I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 43, to leave out “or a relative of the applicant” and to insert:
“of the applicant or a relative or servant (other than a relative or servant who, in the opinion of the rating authority, might reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards the applicant's rates)” .
I think it might be to the convenience of the Committee if at the same time we took Amendment No. 76, in page 11, line 43, leave out “relative” and insert “dependant” .
This Amendment deals with a part of the point concerning joint occupiers which the Richard CrossmanMinister raised on [column 199]Clause 3. The question arises when an old person has to take a housekeeper/companion who is not a relative, and that housekeeper/companion may have a very small remuneration or, indeed, may be paid for by another relative. However, the fact that she was taken in to look after that old person would cut the amount of the rebate to which that old person was entitled. We have found it extremely difficult to draft an Amendment to meet the deserving cases which would not, in fact, meet the case of every housekeeper. The reason why it is not drafted is in order to give some discretion to the local authority who may well know the circumstances. I hope the Minister will have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment.[column 200]
I think this Amendment hangs together very much with the previous one that I was discussing with my hon. Friend. It seems that the two must be looked at together. I will give it the same sympathetic consideration. We should try to meet this position as far as possible. We shall find there are classes of this sort where the inclusion of these people and the reckoning of them as those contributing to the household will be a great injustice in assessing the rebate.
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.