or have been provided").

The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 8, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and speak to all three. They arise on a particular situation, and I think it illustrates the very real difficulties we are up against in trying to promote a rating Bill of this kind. The question arises through the particular situation in regard to a major charity in Scotland known as the Thistle Foundation. A few days ago this Foundation wrote to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, and I think it would be valuable if I read a portion of the letter, although only a portion. The letter said: The Bill offers welcome concessions for individual disabled people and for institutions, but it seems likely that in certain circumstances it may not in fact achieve its very laudable objects. My concern is with the Thistle Foundation, a major charity in Scotland providing accommodation and care for the severely physically disabled. The enclosed brochure illustrates the nature and physical characteristics of the Foundation". A little later it says: All the houses are connected together, the central facilities by covered passageways. The Foundation has found itself in an unfortunate position under existing legislation. In a recent judgment, in the Lands Valuation Appeals Court, it was held that the Foundation could not benefit from the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 in respect of the houses".

Here is a body which should undoubtedly benefit from rating relief but it appears that it would be very difficult for that body to benefit under the provisions of this Bill. We are placed in a dilemma here and I have moved these three Amendments to remedy the situation so that the Thistle Foundation and other bodies of a similar nature in the United Kingdom could benefit.

It seems that any Bill is always the wrong Bill for promoting alteration to the existing state of statute law. One must reflect on this because here is an opportunity which we might take to examine the situation. If we press forward too many items to include in a Bill of this nature we may jeopardise its passage through another place. On the other hand, it is right and proper to investigate as fully as possible whether these Amendments could so remedy the state of the law as to place the situation in a more beneficial regard. I beg to move.

Lord HUGHES

In speaking to this Amendment, No. 8, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and, in replying, I shall do the same, although what I have to say will not be the same in relation to each of them. I cannot recommend Amendment No. 8 to the Committee because it would, as Lord Sandys indicated, extend the intention of the Bill much beyond the present position. If we were to give effect to the Amendment, a quite substantial anomaly would be brought into the Bill.

A disabled owner-occupier or the tenant of a privately-rented house will qualify under Clause 4 for a rebate in respect of the special facilities which his house provides, and these are listed in Clause 4(2). The rebate under Clause 4 is, of course, not complete relief; it is a rebate related to the extent of the special facilities. However, the Amendment would place the occupier of a house in the much more advantageous position of getting relief in respect of the whole of his rates, not confined to the special facilities, and it could be given in circumstances where the house had been provided because there was a disabled member of the family, so that the effect of the Amendment would be to apply the relief to them all, although only one member of the family might be affected and no special facilities whatever might be provided. It would, therefore, very much widen the purpose of the Bill.

I do not think Amendment No. 10 would change the meaning of subsection (5) as it stands or add anything to it. In Scotland, the unit of assessment for rating purposes is the lands and heritages comprised in a single entry in the valuation roll. If part of a complex is the subject of a single and separate entry in the valuation roll, that part will constitute lands and heritages in the sense in which that expression is used in Clause 5. The Amendment would serve only to obscure what is at present, I am told, one of the clearest and briefest subsections in the whole Bill, and I hope for that reason that it will not be pressed.

Dealing with Amendment No. 9, the object of Clause 5(2) and the corresponding English provision in Clause 2(2) is simply to list in a clearer and more comprehensible way the categories of institution which are to be relieved from rates. Clause 5(3) and Clause 2(3) take the clarification further by listing explicitly two categories which are not given relief at present and are not to be given relief in future—namely, hospitals and old people's homes.

I should make it clear, however, that these are meant to be fairly broad exclusions. It is certainly not our intention that an institution which would otherwise qualify for relief—for example, a training centre, or an institution providing care for the disabled—should in fact be disqualified merely because there are small subsidiary treatment facilities provided at such a place. Provided the element of treatment is subsidiary or ancillary to the main qualifying purpose, Clause 5(1) and Clause 2(1) ensure that this does not happen and that relief will still be granted to such an institution. It is only where the predominant purpose of an institution is treatment that it comes into the excluded category of Clause 5(3) and Clause 2(3).

I believe this is clear from the Bill as it stands, but in view of the doubts that have been expressed, I will look at the drafting again before Report. In doing so, I will certainly bear in mind the points about the Thistle case which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, made and will take those into account. However, in view of the differentiation I have made in replying to Amendment No. 9 as compared with Nos. 8 and 10, I do not want to raise hopes unduly; I am not giving a definite undertaking to ensure that the Thistle Foundation's properties are brought within the scope of the relief being given. Whether that would be right will depend on the facts of the case and I do not think it would be right to alter the main scheme of the Bill in the interests of the particular body. However, if on merit something should be done—and the Thistle Foundation is a good example of that—then I think it would he right for it to be done and I certainly undertake to have a look at what is intended by Amendment No. 9. I hope, however, that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 8 and will not find it necessary to move Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Baroness MASHAM of ILTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can say how institutions like the Thistle Foundation and the Yorkshire Association for the Disabled, of which I am President, are classed; are they classed as Part III accommodation or as houses? They have houses and hostels within a complex, so they are rather complicated.

Lord HUGHES

It is because of the doubts that have been raised in this matter that I have undertaken to have another look at it between now and Report. It is not a matter which is crystal clear at this stage.

Lord SANDYS

I warmly welcome the attitude to this group of Amendments adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. They give rise to difficulties which we should examine before Report and, if possible, promote we will, Amendments when the time comes. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for mentioning the complexity of the situation, and I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I sought leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Citation, repeals, commencement and extent]:

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Amount of rebate under section 1]:

5.41 p.m.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 10, line 39, at end insert— ("(aa) £15 in the case of an application made by reference to a ("carport").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 13: Page 11, line 3, after ("garage") insert (", carport").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14: Page 11, line 18, after ("garage") insert (", carport").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 15: Page 11, line 21, leave out ("rebate shall be proportionately reduced") and insert ("rating authority may, if they think fit, reduce the rebate by the proportionate amount or any lesser amount ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16: Page 11, line 39, after ("7(a)") insert (",(aa)").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?

Lord SANDYS

On an earlier stage, on Second Reading, we did refer to a number of errors in the printing of the Bill. I hope that these will be particularly referred to, as they do have very great significance. For instance, in Schedule 1, line 35, one should read the figures "1(2)(f)" and not "1(2)(e)". At the top of the next page, page 11, it should read "1(2)(g)"and not"1(2)(f)".

These points are of very great significance in the drafting of this particular Schedule. I hope that they will be taken into account when the time comes.

Lord HUGHES

When I was speaking earlier, I referred to this sheet which had been circulated—a list of corrections which will be made automatically to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who drew attention on Second Reading to some of these. The probability is that she is responsible for this document having been produced. In fact, three corrections of that kind are so listed.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes until 5.50 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.