The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
Order for Second Reading read.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack
(Staffordshire, South-West)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Perhaps I may begin by offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I was pleased to be a sponsor of his Bill and, like everyone else in the Chamber, I was delighted that his efforts have been rewarded with success in that his Bill was given a Second Reading. I should like to thank those of my hon. Friends who abbreviated their remarks towards the end of the debate so that rates could get a look in. It may be as well to put on the record the fact that my hon. Friend won a place in the Ballot and therefore, quite rightly, his Bill took precedence over mine. That must be underlined because many of our constituents would find it difficult to understand how Parliament could spend virtually the whole of the day debating the future of 250,000 people when millions of people who are ratepayers could benefit from the provisions of my Bill. I hope that my Bill will receive a Second Reading, if not today then fairly soon. Modest as its proposals are, they would go a long way towards assisting the millions of ratepayers who are in acute difficulties and who in many cases are facing real financial embarrassment because of the enormous potential rate increases. I do not think I should be transgressing from my own territory unduly if I said that those ratepayers who live in and near the great city of London are this year facing problems which are far in excess of those faced by many of our constituents last year. During last year many people suddenly found that rates were becoming an intolerable burden. Owing to the enormous pressure that was exerted on the Government in the House and to the fact that at that time they were a minority Government, they were defeated on the question of rates and a welcome measure of relief was afforded to domestic ratepayers. One would be churlish not to pay tribute to the efforts of the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Department to try to some degree to cushion the blow this year. Nevertheless ratepayers will again face swingeing increases. They may be due partly to factors such as extravagant expenditure to which the Secretary of State referred the other day. Nevertheless, the main fault lies in the system itself. No one is more pleased than I am that the Government have now established the Layfield Committee. We hope that the committee will come to some sensible conclusions. I do not believe that any hon. Member feels that the rating system does not need some reform. I am proposing two very minor reforms which would bring considerable benefit to many people. They would also restore to the rating system an element of fairness which does not now exist. The real criticism of the rating system is not that it imposes a great financial burden on people, although it does that to a considerable degree. The trouble lies in the way in which that burden is imposed so as to create a most unfortunate element of unfairness. The Bill seeks to do two things. First it seeks to exempt internal improvements of properties from an increased rating assessment. At a time when it is desperately important that everything should be done to conserve and improve our housing stock and to make sure that such decent houses as we have are passed on to future generations—a theme with which I know the Minister will agree enthusiastically—it is unfortunate that the rating system should do anything to discourage people from improving their homes. At present there is a positive discouragement. If a householder improves his home he increases the bill that he will receive from the local authority. Therefore, the Bill seeks to exempt internal improvements from such increases in rates for the occupancy of the owner. When the house has changed hands, it is a different matter, but the man who struggles to improve his home will not be penalised if the Bill becomes law. We are all delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment here. He has had a marathon session on the Front Bench today. I suggest to him that this part of the Bill stands on its own merits, and should commend itself to the Government. I should be delighted if the Government did something about just this one point. I accept that the second proposal for reform is slightly more controversial. It is that in assessing rates a local authority should take into account the number of adult wage earners in the household. That is important, because the most glaring examples of unfairness brought to our notice daily concern the inequitable distribution of the rating burden and the fact that so many of those who enjoy the facilities and services provided by local authorities pay nothing towards them through the rates. We can all quote chapter and verse from hundreds of letters. I have no time to weary the House by giving many examples, even if I wished to. I shall give just one. Only this week an old lady who did not qualify for a rebate, because the provisions made by her late husband brought her just above the limit, wrote to me saying that she thought it a trifle unfair that she should pay the same rates as the family living in a similar house next door, with four wage-earners. Under the Bill, local authorities would be obliged to send out a rating assessment form each year. That form, to be returned by the householders, would give details of the number of adult wage-earners living in the house on 1st April. The rate would be computed upon that basis. That does not do away with the rating system, but, pending Layfield, it brings an element of equity which does not now exist. That should commend itself to every hon. Member. Modest as these proposals are, they would bring benefit to many millions of people, even those who continued to smart under the blows of increased charges. Those millions of people would have the consolation of knowing that the system was fair, and that all those who enjoyed the facilities provided by the local authority, and who benefited from its services, were paying something towards the maintenance of those services directly to the authority. There are many other things the Government should do to assist the ratepayer. There is an unanswerable case for a transfer of the burden of education from the rates to the taxes. But a private Member is not allowed to move for the disposal of Government funds. Therefore, I have not put a clause in the Bill to that effect. I sincerely hope that the Layfield Committee will do something about it. I intend to suggest that the debate should be resumed at a later date. In the intervening period the Minister will have time to reflect upon the provisions of the Bill. I hope that he might see me to discuss them and, indeed, that we might have some measure of reform—It being Four o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the Proceedings.
Second Reading to be resumed upon Friday 16th May.