| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he make a comment about the abolition of rates on sporting rights? He did not mention them at all in his speech and I am curious to know what his and his party's views are towards that part of the Bill.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I did not mention them because I was somewhat bemused both by the
discussions here and in the other place about them. Frankly, I would rather leave the matter to the Committee stage to see whether we are helping to make Scotland the same as England or England the same as Scotland and where the benefits are. The Minister said very little about it in his speech. I was hoping that he would give us a lead.5.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a very good way of saying, "I don't know". I do not blame the noble Lord because he was caught on the hop and he made a jolly good fist of getting out of the situation. I am grateful for the welcome that noble Lords have given to this Bill. It has been a considerable welcome and that is deeply appreciated. There were not many noble Lords who disagreed with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is a very nice man and I like him a lot. It does not come easy to him to be nasty. He did try to be nasty because I believe that his brief says that he must say something horrible about the Government. So he said that it was a jolly good Bill, but that it came from a bad government. I expected him to say something like that. However, he said that it was a "good Bill" and that was the great thing about it. He did try to bring in a little party politics in saying that we had not done very much. I was amused and wondered how his party was going to make a much better fist of all this. Only one Member on the Benches behind him participated in the debate on this great Bill, which shows the interest that his party has in the countryside. However, she is an excellent Member and she too said that it is a good Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, she is a very good Member.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, indeed, she is a very good Member. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, always has a percipient attitude towards matters concerning the countryside. She said that it is a good Bill.
I was glad to note so many of my noble friends behind me enthusing about the Bill and the Government. My noble friend Lord Gisborough pointed out that he was happy to be on the side of the angels today. I merely say that we noted that some of my noble friends behind me have not always been minded to support the Government in the way that they should. Because my noble friend made those nice remarks today, I hope he will not consider that he is storing up brownie points for any future misdemeanours. I will accept the fact that he has seen the light and that in future he and most of my noble friends will continue to support the Government in the way that they usually do.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am quite certain that the remarks that my noble friend makes are made in jest. Perhaps I may just make a serious point. As regards the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it did not give me nor any of my colleagues any pleasure whatsoever to vote against the Government which, principally, we support. The reason we did so was because we thought that it
was a thoroughly bad Bill. That in no way implies criticism of the Government themselves generally speaking, but only on that specific occasion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may add that I was principally voting against the Opposition Front Bench.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think we should get back to the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth for what he and the Rural Development Commission do for the countryside. They put in a considerable amount of work from which the countryside benefits greatly. His intervention today is a mark not only of the importance of the countryside, but also of the work of the Rural Development Commission.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to the Isle of Wight, as I would expect. I thought that he would be glad about the steps we have taken to deal with the Isle of Wight and its problems. But my noble friend was not wholly satisfied. He said, "We warned the Government of the problem. We have tried for years and years. Why have we not altered things before now?". We have not necessarily had the opportunity to do that, but this Bill provides such an opportunity. However, my noble friend said that he tried; Mr. Field tried; and my noble friend Lord Ullswater tried. But my noble friend said that we had to wait until Ferrers came to the Department of the Environment before he got the satisfaction which he sought. I hope that at least he will now find that satisfaction.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough and many others referred to the importance of keeping rural shops and that they should be supported. They have to be supported, but inevitably one has changing demands because of the advantages of the large shops with cheaper prices and so many things being available. However, people do require small shops. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Bowness who said that we cannot alter the patterns of shopping and that it would be wrong of us to try. He is quite right in that respect. We should not alter the patterns of shopping, but we should try to help those shops which find themselves in specific difficulties.
One of the points to which many noble Lords referred was rate relief. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned about the threshold for mandatory relief being too low at £5,000. The rateable value threshold is not on the face of the Bill. We are minded to set it at £5,000. When we consulted about the threshold in the summer most respondents supported that level. We shall certainly consider the noble Baroness's comments before we set the threshold for mandatory relief. At the moment it is not set in stone, but that is the figure which we believe should be set.
The noble Baroness asked why we needed a threshold for discretionary relief. Our research shows that small businesses are most in need of help. That is why it is right to limit the discretionary relief to businesses which have a rateable value below £10,000. Again, we have not set such a threshold and it is not on the face of the Bill. We shall certainly consider the points made by the noble Baroness before we reach a final decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, wanted to know why the Bill provided that Crown property will pay only business rates and not domestic rates. There is a fairly simple reply to that. The domestic rate no longer exists. It is now called the council tax. The Bill provides that only non-domestic Crown property will be removed from Crown exemption and that is why they will pay non-domestic rates. The amounts will be broadly the same as the contributions in lieu of rates which they make at the moment. Domestic Crown property is generally subject to council tax because the occupiers themselves are not exempt. Only empty domestic property and houses owned by the Ministry of Defence are exempt. In that case a contribution is made in lieu of council tax.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I completely accept what the noble Earl said and he has certainly cleared my mind on the subject. If there is still some area where money is paid in lieu of council tax, why is that anomaly not also being cleared up in this Bill? The main anomaly is that money paid in lieu of tax out of goodwill has been tidied up and tax is being paid. Why cannot that be done in the area which the noble Earl just mentioned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord's problem correctly, it is this. Non-domestic rates are paid on property. Therefore, when the property is in the hands of a government department, until now it has not paid the non-domestic rate because it has been exempt. However, a similar amount has been paid in lieu. Domestic rates now no longer refer to a place, but are domestic rates paid by individuals. Therefore, people who live in what may be a non-domestic place will still have to pay the council tax.
I may have misunderstood the noble Lord's question. I shall read it again in Hansard and write to him about it. From the expression on his face, I fancy that I may have misunderstood him--
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister continues, my noble friend has a point, because the council tax is in part a property tax, as we were told on many occasions when the legislation was going through. That is why, for instance, a sole occupier gets only 25 per cent. relief--it is a relief on only part of the tax. It might be helpful to my noble friend if, on the point about empty properties--
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see now that there is a point of which I may not be fully seized. I shall address my mind to the point that the noble Lord and his noble friend have made. Incidentally, I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he "hugely welcomed" the Bill. That is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Bowness referred to small business rate relief and said how good it was for the countryside, but that town businesses suffered also. We are aware that rates continue to be a considerable burden on small businesses whether they are located in the country or in towns. We recognise that more needs to be done. I can
advise my noble friend that we are looking at what steps might be taken further to reduce the rate burdens on small businesses, wherever they are located.My noble friend Lord Gisborough was concerned about new businesses receiving rate relief. The Bill will provide mandatory rate relief to general stores and post offices because they provide an essential service. Local authorities will have discretionary powers to help other rural businesses, but we are considering how to help small businesses in general with their rates bills and we shall certainly consider my noble friend's points before we reach a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also spoke about property and was concerned about whether the relief would be available if only part of the property was used as a general store. Relief will be available if only part of the property (be it a general store or a post office) is being used. The noble Lord was also concerned about the position of owner occupiers. Rate relief will apply only to an occupier, not to an owner, because the property must be in use.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also said that the specified figure of 3,000 for a village population was too low for a rural settlement. It is always difficult to come to a fair or right figure. We thought that 3,000 was about right. We consulted on that figure and, on the whole, most people considered that it was right. I claim no immunity about it being the perfect figure, but it is the one that we think is right. However, whatever the figure on which one decides, reasons are always given as to why it should be higher or lower.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth referred to community post offices. I agree that community post offices play an important role in providing essential services to rural communities, as do all post offices. Community post offices already tend to have very low rates bills--far lower than the bills of full-time post offices. The rate relief scheme may reduce them still further by providing that the sole post office--and it has to be a sole post office in a village settlement--receives 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief. My noble friend said that it will be open to local authorities to grant community post offices 100 per cent. relief if they so wish. I am sure that local authorities will look with particular favour on applications from the very smallest post offices, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to issue guidance on such decisions. The use of discretionary powers should reflect local circumstances. Any guidance is, by definition, bound to be more prescriptive than no guidance. This is one of those occasions when one wishes to leave the discretion with the local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Sandys referred to the Charter Trustees Bill. I had a funny feeling that we would not get through this debate without my noble friend referring to that. I am bound to say that I do not entirely share my noble friend's view that the Local Government and Rating Bill will adversely affect charter trustee areas or that special provision needs to be made for them. Our general view is that a parish should be based on the smallest area which would reflect local interests and form a convenient administrative unit. It may well be
that charter trustee areas meet that test, but we do not think that it would be right to ensure that a charter trustee area can only become a single parish. Communities are never fossilised. They inevitably ebb and flow. If the identities of old communities change, it is the modern communities, not the older ones, which the boundaries of any new parish should reflect.Where a proposal to parish a charter trustee area is brought forward by a district council or as a petition, local views will be presented to the Secretary of State. It should therefore be quite clear where local interests and identities lie with regard to the proposed parish. If it is not clear, the Secretary of State can call on the Local Government Commission to consider the matter further.
We have taken steps to ensure that the effect of any proposal for a new parish in an existing charter trustee area is to be taken into account properly. Our draft circular on parish reviews cites a charter trustee town as a possible case where a larger parish would best suit the needs of the area if division of a town would not reflect the sense of community which should lie behind all those parishes. The draft circular also refers to particular factors for consideration where there is a proposal to parish a charter trustee area, such as whether the area has a cohesive history and demonstrable community identity and whether it contains separate smaller areas which themselves have separate identities and would be viable as parishes in their own right. We think that that will provide perfectly clear and balanced guidance about charter trustee areas and new parishes. As always on these matters, my noble friend's speech was most interesting and I shall certainly study what he said carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned about the risk of the decision-making process being fragmented. She was also worried about Agenda 21 issues. The decision-making responsibility will not be transferred by the Bill. The Bill provides only that there should be better consultation between the local authorities and the parish councils. It should enable the principal authorities to make better decisions. Agenda 21 issues may well be suitable for wider consultation. We are not intending that that should be made more difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked whether parish councils could be abolished under the Bill. The answer is that they could be. It will be possible for the Local Government Commission or a district council to recommend that a parish council should be abolished, but a review will have to be conducted first. The Secretary of State will require very good reasons as to why a parish council should be abolished. Mere dissatisfaction with the current parish council will not be enough. We expect few such abolitions.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also referred to Northern Ireland and asked why Northern Ireland is not included in the Bill. It will be open to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring forward an Order in Council to bring Northern Ireland rating into line with these changes where appropriate, if he wishes to do so.
The noble Lord was also worried about sporting rights. My noble friend Lord Peel gave the noble Lord a very good answer. The rating of sporting rights is riddled with anomalies. The only way to solve such problems is to remove such rights from rating. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that saying that, if something was inconvenient or contained lots of anomalies, it should be removed was a funny approach to take. I think that that is a rather good basis on which to approach such matters, but most of government does not operate like that because it is too complicated. This case, however, is not too complicated; it is quite simple. Therefore, we think that it is a good thing to do because it will help local country interests. It will put about £5 million per year into the rural economy. We shall be getting rid of regulations. Indeed, we shall be getting rid of a nasty tax, so I think that everyone should approve of it. Indeed, even the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, might think that that is a good idea.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page