House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Dec 1990

Column 134

the Minister will agree to do anything about chalets, and I doubt whether the Conservative party will ever do anything other than tinker with the poll tax.

11.25 pm

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : As this Bill applies to Scotland, I should like to say a few words-- [Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that it will be only a few words.

In the Scottish newspapers yesterday, there was considerable coverage of what may have been an inspired leak from the new Secretary of State for the Environment--that his preference was for the abolition of the poll tax and a return to a rating system based upon the sale value of a house-- [Laughter.] I do not understand why the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is laughing. I am aware of the difficult position that he and others of his hon. Friends will be in when that happens. We accept the Bill, which is a minor amendment to the poll tax. It should have been brought forward very much earlier. It does not remove the basic unfairnesses of the standard poll tax, which have been evident since its inception and which we raised both in the House and in Committee. For example, Her Majesty the Queen pays two standard community charges on Balmoral, while constituents in a small flat in Millport pay more than the Queen because they happen to be in a higher rated authority.

That is the basic unfairness of the standard community charge, which we have reiterated time and again, and now do so once more. Although we welcome the Bill, we look forward to the day when, bit by bit--as is happening with this Bill--properties are returned to the old rating system. I am sure that, eventually, all Conservative Members will come to the view that the rating system was not so bad after all.

I wish to question the financial effects of the Bill and its effect on public service manpower. The Bill provides :

"The Bill will reduce authorities' income from standard community charges in both England and Wales and Scotland. In England and Wales the non- domestic rates payable to the Secretary of State will increase and thus the amount distributable by him to charging authorities."

Of course, it is not made clear that that amount will be considerably less than the amount that the local authorities will have paid. Who will make up the difference? The Bill then states : "In Scotland the non-domestic rates payable to local authorities will increase"--

but the amount of money being paid will be considerably reduced-- "but they are required to repay half of the standard community charges paid in respect of caravans in respect of 1989-90." Again, who will pick up the bill for that?

Ministers, especially the hon. Member for Eastwood, know that Scottish local authorities are already in dire financial difficulties because of the consequences of the poll tax. The simple fact is that 80 per cent. of those who have not paid their poll tax cannot afford to pay it. Regional authorities such as Strathclyde and district authorities such as Glasgow are facing enormous shortfalls. They are having to pay off staff, cut services and so on. The Bill may be minor, but it adds one more problem to those being faced by Scottish local authorities--unless the Minister gives a guarantee that central Government will make up

Column 135

the difference. It does not say that in the financial memorandum, and I hope that the Minister will not try to imply that. The Government must make up that difference and not put another financial burden on local authorities.

11.29 pm

Mr. Portillo : The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) described me a member of the St. Andrews set, which I am not. I hope that he will not mind if, none the less, I answer the points made about Scotland as well as those about England and Wales.

As to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), when assessing the amount of the settlement that we make on local authorities, we do not take into account the income that they may have from standard charges, which is a bonus to them. The hon. Member for Cathcart will recall that, in Scotland, static leisure caravans have remained in rating except when they are used as someone's sole or main residence. From 1 April 1989, when domestic rates were abolished in Scotland, residential caravans have either housed personal community charge payers or have been subject to the standard community charge where no one was solely or mainly resident in the caravans. There are only about 600 caravans in Scotland giving rise at any one time to the standard community charge, which means that the impact of the provisions will be minimal in terms of community charge income.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) asked about the derating of caravans in Scotland. To enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to take action to deal with the lack of harmonisation in caravan values in the 1990 revaluation, as a result of which Scottish values are much higher than for comparable caravans and pitches in England and Wales, he proposes to exercise his existing regulation making powers to increase the current 40 per cent. derating enjoyed by static leisure caravans, and to extend it to all caravans.

To enable that to be done, it will be necessary to repeal the existing provision that provides for the derating of only certain caravans. The Bill repeals that provision with effect from 1 April 1990. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is currently collecting information on the extent of the discrepancy between the rateable values of caravans and caravan parks in Scotland and England and Wales. Until that information, and that provided by the caravan industry itself, has been analysed, my right hon. Friend will not be able to determine the level of derating necessary to achieve harmonisation. I am sure that both my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who has championed the cause of caravan owners and site owners in the past, will want to participate in the consultation process.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) both welcomed the Bill, and want an end to uncertainty. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve. The hon. Member for Wansbeck was particularly concerned about multi-sites. Multi-use sites containing holiday caravan pitches, touring pitches, and pitches for tents and for chalets that

Column 136

are let out for short periods of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned will be subject to non-domestic rates, except to the extent that they contain accommodation used as a sole or main residence. If they are used for only part of the year, rateable value should of course reflect that.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed concern about the decision taken by Berwick local authority to set its community charge in the expectation of there being standard community charge income. It is up to Berwick what view it takes, but it was always our intention to exclude caravans from the standard community charge, except where they were a sole or main residence--and I think that was made clear.

If the authority takes account of standard community charge income this year, it will have set a lower charge than it would otherwise have done. The local authority's charge payers would have benefited from that situation. At the end of the year, the authority will presumably find itself with a shortfall on the collection fund, so next year's charge will need to be higher to compensate. However, the benefit has been there for charge payers this year, when a lower charge was set because more income was anticipated. Therefore, the question of Government compensation does not arise.

The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was concerned about touring sites. The sort of touring site that he was talking about may well have been liable to rates under the old rating system. If the use was limited to a few days a year, the rateable value would have been very low. Indeed, in many cases, where the use was casual and irregular, the site might not have been assessed at all if there were no permanent pitches.

Under the existing rating system, the position is the same. The Bill does not touch on sites of that kind, but relates only to protected sites--those containing one or more caravans which are licensed for year-round occupation. I hope that that is reassuring to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned a different point--moorings for boats. I reiterate that we accept that there is a case for replicating in the new system the provisions of the Rates Act 1984 for the valuation officer to group together moorings as a single hereditament and give them a single value. There are good administrative reasons for adopting that approach. Where I part company with my hon. Friend is that I do not believe that the lack of that provision has led to the unfair treatment of any ratepayer, although I shall be interested to hear from my hon. Friend about any evidence to the contrary.

Having said that I do not think that any ratepayer has suffered, I repeat that we intend to make the change which he wants when there is a suitable opportunity, and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, although he feels strongly about the matter, it is a less urgent point than the question of caravans, as many holiday caravan owners are potentially subject to far higher charges than we had intended.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), among others, mentioned chalets. Chalets are domestic and are therefore potentially liable to the standard community charge if they provide living accommodation, provided that the occupier has a sufficient interest in the chalet for the charge to be applicable. If the chalet is used for short-stay accommodation, and is let in such a way for more than 140 days a year, it will be non-domestic and will be liable to rates. Some chalets may be neither living

Column 137

accommodation nor let for short periods. They would be liable neither to the standard charge nor to rates. If a chalet is subject to the standard charge but is also subject to a planning restriction limiting its use to part of the year only, a maximum standard charge multiplier of one applies.

Leaving all those important categories to one side, chalets which provide living accommodation are potentially liable to the standard charge and are akin to second homes, and it is reasonable that they should be treated accordingly.

Mr. O'Brien : The chalets at Skipsea that I referred to have no running water and no toilet facilities. They are simply places that someone can use for recreation, for limited periods of the year. How can the Minister describe them as domestic properties when they are as basic as a shelter? People have to provide their own chemical toilet and to obtain their own water. There are few facilities such as street lighting and main roads. Refuse is collected occasionally.

Mr. Portillo : It is not for me but for the valuation officer to say whether or not they are domestic properties. The hon. Gentleman does not necessarily have a good point when he mentions the non-provision of water, as that is not a local authority service paid for under the personal community charge, let alone under the standard community charge. If the accommodation is not domestic, it will not fall within the community charge, either standard or personal.

Mr. O'Brien : That is what I meant by asking for a definition of a domestic property. If there are no facilities such as running water or toilets in the property, how can they be described as domestic properties?

Mr. Portillo : I repeat that that is a matter for the valuation officers. However, a house with no running water is not necessarily uninhabitable : it cannot be ruled out of the domestic sector. The hon. Gentleman is using a piece of litmus paper which may not constitute the only appropriate test.

Mr. Martlew : Let us suppose that a chalet and a caravan are next to each other, under exactly the same conditions, on a site that is closed for four or five months of the year. How can the Minister say that one is subject to a standard rate, while the other will be subject to the new system? That does not make sense. It is entirely unfair, and the Minister should do something about it tonight.

Mr. Portillo : Let me return to something that I wanted to say to the hon. Member for Normanton. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), implying that my hon. Friend had said that he would produce legislation covering chalets as well as caravans. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my hon. Friend said in Committee on 25 February 1988--and, in so doing, reply to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? He said :

"We have reconsidered the issue thoroughly and conclude that there is a sound a logical case for drawing a distinction between movable caravans, which are chattels and depreciating assets, and other second homes that are not movable. Although the generality of second homes must be treated as domestic properties, and it is only fair and proper that their owners or lessees should pay the standard charge, it

Column 138

is more appropriate for caravan sites and pitches to remain in non-domestic rating."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 1988 ; c. 1031.]

I reiterate what was said then : a caravan is a chattel, and is not in itself subject to rating. It is the pitch on which it stands that is rateable, because it is non-domestic property. Like other rateable property, it is assessed on its notional annual rental value. The presence of a caravan on a pitch will contribute to its value. A chalet, on the other hand, is domestic property if it is living accommodation, and whether it is living accommodation is a question for the valuation officer to determine in each case.

Mr. Wilson : With all due respect, this is absurd. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, clause 2 will, in relation to Scotland,

"exclude caravans from the definition of domestic subjects'." The Bill creates the differential between domestic subjects and caravans which are not to be domestic subjects.

The Minister has repeated the immortal prose of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). How can he defend the logic of excluding a caravan worth £15,000 while including a chalet or flat worth £2,000?

Mr. Portillo : We do not seem to be able to shake the Opposition's belief that property values should be the universal determinant, but that is not the principle involved in the community charge. The hon. Gentleman wants to know why second-home-owners who have caravans rather than cottages or flats escape the standard charge. The law as it stands attempts to make the distinction that he is trying to make, but it simply does not work. We have found no satisfactory alternative break point between holiday caravans and second homes. Rather than create a further set of problems--and because so few caravan second homes exist--we have decided not to make that distinction. We believe that there are only about 2,000 such caravans. The number is restricted by the limited supply ; hence the high value of the pitches that are licensed for all-year occupation. There is a strong financial incentive to use such pitches for residential purposes.

I believe that the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman, although it may give him some heartache, is of limited application. The Government have tried to apply his preferred remedy, but have found that it does not work.

Mr. O'Brien : I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. If the issue of holiday homes and part-time holiday homes is not resolved tonight, I foresee that in a few months we shall have to deal with another Bill to amend what we are amending tonight in this Bill.

I remind the Minister that, in columns 427 to 430 of the Official Report of the proceedings in Standing Committee on 4 February 1988, it was said that the question of the boundaries between domestic and non-domestic property, on which now depends liability as between the community charge and rating, has not proved simple to resolve. The House of Commons Library research note states that the discussion in section C of the background paper should be referred to. Is the Minister saying that the division between domestic and non-domestic properties is a matter for the valuation officers and that it is their responsibility? If disputes arise, who will resolve them? Will it be possible to deal with them here, or will the Minister provide for a decision to be reached if there is a dispute over what are and what are not domestic properties?

Column 139

Mr. Portillo : The hon. Gentleman will recognise that whatever laws we pass they have to be interpreted outside Parliament. We can draft general laws, but how they apply to different people and circumstances and, in this case, to different properties must be a matter of judgment, whether by the courts or by officers who are delegated to take the decision.

The hon. Gentleman implies that borderline problems arise uniquely under the community charge legislation. That is not so. There are difficult borderline cases in every taxation system. The best way to resolve them is to leave the decision to the valuation officers. If the parties are aggrieved, they can use the appeals procedure, or they can test the matter in the courts. That is the only way in which people out there can test what the laws mean that Parliament has passed and how they apply to different people in different circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Patnick.] Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to order [29 November].

CARAVANS (STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE AND RATING) BILL [Money] Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

WAYS AND MEANS

Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill

Resolved,

That any Act resulting from the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill may make provision with respect to the liability to non- domestic rates in respect of pitches for caravans.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Column 140

Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill

Bill considered in Committee, pursuant to order [29 November.]

[Sir Paul Dean-- in the Chair. ]

Clause 1

Caravans in England and Wales : standard community charges and non-domestic rates

11.47 pm

Mr. Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 21, at end insert--

(7A) It shall be an offence for a caravan site owner, or any person acting on behalf of a site owner, deliberately to misrepresent to any site tenant the extent of that tenant's liability to non-domestic rates.'.

This rather hastily drafted amendment is designed to extract from the Minister an explanation of how tenants can have confidence in the apportionment that is made of the rates on a site as a whole. Bearing in mind the possibilities for misunderstanding, not to say tension and disagreement, which can arise on caravan sites, it is important to establish that tenants will not have to face an unchallengeable assertion by a site owner that that is their rates liability at a time when they may suspect that the total amount being collected from tenants exceeds the rates burden placed on the site as a whole and that the amount allocated to them does not fairly represent their share of the total burden. That causes tenants on site considerable anxiety. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : I thank the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for the constructive way in which he spoke to the amendment. I share his concern that caravan owners should be protected from the attempts of site owners to pass on to them excessive charges under the guise of rates liability. As I shall explain, existing provisions should meet his concern.

For many years, it has been standard practice for a caravan site to be assessed for rating as a single entity, with liability falling on the site operator, rather than making a separate assessment of each caravan, with liability falling on the owner. The Non-Domestic Rating (Caravan Sites) Regulations 1990, which we shall extend to cover all caravan sites in non- domestic rating following the passage of the Bill, carry forward that practice into the new rating system. Whether the site owner can pass on an appropriate proportion of his rates bill to the owners of the caravans on site will depend on the terms of his agreement with them.

In making the new regulations, we took care to preserve an important safeguard of the caravan owner's interests. The regulations provide that when the valuation officer enters the value of a caravan site in the rating list, he must also, within a month, inform the site operator in writing of the number of caravans occupied by persons other than the site operator that are included in the assessment and what value is attributed to those caravans. The regulations

Column 141

also provide that any of the caravan owners may, without charge, inspect a copy of the statement giving the information held by the valuation officer.

That means that the individual caravan owner can find out what the average rateable value of a non-residential caravan on the site is and what its rates liability would be were he to pay the rates himself. When the site owner asks for a contribution to rates, he will know what he should be paying, and if the amount seems excessive he can challenge it.

Those who occupy mobile homes as their sole or main residence and pay the personal community charge at that address are not liable for non-domestic rates. They may be required to contribute to the rates for any communal facilities on site that they use, but that would depend on the terms of their agreement with the site owner. It would be unusual for a site operator to attempt to pass on to mobile home residents any part of the non -domestic rate liability that derives from holiday caravans on the same site. Again, that would be governed by the agreement with the site operator.

The agreement that a residential or non-residential caravan owner has with the site operator is a legally enforceable contract. If it follows the format of the standard agreement issued by the trade association, which is widely used, it will contain a condition regarding the payment of rates, and if the site operator attempts to demand a charge for rates that the caravan owner knows to be improper or excessive he will be in breach of that agreement.

Civil law already provides proper remedies for such breaches of contract and I do not think that we need to make provision for a criminal offence further to the offence of obtaining property by deception, which is already contained in the Theft Act 1968. A deliberate misrepresentation of the amount payable in rates under such a model agreement could constitute an offence under section 15 of that Act.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation and will not wish to press his amendment.

Mr. Beith : I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which goes some way to meeting my concern. I remain anxious about when a caravan owner challenges an apportionment, using as his basis the average for the site as a whole. He has been shrewd, has obtained the average for the site and says, "Why are you asking so much from me?" He is in a relatively weak position. If the agreement covers the point and is of the form described by the Minister, he could take the site owner to court for a breach of it, but I am aware of many tenants who have been unable to obtain a copy of their site agreement.

Let us suppose that the tenant has a copy. He must consider whether, as an owner of a caravan on a pretty low income, to take a large, perhaps multi- site owner, to court on a difficult point of law. I cannot think of many caravan owners who would consider themselves in a position to do that. I submit to the Minister that tenants are in rather a weak position when it comes to defending their rights and could well find themselves landed with unreasonable levels of charge, with no adequate means of enforcement.

I know that the creation of new criminal offences is not an activity in which one wishes readily to indulge. The law is complicated enough as it is. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to consider the matter carefully in the light of the slightly changed circumstances that will result from the

Column 142

Bill, to assess whether there is adequate protection for tenants. It is reasonable that tenants should look to the Government, as the authors of the system as a whole--whatever criticisms we may have of it--to ensure that it is not abused so that it becomes even more burdensome because unreasonable sums are charged without adequate recourse. I ask the Minister to examine carefully how the provisions work.

As it appears that the Minister is willing to do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith : I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert--

(7B) No person who has registered for a personal community charge in respect of their residence in a caravan shall be liable to make any contribution to non-domestic rates in respect of the same caravan, at the same site, in the same year.'.

This amendment deals with a more complex matter, which is very important to those who are affected. It is designed to ensure that nobody who has paid a personal community charge or has been registered as liable for one shall be rendered liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of the same caravan.

I have found it necessary to table the amendment because of the confusion-- which I described earlier--on sites as to who is and who is not permitted to be a permanent resident having no other home. Circumstances can arise-- they have certainly arisen in my constituency--in which there are more people on a caravan site whose only home is a caravan or a mobile home than the site operators licence permits or than the site operator is prepared to admit. Such circumstances may arise for a number of reasons. A site operator may have taken on more permanent residents than his licence permits or it may have been unclear, when someone bought a caravan or mobile home, whether he was allowed to be a permanent resident. For whatever reason, a site owner may not wish to treat a caravan resident or group of caravan residents as a permanent resident or residents with no other home and may wish to ignore the view of the community charge officer that that is what they are.

A specific case has arisen, affecting a number of tenants at the Haggerston Castle holiday park outside Berwick-upon-Tweed. A notice issued by Bourne Leisure Group Ltd., which uses that caravan park, said :

"Holiday caravans on holiday caravan parks are controlled by the relevant planning permission and their Site Licence to be used for holidays and recreational purposes only and therefore, no registration of a holiday caravan for the Community Charge (Poll Tax) is permissible . Accordingly, any registration for the Community Charge of a caravan on a holiday caravan park will be a breach of this agreement and the caravan will be disconnected and have to leave the park."

That represented a direct threat from the site owners to the tenants, saying that, if any tenant who registers--as he is legally obliged to register--the fact that he has no other permanent home, his caravan will be disconnected and removed from the park. It is a direct threat to someone carrying out a legal obligation to identify his permanent home.

I wrote to the then Minister about this issue, and he replied : "Even though the terms of Haggerston Castle's site licence may be restricted to holiday and recreational purposes"--

which, incidentally, they are not entirely--

Column 143

"where a person considers that he might nonetheless be subject to a charge he must comply with the community charge regulations. For the purposes of the personal community charge, the status of the caravan--whether or not it counts as domestic property--is irrelevant ; what is at issue is whether the person is solely or mainly resident in that place. It would be more appropriate for Haggerston Castle to frame its notice in the terms of what use of their caravans is acceptable under the terms of the agreement with the individual, rather than to suggest that a person may not inform the local authority if he thinks he subject to the charge."

Naturally I drew the attention of the tenants and the site operators to the Minister's views, but that was not sufficient. The community charge registration officer had to write to the site operators saying :

"It has come to my notice that you are sending out misleading literature to persons registered for the personal community charge. I quote an extract from a letter sent to one of your clients. This states that the caravan is for holiday and recreational purposes only. You have not been offered residential status, therefore the rates are legally due.' "

12 midnight

The site owner told the tenant that, because he did not recognise the tenant as having residential status, he had to pay rates to the site owner as well as paying the personal community charge to the local authority. The registration officer went to some lengths to state :

"Any person who considers that their caravan or chalet is their sole or main residence, has a statutory duty to register for the personal community charge whether the property they occupy has a residential licence or is for holiday and recreational purposes only."

He stressed that the site owners should give more correct advice to their tenants.

However, that was not enough. The community charge registration officer had occasion to write to the site operators again. He wrote :

"I am still rather dismayed that you have been charging rates to persons registered for the community charge, when I have advised you to the contrary and where regulations and advice given to me from the Department of the Environment, clearly states that rates will not be paid on a property where someone is registered for the community charge, irrespective if that property is a caravan, on a protected site or on a holiday site."

The correspondence continued, with the community charge officer trying to insist that the site operators should not seek to claim rates from tenants when those tenants had already paid, or were liable to pay, community charge.

I am not satisfied that this legislation has solved the problem. I am concerned that many of those tenants who have other anxieties about their future security on the site, will remain very worried that they will have to continue to pay the personal community charge because they are legally obliged to do so and they will also have to pay rates to the site owner because he can extract the money from them. They cannot do very much to protect themselves.

I have already said that, even where there is a simple dispute about the level of rate, those tenants are not in a strong position. However, in the case that I have described, they received demands for contributions to local government from two different sources, each of which claimed to be valid--one with the authority of the community charge registration officer and the other from the site owner on whom they were dependent for services.

Column 144

If they continued to give correct information to the council offices, there was the threat that their caravans would be disconnected and towed away.

The Minister must understand how dreadful that is, not just for people with a second home, but for people whose only home is that caravan or mobile home, and who rightly or wrongly have nowhere else to go and, in many cases, had take up residence on the site under the impression that they were allowed to do so by the planning permission and that there was no other reason why they should not regard themselves as permanent residents. Their permanent residence had not been challenged until the poll tax came along. That is so unsatisfactory that I hope that the Minister can give us clear assurances about it.

Mr. Portillo : I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that people living in mobile homes should not be required to pay both the personal community charge and non-domestic rates in respect of their homes. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 clearly provides that, on any given day, a property must be either domestic or non-domestic. A person cannot be liable under both systems on the same day, although he could be liable to different charges at different times in the year.

The treatment of rates liability under the 1988 Act broadly reflects the position under the old rating system. In general, under the terms of the Non-Domestic Rating (Caravan Sites) Regulations 1990, the owners of non- residential caravans are not personally liable for non-domestic rates. Instead, the caravan site is treated as a single property with a single rateable value, and the site operator is liable for all non-domestic rates. Any residential caravans on a site that are occupied as a sole or main residence will of course be left out of the assessment, because they will be domestic and therefore not rateable.

Mr. Beith : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo : I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's point. On a site which has residential and non-residential caravans, the rates bill may have two elements. One will be the amount attributable to holiday caravans, and the second might be any amount attributable to any other non-domestic property on the site--for instance, communal facilities such as a launderette or games room.

How the site operator meets the cost of his rates bill and the extent to which he passes it on to caravan owners will be a matter for him to consider in the light of his agreement with caravan owners. He may in some circumstances share the rating costs associated with communal facilities across all caravans, residential and non-residential alike. That might be perfectly reasonable if they all benefited from the use of the facilities. However, as I have said, it would be improper for him to try to impose on mobile home residents any part of the rate liability attaching to holiday caravans on the same site.

I must agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a possible difficulty on sites where the number of residential caravans exceeds the number permitted by the licence. The residents of those caravans will be liable to the personal community charge, and quite rightly so. The assessment of the non- domestic extent of the caravan site will be a matter for the valuation officer and will reflect the particular local circumstances. I would expect him to take account of the number of caravans permitted by the licence for residential

Next Section

Home Page