§ As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
§ CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions as to valuation of hereditaments containing machinery and plant.)
With regard to the Amendments on the Paper to Clause 24, I may perhaps be able to help the House with a suggestion. There are three points on which I should wish the House to be able to decide. The first is—and I am not speaking now of minor points, such as drafting Amendments and so on —the Motion of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker), to strike out the Clause, which, of course, will leave the law as it now stands. The second is the proposal of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—and I think it is also in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd)—who want to extend the Clause, and take the rate off fixed machinery as well as loose machinery. Thirdly, there is the proposal of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), who wishes to leave 25 per cent. of the rating on the loose machinery. It seems to me that it would be convenient if the Debate might cover all those three proposals together: and then we might take the decision of the House at the end of the discussion on the throe proposals, say, at 7.30 or thereabouts. The House would thus be able to register a clear opinion.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
May I ask how the Question will be put, so that we can take a decision on the three proposals?
§ 4.0 P.M.
On the first Question to leave out the Clause, I shall put the words of the Clause down to a certain point, saving the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood); and, when I come to put his Amendment, I shall put it so as to save the Amendment of the hon. Member himself. Therefore, on each Amendment, we 6hall have a clear decision from the House.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)
I presume that in that event there would be no Debate on the subsequent Amendments, but that they would be merely put to the House, the whole of the Debate having been taken on the Amendment to leave out the Clause.
That is my suggestion, and, if the House respond to it, I shall of course allow a general Debate rather wider in scope than I should otherwise be inclined to do.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I only rise to say that that arrangement would be in every way satisfactory to us, and I think it would certainly make for clear debate.
§ Mr. BARKER
I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I need not remind the House of the tremendous interest there is in the country with reference to this question. Even to-day there are 71 petitions against the Bill, which, inferentially, means that they are against this Clause. During this week there have been, I think, between 100 and 150 petitions against the Bill, which shows the enormous amount of interest in the country with reference to it. The Minister of Health has said on more than one occasion that this is not a Bill that interferes with rating. He said that on Second Reading, and he repeated it, I think, on Monday last. It is difficult to reconcile that statement with this Clause. I contend that this Clause, this unrating of machinery, is altogether alien to the purposes of the Bill and should not have been introduced into a Measure of this character. The Clause divides machinery into two classes. At the present time the classes of machinery that are divided in the Schedule are all rated. The Minister proposes in this Bill to unrate certain machinery. Machinery that is used for motive power he does not propose to unrate. Process machinery for manufacturing purposes he does propose to unrate.
I want to say, in the first place, that this Clause will not reduce the rates in the aggregate by one penny piece. It follows, naturally, that any alteration in the incidence of rating has to be made up by the other ratepayers, and I say that this is not the time to interfere with the incidence of rating. The time is indeed most inopportune to interfere with 1413 rating. The rates have increased during the last seven years by from 100 to 200 per cent., and to interfere with the incidence of rating at this moment is in my opinion most injudicious and unjust. The Minister proposes by this Clause merely to shift the burden. He intends to shift the burden as far as he can from the wealthy ratepayers on to the poor ratepayers, the working-men and business people. Therefore, I say that it is unjust as well as inopportune to introduce a Bill of this character at this time.
In the necessitous areas people are harried and harassed by the rate collectors. Many thousands of unemployed have been brought up before the magistrates to try to compel them to pay the rates, and when inquiry has been made it has been found that there is no defence. The Minister, by this Clause, is going to throw a further burden upon these necessitous areas. I want to put one straight question to him on this point. If he carries this Clause, is he prepared with the Treasury to come to the relief of these necessitous areas and bear the burden? If he is, then that may have material weight with some Members of the House who have to cast their votes with reference to this Bill. But if he does not choose to do that, then, I say, it is most unjust to increase the burdens upon the rates in these necessitous areas where they are already overwhelmed with debt owing to unemployment. The areas that are most heavily hit with reference to unemployment will be the hardest hit by this Bill.
The Bill gives no relief, but places extra burdens upon the mining industry. There is no industry in the country to-day that is suffering more than the mining industry, and, if he shifts this burden, it must inevitably fall more heavily upon these mining areas. Many of the collieries now are just barely keeping the windings working, and any extra burden he places upon them will further increase unemployment in the industry. Rates, as I have said, have increased from 100 to 200 per cent., especially in these necessitous areas, and a proposal further to increase them should in my opinion be strongly condemned by this House.
The National Council of Assessment Committees, in giving evidence before the 1414 inquiry on this question, estimated that this Clause, if passed, will add £10,000,000 to the rates of the poorest ratepayers. This statement has never been refuted. I daresay that it would be difficult to find evidence to justify or to prove it, but after all there is very substantial reasons for a statemest of this character, and those reasons were stated by those persons who gave evidence on behalf of the National Conference of Assessment Committees. I would refer hon. Members to that evidence if they doubt the statement. The statement has been made in this House before, and it has never been challenged. It was made on the Second Reading of the Bill by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), and I myself believe that there is substantial foundation for it. If that be so, surely this House should hesitate before it puts £10,000,000 of rates on to the poor ratepayers of this country.
It is said—and this is the case that the Minister makes continually with reference to this unrating of machinery —that it will cheapen production and therefore promote trade. I should just like to test that statement, because it is very important. I find, on page 42 of the evidence given on behalf of the National Conference of Assessment Committees, that the following examples are given to show the maximum reductions that will take place if machinery be unrated. These figures are exceedingly important, and I think, myself, they destroy the case that the Minister is trying to make out. If you take sugar —and machinery has a great deal to do with the refinement of supar—the prevailing rate is £63 per ton—I may say that these figures were given, I think, last year, and they are approximately accurate—and the reduction that would ensue in the price of sugar if this Clause were carried would be the paltry sum of 3¾d. per ton. These trifling amounts are absolutely too small to be passed on to the consumer. He will get no benefit whatever from the alterations. All the benefits will go into the pockets of the manufacturers. Take beer. The prevailing rate per barrel is £5 1s. 9d. This Bill will reduce the cost by ¾d. per barrel. Take bricks. The prevailing price is £3 2s. per 1,000. This Bill will reduce the price by l½d. per 1,000. Take palm kernel oil. The prevailing rate is 1415 £38 per ton. This Bill will reduce the cost of production by 9d. per ton.
This shows that the plea which is being made by the Minister that this Clause is in the interests of trade is an absolute fallacy. It is brought in in the interests of a select body of manufacturers and will benefit the select few at the expense of the poorer many of the ratepayers. For these and other reasons, I hope that the House will hesitate before it accepts the Clause; and, unless the Minister is prepared to give a promise on behalf of the Government with regard to the necessitous areas and in fact other areas who will be immensely interfered with in the incidence of rating, then I hope that the House will unhesitatingly reject it.
§ Mr. MARDY JONES
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the one thing we want to bear in mind, and the one thing only, is whether or not this is an equitable proposal. The relief in the rating of machinery proposed appears to me to be going the wrong way to help any industry that may require assistance for development. The industries that are to get the benefit are those that are using a great deal of very heavy machinery in the course of their business, and, in so far as they are going to get relief, it is quite obvious that all other classes of ratepayers will have to make it up. If the relief is to be small, it is not worth while introducing this; new feature and upsetting the fundamental principle of rating law in this country, which has been with us for nearly 100 years; and if the relief is to be very large, there is going to be a corresponding increase of burden on all other classes of ratepayers. If the Government are anxious to help this particular kind of industry, they ought to grant relief in some other way. It seems very strange that this Government, which is calmly going to assist this particular industry in this way, and give it a special privilege, cannot find other ways of relieving industry generally by taxing wealth now untaxed and unraided—I refer to ground values, mining royalties and ground rents—and so benefit the whole country.
§ Captain REID
I have a certain paternal feeling about this particular Clause, because it is practically identical 1416 with the Rating of Machinery Bill that was brought into this House a short time ago. The last time it was introduced in this House it was my privilege to bring it in, and on that occasion it passed its Second Reading by a large majority, and eventually went to that vortex upstairs, the Committee stage, and was not heard of again. I am afraid it suffered the fate of most private Members' Bills and experienced a painless death. But I, and those who supported the Bill on that occasion, had the satisfaction of hearing from the Government of the day that they intended, in consequence of our introducing that Bill, to set up a Departmental Committee to look into the whole question, and we flatter ourselves that this particular Clause is part of the finding of that Departmental Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear" and "No!"] There seems to be some dissent, but that, anyhow, is my information on the subject.
I regret that this Clause has not been made the subject of a Government Bill in itself. As it is, it has been added to the Rating and Valuation Bill, which, I think, is unfortunate. I must admit, that so far as the Rating and Valuation Bill is concerned, I, personally, do not understand it; it is too complicated. I have sat here the last two days and listened to all the arguments for and against. I have received more literature on this particular Bill than I have ever received on any Bill before, and the move I hear about it, the more literature I receive on the subject, the more bewildered I become, and I expect that is also the experience of other hon. Members. I do trust that, at any rate, the promoters of this Bill understand it, because if they do not, nobody else can. But even if the blessings of the whole Bill are assured, or be they doubtful, I shall vote for it, if only for Clause 24. Clause 24 I consider to be essential. It differs from all the other Clauses in one respect in particular, and that is that it is easy to comprehend, except for the word "hereditament," a word I have constantly to look up. But I understand it is not policy for any Government Department when introducing a Bill of their own to make it simple, because if it were simple, it would mean that the simple-minded Member, such as myself, would easily understand it, and that would very often greatly retard the progress of a Bill.
1417 I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward against this Clause by the Mover and Seconder of the rejection, and I have come to the conclusion that their criticism can be summed up into one large complaint. Putting it simply, it amounts to this, that if on the passage of this Clause machinery is relieved of rating, the incidence will fall upon the ratepayer. In the first place, I should like to point out to those Members of this House who are not already aware of the fact, that only in a very few districts in England is machinery rated at all. Warrington, the constituency I represent, happens to be one. In other districts it is only partially rated. In the majority of districts there is no rating of machinery. Therefore, out of the whole population of England, only a very small portion of the community is likely to be affected one way or the other, and, consequently, that particular form of criticism does not carry the same weight.
There is a more practical point I should like to put before the House. In my own district, a typical industrial centre, some, manufacturers have told me that if machinery be relieved from rating, it will be very much to their advantage in one particular respect. They tell me that they will then be able to compete with foreign competitors, which they have not been able to do up to the present. In fact, I am informed that it will make all the difference, and, naturally, the result of that will be that local relief authorities will not have to incur the same liability, because these manufacturers assure mo that they will be able to employ many more men and women, and if the local rates can be reduced, as under those circumstances they undoubtedly could be, that, of course, would have to be set against the disadvantages suggested by the opponents of this Clause.
There is yet another argument that I would like to bring forward. I admit I have only just thought of it, and, I must say in advance, it is somewhat beside the point. Nevertheless, if arguments such as those to which we have listened are brought forward by hon. Members opposite, I am perfectly entitled to bring forward this one. We must remember that at the beginning of next year the Government's pension scheme comes into force, and, very briefly, the result of that to local relief authorities will be that they 1418 will not have to incur the same liabilities that they had to incur before; in other words, necessitous widows will not have to be provided for by those authorities but the burden will then be placed upon the shoulders of the State, which will be to the advantage of local rates. That is another example of how such weak criticism can be met. Even if the arguments I have brought forward were completely fallacious, the fact remains that every Member in the House ought to support this Clause, if only from a sense of fairness. I have already mentioned that in only a few districts is machinery rated at all. Perhaps some hon. Members do not appreciate that. In Scotland there is no rating of machinery. The same applies to Ireland and every other part of the world. It is only in isolated districts in Great Britain, mostly Lancashire, that there is this rating of machinery.
Only yesterday a prominent manufacturer from my part of the country came to see me, and he informed me that there is an industry only a few miles away from his own turning out the same commodity, and that he is invariably at a disadvantage when competing for new business with that particular industry, for the simple reason that in Warrington machinery is rated up to the hilt, and in the other area machinery is not rated at all. Therefore, I consider that the law at present is grossly unjust and inequitable, and ought to be changed without further ado. It ought to have been changed years and years ago. If I had my own way about this particular Bill I should be inclined to leave the whole Bill to a free vote of the House, but not Clause 24. After all, if Clause 24 had not been inserted, I am somewhat of opinion that the Bill would have had a very much rougher passage. Clause 24 is the non-skid to the whole Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member must not discuss the Bill in general. There are more than 70 Clauses in it.
§ Captain REID
I apologise. I was getting somewhat worked up and diverted. Anyhow, I would like to conclude my few remarks by suggesting to hon. Members that they should at least support Clause 24, and, indeed, the whole Bill, because, if the whole Bill be defeated, Clause 24 also will be lost.
1419 Therefore, I ask hon. Members to swallow any doubts they may possess upon the matter, and support Clause 24 for fairness' sake.
§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
I am sure the House must have enjoyed the candour of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. We might also, I think, congratulate him on being in the happy position of being a step farther towards the goal. The proposal of the Bill—and might I also add that, to my mind, it might have gone further—is one of the chief features which seems to be dictated by the right principle. Hon. Members of the Labour party have proposed the exclusion of Clause 24, and have been discussing it from the point of view purely of local problems, problems peculiar to themselves and their own conditions. It is quite easy to form a view of the Clause if one only thinks of the wants of any constituency in which one happens to be interested. I have little doubt why it has been necessary to take off the Government Whips in view of the attitude taken up by hon. Members representing constituencies on the other side, which makes it almost impossible for the Government to exorcise their normal discipline. That is quite true, if I may say so, of the other two parties. We each form our views to a large extent from what would happen to our own local ratepayers. That is only natural. Might I, however, ask the House to consider for a short time the necessity, first of all, of putting our rating system as regards machinery on a uniform basis, and, secondly, of being guided as to the burdens which we impose upon rateable property by sound principles.
In regard to localities, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken drew attention to the fact that we have areas in the country where machinery is not rated at all. I think he was mistaken in imagining that Lancashire is a county where rates are based as a rule on machinery. As a matter of fact, in Lancashire, where there are, I think, something like 55,000,000 or 56,000,000 spindles, only about 9,000,000 spindles are rated. Even in that county there is no uniformity. In Scotland, the cotton industry is undoubtedly free from this 1420 burden, and such rates as are imposed on the cotton industry in Scotland are imposed on the hereditaments and the fixed part of the machinery. Local customs in this country have never been uniform. There are some authorities which do not tax machinery. They do not do it because it may be the owners of the machinery have great influence in the constituency. I believe also they take this attitude because they believe that placing rates upon the means of production is a wrong principle.
In the North-eastern areas the rating of machinery is much more general, becoming even a grave burden on our major industries. One of the reasons why we find it most difficult to hold our own in the face of foreign competition is because of our local burdens. For instance, take the shipyards. The machinery in the shipyards is far more heavily rated and the burden greater than the local burdens in Rotterdam, or Hamburg. Now that our rates are so high the burdens thrown upon those industries, which are open to world-wide competition, and always will be—however Protectionist this country may grow it cannot be Protectionist in the shipbuilding industry—the whole weight of worldwide competition must fall on this great industry. If we go on placing upon their shoulders these unnecessary burdens, and placing them in proportion, not to the bad equipment but to its opposite, we are rapidly going to place them at a great disadvantage in the face of foreign competition, with Holland and Germany in particular, and this will make their complete recovery well nigh impossible.
The local problem is, of course, the great one for those who look at this question purely from the one point of view that no heavier burdens have to be thrown on agricultural property or upon cottage property. If, indeed, this was merely a transference of the burden from the owner of machinery to the owners or occupiers of cottages I admit there would be a great deal to be said in favour of leaving things as they are. As the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said this afternoon, he has been looking round for other rateable subjects. He mentioned site values. This is one of the steps, at all events, in the right direction and not away from it.
Take the case of the shipyard, for instance, which has nothing but hand 1421 cranes. These are composed of wooden poles, of ordinary straightforward poles, they swing to and fro, and they do their work under rather slower conditions than does an electrical equipment. The result is that where you have nothing but hand cranes, where all the material is shifted by hand, and not by electrical machinery, it is more expensive. A really enterprising man goes down, takes hold of the yard, gets rid of the hand cranes, and puts up overhead travelling electrical cranes. Immediately he does it and gets it working the local authority comes along, and noting what the man has been doing, says: "We will penalise you by extra rating." How can the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment conceive that to be a sound principle? You ought to encourage the better equipment of these yards. You ought to say to the managers, even under the present rating system, "We will do everything we can to enable you to equip your yards so well that you will be able to produce ships cheaper in this country than your competitors abroad." You ought not to proceed on any other principle. You ought not to hinder industry but to aid it by relieving improvements.
Let us look a little further than the mere transference of so many pounds in rates from one class of property to another. If the taxes on our great industries in the North and equally in South Wales are high, it is quite clear that we shall be unable to support the great masses of the population in those areas from our staple industries. It is, therefore, of prime importance not that cottagers or any other should have rates placed upon their shoulders, but that the people should have more continuous employment. It is far more important to recover our trade than to overcome any disadvantage in regard to the difference of rates between manufacturers and agriculturists. I know that in the rural areas there has always been a feeling against the transference of the rating burden from machinery to farms and farmers. That is very natural, but the extension of machinery in agricultural areas is on the increase. We have seen some sign of it in the growing beet industry. If in the immediate future these concerns have to use more 1422 machinery, and there is more on the farms, it would be inadvisable to make permanent a. system by which any increase of that machinery should lead to an increase of the assessments of these productive units.
In the extreme North, in Northumberland, they have been accustomed to have their farms fully equipped with grinders, machinery for thrashing, and so on. In some places you see an expensive silo. That is all to the good. They are able to do their work cheaper and better. They can make far better use also of their land and are able to keep their heads above water because their equipment is good. It would be unreasonable and inequitable that they should be heavily rated because they have brought their farm equipment up to date. In agricultural values, therefore, it seems to me we are proceeding on a right principle. Whatever the small and incidental addition that might be made on the burdens borne by the farmers and by the cottagers, they are far outweighed by the advantages given to those who in the better equipment of their establishments are doing something for the support of the population. The object of this Bill is to produce something like uniformity. There is no uniformity at the present moment. In the competition of the Clyde, Wear, Tyne and Tees, the three last-named places bear rates from which Clydeside is exempt. I hope hon. Members in this House who represent Clydeside will help us on the Tyne, Wear and Tees, in spite of our competition, to get rid of the burdens which they themselves would never think of carrying. The uniformity I have mentioned is necessary in order that industries might be spread quite independently of these arbitrary conditions, so that wherever the natural qualities of the district lead to the founding of industries they can have a free choice quite independently of these purely sporadic charges which are made from time to time by assessment committees. This is by no means a new question with the House of Commons. It comes up as part of a large scheme for dealing with rating and valuation, but it is in the right direction of relieving improvements from taxation. On these grounds I shall heartily support the Government in their proposal.
§ Mr. BASIL PETO
I shall support the Clause as it stands. I am quite in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) so far as he went in considering the causes of industrial depression in this country. I find it difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman because he has put the case admirably; and on that part of the case which he dealt with particularly he has left nothing further to be said. I have always been amazed at the complete agreement with which I have found myself with him on these economic subjects up to a point. He has said that it is necessary that our industries should be protected from anything in the nature of unfair burdens, but he has always stopped short of the very place I should have liked him to have gone to. I should like to give the House one or two reasons for my attitude in respect to this Clause. The first is that all our recent legislation, our social legislation, certainly the most recent of all, the Widows', Orphans' and Pensions Act, the Unemployment Act, and the Factory Acts, passed from time to time by this House, have all one thing in common—that is that the burden of cost implied has always fallen almost exclusively upon the productive industries of the country, and has left all the distributive trades which have a far smaller volume of employment almost without any tax at all. Therefore, in this proposal in Clause 24 I look for some set-off, at any rate, against the many burdens that have necessarily—I admit— been imposed upon these productive industries. If there is to be a distribution of that assessment which has been made here and there on the machinery in this country it will, at any rate, be an equalisation of the burdens to a certain extent, and not impose a greater burden upon production.
I need not deal with the question, which has been sufficiently discussed by the right hon. Gentleman, of the rating of new and improved machinery being thoroughly wrong in principle. There is no doubt that it is quite ridiculous, and in the case of agriculture it is equally ridiculous, if a man improves his methods of production, that the local authorities should come along and say, "We must drop upon you for a large increase in your rates." I am convinced that it is in the national interest, above all in the 1424 interests of people employed in our industries, that this Clause should be passed. I see on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) which proposes to put machinery in exactly the same position as the land of the farmer, and levy only 25 per cent. of the rate on it. At first sight that appears to be a fair proposition, but I put it to the House that there is no analogy whatever between the land used by the farmer and the machinery used by the manufacturer. The real analogy, as far as there is one at all, is between the land used by the farmer and the raw materials that enter a factory. Nobody rates the raw material. My hon. Friend who, like myself, represents an agricultural constituency, might say that on that analogy we ought to raise no rates at all from the land; but we are not dealing with that, we are dealing with the question of where the analogy is to be found; and I hold that the closest analogy there is is between our agricultural buildings, which are absolutely valueless except for use as part of the means of production in agriculture, and the machinery in factories. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea mentioned silos just now. Is he quite sure that silos would be regarded as machinery? I think it is much more likely they would be regarded as part of the agricultural buildings. Certainly some kinds of silo partake more of the nature of buildings than of machinery. He will be with me, probably, when I ask that we may have from the Minister some indication as to what he is going to do about farming. It has been suggested that we should have a free vote on this, but we have to vote on this before we come to the Schedule—even if it will be possible for us to vote on the Schedule, for I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that it is possible to deal with the question of putting agricultural buildings in the same category as the land and imposing only quarter rates upon them. I would like the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to let us know what he proposes to do about it.
We are told that the cost of exempting machinery in factories from rates is to be spread over the rest of the ratepayers; and if a further Exchequer grant to meet the deficit which will be caused by partially unrating farm buildings cannot be 1425 contemplated at present, it will still be in the interests, not only of the farmers but of the community as a whole, to encourage the erection of up to date and sanitary cow byres, and of new farm buildings, so as to improve agricultural production. The burden which would be imposed upon other ratepayers would be very much lighter than is generally supposed. Under this Bill assessment areas will be large, and in most districts there would be included with the agricultural villages quite a number of towns, each with its shops and buildings, which would help to bear this small additional burden (as I think it would be, when it is distributed) caused by the partial unrating of farm buildings. There is another objection to my hon. Friend's suggestion. If his proposal were carried out it would be necessary to make a large addition to the bureaucracy, to put in force the very cumbrous system for ascertaining the value of all the machinery throughout the country, and all that expense would be incurred in order to raise only 25 per cent. of the rate.
I want to say one word on the wider aspect of this question. It has been pointed out that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), who moved and seconded this Amendment, both look at this question from a narrow point of view, if they will excuse my saying so. It is quite true that the coalmining industry as an industry does not stand to gain very much. It is true also, that under the proposals of Clause 24, without any amendment to the latter portion of the Bill, the agricultural constituencies not only stand to gain nothing but would lose. That, however, is looking at it from a sectional point of view, and I think it is entirely wrong to regard agriculture and industry, those two broad classes of productive enterprise, as being completely separated, and to say that we must look at everything from the point of view of whether it is in the interests of the one or the other. I am convinced that agriculture and industry in this country are absolutely inter-dependent. There is one branch of agriculture which has protection, natural protection, and that is dairying. The same thing applies to some extent to stock raising and the production of all the more perishable foodstuffs grown on a farm. Is 1426 it not obvious that, if we can take any steps to increase employment and to make our industrial centres hum again— I would like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea to go the whole way with me in what I want to do, although he is only going just a step— we shall see an increased demand for our farm produce, and that farmers will gain indirectly far more than they will lose by any trifling addition to the rates as a result of the operation of this Clause?
Before we can make any real progress in dealing with unemployment in industry, we must have a policy of production which will be a national policy, regarding the question from the point of view of the nation and not from that of individual interests and individual industries. I recognise, however, that there should be a balance which is found in giving industrialists derating of their machinery and putting farm buildings on the same basis as land. Unless that is done I do not think there is what one can call a fair deal between the interests of agriculture and those of the towns. All the arguments for derating machinery apply with greater force in the matter of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is necessarily interested in the health of the people. One of the problems, probably, that he is most concerned with is tuberculosis, and how far the spread of it can be checked by having good, sanitary, up-to-date conditions in the cow-byres of the country. From that point of view it is not right for the Ministry of Health to bring forward a Bill which says to the owner-cultivator, the small-owner, the small dairyman, or the landlord, "If you erect the very sanitary buildings that we require, we are going to rate you to the full on them." I say that will not do. We must have a balance between the health of the people and the question of rating. I do not believe the relief granted by Clause 24 will mean a crushing burden for other ratepayers, nor will my proposals for the partial unrating of farm buildings. I hear these proposals will cost perhaps £600,000. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—
I think the hon. Member is applying 75 per cent. of his remarks to the Schedule, and not to the Clause.
§ Mr. PETO
I will conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any figure showing what the cost of my proposal would be. I want to know, also, if there are any reliable figures as to the cost of the proposals contained in Clause 24. What is the amount of rates at present collected? The rates are imposed very irregularly—it is only here and there that rates are raised upon machinery; and very possibly he has no figure he can give us, nor any estimate, of the burden which it is said will be spread over the other ratepayers. It would be interesting to know the proportion between the total rates collected in the country and the amount of rates actually collected on process machinery, which it is proposed to deal with. Finally, I will appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House, no matter where their constituencies may be, to try to look at this question from the point of view of the country as a whole, and, if they believe this Clause to be in the interests of the working classes, and that it will assist industry and cheapen the cost of production, to vote for it and defeat the Amendment.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
I will respond to the appeal of the last speaker and deal with the general interests of the country as a whole, not referring especially to one's own constituency. That, however, does not prevent one from realising the limitations of this Clause. Undoubtedly it is on right lines, the principle is sound, but the application is too limited. With the experience we have of the Agricultural Rates Act before us, which postponed a real settlement of the rating problem, because it dealt with one part of the problem at a time, it might be well to postpone even this partial solution if we could get a more complete one. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) suggested that this Clause should be extended to exempt farm buildings from rates. I agree with him absolutely. But why limit it to farm buildings? I invite him to join with us in an appeal to the Government to exclude all buildings.
§ Mr. B. PETO
The reason I should exempt farm buildings is that they are of no use whatever except in connection with working a farm, and therefore ought to be regarded as quite distinct from ' other buildings.
§ 5.0 P.M.
A workman's house is of no use unless a workman lives in it. In exempting improvements in machinery from rating we are making a mistake in not exempting all improvements. By passing this Clause, with its present limited application, we are delaying a very desirable reform for which we have been waiting for some time. Why machinery only? What is going to be the real effect? This Measure is not going to reduce the sum raised in any particular district, because the sum collected to-day will be the sum collected tomorrow. You are going to transfer the burden from the works to the workmen's houses and the shopkeepers, and the shopkeeper who improves his property will have to pay an extra rate, while the manufacturer who puts in machinery is going to be exempt. It seems to me that you want to give the same treatment to all, and I submit that the difference is going to bear more hardly than has been suggested.
When it is argued that this is only a question of a few pence on the rental of the house, I would like to point out that the information I have points to a very much heavier impost. It is estimated that in Sheffield the increase in the rates will be 2s. in the £, in Rotherham 3s. in the £, and in my own constituency about 2s. in the £. That means an addition to cottage rents of about 9d. or 1s. per week, and that will have to come out of the industry in which they are engaged. It means that the workmen's houses are going to cost so much more, and therefore they will want an extra wage. The result will be that you are not going to relieve industry to the extent which has been suggested. I do not think that the present is a convenient time to make this change in such a very unequal way.
The Government do not even carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee which recommended that special treatment should be accorded in certain areas. They recommended that in highly industrialised areas already recognised as necessitous there might be an increase of burden sufficiently serious to justify the possibility of some temporary assistance being given. Why have the Government ignored that part of the Report? I would like to point out that in 1923, when the Government relieved 1429 agriculture, they did not put the burden on the rest of the area, but upon the Treasury, and with that precedent before them I think the Government would have been well advised in this case if they had put the burden on the Treasury instead of adding it to the burden of the rates in those industrial areas. I submit that that is the direct reason why special consideration should be given to necessitous areas which are already so heavily burdened, and where the incidence of that burden will be aggravated by the change now suggested.
This proposal is not going to make houses any cheaper, because it will add to the burden of the rates. Instead of doing that, the Government ought to do something to take the burden of the rates off houses. In order to relieve one injustice I do not think we should create a greater one. In the interests of the country as a whole, and in the interests of reform, I think it would be wise to wait until we can get a full measure of reform which will remove rating from all improvements, and place it on site values, because this would give you a sound basis for rating.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
If we delete this Clause the law will remain as it is now, that is, motive power machinery will be rated and process machinery liable to rates. If this Clause is retained motive power machinery will be rated and process machinery will be rated to the extent of 25 per cent. only. I am somewhat at a loss to understand exactly how the Question will be put from the Chair, but I would like it put in such a way that if we vote for the deletion of the Clause there will be an opportunity of discussing and voting upon the question of the 75 per cent. relief. I would like to remind the House that this question has been before it on not less than 20 occasions, and on each of those occasions the merits of the question have been considered, and when the Bill has been sent upstairs, invariably the Committee has dealt somewhat harshly with it in regard to derating machinery.
A Departmental Committee was appointed to consider this subject, and I was a member of it. A great many expert witnesses were called, and the final conclusion arrived at was that process machinery ought to receive some measure 1430 of relief, but that it was not fair to relieve it altogether from rating. When the question of rating is considered as a whole, it is clear that what is proposed is simply taking off rates from one man's shoulders in order to put it on the back of another man. There are two kinds of machines. There is the human machine and the shop machine, and while the shop machine is claiming relief to the whole extent, we must bear in mind the needs of the human machine. It is a fact that you have established in our great industrial centres, with their whirring wheels, a great population whose needs have not been fully catered for. Congestion has been brought about because of this machinery. For this reason, every step should be taken to assist the people in those neighbourhoods.
I would like to draw attention to the percentage of gross receipts paid in rates in various industries. In engineering works the percentage is 4.2. In the case of the working-class houses erected by the London County Council tenants pay a percentage of no less than 20.5. Now if relief is going to be given, the Government ought to consider some other interests besides those of machinery users. While I do not want to see this Bill transformed into an Exemption of Machinery from Rating Bill, I think some relief ought to be given to machinery. I am somewhat in a difficulty in regard to the Clause being deleted, because I do not know in that case how we can give any relief at all, and I would like some relief given. I know that many rating authorities, the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association, are opposed to the proposal to de-rate altogether process machinery. I remember the interesting figures given during the course of the last Debate on this subject by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), who stated that 31 per cent. of the rateable value of his area was raised from process machinery, and therefore one-third of the assessable value in one of the unions in his constituency would be lost to the local authority, and that one-third would have to be placed on the backs of the other ratepayers. It is a serious thing to lightly include in a Bill intended merely to readjust the machinery of rating a proposal which has that effect, 1431 and I hope the Minister will not take the line of pressing through the Bill as it stands.
§ Mr. CECIL WILSON
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) expressed the view of the whole House when he said that he desired to have a uniform system of rating. Some of us feel that on this subject we start with a very serious handicap against us. We have appealed repeatedly to the Minister to grant a certain amount of relief to the necessitous areas, but he has not been able to give us much assistance or encouragement in that direction. Consequently, we find ourselves in the position that in those areas the effect of the de-rating of machinery will be that a further burden of a serious character will be placed upon it. Many of us are looking at this question from the point of view of the particular area we represent, rather than from the point of view of the country as a whole, and this fact was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea. I suggest that there is no hon. Member of this House who, if he were not placed in the position that some of us are in those areas, would take the view that we are taking here to-day.
May I put in one or two figures the actual position so far as Sheffield is concerned? On the 30th September last the arrears of the consolidated rate amounted to £579,000. We had issued summonses to the number of 197,677, and warrants to the number of 14,000. The rates legally excused amounted to £46,000, and in order to give a certain amount of relief to those who were very severely and hardly pressed, arrangements have been made for the payment of rates by instalments, and we have 60,000 ratepayers out of a total of 120,000 paying their rates by instalments at a minimum rate of 2s. 6d. per week, and many of them find themselves unable to do that. It is because of the extremely serious position in which we find ourselves, and because the city recognises that the effect of Clause 24 will be to increase our rates by an amount which is estimated at 2s. in the.£, that we oppose it. I do not think it matters whether the amount by which the rate is to be increased is 3d., 6d.. 1s., or 2s., but, at a time when we 1432 have so serious an amount of arrears, and when the city is in the condition in which it is, we feel that the imposition upon us of this additional burden is going to be a very serious matter.
It is perfectly true that industry is going to get very substantial relief, and we can only hope that it will result in more trade coming to us; hut while that is happening we may as well realise that it is not only the smaller householder that is going to suffer, but that there are other classes of ratepayers upon whom the burden is going to fall very heavily indeed. I have here the case of a drapery and furnishing establishment, the rates on which will be increased from £2,000 to £2,500. Someone has to pay that, and it is people who are already overburdened with rates that are going to have to pay it. Sheffield is not alone; we recognise that Liverpool, Sheffield and Rotherham have all been acting together, and, while we recognise that it is not necessary to repeat the figures which the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has already given, we do feel that this is no time for increasing our burden. If the Minister could have given us something in the way of relief towards meeting the very serious situation, or to postpone the operation of this provision for a time, in view of the existence of areas such as those of which I have just been speaking, we should not have felt the necessity of resisting Clause 24 in the way that we are doing to-day.
When I spoke on this question on a previous occasion, I said that the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce had passed a resolution against the Bill. That was perfectly true at the time. I may be told to-day that they have gone back on that resolution, and that also is perfectly true. I know the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, and I know that they do not often stick very long to one opinion. When we were asked to meet them, we were told that, except for the Government's attitude, they would have continued to press their opposition against Clause 24, but they were withdrawing that opposition because the Government intended to pass it. I do not think that it is a particularly courageous attitude for these people to take up, having month after month passed very strong resolutions, then, within a month, to turn round 1433 from the last resolution they passed. I should like to ask the Minister what inducement has been held out to the Sheffield manufacturers, the Federation of British Industries, and people in other parts of the country, to cause them to change right round in the way that they have done.
Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN
We have heard something about industry, and we have also heard something about agricultural interests, but we have not yet heard the views of the commercial interests of the country, who will not benefit directly by one penny from this proposed Measure. I am submitting to the House the almost unanimous view of the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Trade, who strongly support the insertion of this Clause in the Bill. I desire to submit to the House four points, which I think it is important to bear in mind, because I am convinced, and I believe many others are convinced, that, if this House better understood this Bill, there would be a more ready acceptance of the whole Bill. I am at the moment, however, only dealing with Clause 24. Before I take my points, I should like to remind the House that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in 1901, definitely recommended exactly what this Clause proposes to do to-day, and the principle has been approved by this House on many occasions.
I submit to the House that it may not, perhaps, be fully realised by everyone that the present method of dealing with the rating of machinery is unfair, unjust, and contrary to the original intention, and is partly the result of a gradual evolution of Judge-made law. I know we are rather tired of hearing quotations from centuries-old history, but I want to touch upon it for one moment. At the time of Elizabeth, the personal property, as well as the real property, of the inhabitants of this country was rated. The Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, definitely laid it down, however, that no rates could be justly levied except in connection with hereditaments, and the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840, went a step further, and made it clear that it was not lawful to rate the ability to derive profits from stock-in-trade and other property. The net result of that was that while, until these Acts were passed, personal property could be rated, 1434 that was definitely barred out, and it was laid down that anything, to be rated, must be in connection with the hereditament itself. A step further was taken a few years later, when it was definitely laid down that the powers of production, the ability to produce—such as the stock-in-trade of the ordinary tradesman, the capital of the merchant, and the process machinery of the industrialist—was not properly rateable.
Then we come to the stage of evolution, when the legal mind began to say that machinery is not rateable. I submit that it is important that the House should understand that machinery, as such, is not rateable, but the decisions have gradually come to this, that it must be taken into account in assessing the value of the premises. The more, therefore, you put into your own premises of your own machinery, or the more you put into rented premises of your own machinery, the more you have to pay for the value of that property, in spite of the fact that the rent of the building itself is perfectly clearly and definitely marked out. In other words, you are being taxed for your own energy and means of production. I would remind the House that, on principle, there is nothing at the present moment to prevent the rating of hotels in connection with hotel furniture, or theatres in connection with scenery, or private houses in connection with furniture; the principle is left open.
Then we have had brought before us the lack of uniformity that exists. I think that one of the great features of this Bill is to produce uniformity in the whole system of rating and the methods of valuation, so that we may be better able In the future to deal with the whole country on that basis. But, quite apart from that, it is essential in matters of trade and business throughout the country that we should have uniformity —that one town should not be subsidised, so to speak, in this way as against another town, that no city should be in advance of another in that respect. I do not want to refer too much to Scotland to-day, because one thinks of the Scottish motto, Nemo me impune lacessit; but the law on this matter is different in Scotland. I am quite content, however, for my purpose, to deal with England, 1435 and I think that, in the country which boasts, and rightly boasts, of being the best business country in the world, the position as to the rating of machinery is the most shameful and monstrous position that could exist in any country. It will be found that, for no reason whatever, machinery is rated in one town while in another town it is not rated. There are cases of big towns which meet, and on one side of a street machinery will be found not to be rated, while on the other side of the street it is rated to the extent of 100 per cent. The whole thing is perfectly ludicrous and unbusinesslike, and not worthy of a country like ours. Therefore, I submit that uniformity is much more material in connection with trade matters, and this Clause of the Bill very properly provides uniformity.
Then I come to another point, which is really a most important one, namely, the hindrance to the development of our trade. We have had very clearly brought out how at present the operation of the rating of machinery prevents the renovation and modernisation of machinery. If ever there was a moment when this country called for every possible scientific attention, whether in trade, commerce or industry, for every bit of advice and skill and invention that we can produce to put our trade and industry on a more scientific basis, this is that moment. Why should we, at this very moment, have this heavy overhead burden on our shoulders? I do not know whether the House fully realises that the rating of machinery is an overhead charge, which comes into force the moment you purchase the machinery, long before you set to work to produce at all. It is a positive handicap against production and against any new effort to do the very thing which alone can save this country in its critical period. I am not speaking lightly about it. I know of small cases, and many Members of this House know of large ones, where this is going on. If this heavy burden is relieved, there will be at once a modernisation of machinery and an opening up of parts of factories which are closed to-day, because the firms in question are prevented from working on a profitable basis. I submit that it is in the utmost interest of this country to reduce the cost of production in every legitimate way that is possible, and to set to work to put our industry 1436 on a more scientific basis, and that this in itself is one method of affording the relief to industry which is essential to our advancement.
I want to refer to one other point, which may seem to be a small point in one way, because there is no particular evidence that it is going to be of very great advantage, but there can be no question that it is going to help employment. I have certain small instances, and others have much bigger ones, where, if manufacturers are enabled to open out owing to that burden being lifted from them, it just makes the difference of enabling them to employ more hands.
I have endeavoured to show that it is unfair, that there is a total lack of uniformity, and that it is hindering the development of trade. I want to say another thing with regard to the argument that there is comparatively little rating of machinery in the country. All I have to say is that, to my certain knowledge, it is steadily increasing, and, unless we stop it, we are going to increase the burden upon the industries of this country. I am perfectly sure that, however well-intentioned municipal bodies are—and I am a member of a municipal body myself —they cannot resist, when they have to find the means of providing the money they are spending, looking around for what has become a legitimate source of profit, although originally it was illegitimate.
I do not propose to deal with the general broad question as to the grounds for voting against the Clause. I am convinced that a large majority of those who have made up their minds to oppose it in their heart of hearts know that they are voting against a principle which is necessary only because of the needs and the circumstances of the moment. But I should like to ask whether it is the circumstances of the moment. As I understand the Bill, it is a good three years before the Clause will come into operation. For that reason I do not see that we can discuss that point. Liverpool has been mentioned. I speak as a Member for Liverpool, a commercial city which itself has not any material industries compared with other industrial centres, but which feels the pulse of trade. We Members from Merseyside are united in 1437 the conviction that it is in the best interests of the trade of the country that this load should be taken off the manufacturers. It is not transferred from the manufacturers to poor men, but is put into the common pot and shared by all.
§ Major CRAWFURD
I propose to support the Clause as a whole. It seems to me to be one of the things most worth having in the whole Bill. I sympathise very much with the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) that a portion of the burden taken off industry may and will be placed upon small property. It is a matter of very great regret to me that, while relieving industry in this way, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not taken the opportunity in the Bill of balancing that relief by drawing upon the obvious and legitimate new sources of local revenue which they would have had by rating site values. But that has not been done.
§ Major CRAWFURD
I shall support the Clause because I believe, even with its disadvantages, it may be of very material benefit in helping employment, and all that has happened in our Debates on unemployment this Session tends to confirm that view. The first paragraph of the Clause draws a distinction between two classes of hereditaments. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what is the exact reason for the distinction that is there made. The provisions of this Clause are not to apply to hereditaments the value of which is ascertained by reference to the receipts or profits of the undertaking carried on therein. Those hereditaments are railways, gas companies, electric light works, and similar undertakings. I have not been able to see why this differentiation is made, because if the burden of rates is limited on undertakings of that kind it will help industry and employment as much as if the burden of rates is partly raised upon other undertakings, and I assume that the only distinction between these undertakings and those which are rated on gross value is that in this case you cannot assess them by the ordinary methods, because it is impossible to get 1438 the datum to say what a hypothetical tenant would pay for a particular undertaking.
These undertakings consist of railway companies, gas companies, and electric light works, and there is no suggestion that they should be treated more favourably than other undertakings that are going to be relieved under the Clause, but there does not seem to be any cause for treating them more severely. I assume that, although they are assessed at present by a different method, the assessment that is arrived at by the method of income and profits is the same as the assessment that would be arrived at if it were possible to assess them by the method on which hereditaments are assessed, and the result of this has been very well put in a critical paper that was read some few days ago by a very well known Fellow of the Institute of Auctioneers and Estate Agents, Philip Michael Faraday, who says:I do say that to rate a railway company whose shops contain lathes, drilling machines, and other tools for constructing engines, while the engineer in Leeds or Sheffield, with the same class of machinery for manufacturing the same typo of engines is to be exempt, is an anomaly that will have to be put right.Later he says:It is the grossest legislation that seeks to rate a tar-distilling plant and exempts a whisky-distilling plant in the same Section.That seems to me to be a very apt criticism of the Clause as it stands. My Amendment is to put these hereditaments on exactly the same ground as others under this Clause so that they shall be rated in every respect upon the machinery, on which others will be rated, but to give them the same consideration as is given to ordinary machinery-owning undertakings by the provisions of this Clause.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage in order to explain what is the attitude of the Government upon this Clause. I gave an undertaking in Committee that there should be a free vote of the House upon Clause 24, or 22 as it was then, and that the Government Whips should not be put on, and my reason for that was two-fold. First of all, I wanted to get along with the Bill in Committee without spending an unnecessary amount of time on a Clause which, in my view, ought not to be 1439 decided finally by the Committee, but should have the advantage of a rather full discussion in the House. Secondly, the Clause is not really an essential part of the Bill. For those reasons I made that declaration and, of course, we shall stand by it. But that, I think, does not mean that it is not proper for me to express my personal views or to urge on the House the course which seems to me to be right and proper in the circumstances. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment began by stating that a Clause of this kind was totally inappropriate in a Bill that was to deal not with the rating of machinery but with the machinery of rating. The justification for the insertion of the Clause was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) in his very powerful and instructive speech. The principal object of the Bill is to promote uniformity of rating. There is at present no uniformity in the rating of machinery. Therefore, it is, I think, quite consistent and proper that the Clause should find a place in a Bill of this character, and that is really the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and others who from time to time have quoted this Clause as a reason why they should be allowed to move Clauses which completely alter the whole principle of rating.
I look upon this thing from three points, of view. I ask myself first of all whether the present system, partial in its incidence, is equitable and in accordance with the fundamental principle of rating which has been with us for 100 years. I ask myself in the second place whether, supposing it is not equitable, it is now convenient and opportune to alter it. In the third place I ask myself whether in altering it, if we do so, we are going to make such violent changes in the incidence of rating as to create disturbance and alterations of values which would altogether outweigh any advantages which might be obtained. I should like to put to the House how each of those points strikes me. First as to equity. What is the principle of rating? It is that it is the occupier who is rated, and the basis on which he is rated is the rent which a hypothetical tenant would pay for the particular hereditament. The 1440 rent he would pay for the factory is not affected, or is only affected to a limited extent, by the machinery he is going to put into it. It is precisely similar to the case of a man who rents an office. If a man rents an office it is open to him to put in what furniture he likes. He can put in cheap furniture or fancy furniture. He can furnish his office, if he chooses, as if it was part of a Royal palace, but he is not for that reason to be rated any higher. I cannot see the equity of saying that because a particular manufacturer chooses to alter the value of the machinery he puts into a particular building, with reference to which the structure of the building is not relevant, he should pay a higher rent or his rateable value should be increased. Technically, as a matter of fact, it is not so. He is not rated on the machinery, but the machinery has to be taken into account, though it has never been laid down exactly how it was to be taken into account, in estimating the valuation of the premises. These considerations seem to me to be conclusive, on the fundamental principles of rating, that we are on wrong lines in taking into account the value of the machinery in estimating the amount on which a man should be rated.
The next point is whether this is a good time to alter the system. A number of hon. Members think it is not a good time. To my mind, now is the time. We have been tinkering with this thing for the last 20 years, and while we have been tinkering with it the want of uniformity and the inequality in one district and another and between one manufacturer and another has been increasing, with the result that manufacturers do not know where they are. It is a good thing to alter the system for another reason. We are all the time trying and puzzling our brains to find some way in which we can lessen unemployment, revive trade and help manufacturers to meet the foreign competition with which they are faced. I have had a much longer experience of business than I have had experience in this House, and one of the things that struck me is that there is no matter in which the manufacturers of this country have more to learn from the United States of America than in the matter of constantly keeping their plant and equipment up to date. Too often they wait until it is worn out before they replace 1441 it. That is not good business. They count as profit what they should never count as profit, namely, the surplus which accrues at the end of a year, a part of which, in any well-conducted business, ought to be devoted to putting in new and improved machinery, so that they may continually keep down their cost and put themselves into a position to compete better in the future.
How is it that our manufacturers are so much behind other countries, particularly the United States, in this respect? One must say that we do not give them very much encouragement. I have myself before now argued in this House that in our system of taxation, in the matter of Income Tax, we might profitably pay attention to the question of what should be considered profits for that purpose. In the matter of Income Tax there is something that ought to be done, and still more so in the matter of rates, because, as is often pointed out, Income Tax is only levied when profits are made, whereas rates are levied whether profits are made or not. Therefore they are invariably taken into account by manufacturers when they are making up their costs and considering their standing charges.
This thing works in a vicious circle. It affects not only those particular industries, which were instanced by the right hon. Member opposite, which are now in the trough of depression, and trying to meet the tremendous competition from foreign countries, owing to the falling off in the demand for their products. It is not only in the distressed industries that we should give all possible encouragement to the manufacturers, but even to manufacturers in prosperous industries to keep their costs down, and to put in better machinery wherever by doing so they can reduce their costs. If we are going to say to a manufacturer, "If you put in a new machine, although very likely you will not know whether that machine is going to be profitable or not, we shall charge you something extra"; by putting a greater burden upon the manufacturer in that way, you discourage and not encourage him. Therefore on that ground, this is highly opportune when we are suffering so much from unemployment, that we should do something which, obviously, in the opinion of the 1442 manufacturers themselves, will be of substantial and material benefit to them.
Now I come to the third point. Is this relief, if we give it to the manufacturers, going to make those violent changes which excite apprehensions in rural districts, in some mining districts, and also in one or two industrial centres? If the manufacturers are right—let us remember that they are practically unanimous—in their belief that they are going to get substantial relief, that must mean that there will be less unemployment. That must mean that there will be less demand for unemployment relief, and therefore there will be less demand upon the rates. In so far as this relief is reflected in increased employment, it does not necessarily mean that what we take off one shoulder goes on to the other. It means that the total burden of rates is going to be reduced. That has been my strongest point all the way through.
It does not mean that the benefit will simply be felt where an industry is going to have direct relief. That is not so. If you make industry prosperous, the influence of the prosperity spreads through the country. It increases, for instance, the demand for coal. That must affect the miners as well as other people. There must be a gap from the time when you give the relief to the manufacturers to the time when the reduction in unemployment takes place. There will be a gap, I frankly admit, and I will address myself to what is going to happen during that gap. The effect of this change has been very greatly exaggerated. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. Sandeman Allen) has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the change docs not take place immediately upon the passing of the Bill. It does not take place until the next valuation list is prepared. That valuation list is going to make a great many other changes. All property has to be revalued, and I have not the slightest doubt that in many cases where properties have not been valued for many years—in some cases for 10, 15, or even more years—that the result will be that the assessment will be put up. If that be so, it may well happen that the result of putting up the assessment will be a reduction in the poundage of the rates.
I venture to say, indeed, I would venture to stake any reputation that I may 1443 have, as to my knowledge of municipal affairs, that when this change has been made, if this House passes this Clause, and when it becomes operative, you will be able to count on the fingers of two hands the number of places where you can point to a rise in the rates due entirely to the operation of this Clause. There will be many changes.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if there is any increase in rates there is bound to be an increase in rents?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
If there is any increase in rates, there is bound to be an increase in rents. An increase in rents will take place if there is a rise in rates, under the Rent Restrictions Act, if it is then in force. I do not see why there should be any increase in rents under this Bill. There will be a great many changes that will take place simultaneously. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Reid), mentioned the effect of the Pensions Act. I think he was only thinking of that particular Pensions Act which comes into operation next January. Before this particular change takes place the whole Act will be in opera-lion, the allowances and the payments contemplated will have begun to work, the effect of those changes will be seen in the demands made upon the guardians, which vary in different places, and in some places where the rates are highest to-day the relief will be, the greatest. That fact must be taken into consideration when we are debating whether there will be the great effects suggested by certain hon. Members.
We must remember that councillors are elected after standing the hurly-burly of election in municipal affairs, just as have Members of Parliament, and one of the things which they have to meet at election times is always the charge of extravagance. They are, therefore, very chary in putting up the rates, and I venture to say that as a result of the different changes that will come into operation when the next valuation list has been prepared, and if the result works out that there seems likely to be an increase in the rates, the councillors, whether they are Members of town councils, or district councils, 1444 will, in self-protection, go through their expenditure afresh, and leave no stone unturned to reduce the expenditure, in order that they may not have to go before the electors and say that they are responsible for an increase in the rates. On these grounds, therefore, I am very strongly in favour of passing this Clause, and I hope the House will pass it.
It only remains for me to say a few words upon some of the suggestions that have been made in this Debate. With regard to the valuation of special properties, I think if the hon. Member who raised that point will read the Report of the Departmental Committee, he will see that they went into the question pretty carefully, and explained that those special properties which are not valued in the ordinary way, but which are valued on their profits, have not the same claim to relief as other properties. Moreover under a special system of valuation, if they are given this relief, it would actually work out, I am told, in some cases, that the relief would be so great that the rateable value would turn out to be a minus quantity. I think, therefore, we shall be right in adopting the advice given to us by the Departmental Committee, and in saying that there might be the danger that if relief was given to these properties the tenant's capital would be unduly increased. The Committee say:If, however, it should be decided that our proposals do not go far enough and that total relief should be granted, it would then, in our opinion, he necessary to make specific provision upon the point.That provision is found in the last paragraph of Clause 24.
We have had two other alternative views, contradictory views, expressed as to the proper course to pursue in regard to the rating of machinery. One view is expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who wants to disrate all machinery, and not merely machinery that may be called machinery provided by the tenant. I think that is going too far. There is machinery which, in its natural course of events, would be provided by the landlord, and not by the tenant. There is machinery which is in the nature of a structure. There is plant which is not machinery, but which is composed partly of machinery and partly of brick work or stone work. 1445 There are a good many items which I think would more properly be considered as part of the hereditament than as part of the machinery which is movable, which can be taken away, and which can be fitted into another building, however constructed. There may be a difference of opinion as to exactly on which side of the border line a particular piece of plant can be placed, and it is to provide for that that a Committee is to be set up under this Clause of the Bill. To sweep machinery out of rating altogether is a thing that I could not recommend the House to adopt, and it is one recommended by the right hon. and gallant Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) because, whatever the subject on which he speaks, he seeks to bring forward one particular proposal.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the arguments which He was adducing in favour of unrating some machinery, because it would help to reduce unemployment, were arguments seriously intended or not, because if they were seriously intended how can he fail to apply them in a logical manner?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am certain that any arguments which I use on any subject will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in favour of his particular plan. I wish to consider for a moment the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), who desires to return to the proposal which was recommended by the Committee itself, which is very similar to the one which I have adopted, but which would rate process machinery and then make a rebate of 75 per cent. upon the valuation. To my mind that is making the worst of both worlds. It does not preserve the principle that machinery of the kind which we have been discussing ought to be free of all rating altogether, and it does involve the whole process of valuation. It involves further all the friction and irritation caused not only in having machinery valued, but also by the appeals which people might think it necessary to make against the valuation of this or that particular piece of machinery. You go to all this trouble, and all that you will get would be 25 per cent. of the rate. It does not seem to 1446 me that the game would be worth the candle. That is the reason why I reject that particular proposal which the Committee made. It seems to me, from the report of the Committee themselves, that they felt that it was really the first step towards what they thought should be the method of dealing with the matter, and therefore, I adopt the more drastic but simpler proposals contained in the Bill, and I hope that the House will not only pass the Clause, but pass it in substantially the form in which it stands in the Bill.
§ Mr. JAMES HUDSON
I have received from the interested parties in my constituency multitudinous requests that I should support the Clause that the House is considering, but nevertheless I felt it necessary to hold myself free from any commitments thereon until I had heard the reasons that should be advanced by those who desire to see this Clause passed for the unrating of machinery. As the Debate has proceeded, that section of the House that has already given voice to its opinion seems to have very little of that sound principle behind it to which the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) referred. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has tried to base his case upon the principle that rating generally should be placed upon rent. What sanctity is there in that? Why should he continue in the future the relationship between rates and rent that has existed in the past? There is a much sounder principle, and a much older principle, a much more fundamental principle in taxation and rating than that. That principle, laid down by Adam Smith, which has been so often quoted by Members of all parties in this House, the principle of ability to pay, is of far greater importance than the principle that the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us to-night.
I object to the proposal that he has made in this Clause because in the long run the total ability of the individuals who make up the community to pay is not taken into account. I do not agree with the general examination which the right hon. Member for West Swansea has made. I submit to him that all the arguments which he used as to keeping machinery free from rates can be used equally well regarding keeping the dwellings of working people free from rates, and I come into 1447 conflict with his view, because what will take place is that if you manage to remove rates from machinery used, say, for ship building, and at the same time produce an increase in the rates on the houses of the workers engaged in ship building you have not transferred that burden which falls heavily upon the industry in its efforts to compete with foreign firms. You have only placed the burden on other shoulders in the industry, you have made it harder for the workers who receive their wages out of that industry by adding a further burden that they will bear in extra rates to carry on their work efficiently, and all you have done in the long run is to transfer the burden from one agent in the industry to other agents and to leave the industry in practically the same position.
Furthermore, the argument that has been used two or three times this evening, that by a tax upon machinery you discourage the owners of factories from putting in the most efficient machinery, again applies strongly to house property. You have a working-class family growing up and needing bigger housing accommodation. The more you, by extra rates, increase the rents of houses the more do you discourage working-class people from providing for their families the healthy conditions that are necessary, and therefore, though theoretically it is perfectly correct to say that it is a discouragement upon manufacturing to rate machinery, we object entirely to this effort to find a solution. The only thing that takes place is that the burden goes on to the shoulders of other people who are, or ought to be, equally affected by the same considerations.
There was a suggestion, I think, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea that the step proposed by Clause 24 is a logical step towards the ultimate placing of the tax upon the shoulders by whom it can best be borne — namely, upon the landowners. If I thought that, I should find it easier to support this proposal, but I remember that the right hon. Gentleman's leader for many years has been associated with the demand for a tax upon land values, and found himself so held back in that demand by his association with the party opposite, and by his association with hon. 1448 and right hon. Gentlemen who are to-day pushing forward this proposal, that I see no likelihood of any step in the direction of land values as the result of anything that comes from the party opposite. If I felt that there was the least likelihood of that course being adopted I would face this proposal with a much more open mind, and I would be much more willing to consider it upon its merits.
I admit frankly that any tax placed upon productive processes is a bad tax in theory and that productive processes should be free from taxation and local rates. But we are not in that highly abstract situation. We are in the very peculiar situation of having to decide between two great factors which are hearing burdens to-day that neither of them ought to bear. If I could bring in the third factor, and feel sure that the land was to be taxed. I might then be able to make some sort of compact with those who are pressing the reduction of taxation upon machinery. But instead of that I heard from the Minister of Health, in his concluding remarks, the statement that if it should happen that there will be an increase in rates In certain towns then probably what would take place would be greater economy, greater saving on the part of those towns in the services that they are carrying through. I would challenge the right hon. Gentleman when he advances that theory, to say what sort of services in the towns at the present time we can economise upon. The municipalities are bearing to-day the burdens that it is absolutely necessary to bear. For example, in what part of the services rendered in Sheffield could you expect economy? It is true that you might starve the workers a little more by giving them even less than they are given now to unemployment benefit, or what is paid by the boards of guardians, but if you do that you will be bringing them perilously near the starvation, which will leave them utterly incapable of—
On a point of Order. Are the remarks which the hon. Member is now making in Order on the discussion of this Clause?
§ Mr. HUDSON
I press very strongly upon the attention of the House the 1449 point that I was making now, that there has been in the past too much pressure put upon local authorities to save upon services which it is absolutely necessary to carry out in the interests of the community. An appeal has been made from that side of the House that we should approach this question from the point of view of the welfare of the community as a whole. The Minister of Health in his remarks showed that he contemplated that, if the rates go up on house property or other property, that would be an incentive to the local authorities to save upon the services for which they find the money.
§ Mr. HUDSON
The right hon. Gentleman corrects me on that point, but that is what I understood from his argument, and I do not think that any other conclusion can be drawn.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
What I said was that the local authorities would review their expenditure and leave no stone unturned to effect economies. That does not mean what the hon. Gentleman says, I did not say that, and I cannot allow his statement to pass unchallenged.
§ Mr. HUDSON
That is exactly what I am saying. The right hon. Gentleman says there may be some extravagance which may be cut off. I have been challenging him to say what sort of extravagances there are that could be cut off.
§ Mr. HUDSON
No, I am not misrepresenting. My view is that any cutting off which takes place will take place at the expense of services that are necessary. That is my view. The right hon. Gentleman takes a different view. Because that is my view I am not prepared to risk that thing which I fear; I am not pre pared to take part in a movement which will enable the owners of machinery to put their burdens upon the ratepayers, and thereby cut down expenditure in the towns. Perhaps that more than any other is the reason why I have taken part in this Debate, and why I ask the House not to agree to the derating of machinery.
§ Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY
Until the concluding words in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I could not be sure whether he was going to support or to oppose this reform. In listening to the speech of the Minister—a speech which appealed so much to the House—I could not help thinking, as he spoke of exaggeration, that there are exaggerated hopes in connection with this Clause, and that the anticipations of the relief of manufactured goods in this country certainly cannot be sustained. One of the most important things for us to consider is whether, by moving the rates off machinery, we can produce cheaper goods, or at any rate be able to produce so cheaply that we can compete with the foreign article imported into this country. I was very much interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who is a very able protagonist of this Clause; but he made no claim that in his, business he would be able to compete on equal terms with other foreign firms who are undercutting him now. I do not think that we have heard from anyone exactly by how much a finished ton of steel would be cheapened, and whether by taking rates off machinery we should be able to compete with Belgian or German steel.
In what I am about to say I dare say I shall not carry with me a large number of Members on my side of the House. One of the advantages that is claimed for this propsoal is that it will encourage manufacturers to put in new machinery. Of course, that is a very desirable thing. But I do not think that the rating of machinery has op to now prevented really efficient firms from installing new machinery. I am not at all sure that firms in this country have not been rather unwise during prosperous times in making distributions of large dividends instead of putting larger sums to renewals. Therefore, there is not very much in that. The real advantage of this proposal, the only advantage to my mind, is that you will get uniformity, which is most important. It is undoubtedly most desirable that there should be uniformity between different towns in England, and also between England and Scotland. Against that, there are disadvantages which I can foresee. You are undoubtedly going to increase the rates on other premises. You 1451 are going to add to the burden on agriculture. You are going to add to the burden on the retail trader. You are going to put an increased burden on the new houses which are now being erected all over the country.
I have here figures supplied by a borough in Yorkshire to a Member of this House, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here to-day, and who, had he been present, would have taken part in this Debate. I have no authority to mention the name of the borough, though I will give it privately to any hon. Member who is interested. In this borough there would be a very considerable burden put on the houses of the working classes of, say, under £20 rateable value. In this borough the total assessment of the works is £132,000, and the rates payable on that are £58,000. The total assessment of houses of a working-class type, under £20 rateable value, is £146,000, and the rates paid by the working-class houses are £65,000. Therefore, the percentage paid by the works is 28, and that paid by the working-class houses is 31. If you take the rating off machinery, you undoubtedly put a heavier burden on these working-class houses.
It is obvious that in many trades wages are already too low to-day. The result of this proposal must be eventually that, while you may gain in having your machinery relieved from rates, you will have to increase the wages of those who are employed, so that in the end I doubt whether there will be any material advantage to the traders concerned. In this particular town, while the increase in rates will not be so great as that mentioned for Sheffield, there will be an increase of 1s. 3d. on the general rate. While, on the whole, I would like this Clause to be adopted in the interests solely of uniformity, yet, on the other hand, I cannot help thinking that it is not going to bring the advantages which are claimed for it; and it is also going to be a very heavy burden on many equally deserving classes of the community.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
No one can doubt that, from the purely economic position of the works, it is a bad thing to have rating of machinery. But the position that we have to take up is to consider the 'circumstances under which this reform is introduced. We have to consider what is 1452 the situation of industry at the present time, what is the position of local authorities at the present time, and what is the situation of the workers at the present time. We know that trade in many departments is depressed. The particular point about this reform is that it is extremely unequal in the benefits which it gives to various types of undertakings. Broadly speaking, those with the heaviest types of machinery, where there is very little movable machinery, will get no benefit, while those with a greater amount of process machinery are going to benefit. It is precisely those who are going to benefit the most that are, comparatively speaking, in a good way, and the industries that are most hard hit now will not benefit or will benefit only in a very small degree. The trouble is that the industries which are particularly hard hit to-day will have to help to pay for the benefits of the industries that on the whole are getting a lot of benefit. I think that my right hon. Friend was perfectly logical in saying that if this reform was to be done it ought not to be done in this piece-meal fashion, but that regard should be had to some equity between the owners of different types of machinery.
The next point is that you cannot expect to have an immediate advantage to the trading of this country by this reform, in any degree exactly proportioned to the increase in the local rates on other members of the community. If that were so, one would have to judge that an enormous amount of the depression from which we are suffering is caused by these local rates. I do not think that that is so. You have to consider other factors. You have to consider the general world position, the general financial position, the question of supply and demand, and so on, and the question of markets; and you cannot ride off airily on a sort of balance by which our trade is to be stimulated by an exact amount, which will wipe off any disability on other traders and other persons in the community.
There is a further point. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said, "Oh, it is true that it may not do it exactly, but then the local authorities will have to be more economical." I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has in hand a campaign to reduce the expenditure of boards of guardians throughout the 1453 country, but unfortunately there is very little joint action between different members of the Government, and his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has taken care to increase the burdens on boards of guardians by the policy of his Unemployment Insurance Act of last Session. We are faced this winter, in report after report from district after district, with the fact that their rates are going up owing to the unemployed being brought under the boards of guardians and taken off the finance of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope that we shall have some further explanation of the services that the Minister of Health thinks should be cut down. For instance in Birmingham, what are the services that the Birmingham Council can easily cut down? It may be said that Birmingham is so well administered that there is no possibility of cutting down in that city. In that case the set-off alleged by the right hon. Gentleman will inure only to the benefit of those local authorities that are extravagant, and the ones that are carried on best will not have that particular advantage.
I hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this Clause he would have given us some hope that arrangements would be made during the transitional period, until the coming into operation of this proposal, whereby those local authorities which are most hardly hit would have some sort of subvention from national funds. I think that that has always been done in other cases where a change in rating has imposed heavy liabilities on local authorities. It must be remembered that there are great variations in different parts of the country. There are large rating areas in which the amount that comes from the rating of machinery is a comparatively small proportion, and, as has been pointed out, there are some areas where the difference is enormous because you have a single works which is a very big ratepayer.
You are upsetting the finance of these local authorities and the basis of their loans because you are reducing the value of the security on which they raise those loans. I do not think it fair to make a change of that sort without easing the situation for them. It may well be that in the course of four or five years this reform, having become part of the normal rating system of the country, will cease 1454 to have any bad effect and that trade will look up, as we hope, but it is in the intermediate period during which it will first operate that we are going to have this enormous difficulty to many local authorities. While the proposal is, in the main, just, personally I regret that the division between the different categories of machinery could not have been made on an economic basis instead of on some purely legal conception of what is and what is not real property.
If this reform is to be made, I also regret that it should be made at this time when local authorities are particularly burdened on account of the amount of unemployment. I regret still more that the Minister could not have done what was done when the rural parts of the country were relieved of a portion of their rates, and that no arrangement was made by which a subvention could be given at any rate to those areas most hardly hit, which are those areas so often brought before us as being exceptionally affected by unemployment. I see that in a proposal by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) there is such a suggestion. I do not know if, in connection with this Bill, it would be in order, but it seems there is a sound principle embodied in the suggestion, and, if the Minister had only met us in that way, I think he might have got a greater measure of agreement. Failing any subvention at all to the necessitous areas in this country, who are going to be hard hit by this proposal, I shall have to vote against it.
§ Mr. HILTON
I rise for the purpose of supporting the Bill as it now stands and this Clause in particular. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Cecil Wilson) said we must approach this subject according to our local conditions. As the representative of a largely-rated constituency I make no apologies on that score. We in Lancashire will be hit more than any other county in England if this Clause is not carried. We in the cotton trade employ more machines to do one job than any other industry which can be mentioned. We have mills that have been built in many cases for 50 or 100 years and which contain some of the finest, most highly technical and expensive machinery that it is possible to put into any building. If this Clause be not carried, it will 1455 create a very heavy charge upon our industry and our position will be absurd. We are divided into 22 rateable areas, 14 of which do not take machinery into account for assessment while 8 do, and all 22 are more or less working for the same market. That market is not the English market, and this is not a thing which we could pass on to a competitor at home, but is an extra charge levied upon our production. I think I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) say he was not prepared to tax anything that came within the class of production, but our machinery is essential to production, and when I tell the House that in the manufacture of the ordinary cotton shirt no fewer than 17 different machines are employed on the process they will realise that this is so.
We as producers and industrialists think we have had enough of heavy charges upon industry during the last few years, and by adding to these burdens you are only going to create more unemployment than exists at the present moment. Another and a very important reason for this Clause is the absurdity attaching to the present system. The present system works very badly. I am connected with a concern in one town where machinery is rated and with another concern in another town in Lancashire where machinery is not rated. Both these mills make similar goods and try to sell those goods in the same market. In another case, there is a well-known firm the name of which is a household word throughout the world in connection with the manufacture of our celebrated Lancashire fabrics. Prior to 1914 that firm paid £890 per year in rates. At that time very few areas in Lancashire assessed machinery for rating. There were then I think only two, but the number has now grown to eight, and unless we pass this Clause all areas may adopt that system. The result of the reassessment made in 1921, in the case of that particular firm, was that they got a demand note not for £890 but for £6,400. That was the case of one particular mill which was then losing money. There was an appeal against it, and the assessment was reduced, but I submit that it shows the importance of this Clause to the industry.
1456 Further, it is in the interests of the workpeople that this Clause should be carried. The workpeople can have no chance of improving their position so long as the industry in which they are engaged is losing money, but when that industry begins to make money they will then have a chance of sharing in its prosperity. These anomalies of rating are absurd and unfair, and the sooner they are done away with the better. With regard to the point which has been made as to the incentive to put in new machinery, I have had a little experience of machinery. We have machinery which has been running for 40 years or more and if we put in new machinery we could sell that machinery to some foreign country, and they would buy it as new when we had done with it. We have been losing money, but if any new invention comes up we shall be prepared to test it. I have got machinery from Germany which was supposed to be an improvement on our own, but I am glad to confess that it is not. My point is that we must be encouraged to try every means to get the industry on its feet again. We employ 400,000 people directly in the cotton trade, and every sixteenth of a penny in the cost of production means a difference. I would go further and say that even the second decimal of a penny means sometimes the difference between keeping things going and giving up. I speak not from a selfish standpoint at all, because that does not appeal to me, but I beg and pray that every business man in this House will seek not to hinder us by pressing any Amendment to this Clause but to help us to maintain that standard of goodness and cheapness which has made us famous, and that they will see that what applies in the main to every other trade in England applies equally to the Lancashire cotton trade.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIE
I desire to present to the House one point which has not yet been put in this Debate. I represent the Central Division of Bradford, and I think I can speak on behalf of that division and also on behalf of the North Division and the East Division of Bradford. We are not rated on machinery in that area, and yet we have had within the last fortnight evidence from witnesses whose honesty and integrity could not be questioned, that even in Bradford, in one particular case out of between 300 1457 and 400 looms in commission, an average of only 98 were working. In the case of another firm, out of 148 looms in commission, only an average of 48 were working. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to listen to that side of the question. If we do not accept Clause 24, are we going to alter in any other way the anomalies which we have to-day? I have already said that Bradford at present has not rating of machinery. If we reject this Clause, are the Bradford assessment committee then to adopt that principle, and, if they do so, what will happen? I have already given a statement showing the sad conditions which prevail even at present when there is no rating of machinery.
There is one thing which hon. Members opposite apparently do not see in connection with the question of expense. If rating of machinery is to be made practicable in a city like Bradford, there will have to be a valuation of machinery periodically. You will require to have expert valuers, and in other respects there will be an expenditure of money. May I put another consideration? If you want employment, there is only one source from which to get it, and that is through the manufacturer. If you help him, he will no doubt spend more money on developments, but if you continue these pinpricks is he likely to expend money on improvements and development or to risk his money in providing further employment? I say "No." There is no use in hon. Members opposite putting down a Vote of Censure on the Government in connection with Unemployment if they strike a blow at the source from which employment is derived. I am asking this House and particularly the Opposition to start right away in finding employment by cutting down these charges upon industry. It is the only way.
You are not going to remove the anomalies which exist in this particular respect if you do not accept this Clause. For example, there is a town quite close to our own—one which Mr. Speaker knows well—namely, the town of Halifax. That is eight miles from Bradford, and there they have rating of machinery while we have not. Huddersfield is within 12½ miles of Bradford, and there they have rating of machinery while we have not. I should explain that in Bradford 1458 we rate the heriditament plus engines and boilers plus heating apparatus and plus electrical plant, if there is one. That we call fixed machinery, and, if you take a mill in our district, you rent that mill with this particular machinery or fittings, but if in assessing rates account were taken of so many broad and narrow looms and so many spinning frames, then I do not know what would happen. You would cripple and almost strangle an industry that is now endeavouring to get upon its feet again. In Huddersfield, where there is rating of machinery the rates are 11s. 9d. in the £. That is taking the rate levied and not any rate in aid for any service nor yet taking any credit for the profits of working any undertaking. The rateable valuation per head of the population is £7 8s. 9d. against Halifax's £6 11s. 7d. When you come to Leicester, where there is no rating of machinery, the rate is 12s. 3d. in the £, which is higher than Huddersfield, but it is 2s. 9d. lower than Halifax, and the rateable valuation per head of the population is £5 17s. 7d. Therefore the difference involved is not so great as hon. Members opposite seem to believe. To talk about 2s. is to exaggerate, which is wrong in a Debate in this House. I have one case here where the difference will be 2d. and the 2d. will be as near the mark as the 2s. mentioned on the other side. I think, if you took it that the average, if there was any increase in the rate, was 4d. or 5d., there is no question—and our Friends opposite must agree—that if you can create employment, 4d. or 5d. in working-class houses rated at £8 does not count. What is the difference between, say, 52 weeks' wages and 42 weeks' wages in comparison with your 3d. or 4d.? We have to get back to root principles. We want work in this country, for no money was ever got without working. Let us get down to the ground and see if we can find work, and we can only find work by encouraging industry, and not by endeavouring to cripple it.
§ Mr. OLIVER
I have listened to the Debate with great interest, and the speakers who have already addressed the House have emphasised the point that to rate machinery is to rate improvements, but we have never yet had explained to us what improvements the municipali- 1459 ties cannot rate. If you improve your housing, if an artisan purchases his own house and adds a bay window or a bathroom, the rating assessor comes down and increases the assessment. Every tradesman who owns his business premises or manufacturer who extends his premises knows that the rating assessor again comes along to increase the assessment. This question of relieving industry in one form or another has occupied the attention of this House during many discussions, and on the Finance Bill it was said that if we could only have a reduction in the Income Tax there would be a great impetus given to trade, but strange to relate, some months afterwards we find the state of trade as bad as ever. To-night it has been put forward that if we will only derate machinery it will be such a great impetus to trade that the wheels of industry will again commence to go round, but in some towns to derate machinery will represent an increase in the rents of working class houses of something equivalent to one shilling a week. [HON. MEMBERS.: "No!"] I am not quoting my own figures, but facts that have been ascertained by people more competent to obtain this information than I am myself.
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) gave his own town as an instance, and if you take the town of Derby and many other towns that have spent thousands of pounds in recent years in having their boroughs reassessed, to transfer this burden from one form of property to another must of necessity mean that the small property owners must pay a higher rate and, therefore, a higher rent, and to that extent the purchasing power of the working class is again going to be diminished, and they will not in consequence be able to purchase the quantity of goods which they are at present capable of purchasing. For that reason, I hope that the Clause now before the House will be rejected, because we have found, after the various discussions which have taken place on this question, that in many of the boroughs, instead of the theory that the industrialists pay a larger proportion of the rates being borne out, it has now been ascertained that the small cottage property and the resident population pay infinitely more than the industrialists.
1460 Therefore, I hope that not only our side of the House, but the other side too, will vote against the Clause, because many of the towns where rating of machinery has taken place have not been boroughs that have been dominated by Labour. The town of Derby is in the main dominated by Members of the party opposite, but they have rated machinery because they have been convinced that it is a fairer proposition, and it is not only the Labour party that is pushing this question. Parties who have looked at the question of rating fairly and at the interests of the country as distinct from a sectional point of view have come to the conclusion that machinery as an improvement has as much right to bear its quota of rates as any-other form of improvement.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)
I want, if I may, as we are now reaching the conclusion of our discussion, to say a few words upon one or two matters that have been mentioned in the course of the Debate, and to state my own personal views on this question. The first observation I wish to make—and I hope I shall get the assent of most Members of the House to it—is that the present condition obviously cannot remain as it is. I know of nothing at the present time, if you will examine the various positions which have been taken up by different rating authorities up and down the country, some doing one thing and some another, that is so intolerable and unjust for the manufacturers of this country as this question of the rating of machinery. It was as long ago as 1901 that a Royal Commission stated that the present position, owing to the divergence in practice, was most unfair and quite impossible, and when the last Departmental Committee examined into the situation they came to exactly the same conclusion as the Royal Commission had done many years before.
I daresay many hon. Members will remember the case which first decided that machinery could be rated. It was a famous ease called Kirby v. The Hunslet Union Assessment Committee, and it is a very extraordinary thing to see what has happened in that particular district following that decision. Hunslet is in the Leeds area, and I think it can be described as one of the oldest and best sites in England for the manufacture of 1461 every commodity. It is served by many railway companies, and I think many people would say that it is an excellent district so far as works are concerned. Hunslet fought this case and put into operation the rating of machinery. What has happened? Take the case of two of the largest works that used to exist there. One, almost immediately after the decision, having regard to the burdens that they had to face and that had not to be faced by manufacturers in other parts of the country, promptly began to move their works, and in this case—it is that of a very large firm indeed—they have now moved two-thirds of the whole of their business into another part of the country where the rating of machinery does not obtain. Take the case of another works, I think about the second largest works in that area. They had a very difficult struggle before the rating of machinery was put in force there, and this proved to be the last straw, and a short time ago that large firm had to be wound up. For a time the debenture holders endeavoured to carry on, but without success, and it is now completely wound up, and it is fair to say that many who have studied the history of that firm regard this last extra burden as one of the factors which brought that firm to an end.
That is what has happened in Hunslet. Just near to Hunslet there is a place called Bramley. The Bramley Union has followed the example of the Hunslet Union and begun to rate machinery, but the Leeds area consists now of four unions, and you have this position, that in Leeds, actually in the same area, you have half of Leeds rating machinery and the other half not rating machinery. That is an impossible position, and the point that I want to make is this, that at any rate some decision must be come to in regard to this question, not only from the point of view of foreign competition, but in fairness to the manufacturers of the country in relation to each other. You cannot continue a system under which a number of the rating authorities are taking one view of the matter and another body of rating authorities are taking another view, and that, at any rate, is the justification for putting this proposal in this Bill, because it is certainly of a most urgent character, if justice is to be 1462 done to manufacturers up and down the country.
Now I wish to answer the observation of the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), who has just spoken with reference to the burdens which he thinks might result if this Clause were carried. I confess that I think it is the strongest objection that can be put up against this Clause, namely, that you may thereby be putting upon the rest of the community the burden of which you are relieving the manufacturers of the country, but, in reply to that, I venture to say that I suppose—in fact, I know—that the biggest-burden upon any community to-day in practically every part of the country is the burden which is caused by unemployment. I think it is fair to say that rates in respect of unemployment are now up some 200 per cent. compared with what they were a few years ago, and this, I venture to say, is one of the best means of attacking the unemployment problem and relieving the rates in that respect.
One or two hon. Members in the discussion to-day have said that this is not a very big thing. That is a different view from that which has been put forward by others. I remember that in Committee some extraordinary figures were put forward as to what this proposal would mean in increased rates in Sheffield. I do not for a moment accept the figures which have been put forward—I do not think anyone can accurately estimate what the effect of this Clause would be—but I accept, for the purposes of the argument, the figures put forward from Sheffield, because Sheffield has taken considerable objection to this Clause and has submitted that the very high figure of, I think, 2s. increase in the rates would result in that city. If that be so, I venture to say it means that the manufacturers of Sheffield are going to receive a relief of a quarter of a million pounds by means of this Clause. Therefore, no one can say that some considerable assistance would not be given to them, and I draw this conclusion from that statement, that a relief of that kind to the manufacturers of Sheffield might very well make the difference to that improvement of trade which is so necessary there at the present time, and that, if the manufacturers of Sheffield did in fact receive such a considerable relief, it might make 1463 all the difference to them there in the competition which, there is no doubt about it, they have to meet both in this country and abroad. An order is often lost by a very small figure indeed. The relief which this Clause gives might make all the difference as to whether an order was attracted to this town or not. Therefore, I would venture to say that, taking whatever risks there may be, it does give assistance to manufacturers at this particular time.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
The hon. Gentleman is using the Sheffield case at some length, and it is of great importance. I would ask him, therefore, before ho sits down, if he would reply on other points mentioned by the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson), who mentioned outstanding arrears of rates of £579,000, are enormous number of summonses issued, and 60,000 ratepayers, who are paying by instalments, embarrassed. In view of these facts, will the Parliamentary Secretary state, if it is found that an increase of rates results as soon as this Clause becomes operative, and the position in necessitous areas like Sheffield is thereby worsened, whether the Government will definitely undertake to arrange a subvention to such necessitous areas?
§ Sir K. WOOD
As to the position of the necessitous areas, it has already been stated in this House a few days ago that a committee is now examining that question under a very experienced chairman, and therefore we shall have to await their report. Even if there might be an immediate increase—I do not think so, but we will assume that that would be so—I think, from the point of view of trade in Sheffield, it is a step that is worth while taking. I know one whom we respected very much indeed in this House, and he was a Member of the Government at the time, Mr. Arthur Neal. He has some knowledge of the conditions of Sheffield, and I was very interested to see that when he was in the House he voted for a Bill which was in fact the same as the proposals of the Clause we have this afternoon.
We have got to take the long view in this matter. We cannot judge this proposal by whatever our convictions may be as regards its immediate effect, but the great strength of this Clause is that it will assist trade in this country at a time? 1464 when it needs assistance and that it will give that extra assistance to manufacturers which may well make the difference by which you may very considerably reduce the unemployment rate, which undoubtedly is very heavy indeed and causes very high rates in many parts of the country. In making that statement, I have been expressing my personal view. My right hon. Friend the Minister 6f Health has stated that this matter is to be left to a free vote of the House, and I personally hope we shall carry this Clause.
§ Mr. RILEY
I differ from the point of view which has been expressed by my colleagues who have moved the rejection of this Clause, and I should like to put a point of view from this side which has not yet been expressed. I share the convictions of my colleagues who have moved the rejection of this Clause that undoubtedly the only people who are going to benefit by the unrating of machinery will, directly anyhow, be the owners and users of machinery, and that the relief to owners and users will be forced upon the shoulders of the other ratepayers and occupiers. In that I entirely agree with them. But beyond that I want to say that I wholeheartedly approve of the purpose of this Clause. I have no doubt every one of us approves of relieving industry of unnecessary burdens. There is, I think, no difference of opinion as to the objects. What we differ upon is the way to arrive at those objects. I notice that the Minister of Health, in the course of his speech, said that the main purpose of this Clause is to secure uniformity and to give to all industrialists the same equal basis upon which to conduct their business in this country. I want to suggest that that is only part of the object. I was rather surprised to find the Minister of Health limiting himself, as I understood him, to saying that that was the main purpose of the Clause—simply uniformity. I imagine that not many manufacturers who are interested in foreign export would be very much concerned with this Clause if there were no other purpose to be served but simply uniformity. Surely an object to be attained is to enable the cost of industry to be so lightened and the processes of industry encouraged and machinery encouraged, so that a better field is available for the extension of foreign trade? 1465 So far as that is concerned, I think we all agree.
I have always instinctively been against any kind of obstacle or obstruction being placed in the way of improvement of the tools and implements of trade. Everything should be done, we all agree, to give to the processes of industry, encouragement and improvement in every possible way. What one objects to are the means. What are the means in this Clause? The means adopted in this case are, that to secure that advantage, the great mass of ordinary occupiers and ratepayers and citizens are to be saddled with an additional burden of rates. It is all very well for the Minister of Health to argue that really after all that may never accrue. It is quite true that the change has been postponed for three years, but there can be no question whatever, and no one can have any doubt at all, that if there is going to be a relief of the rating of machinery, the other ratepayers must find the difference. There can be no question upon that whatever, and the Minister of Health may argue as finely and as subtly as he can, but he cannot get away from the fact that, if this Clause is going to give relief to the owners and users of machinery by reducing their great burden, somebody else has to make it up.
Why does he not take the right course and place the burden of rating on the broad backs of land values? Our colonies have done it. In Sydney at the present moment not a single penny of rates falls either on machinery, houses, or buildings. The rates are borne by the land values of Sydney, and you get not only rate-free machinery, you get houses without rates and factories without rates. Let the Government take that course, and we shall stand by it.
§ Mr. MACLAREN
I have listened to the Debate this afternoon, and I should say that the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) was in itself a little classic on the subject under discussion. When one listened to his persuasive speech and noticed the influence it had, one really wondered if the hon. Members on the other side correlated what was said by my right hon. Friend with some of the things that they say, under different circumstances, but with 1466 regard to matters which have the same import behind them. Might I recall last week on the Expiring Laws Bill. I know that the Agricultural Rates Act should be put an end to, and I daresay right hon. and hon. Members opposite all would go into the Lobby against me and maintain that this Agricultural Rates Act should remain. This Agricultural Rates Act is maintained at the expense of the industry of this country. Over £4000,000 last year was paid over to the landowners of England to make up for what they ought to have paid on the nominal value of the land. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought differently of it last week, but this afternoon I noticed how cheer after cheer came over the Floor of the House— and I was glad to hear it—owing to the persuasive eloquence, backed by experience and tact, offered in the speech of my right hon. Friend. I hope that what has been said this afternoon with regard to the relieving of industry from the incubus of rates will be remembered when some of us in this House, perhaps under more favourable circumstances, are using our persuasive powers to get them to vote solidly for the utter extinction of the taxes on industry and the produce of man's hands.
What does this whole matter boil down to? I hope the House will not mind if I put an elementary view. Rates, like taxes, can only be levied upon two particular bases. You must either levy your rates or your taxes on the value of land or upon the value of the product of human industry. You cannot escape from those two points. It does not matter how altruistic some Members of the House may be in saying: "Let us unrate machinery!" It is no good merely saying that. I must say that I have seldom listened to a speech which I have more enjoyed than the speech which the Minister delivered this afternoon. I remember when I first came into the House he was fulfilling another capacity than Minister of Health, and I remember the obdurate manner in which from the other side of the table he was gazing across at me when I was appealing to his hardened heart to levy the rates by calling upon the landowners of the country to contribute something. But this afternoon what did I hear? That by the operation of this Clause there will be not only an impetus to trade, but the natural 1467 corollary of expansion of industry and the giving of employment and the reduction of unemployment, which would be followed by the reduction of the requirements of local expenditure; and I began to think that my right hon. Friend was becoming something in the nature of an apostle of Henry George, because he went so far as to suggest that by merely remitting a tax from that part of industry, namely, machinery, there was a promised land heaving in sight. I want to say, quite frankly, that if the economic training of the Minister of Health continues, the day is not far distant when he will be leading a single-tax band in this House of Commons.
I have observed the quietude in the vicinity of those Members who represent landed interests in this country. They are afraid, perhaps, that if they became aggressive, they would show their trump cards, and therefore must remain quiet. If you unrate machinery—let us be honest about it—under the present system of rating, the rate can only be levied on the poorer members of the community, on their houses and improvements. There can be no escape from this. The Minister said this afternoon that the marvellous results of the un-rating of machinery would more than compensate for the additional burden that would fall on the ratepayers. That is merely playing with the question. I put an interjection to the Minister at that point, because he told us he was going to stake his whole political and civic career on the proposition that, if we unrated machinery, this promised land would come, and I put this question to him that, seeing he was staking so much upon that proposition—and I am sure it is the dearest thing he has in mind—would he agree with me that, under the present system of rating, if rates were reduced, rents were bound to rise? I was quoting that as an economic proposition, and an undeniable proposition to any student of economics in this House. I have heard the Minister himself argue that the owners of land would charge a higher rent in proportion to the rates levied, that is, higher if the rates were low and lower if the rates were high. I put this economic proposition, that if you reduce the rates on machinery, and leave the rating system standing as it is now, the 1468 result ultimately would be that the owners of land would be able to charge industry higher rents for the sites. I find myself in this position. I have, with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), consistently maintained in this House, and outside it, that British industry is carrying a surcharge of rates and taxes which is tantamount to a brake upon industry. You cannot go on under the present vicious system, and carry this enormous surcharge of rates and taxes on industry, and hope to compete with your foreign competitors. It was that very truism that was embodied in the arguments of the Minister of Health this afternoon, that, if you could untax machinery, you would give an impetus to industry.
If we have appealed to Members opposite to unrate machinery and untax improvements, so that the industry of this country could get a leap forward, we do not leave it hanging vaguely in the air. We follow it with the positive proposition that, in proportion as you untax industry and unrate the improvements of industry, you should absorb the growing values in land by a direct tax upon land values, and, for the life of me, much as I agree with the principle underlying the proposition that the unrating of industry is the high road to success, I cannot support this Clause, because if the manufacturers, or their representatives who sit on the other side of the House, remain deaf when we are making appeals to them to support us in forms of rating and taxation that would give an ultimate relief to industry, and then go into the Lobby to support the landlords of England in their advantage here—if they remain obdurate and quiet in these circumstances, then, much as I agree with the principle embodied in this Clause, I oppose the Clause, because I refuse to give the manufacturers of this country any relief on their machinery until they are prepared like men to come out with us and give us a quid pro quo, something in return, and support us in a positive policy [Interruption.] I agree, I would not know where I was, if I were proposing to unrate machinery and not have a positive proposition to lay before the House as to where the means should be found for that relief. There is nothing I would 1469 welcome more than to meet right hon. and hon. Members opposite on this very issue. It is an unfair thing to come to this House and ask for relief on your machinery, and not be prepared to show how you can raise the same money in other directions, without imposing hardship on the poorer members of the community. That you are going to do, and so long as you maintain that position, I am against the Clause, because those who are asking for it have turned, and will always turn, a deaf ear to us who ask for a fairer system of taxation.
This is no matter to be played with. You are trying to cope with unemployment which is costing millions of money. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite who can make jeers at these remarks would not be quite so funny if they were standing in a queue in the morning with no breakfast. This unemployment is steadily going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It is obvious to everyone who is in close touch with industrial constituencies, that unemployment is going on, and it is when we are dealing with any proposition such as this, whereby we hope to give these men employment, that we should treat it very seriously. Therefore, in view of that, fact, while supporting the principle of untaxing industry, we are opposing the Clause to-night, because those who should have supported us under other circumstances are now begging for relief without giving us a positive proposition as to where to find the money to meet the cost of this relief.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I find myself in the- somewhat unfortunate position of not being in entire agreement with the speakers who have preceded me. I cannot even follow the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in his attitude towards this Clause. But I am bound to say that I think our agreement is more important than our disagreement on this particular Clause, because I would point out to hon. Members behind me, as well as to those on the Government Benches, that the policy of the Labour party on this question, as laid down at Liverpool, is perfectly clear. Their policy is to give all local authorities power to relieve, industry, houses, improvements and factories of the present burden of the rates, and to give them permission instead to levy their local rates upon the 1470 land values which they create by their expenditure. Our difficulty is that we cannot carry out that policy on this Amendment, and the question is whether we ought or ought not to give this partial relief to one form of industry.
I listened, as I expect the whole House did, with interest, and even with enthusiasm, to the admirably put arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a master not only of flouts and jeers, but also of logical argument. I only wish that I had the power of stating the case as clearly, and I only wish that ho had the power of carrying out his logical argument to its logical conclusion. We who support this Clause—and supporters are to be found in all parties in this House—support it because we believe that if carried and put into effect it will have the tendency to reduce unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hear me out. Our argument is that the rating of machinery is an overhead charge on the costs of production of any article, exactly like management expenses, advertisements or the charges now levied under the Pension Acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Income Tax!"] No; if the hon. Member cares, I will show that Income Tax is a tax upon profits, whereas this tax to which I have alluded is a tax irrespective of profits and, therefore, must be taken as an overhead charge. The contribution to old age pensions, rates, advertising, management, are all overhead charges on industry. In working out the cost of producing any article, all these overhead charges have to be taken into account and, therefore, any reduction in these overhead charges does not go, in the long run at any rate, to the manufacturer who is relieved of this charge, but to the community who purchase the article, and taxes such as those are invariably passed on to the consumer. Therefore, if we reduce these overhead charges, we benefit the consumer, and not only the consumer in this country, but we are able to export our goods to foreign countries at a cheaper price, and are thus better able to compete in the neutral markets of the world with goods produced in other countries. These are the arguments in favour of reducing the rating on machinery. These are the arguments in favour of carrying still further the proposals of this Clause, and of abolishing the rating on all 1471 machinery and plant. We want to carry this out. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the case, stated admirably, for carrying out what is in this Clause. Can he give me one single argument in favour of not extending it towards improvement, in favour of not extending it further to houses for the people of this country?
Earlier in the Debates on this Bill there were proposals for unrating sewers. I wish I had heard from the right hon. Gentleman then some logical argument in favour of helping forward the health of the community by untaxing those measures which are taken to improve the public health. No assistance! We shall propose in this Bill later to reduce the rates upon the building of houses. Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same logical arguments in defence of that proposal, or will ho rather leave it to the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley)? We shall have further on, too, an opportunity for discussing the reduction of the assessment on house property worth less than £10 per year, of reducing the rateable assessment of that property. Will he then put forward the same sound arguments in favour of unrating houses and improvements? We want to make houses, just as we want to make machinery, cheaper. We want to make the use of them cheaper and easier for the people of this country. We on this side could not do better than seek to persuade hon. Members to carry out the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He knows as well as we know that unemployment is a curse to this country, that owing to unemployment men are paid for jobs at starvation wages, that owing to unemployment poverty is getting worse and worse, and the standard of living is going down. He knows that this is due to unemployment. He sees that unemployment can be reduced by this Clause and by carrying this Clause further.
If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to abolish unemployment, will he not come along with us—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—press the same principles further home, give relief of these burdens, and impose them instead upon that value which is the creation of communal effort? I refer to the land values and town values which, under this Bill, are not assessed to the rates unless they are used. Will 1472 he, in fact, be as good as his word, live up to his argument, and do something to improve the condition of the people of this country? Later I shall appeal to him that if he cannot persuade his party to adopt so radical a policy towards abolishing unemployment, not to cover the matter up with sneers at the people who do believe it is possible to do something. Let him remember that we on these benches are as earnest in desiring to improve matters as he is and his Government, and that we see the way, perhaps, more clearly than they do. We have in this rating instrument, we think, a method of carrying out our wishes which may not abolish unemployment, but which will, at any rate, go some way towards reducing this curse, enable us to restore our trade, and thereby restore the standard of living of the people of this country.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
I want to say what I think will happen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—if this Clause becomes law. It was my misfortune not to have heard the speech of the Minister of Health, but I did hear what he had to say about special properties. I beg the House to remember that if this Clause becomes law, no railway company or other big undertaking can have the unrating applied to them, and so get the benefit of it; they will still have to continue to pay rates on their machinery. I cannot for the life of me see how it will be fair for the private maker of engines in an engineering establishment to get unrating, whereas the London and North Eastern Railway Company when making engines will not.
I rise, however, because I wish the House to understand what the effect of this Clause will be on the rural population, and more particularly the farmers and the farm labourers in the rural districts. It is obvious what will happen. It is this: The cotton spinner, the textile manufacturer or engineer often now goes out into a rural district, sets up an engineering works, or a large factory, and builds houses for the men. The machinery being rated, the firm is the large ratepayer in the district. I am informed, and I think it is correct, that this de-rating of machinery in all our rural districts where the big industrial works are will be that every other occupier will have his rates increased by 1473 6d. to 9d. in the £. We have had it already shown to us that in some towns where machinery is rated disrating will make an increase of rates on every other occupier of, broadly, from 1d. to 2s. in the £.
I am informed that the disrating of machinery in Sheffield will mean on every artisan house rated at £10 a year, an increase of 5d. a week. I believe that machinery never ought to have been rated, I am one of those who am very anxious to see machinery disrated, but I cannot give a vote on the disrating of machinery at the expense of every artisan in the towns, the rural districts, or the urban districts where this Clause will have effect. I do ask that every agricultural or rural representative, or any who have sympathy with the rural districts, which will suffer under this Clause, to give their vote for taking out this Clause which will have the effect of putting a very heavy tax upon every
§ agricultural worker and occupier in the rural districts. In the Committee Stage I pointed out to the Minister that before the manufacturer and employer were enabled to carry out such a Measure as this there ought to be some provision made to make the blow less heavy on the other occupiers that I have mentioned. I pointed out that in a town like Sheffield it would mean a very heavy burden, and I suggested a scheme for meeting it, so that the burden might be adjusted over a period of years and the population of that. oily might be given time to turn round. Unless something of this sort is done I say that this Measure is one which ought not to be carried in the form in which it is.
§ Question put, "That the words 'For the' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 106.1477
|Division No. 407.]||AYES.||[7.42 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Fielden, E. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Chapman, Sir S.||Finburgh, S.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Forrest, W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Christie, J. A.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Clarry, Reginald George||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.|
|Apsley, Lord||Clayton, G. C.||Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Ganzoni, Sir John.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Gates, Percy|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Connolly, M.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Cooper, A. Duff||Gee, Captain R.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Cope, Major William||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham|
|Barr J.||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Goff, Sir Park|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Bennett, A. J.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Grace, John|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Crook, C. W.||Grant, J. A.|
|Berry, Sir George||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Gretton, Colonel John|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R.. Skipton)||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Dalziel, Sir Davison||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hanbury, C.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)|
|Briant, Frank||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Harris, Percy A.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Drewe, C.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Duckworth, John||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Duncan, C.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon Totnes)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Burman, J. B.||England, Colonel A.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Hennessy, Major J, R. G.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Hilton, Cecil|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Fenby, T. D.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. Q.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fermoy, Lord||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Homan, C. W. J.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Murchison, C. K.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Newton, Sir D. G C. (Cambridge)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Nuttall, Ellis||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Oakley, T.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Hurd, Percy A.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Owen, Major G.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Palin, John Henry||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Penny, Frederick George||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Jacob, A. E.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)||Philipson, Mabel||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Pielou, D. P.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).||Pilcher, G.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Kennedy, T.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Tinne, J. A.|
|Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Preston, William||Waddington, R.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Price, Major C. W. M.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Radford, E. A.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Raine, W.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Livingstone, A. M.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Remer, J. R.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Loder, J. de V.||Remnant, Sir James||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Looker, Herbert William||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Lord, Walter Greaves-||Rice, Sir Frederick||Wells, S. R.|
|Lowth, T.||Riley, Ben||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Lumley, L. R.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Rye, F. G.||Windsor-dive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Macintyre, Ian||Salmon, Major I.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Womersley, W. J.|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Malone, Major P. B.||Sandon, Lord||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Savery, S. S.||Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Merriman, F. B.||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Mr. Sandeman Allen and Mr.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wiggins.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Day, Colonel Harry||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Baker, Walter||Gibbins, Joseph||Lee, F.|
|Barnes, A.||Gillett, George M.||Lindley, F. W.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Gosling, Harry||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Batey Joseph||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lunn, William|
|Bethell, A.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Groves, T.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Broad, F. A.||Grundy, T. W.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Bromfield, William||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||March, S.|
|Bromley J.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)|
|Buchanan, G.||Harland, A.||Montague, Frederick|
|Cape, Thomas||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hayes, John Henry||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Cove, W. G.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Murnin, H.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hirst, G. H.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Paling, W.||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Ponsonby, Arthur||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Potts, John S.||Stephen, Campbell||Warne, G. H.|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Ritson, J.||Storry Deans, R.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Saklatvala, Shapurji||Taylor, R. A.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Sexton, James||Thurtle, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Tinker, John Joseph||Windsor, Walter|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Townend, A. E.||Wright, W.|
|Smillie, Robert||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Varley, Frank B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Snell, Harry||Viant, S. P.||Mr. George Barker and Mr. Oliver.|
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I bog to move, in page 25, line 1, to leave out the words "purposes of" and to insert instead thereof the wordspurpose of the making or revision of valuation lists under.This is merely a drafting Amendment to make quite clear the purpose of the Clause, which refers to the new valuation lists and not to a revision of the current valuation lists.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Is it right that this is merely a drafting Amendment? Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that it is not introducing any change? If this is not inserted should we be able to take action on the present valuation lists?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I believe that is not so, but I do not profess to be sufficient authority to say definitely. Certainly there is no alteration in what the Clause purports to do, or what the Clause has hitherto been understood to do.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of COLONEL WEDGWOOD:
§ In page 25, line 7, to leave out from beginning to the word "no" in line 11.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) move his Amendment?
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I understand an arrangement has been come to whereby it is impossible to make a speech, and, therefore, I do not propose to move it.
§ Sir D. NEWTON
I beg to move, in page 26, line 9, after the word "in," to insert the words "Part I of."
§ Amendment negatived.1478
Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 14, leave out the words "An assessment committee" and insert instead thereof the words
The rating authority or the assessment committee, as the case may require."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ CLAUSE 25.—(Making of draft valuation list.)
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment is being moved in order that the House may have an opportunity of recording its opinions on the omission from the Clause of those valuation officers who were an original feature of the Bill. When the Bill came forward on Second Heading an important feature of it was the linking up of the valuation for Schedule A of the Income Tax and the valuation for local purposes. During all the years I can remember the question of bringing assessments for local rating on to the same basis of uniformity as assessment for Income Tax purposes has been the chief reason urging every Government to undertake rating reform. Bills were introduced year after year by the old Liberal Government in 1906 and 1914 all directed towards screwing up valuation for rating purposes more into alignment with the valuation for Income Tax purposes, and every rating reformer agreed that that was a proper course. This Bill was introduced with a compromise based upon combining the valuation for local rating with the assistance of advisers in the pay of the Treasury, who would have brought to bear upon this question of local valuation the trained mind of outsiders not swayed by local interests or local affections. This was a compromise between the sound reform which we advocate on these benches of a genuine valuation from headquarters of the whole land of the 1479 country whether it be for local or national purposes, and we have given expression in Debate to our desire to have one single valuation for that purpose.
We accepted this compromise and supported the Bill in Committee through many days against the backing of the Government supporters because it did embody a scheme whereby we could get some uniformity between valuation for rating and valuation for Schedule A. The valuation suggested by the Department was to have two revenue officers attached to the committees which drew up the valuation, having in their hands the valuation for Schedule A, and using it as a check upon the local value. As time went on the Minister of Health discovered that the opposition of the Land Union was so strong that he found he could not carry his Bill with the provision for the revenue officers in it. The result was that he cut out the part of the Bill to which his Department and himself were most wedded and he dropped the revenue officers, and therefore dropped at the same time any chance of getting one valuation for central and local purposes.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
This Clause, as originally introduced, was the one that brought in the Revenue officer which we are now asked to exclude. It gives us the machinery whereby the valuation is started. The draft lists are drawn up by the rating authorities which would have had the advice of the Revenue officers, and that is no longer possible Everybody recognises that the great fault in valuing for local purposes is the extraordinary under-assessment in country areas which has been a very great scandal for a good many years, and that scandal will continue under this Bill very nearly as bad as under the old system. The dropping of the Revenue officer has been the dropping of all chance of getting a fail-valuation. It has been said that it does not matter if property is undervalued, because it only means that the poundage rate is high. I think that is an utterly fallacious argument, because it means an unjust valuation as between the occupiers of different sorts of property, and the only chance of rectifying such valuation is to appeal against it.
1480 If the valuation of your property is the real full valuation representing the accurate value how can you appeal against that, although you know that your neighbours' property all around is valued not on the full value but at something much less. Of course your ground for appeal has gone because you are justly valued and the other people are unjustly valued, therefore this unfair general low valuation must lead to great injustice towards those few individuals who are rated at their full value. Under the present system, and under the system now embodied in this Bill, the valuation will still be carried on by the special interests concerned in that particular valuation.. Anybody who has been a member of the London County Council or of rural district or borough councils must realise that different interests on these valuation committees have been most unfairly represented. Farm property is notoriously undervalued whereas cottage property, and particularly new houses, are liable to be rated at their full value. The large farmer who looks after these lists sees that the big farms are valued on the reasonable side and not at the full rental value put down for Schedule A of the Income Tax. On the other hand the smallholder who holds land from the county council at a rate which is well known to the county council and its officials has his rent based upon the whole cost of the improvement of the land and the sinking fund of the land and he has to pay on something which the county council gets the advantage of and on an assessment up to the full value.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all tenants are not paying on the rent they pay?
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
If that were so, then we might have one assessment for all purposes, but I know from experience that the assessment of land is lower for local purposes than it is for Schedule A, under which they have to pay the full amount. A farm is valued for local purposes at a far less sum than for Schedule A, and if that were not so there 1481 would not be all this opposition to the Revenue officer being brought in to assist in the local valuation.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Yes, in three counties, and I acquired my land in order to appreciate the point of view of the landlord. In this Clause we have dropped out the chance of making a fair and just valuation and having one valuation for local as well as central purposes, and also the chance of doing away with all these local anxieties and fears which so notoriously affect the valuations as they stand for local rating purposes. I know that not only hon. Members on this side, but also on the Front Bench opposite, regret this change, and they did their best to persuade their followers to take the same view, and, although in the Division Lobby we shall not have their support, we shall have the knowledge that they consider us to be in the right.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I quite appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Amendment desires to make his point. I know that he has followed the course of this Bill with great care. It is quite true that my right hon. Friend who introduced this Measure in the first instance provided for the Revenue officers being included, but I think hon. Members know the circumstances under which that proposal was withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has greatly exaggerated the consequences of that withdrawal. Under this Measure the areas will be greatly increased, and uniformity will be considerably enhanced. Hon. Members also know that after the withdrawal of the Revenue officers we set up a central valuation committee which will fulfil, to a certain extent, the functions allocated to the Revenue officers, and this will give us many of the advantages which we attached to the original proposal.
§ Major CRAWFURD
I think the Government by their actions have deprived themselves of the opportunity of having a just valuation made. They have done a great deal more than that. Although this Bill is called a Bating and Valuation Bill, there is not any provision from the first word to the last for making a valuation at all. The valua- 1482 tion list is going to be compiled from the returns in Schedule IV of the people whose property is going to be valued, but there is no provision for making the valuation, and that seems to me to be an important omission. The consequence seems to me to be that, where you have differences in rent, due, perhaps, to the fact that one lease has fallen in and another has not, you will not have a proper valuation, but will inevitably get—
§ Sir K. WOOD
If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him, I would point out that Clause 19 provides for the making of a valuation list.
§ Major CRAWFURD
I think the hon. Gentleman was not quite following what I said. I said that it is true that the Bill provides for the making of a valuation list—
§ Major CRAWFURD
A new valuation list, and as many new valuation lists as you like; but it does not provide anywhere for making a valuation. It provides for returns being sent in according to the Fourth Schedule, and then for a valuation being compiled from the figures contained in those returns, but it nowhere provides for making a valuation.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
I only want to put one point with regard to the reply which the hon. Gentleman made to my right hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman has made any justification at all for leaving out of the Bill the provision for giving us the advice and help of the Inland Revenue authorities in getting uniformity of assessment, but what I want to observe is that there is no provision, as far as I can see, in Clause 58, with regard to the constitution of the central valuation committee, which will enable the Government to move any nearer to uniformity of assessment as between Schedule A and local rates. If there be any substance in the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I should be prepared to accept it if he would say that, when we come to Clause 58, he will put in some words which will enable the Government to lay it down that the Inland Revenue officials will be called into consultation by the central 1483 valuation committee, if not in the other assessment areas, so that we may get a real basis for uniformity of assessment as between Schedule A for Income Tax and other purposes and local rates. If the hon. Gentleman will say that he will do that in Clause 58, perhaps our attitude upon this Amendment may be altered.
§ half an hour ago, that is to say, uniformity. If the hon. Gentleman will not help us in securing uniformity with regard to rating by having the advice of those who would be in touch, not only with one area, but with many areas, then there is but one course for us on this side, and that is to divide against this Clause. Surely, if it is good to have uniformity with regard to the matter we have been discussing throughout the whole of the afternoon, it is also good to have something of uniformity with regard to rating, and I hope the House will realise that just as strongly now as they did on the Clause we discussed last.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 117.1485
|Division No. 408.]||AYES||[8.20 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hanbury, C|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Harland, A.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cooper, A. Duff||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Apsley, Lord||Cope, Major William||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Crook, C. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Crookshank, Col. C. do W. (Berwick)||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Henn. Sir Sydney H.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Hilton, Cecil|
|Berry, Sir George||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)|
|Bethell, A.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Holland, Sir Arthur|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Drewe, C.||Homan, C. W. J.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Duckworth, John||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Blundell, F. N.||England, Colonel A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Everard, W. Lindsay||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Fermoy, Lord||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis|
|Bridgman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Finburgh, S.||Hutchinson, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'b'ls)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Forrest W.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Jacob, A. E.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd.. Hexham)||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Ganzoni, Sir John||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Burman, J. B.||Gates, Percy||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Goff, Sir Park||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gower, Sir Robert||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Grace, John||Loder, J. de V.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Looker, Herbert William|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Christie, J. A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||MacAndrew, Charles Glen|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Price, Major C. W. M.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Macintyre, Ian||Radford, E. A.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Raine, W.||Templeton, W. P.|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Remer, J. R.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Remnant, Sir James||Tinne, J. A.|
|Malone, Major P. B.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Rice, Sir Frederick||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Merriman, F. B.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Waddington, R.|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Rye, F. G.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Sattron Walden)||Salmon, Major I.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Wells, S. R.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)||Sandon, Lord||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Savery, S. S.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Oakley, T.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Shepperson, E. W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Owen, Major G.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Smithers, Waldron||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Spender Clay, Colonel H.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir I|
|Philipson, Mabel||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Wragg Herbert|
|Pielou, D. P.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Pilcher, G.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Preston, William||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. F. C. Thomson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hayday, Arthur||Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayes, John Henry||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smillie, Robert|
|Amman, Charles George||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Baker, Walter||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snell, Harry|
|Barnes, A.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Barr, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Batey, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Bromfield, William||Kelly, W. T.||Stewart, J. (St Rollox)|
|Bromley, J.||Lansbury, George||Taylor, R. A.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Lee, F.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lindley, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cape, Thomas||Livingstone, A. M.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacLaren, Andrew||Varley, Frank B.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||March, S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Montague, Frederick||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Warne, G. H.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Murnin, H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Naylor, T. E.||Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Oliver, George Harold||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Palin, John Henry||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Paling, W.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gillett, George M.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gosling, Harry||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Riley, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Wright, W.|
|Guest, J, (York, Hemsworth)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)||Sexton, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Kennedy.|
§ CLAUSE 26.—(Objections to draft valuation list.)
§ Sir PHILIP PILDITCH
I beg to move, in page 28, line 3, at the end, to insert the words(2) Where a rating area has been divided into parts for the purpose of a new valuation list a person shall not be deemed to be aggrieved in respect of the valuation of any hereditament in one of those parts by reason of any disparity between the valuation of that hereditament and the valuation of any hereditament situated in a part of the area the new valuation list for which is to be made in a subsequent year.I move this in order to provide for what otherwise I think, and a good many other people think, will cause some difficulty in the administration of this Act. By Clause 19 the Minister may, if he likes, on the application of any rating authority made with the concurrence of the assessment committee, divide a rating area into parts and provide that those parts may be valued at different periods. I hope that will not take place very often, because it is bound to set up very considerable inequalities, especially in cases where the old rating of such an area has been made a very long time ago. Take a case where an area has not been valued for 20 years. In that case if one part is valued now for the purposes of this Clause and another part is not valued at that time, there will, of course, be a state of affairs set up in which the property in the first part, which is newly valued, will be valued up to date, but the old part will remain upon the valuation made a long time ago. That may be necessary in some cases, but what I want to avoid, if possible, is this. There is a rule of law which has not been done away with by this Bill. Clause 66 provides that the principles on which hereditaments are to be valued or any privilege or provision for the making of a valuation on any exceptional principle shall not be affected by the Bill. That means to say that the old rules of law which affect questions of rating are to remain in force. One of those rules of law is that an aggrieved person may appeal on the ground of inequality of assessment, namely, that he is rated highly as compared with someone else in the same area. The whole meaning and intent of my Amendment is to provide that that cause of appeal shall not apply in those cases where there has been a rating of one 1488 part only of the area. To my mind it would render the whole operation of the Bill nugatory with regard to the first rated area if the Amendment was not passed, because anybody who has been newly rated in one half of a particular area, comparing his rating with that still subsisting in the other half, could say, "I am unfairly treated, and under this rule of law I am entitled to ask the Court to say that my rating shall be put down the same as that of a person in the other half of the area." If the law is as I state, and I believe it to be so, the whole effect of taking this power to enable areas to be rated at separate times would be rendered of no effect. Of course, it is a matter mainly for the Government whether they think my view of the situation set up under these circumstances is correct, but those who have most to do with questions of rating are, I am informed, of opinion that that is what the result would be.
§ Mr. RHYS
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the House will agree that there is considerable force in the arguments my hon. Friend has adduced. I do not think it right to say we are going to do away with the right of appeal, but in this new machinery which is to be set up under the Bill, if a new area is to be split up and one part valued in 1928 and the next part in 1929, obviously where there has been no valuation for 20 years the first part may be valued at a higher rate than the part that is going to be valued in 1929. This may make for the easier working of the Act. Much as I dislike it, now that it is going through, I want to make its working as easy as possible.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I think this is a reasonable suggestion. It purely affects the first operation of the Clause during the period in which re-valuation is to take place. The division of areas is simply for the administrative convenience of the authorities concerned. It would be impossible to put the whole operation into force at one time. It is also true that if there is a disparity between the valuations of two hereditaments in the same area, a person who thinks he is prejudiced has the right of bringing the matter forward. Where a step is taken of this kind, and you are dividing the valua- 1489 tion of the area into two parts for administrative reasons, if you are going to allow everyone to bring forward an appeal on that ground it might very well upset the whole position. I do not think anybody would be injured by this course, and as far as the Government is concerned I think it would be a useful addition to the Bill.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
This Clause gives any person aggrieved by an unfair assessment the right to lodge an objection with the Assessment Committee. The Amendment seems to me at first sight to be very reasonable, but on consideration—
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
This Amendment means that a person who is aggrieved by seeing that his property is fully valued and that his neighbour's property next door is under valued, can appeal to the assessment committee.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The suggestion is that if this person finds his own property fully valued, and property just across the boundary, where the assessment is an old assessment, under-valued, he should not use that under-valuation as a ground for complaining that his own property is over-valued.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I do not see why he should not. If the property which is under-valued next door belongs to somebody who is in competition with him, it may be serious. It may be a case of two shops adjoining. I think it is a good ground for making an objection to the assessment committee, if one shop is under-valued and the other is over-valued. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed to Clause 58 as taking the place of the revenue officers, and enabling something to be done to put the valuation on right lines. Clause 58 sets up exactly the body which would deal with the point, and screw up the neighbouring valuation where the property was under-valued, and so secure a certain amount of uniformity. Complaints of the kind suggested by this Amendment would be useful for gingering up the assessment committee to get a uniform valuation from one area to another If you leave out this provision, you might get a boundary not merely in space, but a boundary in valuation.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
We have not at present any decent co-ordinating body to bring these assessment areas into line.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 260: Noes, 117.1493
|Division No. 409.]||AYES.||[8.40 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Briscoe, Richard George||Cooper. A. Duff|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cope, Major William|
|Apsley, Lord||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Courthhope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert|
|Atkinson, C.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Burman, J. B.||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Caine, Gordon Hall||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Campbell, E. T.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan|
|Bennett, A. J.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Drewe, C.|
|Berry, Sir George||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Duckworth, John|
|Bethell, A.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Elliot, Captain Walter E.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||England, Colonel A.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Chapman, Sir S.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Bird, Sir R, B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Christie, J. A.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Clarry, Reginald George||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Clayton, G. C.||Fermoy, Lord|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Finburgh, S.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Forrest, W.||Loder, J. de V.||Sandon, Lord|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Looker, Herbert William||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Savery, S. S.|
|Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Gates, Percy.||Macintyre, Ian||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Macmillan, Captain H.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macquisten, F. A.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Goff Sir Park||Malone, Major P. B.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Grace, John||Merriman, F. B.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Storry Deans, R.|
|Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Hanbury, C.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.|
|Harland, A.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Nuttall, Ellis||Tinne, J. A.|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Oakley, T.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||O'Connor. T J. (Bedford, Luton)||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Waddington, R.|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Owen, Major G.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Penny, Frederick George||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Homan, C. W. J.||Philipson, Mabel||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Pielou, D. P.||Wells, S. R.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Pllcher, G.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Preston, William||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Radford, E. A.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Raine, W.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Windsor-dive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Remer, J. R.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Jacob, A. E.||Remnant, Sir James||Womersley, W. J.|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Kennedy, A. R (Preston).||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wragg, Herbert|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Rye F. G.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Salmon, Major I.|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Captain Viscount Curzon and|
|Little, Dr. E. Graham||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Captain Margesson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hayday, Arthur|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Crawfurd, H. E.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Hirst, G. H.|
|Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Baker, Walter||Day, Colonel Harry||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Fenby, T. D.||Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield|
|Barnes, A.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Barr, J.||Gibbins, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Batey, Joseph||Gillett, George M.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Broad, F. A.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Bromfield, William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Bromley, J.||Groves, T.||Lansbury, George|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Grundy, T. W.||Lee, F.|
|Buchanan, G.||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Lindley, F. W.|
|Cape,. Thomas||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Livingstone, A. M.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lowth, T.|
|Connolly, M.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sitch, Charles H.||Viant, S. P.|
|March, S.||Smillie, Robert||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Montague, Frederick||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Warne, G. H.|
|Murnin, H.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Snell, Harry||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Oliver, George Harold||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Palin, John Henry||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Whiteley, W.|
|Paling, W.||Stamford, T. W.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Potts, John S.||Stephen, Campbell||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Riley, Ben||Taylor, R. A.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Ritson, J.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)||Windsor, Walter|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)||Wright, W.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Thurtle, E.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Sexton, James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Townend, A. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.||Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles.|
§ Major CRAWFURD
I beg to move, in page 28, line 3, at the end, to insert the wordseither in respect of the whole thereof on the grounds that the same is based on a wrong principle or is generally incorrect or unfair as between the several hereditaments therein valued or by comparison with the valuation lists in force or draft valuation lists deposited in respect of any other area within the same county, or in respect of any particular matter therein contained or omitted.The Amendment has been drafted with a view to enabling a person to have the right to object not only on the ground of his own assessment but also on the ground that it is unfair as between one or any number of assessments, and another or any number of other assessments. T understand that under the law you can appeal against an assessment, or you have an appeal to Quarter Sessions on the ground that a preference has been given to somebody else. Clause 14 takes away that right of appeal, and T would be glad to restore the right of appeal to any person on the ground of inequality as between one person and another or one assessment and another.
§ Sir K. WOOD
With regard to Clause 14 I think that everyone interested in the question of administration will agree that what is done by this is the right thing to do. As regards this particular matter, it is quite right, as the hon. and gallant Member says, that we should be careful to see that any rights are fully preserved in this respect. He is endeavouring in this Amendment to set out the various grounds, but if he will 1494 look at page 27, line 41, he will see the words "or otherwise with respect to the list." The intention of the draftsman, which I think has been successfully accomplished, is to include in the widest words possible any matter such as that winch my hon. Friend has endeavoured to introduce into his Amendment. The danger of endeavouring to set out any particular form of objection is that very often you limit the ground of objection. We are endeavouring in these words, which I am advised are the correct words, to give the very widest opportunity in this respect. I can assure my hon. Friend that these words do amply meet the situation and carry out the object which he has in view.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
The value of this seems to be in the consideration that an objection may be made to the valuation list on these various points, particularly in respect to different areas in the same county. As the hon. Member knows we are aggrieved by the dropping out of the revenue officers, but hero we have a suggestion which will go a long way to enable the general principle to be carried out throughout the country. I would like to be satisfied as to whether it is certain that the putting in of the words which have been referred to will act as a limitation. We are told that there is always a danger of putting in specific words, but I would suggest that if these words were put in they would make the ratepayers rather more aware of their rights with regard to objections. Can the hon. Member give an assurance that these words carry out the object in view?
Mr. W. M. ADAMSON
I would appeal to the hon. Member on one point, because I am rather afraid that the original Clause is one which will prove to be harassing between valuations, and I would ask the hon. Member if he would not at least accept part of this Amendment in which are included those wordsby comparison with the valuation lists in force or draft valuation lists deposited in
respect of any other area within the same county.
§ If you make that addition to the Clause it would improve it and be a very definite safeguard.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 246.1497
|Division No. 410.]||AYES.||[8.57 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smillie, Robert|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Snell, Harry|
|Baker, Walter||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Barnes, A.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Barr, J.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Batey, Joseph||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Broad, F. A.||Kelly, W. T.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Bromfield, William||Kennedy, T.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Bromley, J.||Lansbury, George||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lindley, F. W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Livingstone, A. M.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacLaren, Andrew||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||March, S.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Montague, Frederick||Warne, G H.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Murnin, H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Naylor, T. E.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Fenby, T. D.||Oliver, George Harold||Weir, L. M.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Owen, Major G.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gillett, George M.||Palin, John Henry||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Groves, T.||Riley, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ritson, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W R., Elland)||Wright, W.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Sexton, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Major Crawfurd and Mr. W. M.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Adamson.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Briscoe, Richard George||Clayton, G. C.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cope, Major William|
|Atkinson, C.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Burman, J. B.||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Caine, Gordon Hall||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Bethell, A.||Campbell, E. T.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Dean, Arthur Wellesley|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan|
|Blundell, F. N.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Drewe, C.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Chapman, Sir S.||Duckworth John|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Christie, J. A.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.|
|England, Colonel A.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sandon, Lord|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lamb, J. Q.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Savery, S. S.|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Loder, J. de V.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Finburgh, S.||Looker, Herbert William||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Forrest, W.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)|
|Foxcrott, Captain C. T.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony||Macintyre, I.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Gates, Percy||Macquisten, F. A.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Malone, Major P. B.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Storry Deans. R.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Merriman, F. B.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Grace, John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Grant, J. A.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Grotrian, H. Brent.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Hanbury, C.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Tinne, J. A.|
|Harland, A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hartington, Marguess of||Nuttall, Ellis||Waddington, R.|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Oakley, T.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Penny, Frederick George||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hasting)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wells, S. R.|
|Hilton, Cecil||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Phillipson, Mabel||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Pleiou, D. P.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||P[...]lcher, G.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Preston, William||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Radford, E. A.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Raine, W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)||Reid, D. O. (County Down)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Remer, J. R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Remnant, Sir James||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Woodcock. Colonel H. C.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Jacob, A. E.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Viscount Curzon.|
§ CLAUSE 28.—(Final approval of valuation list.)
§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 29, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words "the place in which the ratebooks of the rating area are kept," and to insert instead thereof the words "offices of the authority."
This Amendment to the Clause dealing with the final approval of the valuation list is self-explanatory when it is seen that the Amendment next on the Paper proposes to insert the words:(5) The rating authority shall give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the assessment committee in pursuance of the provisions of 1498 this Part of this Act authorising or requiring assessment committees to make corrections or alterations in valuation lists.In other words the Amendment provides that the deposit of the lists shall be at the offices of the authority in order that these arrangements may be carried out, and it is for the convenience of ratepayers that these books and lists should be easily accessible.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 29, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:(5) The rating authority shall give effect to any directions which may from time to 1499 time be given to them by the assessment committee in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act authorising or requiring assessment committees to make corrections or alterations in valuation lists.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I do not think the hon. Member has made quite clear what this new Sub-section (5) provides. It is more than a question merely of putting the rate books in a certain place.
§ Sir K. WOOD
If hon. Members look at Clause 35 (1) they will see that it requires the assessment committee to cause necessary alterations to be made in valuation lists under decisions given on appeal, while Clause 37 similarly requires that the assessment committee shall make the necessary alterations for amending the lists. At this stage the assessment committee will not have the custody of the valuation list, which by that time will be in the hands of the rating authority. This Amendment simply authorises the rating authority to carry out the instructions given by the assessment committee with regard to alterations in the valuation lists.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 31.—(Appeal to Quarter Sessions.)
§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I beg to move, in page 30, line 12, to leave out from the word "who" to the word "under" in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the wordsshall have given to the assessment committee a notice of objection.This Amendment raises a question of procedure. It will be remembered that in Clause 14 there is a limitation to the right of appeal. It is there provided that no appeal against a rate shall lie to Quarter Sessions in respect of any matter in which relief might have been or might be obtained tinder the provisions of Part II of the Bill. Then Clause 31 provides that any person who appeared before the assessment committee on the consideration of an objection made before the committee, may if aggrieved by the decision of the committee appeal against the decision. The House will notice that this provision requires the ratepayer or the person wishing to appeal to have "appeared" before the assessment committee. There is no technical meaning in the word "appeared," but I take it to mean in this case that the person con- 1500 cerned must have gone before the committee himself, or it may be decided that he can go there by an agent. Under the law as it stands to-day the conditions precedent to a right of appeal are that the ratepayer shall have given notice of objection and shall have failed to get relief. The words used here are "who appeared," and the further words "aggrieved by the decision" are practically the same as "having failed to get relief." I desire to leave out the words "who appeared before the assessment committee," and to insert the words "who has given notice of objection," and to provide that such a person may if he is aggrieved by the decision appeal against it.
In many cases a ratepayer may not be able to appear. He may desire to put his case in writing as fully as possible, and then, failing a decision in his favour, he may desire to take it to the Quarter Sessions. He may be unwilling to go to the expense of taking valuers, and other witnesses, before the assessment committee, and yet desire to have his case tried in Court, or he may be ill, and unable to appear. Under the present law you cannot compel the ratepayer to argue his case or give any information before the assessment committee. It is quite enough for him to say, "I have not got relief." Even under this Clause as it stands it would be enough for the ratepayer to have attended the committee, and not to have said a word, and he would have a right of appeal. For the sake of making the Clause work more easily, I ask for the insertion of these words.
It has been suggested that I should be shutting out other persons who ought to have the right of appeal, but I have no such intention and I do not think I am doing so. It is suggested I am cutting out the valuation committee, or the assessment committee, but I do not think it applies to them. Under the general law they would have a right of appeal in the same way as the ordinary ratepayer has a right of appeal on matters of legality, but if the Minister in charge of the Bill or the Solicitor-General desires to protect their rights, I am prepared to leave in the words "any person who appeared" if I can have my words also. If it would meet the views of the Minister, I am quite willing to enlarge the 1501 Amendment by proposing to make the Clause read:any person who shall have given to the assessment committee a notice of objection, or any person who appeared before the committee on the consideration of an objection made under this part of the Act and who is aggrieved by the decision may, etc.I venture to put this to the Law Officer, and to say that it is a very sensible and prudent Amendment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
I am not quite clear if the hon. and learned Baronet means to move the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, and leave it to the Government to amend it, or whether he wishes to move it in the revised form.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I would rather move it as it stands on the Paper first, but if the Minister takes any such objection to it as I have rather anticipated, I would move it in the alternative form.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)
As my hon. and learned Friend has elected to move his Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, I think he will see that there are objections to it in that form, quite apart from the wider question as to whether it is desirable to give a right of appeal to a person who has not taken the trouble to appear before the assessment committee. Perhaps I may put this case to him: Supposing Brown objects to Smith's assessment, on the ground that it is not high enough, and the assessment of Smith's property stands, then Brown can appeal, because he is the person who has sent in the objection; but supposing Brown's objection succeeds and Smith's assessment is put up, then Smith cannot appeal, under my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, although Smith is the person most vitally interested, because it is the assessment of his property that is concerned.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I think my hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. Smith is the person who is vitally interested, and he would, no doubt, appear before the assessment 1502 committee, and if his assessment is put up, the effect of the Amendment would be to shut him out from appealing under the provisions of Clause 31.
Let me assume that my hon. and learned Friend gets over that objection by leaving the words in as they stand, and by inserting, after the word "committee" some such words as he now proposes, so as to give a right to an objector to appeal, notwithstanding the fact that he has not appeared. I understand that that is my hon. and learned Friend's alternative proposal, so as to make it plain that a mere objector, a person, that is to say, who has sent in an objection in writing and has not appeared, shall have the right of appeal. I cannot help thinking that there are objections to that proposal. I am not at all sure that the prevailing practice to-day is that persons who have merely sent in an objection in writing—and have not troubled to give the tribunal to whom they object the opportunity which the Assessment Committee Act, 1864, provides should be given, namely, to hear the objection— have the right to appeal.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Hawke) confirms exactly my recollection of what is required, because the Act of 1864 does require that the objection shall be heard. At any rate, whatever the existing practice is, I respectfully suggest that it is not desirable to give persons the right of appeal if they have not thought fit to carry their objection to the point of appearance before the assessment committee. Just consider what the position-would be. People would put in objections which were quite possibly unintelligible, in the sense of not being full enough to give the committee information as to the point of the appeal or the principle involved, or as to any figures which might be involved. The committee, if the objector is before them, can ask questions and reasons, and it may be that the objector can refuse to give any replies or any information, but at any rate he is there before the committee, and I 1503 respectfully suggest to the House that it is not desirable to increase something in the nature of litigation over objections to maintain and support which the objector has not thought fit to appear before the assessment committee. My hon. and learned Friend referred to cases where the objector might be ill and therefore unable to appear before the committee to pursue his objection. I think that is a risk which all persons who have to appear "before judicial or semi-judicial bodies run, and there are obvious ways of seeing that the illness of an objector does not prevent him securing the justice to which he is entitled. If he is entitled to have an opportunity to appear, and cannot do so on account of illness, there are perfectly well-known ways of securing that he shall have another opportunity. On these grounds I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 30, line 17, after the word "to," to insert the wordseither a court of special session for the petty sessional division or.In the first place, this Amendment makes no alteration in the existing law. Already, under the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836, it is possible for any person aggrieved by the decision of an assessment committee to appeal to a special sessions of the petty sessions instead of going to Quarter Sessions, and in certain cases in rural areas this has a very considerable advantage. There is one class of appeal in rural areas which would require a more skilled tribunal than am assessment committee, and that is the case of woodlands, which, the House will remember, are assessed under a very peculiar definition, namely, "the unimproved value of land supposing nothing stood upon it." I submit that it is desirable, in the interests of those who are owners of small lots of woodland which have been very much over-assessed that they should have a tribunal of appeal which is close to their dwellings, which is fairly reasonable of access to them or their witness, and also which is reasonably cheap, because an appeal to Quarter Sessions in most cases requires the appearance of at least one counsel on behalf of the appellant, if not a leader and a 1504 junior, and it is for this reason, in order that those who own small properties where the rating law is complicated may have a reasonably cheap tribunal within easy reach of their own houses, that I move this Amendment. To a certain extent the objection of the remoteness of Quarter Sessions has been met by an Amendment to Sub-section (1) of Clause 32, which says that sittings of the committee shall be held at one or more places as the committee think proper, having regard to the public convenience. I should like to see it made more stringent, that it shall be held "in one or more places as the convenience of the parties to the appeal shall require." That would go a long way to meet my objections. I also wish to see the procedure made cheaper so that a man is not debarred from getting justice from the fear of the expense being out of proportion from what he hopes to save.
§ Mr. RYE
I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment in its present form was moved by me during the Committee stage and that on that occasion I withdrew the Amendment on a suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would bring in a Clause to deal with the question of expense. I find, on referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT that the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was very glad to have heard the observations of the Members of the Committee, and he added that everyone was agreed that considerable hardship was involved at the present by the expense in many cases, in relation to appeals. He went on to say that he suggested that I should withdraw the Amendment on his undertaking to bring up a new Clause, and on that understanding I did withdraw my Amendment, such Amendment being in exactly the same form as it is to-day on the Paper.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is no necessity to put down a Clause because of the Amendment, to which the Mover of this Amendment referred to a moment ago, namely, the Amendment which would allow solicitors as well as barristers to attend before Quarter Sessions. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that it really is a material saving of expense if you allow a 1505 solicitor to go before Quarter Sessions, and that if you save the barrister's fee that will really materially assist a small ratepayer in his appeal? If he does tell me that then I must say at once that I here and now deeply regret that I have been brought up in the wrong branch of the law, because the fees paid to the barristers must be very high indeed if the savings in these fees is to make the material difference. I suggest to the House that on the words which were spoken by the Parliamentary Secretary on the 16th July, the Members of the House ought to support this Amendment.
The Mover of the Amendment has pointed out that this in no way is a new proposal. For practically 100 years, ratepayers have had, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Parochial Assessments Act of 1836, this right of appeal. It may be said that advantage has not been taken in many cases of that power, but in this House I am not going to admit that it is a fact that that is the case. The reason is that under that Act there is a right of appeal both on a question of fact as well as on a point of law, and obviously, therefore, the ratepayer has elected in the main to go to Quarter Sessions rather than take his case from the court of first instance to the special sessions, then find that he is taken from there on appeal to Quarter Sessions. Apart from that, there have been a great number in the aggregate of cases, that have gone to special sessions, and it may interest the House to know that in the City of Westminster during the recent quinquennial valuations, there have been as many notices of appeal to special sessions as there have been to Quarter Sessions.
I appeal to the House to support this Amendment and to do so in the interests of the small ratepayer. After all, you have to consider the question of expense, and it is only fair and just to the small ratepayer that he shall be enabled to carry out the appeal on the cheapest possible lines. Take the case of a ratepayer living far away from the county town. He has to go to Quarter Sessions and, presumably, he would have to take his own solicitor, whose extra expenses and fees he would have to pay for taking him from his place of business to the County Court, and he has to take his 1506 expert witnesses and, including his own travelling expenses, he is put to no little expense. I do suggest to the House that it is not fair and equitable to take away a right which has existed for nearly 100 years and not to give a corresponding right. Of course I know, in fact I am quite certain of it, that it will be said in Section 32, the committees set up to deal with this are rather in the nature of perambulating committees. But there is nothing to say that they will go to any small town or village for the purpose of hearing these appeals. I should imagine that the members of the special assessment committee set up under the Bill for the purpose of hearing rating appeals would obviously prefer to carry out their functions in the county town. Speaking for my constituency, the county town would be the town of Leicester, a very important town. I cannot imagine that these justices would go as far as the somewhat small town such as Shepshed for the purpose of hearing appeals, so that in the result, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 32, I have not the shadow of doubt that these appeals will be heard in the county town. I do hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted. Always remember that there has been this right for nearly a hundred years. I do hope that, for that reason, Members of the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I think the whole House will have full sympathy with the objects which both my friends have in view. They want to achieve, if they can, the object in connection with the appeal as has been described, and their suggestion is that a Court of Special Session in petty sessional divisions should also be inserted. I should like to point out to the House exactly what the Bill provides, with a view to seeing whether anything can be done to meet the object which the House has in view. If the House will look at Clause 32 they will see that the Bill provides that the duties of Quarter Sessions in respect to the appeal under this Act shall be delegated to a committee of justices appointed by Quarter Session, and that the sittings of the committee shall be held "in one or more places as the committee thinks proper, having regard to the convenience of the parties to the appeal." Now, I think that is perfectly plain. I do not think there need be any 1507 apprehension on the part of my hon. Friends or anybody else that due regard will not be had to the convenience of parties to the appeal, and that arrangements will not be made whereby Courts will be held in places convenient to the parties. No one who has had any experience of administration of justice in this country will for a moment fear that this particular provision will not be carried out.
Another important Clause which bears on this matter is Clause 34, and there it provides that the Secretary of State shall prescribe scales of costs in connection with the fees. With a view to meeting the general wish of the House, and certainly of the Committee upstairs, it is proposed in connection with the scales of costs that we should make some alteration whereby we should cheapen the actual payments which have to be made in connection with the fees. Therefore, so far as these two matters are concerned, you have a Court which will meet at places convenient to the parties, and I think the House may assume that so far as these scales of costs and payments are concerned, due regard will be had to the convenience of the parties in that connection. There is also on the Order Paper an Amendment, which we shall be able to discuss when we reach it, which has already been indicated by an hon. Member who has spoken, whereby it is suggested that any party to an appeal shall be heard either in person, or by counsel or solicitor. I have no doubt when we come to that Amendment we shall hear the views of Members on that particular question.
I want to point out the objections, as I sec them, to the proposal now before the House. I do not think it is a desirable thing that Petty Sessions should be a Court of final decision—because that is what it comes to—in matters of this kind. We want, above all, in such appeals not only tribunals which everyone will desire, and whose opinion will be respected, but we also want unanimity in the decisions. If you have tribunals of this kind, I think they would lead to lack of uniformity both in regard to facts and on points of law, and I think, without any disrespect to Petty Sessions, they would not be a tribunal very appropriate for a matter of this kind. The House must remember 1508 that, after all, decisions of this nature do form precedents, and it would introduce confusion if a Court of Petty Sessions were able to give a final decision on a matter of this sort. It has been pointed out that in connection with a tribunal of this kind it is desirable that it should be removed as far as possible from local influence. There is no doubt, in the case of a Court of Petty Sessions, the danger, perhaps, is more obvious than it would be in other cases. Therefore I venture to say we should be wise to reject this Amendment, in view of the suggestions to cheapen procedure. I know my hon. Friends have every intention to make it easy and cheap for people to appeal, but the Amendment would not be desirable in their interest, and the best way to approach it is in the other ways I have indicated. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friends will not press the matter further, but will allow us to discuss other Amendments on the Paper designed to meet the same object.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
It may help us to make up our minds how to vote if the Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment lower down to allow any party to an appeal to be heard cither in person, or by counsel or solicitor.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORD
Might I appeal to the Minister not to give a decision on later Amendments until he has heard the objections to them?
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I think it is very undesirable to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He put it forward on the plea, I gathered, that there were little bits of woodland, and he wanted to have little courts in corners of the county consisting of two country gentlemen, justices of the peace, who were to settle this business very nicely for their neighbours. I do not hold any brief for barristers or solicitors and their fees, but the whole object is to get a very satisfactory tribunal, and I think everyone will agree that this is one of the matters which should not be settled by Petty Sessions. I hope the Minister is not going to declare his attitude on the Amendment further down, because, obviously, that is a matter on which we ought to have considerable discussion.
§ Captain EVERARD
Might I suggest that the Minister might have inserted in another place in Clause 32 the words "at least one place in each petty sessional area." which I think, would cover the point raised by my two hon. Friends?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 31, line 11, to leave out Subsection (6).
Owing to the dropping of the Revenue officer, this Sub-section now becomes superfluous.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 32.—(Procedure on appeals.)
§ Mr. LOOKER
I beg to move, in page 33, line 27, after the, word "committee," to insert the words "in the case of an equal division of votes."
I think I may properly claim that this Amendment is a drafting one. This Clause deals with procedure on appeals, and Sub-section (5) provides thatIn the determination of any appeal the chairman or acting chairman of the committee shall have a second or casting vote.The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the chairman or acting chairman shall only have a casting vote in case of an equal division of votes. It may be thought that it is hardly necessary to do that, but I think I am justified in saying the Amendment is the general form adopted in cases of this description, and to leave it out might possibly give rise to misconception.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, because there cannot be a casting vote unless the votes are equal.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I beg to move, in page 34, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:(8) On an appeal to a court of quarter sessions under this Act any party to the appeal shall be heard either in person or by counsel or solicitor.I think the arguments in favour of this particular Amendment have been already used in speaking to the former 1510 Amendment. The point at issue is, that the cost of appearing at Quarter Sessions shall be as little as possible to the person making the appeal, and with that in view this Amendment is moved. We have put down this Amendment feeling that it is in the best interests of the poorer ratepayers, who might be in a position of having to appeal against an assessment. The Amendment is supported by the Municipal Corporations' Association and by the County Councils' Association.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULL
I do not quite understand, Sir, why Mr. Deputy-Speaker a moment ago did not call upon me to move my Amendment, immediately preceding the one we are discussing, and which practically deals with the same subject. I am earlier on the Paper. However, we will let that pass. This is quite a simple matter. The purpose of the proposal is to cheapen and to make the process as simple as possible.
§ Mr. GREAVES-LORD
This Amendment, as I understand it, is moved in the interests of two persons. First of all, I should like to point out that certain words in the Amendment, in any view of this matter, are not merely unnecessary, but appear in any legislation dealing with a matter of this kind. It is always open to a litigant to appear in person. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to provide for that by Statute. So far as these words are concerned, I hope nobody will dream of putting them into this Statute. Next take the words "by counsel." These are also unnecessary. Every litigant who appears before Quarter Sessions can. be so represented; in the interests—I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite will entirely agree—in the proper interests of trade unions, they will be far better represented if they appear by counsel than otherwise. It is certainly open to litigants to appear by counsel. There is, therefore, no necessity unless you put the other words in expressly to provide that a litigant may appear by counsel at Quarter Sessions. One, however, gets further words in this Amendment which I think is certainly an innovation in the practice of Quarter Sessions, and will not be welcomed by Quarter Sessions themselves. These words are "or solicitor."
1511 First of all, I want the House to understand what is the present position as regards Quarter Sessions. At present counsel have the right of audience at Quarter Sessions subject to the right of Quarter Sessions to give audience to solicitors under conditions which are well known. In these cases, notably in Wales, in Cornwall, and I think it has also happened on one occasion in Cumberland, Quarter Sessions fixed am audience with solicitors. Therefore, it is within the province of Quarter Sessions, if they think it absolutely necessary in the interests of justice, to make rules which will make provision for this. This Amendment is really an inroad upon the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions to make their own rules in regard to who shall, or who shall not, appear before them. There is the further objection. Quarter Sessions have innumerable duties. They hear cases of quite diverse character. It would certainly be an anomaly to provide that in one extremely small section of their work you should have this special audience given to solicitors which does not exist in regard to the rest of the work of Quarter Sessions. It would be a great inconvenience and would not aid the efficiency of Quarter Sessions.
If the proposal is in the interests of cheapness, it can be provided for in quite another way. I have never found the interests of cheapness prevent the employment of counsel in the County Courts. You get the very poorest litigants in the County Courts employing counsel. After all, members of the Bar are quite willing to be engaged for fees which are quite within the reach of the poorest litigant. If there is any difficulty in regard to the provision of fees, there are rules in regard to poor persons, under which members of the Bar are extremely proud to appear and to do all they can for the litigant. Therefore in the interests of cheapness there is no necessity to enact that anyone should have a right to appear by solicitor at Quarter Sessions.
Quite apart altogether from any other questions connected with cheapness, it is quite easy to provide for cheapness in a manner which has already been suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. It has already been suggested that you can provide for cheapness by scales of costs. That is the 1512 way it is done in the County Court, and it is has been found to work perfectly well. It is putting no hardship upon litigants. Why, therefore, is it necessary to make a complete innovation in the practice of Quarter Sessions in the interests of cheapness when you can do it by applying rules which will provide for appropriate scales of charges and costs in proportion to the amount involved, seems to me very difficult to understand. Why you should go beyond that when in fact ample provision is made, or may be made, for anything that may occur in regard to the provision of opportunities of appeal at Quarter Sessions from the point of view of cheapness I cannot see. Surely, this is one matter which might be provided as was indicated by one of my hon. Friends sitting near to me a moment ago. Would it not be infinitely better to provide that a committee of Quarter Sessions, which has apparently to journey to the Quarter Sessions' area, shall sit and have the parties, and hear the appeals in the petty sessional division from which the appeal comes? You would have then something which would really be in the interests of cheapness and in the interests of convenience. A journey to a county town may be a matter of great inconvenience and expense, not only in money but in time.
Quite apart from anything else, and having regard to the fact where you are dealing with the rating of property, a view of the property with which you are dealing is very often essential, and it would be in the highest degree convenient that a Committee of Quarter Sessions should sit in the petty sessional division in which the property is situated, so that not only would you save your appellants their expenses, but at the same time they would be in a most favourable position to see the property before adjudicating upon it. It seems to me that all matters of expense would very well indeed be dealt with in that way. There is no reason whatever for destroying the present practice of Quarter Sessions in one small item. This is not merely a question as to whether solicitors should have joint audience at Quarter Sessions, as to which there may be, and probably would be, a strong body of counter opinion. The majority of these courts have had the opportunity, in connection 1513 with the Licensing Act, of giving solicitors the right of audience. The majority of Quarter Sessions choose not to give solicitors the right of audience. Only in a very few isolated instances has that right of audience been given; and the result is that throughout the length and breadth of the country most Quarter Sessions allow counsel alone the right of audience before them. Now, by this Amendment, we are asked, in connection with one small part of their work, to thrust upon them a method which they themselves have rejected except in those rather remote districts where there has been no bar to appear before them. I venture to think an innovation of this kind should not be made in this way. If it is a part of a larger question it should be dealt with when the larger question comes up; but at present there is no justification, on the ground of cheapness, for accepting this Amendment, and I hope the Government will not accept it.
§ Mr. SCURR
I and all of us on this side of the House have been very much interested in this demarcation dispute between the respective trade unions of the law. When craft unions come into conflict on questions affecting their particular industry there is always very considerable difficulty. Here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, we have the champions of their respective organisations in the law fighting in order that they may be able to earn their living in particular places. I expect the Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and it ought to be accepted, on general principles, because we are always being assured that if only we had dilution in industry the result would be beneficial. We are always being told that we should build I do not know how many million houses a day if only bricklayers' labourers and ordinary general labourers were allowed to lay bricks. The ordinary bricklayer only lays so many a day, but the man who knows nothing about bricks can, of course, erect walls and houses in five minutes. Are poor unfortunate ratepayers who desire to appeal to be kept out of their rights because dilution is objected to by one of the craft unions? I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. EDMUND TURTON
Having been a Chairman of Quarter Sessions for 27 1514 years I would like to say that I welcome the suggestion embodied in this Amendment. Speaking from experience, I think it will be a very great advantage if the tribunal which is to hear these appeals has the opportunity of hearing either counsel or solicitors or the party in person. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord) has explained quite correctly what is the procedure at Quarter Sessions. I have on more than one occasion, without the passing of any rule of any sort, given a right of audience to solicitors, and I can say without fear of contradiction that the cases have been put quite as well as they would have been by any of those learned counsel to whom it has been my misfortune to have to listen. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was quite possible for us to arrange a scale of costs, but I would point out that the bar are not bound by any scale of costs, because it would 'be quite possible for any party to the appeal to brief counsel on any scale that he liked, and that would mean that the other side would have to brief counsel on an equally high scale; and that is how we get large bills of costs.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken about the right of audience before county licensing committees. I have also had the privilege of being the chairman of a county licensing committee since it was first established. There we did draw up rules giving solicitors a right of audience, and invariably we have had solicitors appearing before us, and they put their case concisely and shortly. I believe the reason we do not have barristers is that I drew up a scale which allotted to them one guinea for each case. We have not had a single barrister before us.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I think we require to be a little clearer about the merits of this interesting industrial dispute which is before us now. We want to know a little more as to the distinction between the two branches of the union—the "surface men," represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), and the "underground workers," represented by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull). As I understand it, the hon. and learned 1515 Gentleman has claimed certain work, and the underground workers claim that they ought to have a share of it. What I want to know is the method of pay, because this proposal has been put forward on the ground of cheapness. I gathered from the speech of the hon. and learned Member that he was being paid on a time basis. I am not sure whether there is a definite piece rate. From my little experience, I think there was a minimum rate in my time, but as far as I remember that minimum rate was a good deal beyond what the poorest litigant, at any rate in Limehouse, could afford, and I think we ought to know what is the minimum rate of the solicitor and what is the minimum piece-rate of the barrister, and any details as to refreshers, beer money, or anything of that kind in the course of the case. This is a very important matter as regards the cheapness of appeals; and we all know how a little dispute starting in this way may run through the country. We may find peaceful pickets outside every Quarter Sessions Court. It is a matter which ought to be handed over to the Ministry of Labour to effect a conciliation between the parties.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The task of a Minister to steer his way through the various perils that beset him in guiding a Measure of this kind through the House is not an easy one, and I think it will be clear from the discussion taking place that there is more in this Amendment than meets the eye. It is one of those cases which raises a very old controversy. What the Government have to consider is not the interests of one or other branch of the legal profession, but what will be for the greatest convenience and advantage of the community, and after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Thirsk and Malton division (Mr. Turton), who has had so much experience as chairman of Quarter Sessions, I feel in my own mind there can be no doubt as to the proper course to pursue. We shall leave this matter perfectly free, so that a person can have either a solicitor or a barrister to represent him before the Court of Quarter Sessions; and I propose, therefore, to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.1516
§ CLAUSE 33.—(Appointment by Court of person to value hereditaments.)
§ Major CRAWFURD
I beg to move, in page 34, line 23, at the end, to insert the wordsprovided also that the person so appointed shall be called as a witness by the Court, and that any party to the appeal shall have the right to cross-examine such witness.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I think the hon. Member has put his Amendment in a little too wide a form, and I would suggest that he should move it in the following form:(b) The Court may, and on the application of any party to the appeal shall, call as a witness the person so appointed, and if ho is so called any party to the appeal shall be entitled to cross-examine him.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 34, line 23, at the end, insert the words
(b) The Court may, and on the application of any party to the appeal shall, call as a witness the person so appointed, and if he is so called any party to the appeal shall be entitled to cross-examine him."—[Major Crawfurd.]
§ CLAUSE 34.—(Power to male rules with respect to appeals.)
§ Sir D. NEWTON
I beg to move, in page 34, line 40, to leave out the words "interested in," and to insert instead thereof the words, "which is a party to."
I think the words I have suggested convey the intended meaning more accurately. Under the Bill the Clerk of the Peace cannot act as clerk during an appeal if he is an officer of any authority or any body interested in the appeal. If the words were changed as I suggest I think it would bring the Clause in line with the other Sub-sections.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 35.—(Alteration of list in consequence of decisions on appeal.)
§ Amendment made: In page 35, line 14, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ CLAUSE 36.—(Rate to be levied notwithstanding appeal.)
On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd), I beg to move, in page 35, line 22, at the end, to insert the wordsProvided that where the appeal is against an assessment greater than the 1517 assessment of the same hereditament contained in the last previous valuation list the amount of the rate so to be collected and recoverable shall not be greater than it would have been if the said last-mentioned assessment were still in force.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 37.—(Amendment of current valuation list.)
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 35, line 35, after the word "matter," to insert the wordsor by the valuation as a single hereditament of a building or a portion of a building occupied in parts.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I would like to ask if the effect of these words is not to narrow the scope of the Clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WIGGINS
I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, after the word "make" to insert the words "at any time during the currency of any rate."
This Amendment is moved in order to secure that those on the valuation lists have the right of appealing during each of the five years' continuation of the valuation list.
§ Mr. WIGGINS
I understand that that practice is not altered in this Bill, and upon that undertaking I withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. RHYS
I beg to move, in page 36, line 10, to leave out from the word "shall" to the word "transmit" in line 13, and to insert instead thereof the wordswithin seven days after the date on which the proposal is made by or served on them.This Clause deals with the Amendment of the current valuation list, and provides that the assessment committee shall give 21 days' notice of such a proposal, and at the same time give notice of the date of appeal. The effect of my Amendment is that as soon as it is proposed to hear a proposal for an Amendment the assessment committee should give notice within seven days. At present there is no fixed 1518 time provided as to when the assessment committee shall meet. They may only be called together when the volume or business justifies it, but when a big alteration is made it is only fair that the person affected should be informed as soon as possible. A further Amendment standing in my name provides that 21 days' notice shall be given before the hearing of the appeal, and I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I beg to move, in page 36, line 15, to leave out the word "and," and to insert instead thereof the words "or where there is no occupier."
The object of this Amendment is to render it unnecessary to give notice to the owner, but notice to the occupier is, of course, retained. Where the owner pays the rates, either because ho is compelled to do so in the case of small property under Sub-section (1) of Clause 11, or because he has agreed to do so under Sub-section (2) of that Clause, it is manifestly right that he should have the notice, and under this Amendment he will receive that notice; but where the occupier is the payer of the rates, my Amendment will mean that he, and not the owner of the property, will receive the. notice. This, in effect, restores the original Sub-section as it appeared in the Bill before it went to Committee. In Committee, on a Motion by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) the Subsection was given the form that it, now has, but the Minister then said that he would reserve the right to reconsider the whole matter on Report. In my opinion, this Amendment is the fairest way of dealing with the matter.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:
I am not quite sure that the Minister recognises what this Amendment will mean. As far as I can see, it is taken for granted that the occupier will actually give notice to the owner. That is how I read the Amendment. I would like the Minister to make it clear. What I am anxious to preserve is that in every case the owner 1519 as well as the occupier shall receive due notice of any change that is to take place.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
That is exactly what we wish to avoid, and I think I can explain to the hon. Member why. If a single valuation had remained part of the Bill, clearly it would be the owner's right to receive a copy of the notice from the rating authority, because he was concerned in Schedule A; but now he is no longer concerned in that, because there is no longer a single valuation, and, therefore, the owner has no longer any particular interests in having the notice sent to him. What we want to avoid is the unnecessary expense which would be entailed on the rating authority in sending notices to owners as well as to occupiers. The result of this Amendment will be that the notice will only be sent to the owner where there is no occupier.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
I asked the question because I am interested in societies who are in the position of owners.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 36, lines 16 and 17, leave out the words
in the case of a proposal made otherwise than by the owner."—[Mr. Womersley.]
In line 17, leave out the words "annex to the copy a notice of the date at," and insert instead thereof the words
not less than twenty-one days before the date of the meeting at which the proposal will be considered by the assessment committee, transmit to him, or them, a notice of the date on."—[Mr. Rhys.]
§ In page 37, lines 20 and 21, leave out the words "rating authority and the."— [Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ In line 21, leave out the words "the owner and occupier," and insert instead thereof the words "the occupier or, where there is no occupier, to the owner."
§ In line 27, leave out the words "owner and."
§ In line 27, after the word "occupier," insert the words "or owner, as the case may be."—[Mr. Womersley.]
§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 37, line 31, after the word "made," to insert the wordsand shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, have effect for the purpose of any subsequent rates.1520 This is practically a drafting Amendment, providing that the restrictions imposed in this Sub-section shall also have effect for the purposes of any subsequent rate.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 37, line 38, after the word "by," to insert the words, "the making of structural alterations or by."
Under Clause 37, where a structural alteration is made to a house which necessitates the vacation of the house by the occupier, the rate dates back to the completion of the structural alteration, but, where such structural alteration does not necessitate the house being unoccupied while it is made, the rate, under the Clause as drafted, dates back to the commencement of the current rate. That is to say, supposing that an occupier in August puts up an addition to his house, such as a garage or a billiard room, which does not necessitate his leaving the house, then, under the Clause as drafted, he will have to pay rates on the new structure from the beginning of April, although the structure was not in fact commenced till August and probably was not occupied till September. The effect of these words will be that the rate is payable only when the new alteration is finished.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am anxious to get the Bill through as quickly as possible but when an Amendment is moved, even by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford, we ought to have the views of the Government on it before it is accepted by the House. I am not quite certain what the Amendment means. As far as I can gather, it is a question whether the rate is to be paid before the structure is finished or after. If that is what it means, we ought to have some explanation from the Government particularly as to whether it is a mere drafting Amendment or exactly what the Bill already says.
§ Sir K. WOOD
If a man adds a billiard room or a bath room to his house, and the rating authority raises the assessment in consequence, the case should come under the proviso that the alteration should come into effect on the date 1521 when the structural alterations are complete. That is simply the effect of the Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Anything that will postpone the imposition of a rate upon improvements has my blessing.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 40.—(Powers of rating authorities to require returns.)
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, on page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "or the."
The Amendments to this Clause are drafting Amendments designed to bring Sub-sections (1) and (2) into line with one another. In both cases it is a question of serving notices. In the first case the words are "the occupier or the owner or lessee, or both of them," and in the second case it is "the occupier, owner and lessee, or any one or more of them." The Amendments are designed to make both Sub-sections read in the same way.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 12, leave out the word "both" and insert instead thereof the words "any one or more."
§ In line 23, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the word "or."
§ In line 24, after the word "him," insert the words "or them."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ CLAUSE 42.—(Penalty for failure to make returns.)
§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, on page 40, line 24, to leave out the words "on summary conviction be liable," and to insert instead thereof the wordswithout prejudice to any liability to he proceeded against under any other enactment, be liable on summary conviction.This reserves the right in the case of a grave and serious offence, in addition to a fine of this kind, to proceed against the offender, for instance, for perjury. I think that is the present position under the existing Statute, but it is desirable to make it perfectly clear.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Can a man be proceeded against twice for the same offence? Here you are, first of all, deal- 1522 ing with a man under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts for an offence, and afterwards dealing with him for perjury. Is it to be understood that he is to be dealt with for both offences? First of all, to be summarily convicted and afterwards, if there are sufficient grounds, to be proceeded against for perjury? If that is the case at the present time, very well, but if not, we ought to be very cautious about it.
§ Sir K. WOOD
There is a penalty which provides that if any person under Clause 42 wilfully makes or causes to be made a return which is false in any material particular, he is liable to a fine not exceeding £50. There are cases where such a case really reveals a greater and more serious offence, the offence of wilful perjury, and in such a case, obviously, a penalty of £50 is not enough. We preserve the right, which I understand already exists, of proceeding in such a case against the person who is guilty of such an offence in a criminal Court.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
That is all very well, but I would like to know whether there have been any cases of that sort.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ CLAUSE 43.—(Evidence of lists.)
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 41, line 4, to leave out Subsection (3), and insert instead thereof, the words(3) The rating authority shall be supplied by the inspector of taxes for their area with a copy of the assessment of the hereditaments charged under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, in their area, and the rating authority shall attach such copy to the draft list to be forwarded to the assessment committee and the assessment committee shall in due course transmit such copy to the county valuation committee.I am not moving the first of the two Amendments standing in my name. This Amendment is to provide a better opportunity for the people who are doing the valuing under this scheme to check their valuation by the official valuation for Schedule A. Under Clause 43, as it stands, any county valuation committee, assessment committee, or rating authoritymay from time to time require the surveyors of taxes for their area"—1523 that is, the revenue officers—to furnish them (subject to payment therefor of a sum calculated at the rate aforesaid) a copy of the annual values for the time being in force for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A.The different local authorities concerned with the valuation may buy from the Revenue officials a copy of the State valuation of the property in that particular area in order to compare it with the valuation that has been supplied to them by the valuing authority below them; that is to say, the assessment committee may buy this State valuation in order to compare it with the draft valuations that have been submitted to them by the rating authority. If we are to get a just valuation, we want to have that comparison made, so as to show whether there has been manifest under-valuing by the rating authority.
Everybody will agree that it is desirable that the comparison should be made, not with the view of slavishly following the Schedule A assessment, but in order to see whether there are gross inequalities in some cases and accurate correspondence in others. Where there is accurate correspondence, one may take it that the local valuation is correct and is borne out by the Schedule A valuation, but where there is a big difference that will be an opportunity for the assessment committee to alter the valuation and to improve it by either pushing the value up or bringing the value down to something more nearly corresponding to the Schedule A valuation.
It is obviously desirable that there should be this check. The Government have recognised it in their Bill. Therefore they provide in Sub-section (3) that the assessment committee or any other of these bodies dealing with the valuation should be able to ask at a price from the valuation authorities the valuation under Schedule A. We are naturally afraid that if they have to pay for it, and it will be a considerable sum, they will not be anxious to pay the money to get that valuation, and there will not be the check and the valuation, therefore, as finally approved by the county valuation committee, will not be a fair and just valuation. The Government are faced with this difficulty, that if the Surveyor of Taxes for the area is to supply in each 1524 area a complete list of all the valuations in that area the amount will be very considerable and there will be thousands of valuations to be supplied in each area, and we suggest, therefore, in this Amendment a different procedure.
We suggest that the rating authority shall be supplied by the Inspector of Taxes—I think that is the correct phrase for Surveyor of Taxes, but the same person is meant—for their area—that is for the small area of the rating authority— with a copy of the assessment of the hereditaments charged under Schedule "A" in their area, and the rating authority shall attach such copy to the draft list to be forwarded to the assessment committee, so that it will not be only the rating authority which will get this check valuation list, but also the superior authorities, the assessment committee, and ultimately the county valuation committee, for we go on to say that the assessment committee shall in due course transmit such copy to the county valuation committee. This is a more economical method. Instead of each of these authorities being put into the position of paying themselves sums of money if they want to get this check list, the check list will be provided automatically, and it will act as a check at each stage of the valuation. I am certain that everybody will agree that this will lead to a more just valuation. At any rate you will have more comparisons to make, and you will see what an independent authority not connected with the area thinks of the valuation as well as what the local people think. The valuation under Schedule "A" is made out only after a personal application to the occupier or owner of every hereditament as to the rates or rents actually paid for the hereditament, and therefore it will be a valuation based upon definite information.
There cannot be a Member of this House who during the last few years has not been asked to supply figures as to the rates which he pays or the rent which his tenants pay. Those figures which he has sent in to the Revenue officer have been the basis of the Schedule A valuation. So that it is a valuation based on definite facts. An objection that may be raised to this proposal is that the cost will be considerable. I do not think it will be considerable. This valuation has to be supplied by the Revenue officer to 1525 headquarters at Somerset House. All these figures are duplicated once. It is only a question of a second duplication of the figures. The results, in securing far greater accuracy of valuation, seem to me far to outweigh the cost of taking what amounts to be an extra carbon copy. I cannot imagine any argument against the Amendment save this—that hon. Members opposite prefer to have a valuation which shall not be accurate or full. If they prefer a valuation made without the check of the actual figures, obviously they must be arguing in favour of a valuation on the low basis which they have advocated throughout.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment is greatly preferable to the one which he has not moved, and which would have involved a supply of three copies of the valuation list to each of these authorities at a very heavy cost to the Inland Revenue. When I come to look at the Amendment, and compare it with the provisions of the Bill, I find that it differs in three ways from the Bill. In the first place, the Amendment provides that the supply of the copy of the list shall be compulsory, that the Inspector of Taxes must supply to every rating authority a copy of the list, which has to be passed on to the other authorities. In the Bill there is no compulsion, but there is power to any authority to ask for the list or for any part of the list that is wanted. The second difference is that in the Amendment no payment is to be made, whereas under the Bill the arrangement is subject to payment. Then there is the third difference, that the proviso of Sub-section (3) is left out of the Amendment, I am not aware whether that is intentional, but it is an important matter.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Then I will address myself to the first two points of difference. Why apply compulsion? The right hon. Gentleman attaches some importance—I rather agree with him—to the rating authority having access to the Schedule A valuation list. He is afraid that authorities will be prevented from getting what they want by the question of cost. I think he is also afraid that they will not want to see the list. That 1526 is the point. You may take a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. Even if you compel authorities to receive from the Inspector of Taxes a copy of the valuation list, you cannot compel them to make use of it if they do not want to do so.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
It applies to every one of the authorities. If there are not on the authorities a sufficient number of people who desire the list in order to make use of it, there is not the slightest good in saying they must have it, because you cannot make them use it. Under Sub-section (2), if the surveyor wants a copy of the valuation list, which is being prepared by the rating authority, he has to pay for it, and if the surveyor has to pay, should not these authorities pay for copies if they wish to have them? A great deal of the list— the copy of the annual values in the hands of the Inspector of Taxes—will be of no use to the rating authority because Schedule A will follow rents where properties are rented, and a large number will be rent values, and the only case where it would be of value is where properties are not rented. The proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that you must have the whole list or no list at all. If hon. Members look at Subsection (3) they will see that the authority may require the surveyor to furnish them with a copy of the annual values for all or any of the properties in that area. Therefore it is possible for any authority which means to make practical use of that part of the copy of the annual values to get that part and that part alone on a payment which cannot amount to very much. I submit the provision in the Bill is all that is required by the practical needs of the case, and that the Amendment is unnecessary.
§ Mr. RILEY
This Amendment is in perfect line with the repeated declarations of the supporters of the Bill in two respects. We have heard from the Minister that the main purposes of the Bill are to promote uniformity in rating and to secure independence of valuation. The Amendment makes for uniformity, because it is compulsory that all rating and assessing authorities should have the advantage of seeing the valuation of the 1527 Inland Revenue Department. Therefore all authorities have the opportunity of bringing their local assessments into line with the expert valuation of the Inland Revenue. In the second place, it is in line with the declaration that the object of the Bill is to secure independence of valuation. The valuation under Schedule A for Income Tax purposes is established quite independent of local interests, and the assessment authorities for local purposes would have the advantage of comparison with an independent valuation. There is a third point. The Minister has said he can understand that something might be said for supplying assessment committees and county valuation committees with copies of the Inland Revenue valuation, but he sees no reason for supplying the local rating authority. His own proposition allows the rating authorities to apply for the valuation list. I therefore hope the House will accept the Amendment.
I do not think it would be right to allow this Amendment to go by without some comment from the benches behind the Treasury Bench. When we have this kind of thing laid down by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), we should really occasionally draw attention to what he means, because we find, in the first place, that he is absolutely of the opinion that the more documents you can have, the more printing you can have, the more Regulations you have for the local authorities, the better it is. I cannot for the life of me understand why, in legislation of this sort, we should not be allowed to presume that the local authorities are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and asking for and obtaining what documents they want. Why should we always go, in this grandmotherly way, and say to them: "You must do this, and you must tack on this or that document to everything you issue"? I can quite understand that compulsion is a very pleasant word in the vocabulary of hon. Members opposite. They would compel us to do almost anything, if they had the chance, but, unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, I think, on this occasion the Minister has stood out against them, and has not made grossly unnecessary Regulations for the local 1528 authorities, which already in most cases have too many documents to deal with in these matters.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
I have some little knowledge of local authorities myself. I was on the staff of a local authority for 20 years, and the usual objection of a local authority is to compulsion put upon it by Parliament which costs it money. I can find no suggestion in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) of compulsion on a local authority which will cost it money. As to the need of it, I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) can have been in the House, I think it was yesterday, when the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) in very beautiful language, if I may say so, gave his experiences as an overseer in North Somerset, because I remember that the hon. Member pointed out that in his first tour of his area with his co-overseer he discovered a number of properties which had never been assessed at all. I am not persuaded that the Inland Revenue authorities are so lax in their duty that properties of that kind could have escaped without any assessment, and I think it is to be argued that, if the Amendment of my right hon. Friend had been operative then, those properties would not have escaped assessment. I hope I do not misinterpret the Minister when I say that he seemed in his reply to say that the Amendment would only apply to those properties which were rented.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I think I said just the opposite. What I said was that Schedule "A" follows the rent, and it would not be any use to the rating authority in the case of properties which were rented, because they would already have that information in their possession. The only case in which it would be of use would be in the case of properties in which there was no rent.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
In my own town of Twickenham, which is represented in this House by the Home Secretary, I think I could produce a very large number of cases where the assessments of houses which are not rented but which are occupied by the owners are very different for local rates as compared with what 1529 they are for Inland Revenue purposes. I think it might be very useful indeed for the local authority in the constituency of the Home Secretary if they could have this compulsion there and this information supplied actually to the assessment authority. I am bound to say that, although I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think he made out a good case against my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and I discovered a trace of sympathy more than is usual with an
§ Amendment moved from these benches in that speech. I rather fancy that if he thinks for a little longer he will actually accept the Amendment which has been moved. I believe it would be of very great assistance to the authorities.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 120.1531
|Division No. 411.]||AYES.||[10.53 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Crook, C. W.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Albery, Irving James||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Holland, Sir Arthur|
|Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)||Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Holt. Capt. H. P.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Atkinson, C.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Drewe, C.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Duckworth, John||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& P'bl's)|
|Balniel, Lord||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colons; Hon. F. S.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||England, Colonel A.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Bockett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Jacob, A. E.|
|Behairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgnw)|
|Bethell, A.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fermoy, Lord||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Fielden, E. B.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Finburgh, S.||Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.|
|Blades Sir George Rowland||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Forrest, W.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Bourne. Captain Robert Croft||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Little. Dr. E. Graham|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Loder, J. de V.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Lord, Walter Greaves-|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Ganzonl, Sir John||Lumley, L. R.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gates, Percy||MacAndrew, Charles Glen|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Goff, Sir Park||Macintyre, Ian|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Gower, Sir Robert||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Grace, John||Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Grant, J. A.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Burman, J. B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel John||Malone, Major p. B.|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Grotrian, H. Brent||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Merriman, F. B.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hanbury, C.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Harland, A.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Harrison, G. J. C.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Morden, Col. W. Grant|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Murchison, C. K.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Haslam, Henry C.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hawke, John Anthony||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter).|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General, G. K.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Oakley, T.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Hilton, Cecil||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Shepperson, E. W.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Pielou, D. P.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Pitcher, G.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Preston, William||Smithers, Waldron||Wells, S. R.|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Radford, E. A.||Spender Clay, Colonel H.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Raine, W.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Remer, J. R.||Stanley, Major Hon. O. (W'morland)||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Remnant, Sir James||Storry Deans, R.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Rice, Sir Frederick||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rye, F. G.||Templeton, W. P.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Sandeman, A. Stewart||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Tinne, J. A.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wragg, Herbert|
|Sandon, Lord||Turton, Edmund Russborough||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Savery, S. S.||Waddingtnn, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)||Wallace, Captain D. E.||Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.|
|Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayes, John Henry||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smillie, Robert|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Barr, J.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Snell, Harry|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Briant, Frank||Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Broad, F. A.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Taylor, R A.|
|Bromley, J.||Kelly, W. T.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lansbury, George||Thurtle, E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lindley, F. W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Varley, Frank B.|
|Cove, W. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacLaren, Andrew||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Warne. G. H.|
|Dalton, Hugh||March, S.||Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Murnin, H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnico, H.||Naylor, T. E.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)||Oliver, George Harold||Weir, L. M.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Owen, Major G.||Whiteley, W.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Palln, John Henry||Williams. David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gosling, Harry||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Riley, Ben||Windsor, Walter|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||Wright, W.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Scrymgeour, E.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Scurr, John||Charles Edwards.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Sexton, James|
§ CLAUSE 47.—(Use of public rooms.)
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 41, line 38, after the first word "Any," to insert the wordsassessment committee shall be entitled to use at any reasonable hours for the purpose 1532 of their meetings or for any other purposes of this Act any room which belongs to any rating authority within the assessment area or which any such authority is entitled to use.(2) Any.1533 The object of this Amendment is to give the Assessment Committee the right to have the reasonable use of the rooms referred to for the purpose of their meetings or any other necessary purpose. The latter part of the proposed Amendment will be followed by other Amendments. In the case of church schools it will enable the local authorities to have placed at their disposal the buildings for the use of the Assessment Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In page 41, lines 42 and 43, leave out the words, "hearing by the committee of any objections," and insert instead thereof the words, "purposes of any meetings of the committee."
In page 41, line 43, at the end, insert the words:
(3) An assessment committee shall pay to the authority or body owning any room used by the committee in pursuance of this Section such reasonable sum in respect of the use of a room as may be agreed between the said authority or body and the committee, or in default of such agreement may be determined by the council of the county in which the room is situated.—[Captain Bourne.]
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This is a Clause dealing with London. My proposal to leave London out of the Bill is the result of a discussion with the London County Council and the representatives of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. The next quinquennial valuation will not become operative until 1931, and it has been recognised by all concerned that it will be necessary, in any case, to bring in a new Bill dealing with London before that time arrives, in fact, in good time to allow the new valuation list to be prepared. Therefore, it was thought it would be better to deal with London in anew Bill instead of in a Clause in the present Bill, as to the provisions of which some difference of opinion prevails. In the course of the discussion I was asked by the representatives of the London County 1534 Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee to give them, so far as I could, certain assurances. I did so, and I think I ought to repeat to the House what I said to them. The first question they wanted an assurance upon was as to the date when the new Bill might be expected. Of course, it is impossible for me to make a definite promise as to when that Bill will be introduced. All I could do, and I think it was quite satisfactory to them, was to say that I would use my best endeavours to see that the new Bill was introduced at the earliest practicable moment, if possible in 1927, at the very latest in 1928. I hope myself it will be possible to bring in the Bill in 1927. The next question on which they desired an assurance was that the present separate valuation for rates and taxes should not be barred from consideration when we came to consider new legislation. As the House is aware, a single valuation is in operation in London now, and there was some difference in opinion, in view of the fact that the single valuation is not going to obtain in the rest of the country, as to whether London should not be brought into line with the rest of the country. I had no difficulty in giving them an assurance that that question should not be barred from consideration. I could not pledge myself that the single valuation in London was to go, but I could pledge myself that that question shall be carefully considered by us when it comes up for consideration.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater), who is concerned about the operation of the Clause disrating machinery which we passed at an earlier hour. That Clause would not come into operation in the country until the first new valuation is prepared, that is to say, cither in 1928 or in 1929. But the next valuation list in London docs not come into force until 1930, and, therefore, for one year, in some cases, and two years in other cases, London would be treated differently from the rest of the country. Of course, that is only perpetuating the want of uniformity which prevails now, and I do not know that it constitutes a very great hardship. At the same time, I myself would like to 1535 see uniformity in London as well as in the rest of the country; I do not want to see any distinction made anywhere. Here, again, I cannot pledge myself definitely, because I am not quite certain what it is possible to do, but I will, when bringing in the new Bill, consider the introduction of some provision under which it would be possible for a machinery user to come before the assessment committee and ask for his valuation to be reviewed in the light of the Clause disrating machinery which applies to the rest of the country, and, if his machinery is rated, that that rate should be removed from such of the machinery as would come under Clause 24. That I will certainly consider between now and the time legislation has to be drafted.
§ Sir VANSITTART BOWATER
That would be quite satisfactory provided we were not mulcted in an extra tax on the machinery for the two or three years which would be likely to happen between 1928 and 1931. It would be a very great injustice to the City that they should have to pay this tax for three years after everyone else had ceased to pay. My Amendment is to bring them all into line; and, if we can have the assurance of the Minister that this will be taken into favourable consideration, that will be satisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me that assurance, I shall not move my Amendment.
§ Mr. SCURR
We have seen right throughout the Debates on this Rill that the Minister of Health has constantly surrendered, and this reminds me of the old Latin tag facilis descensus Averni. Another Member of the Government once declared that the people who were supporting the Labour Party had no more capacity to govern than a baby had to fly an aeroplane. I know others have said that the Labour Party have not the capacity to run a pawnshop. May I point out that London is under the control of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are 28 Metropolitan borough councils, and the one and only City Corporation, and they were not under our control at the time that this Act was enforced and under consideration. What have we had? We have had the London County Council approving of the Bill subject to certain reservations. 1536 They object to the rating of machinery. At first the Metropolitan boroughs wanted this proposal in, and then they asked for it to be left out, and consequently we have had this game of jack-in-the-box by the so-called representatives of the government of London. I think that after all, when it comes to a. question of controlling aeroplanes, or running pawnshops, or governing the country, there is cause for grave reflection on these gentlemen at the present time.
I am very pleased to welcome the optimism of the Minister, which enables him to give a definite pledge that, either in 1927 or in 1928, he is going to introduce a Measure applying to London. It is always interesting to look into the future, and it is interesting to think that the right hon. Gentleman feels quite certain that he is going to be sitting on that Bench as Minister of Health. When we see the advance which is taking place in the Labour vote in this country, not only in London but in every other part of the country, I am rather inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy is, like a number of others, likely to disappear, and that, unfortunately, he will not be able to keep his pledge. But at any rate we can be sure of this, that if hon. Members who are now on this side of the House will, as is much more probable, be sitting on those benches in 1927 or 1928, we shall be able to bring in a much better Rill for valuation in London and the rest of the country, which will bring about a fair valuation and will get rid of the unfair incidence of taxation and rating which exists at the present time.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I think it is a little lamentable that the House should, just at the bidding of the Minister, and apparently in arrangement with the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) agree on the spur of the moment to leave out the Clause referring to London. This Clause was very carefully considered in Committee. We knew at the time that there were certain interests opposed to its inclusion in the Bill, and the Government very obediently left it out. The interests which had pressed for the exclusion of the whole Clause have now suddenly tumbled to the fact that, having got their way, and having got the Government to consent to 1537 dropping the Clause from the Bill, they will not get the advantage of the abolition of the rating of machinery which the rest of the country will enjoy.
I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining to the House why he was dropping the Clause, was very careful to omit from his speech his reasons for the omission of the Clause. He was, as was only natural, very anxious to explain how anxious he was to re-introduce it as a separate Bill at an early date, but the arguments in favour of dropping it now were omitted. Although we know that certain interests are concerned, I think it would be desirable that there should be some explanation from the Government Bench as to why the Committee was condemned to consider this in great detail, and why the House is now asked to drop the result of their labours. Is it a change of heart on the part of the Government, or a change of pressure from outside, which has induced it? When the right hon. Gentleman promises to London, with his hand on his chest, that before 1931 he will really introduce another Bill, apparently identical with this Clause, and pass it into law, I think he had better just reflect for a moment on the experience of his predecessors in his present office. His predecessors in his present office have changed, but it is not so much the change as the fact that his predecessors in his present office have all agreed, one after another in this House, as to the urgent necessity of introducing a Rating Bill, and how they were going to do it next year. It has become almost a common form from the Ministry of Health how they were going to introduce a Bill next year. I think we did the same last year. And now the hon. Member for the City of London is so pleased at this pledge. I congratulate him on that, but I do not think the House, knowing how difficult it is to get a Bill on valuation introduced and carried through both Houses, will be very anxious to drop this Clause, which is perfectly in line with the rest of the Bill, which does carry out for London as well as the rest of the country one great reform, the abolition of the rating of machinery, and which apparently has no faults, or at least none that can be explained by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have not had one argu- 1538 ment against the Clause, and it is evidently hopeless to expect any reasons from the Front Bench opposite.
§ Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN
I for one am quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will, in 1927 or 1928, bring in the necessary Bill. I should, however, like one further assurance, that if there should be any difficulties over other parts of the Bill, he will bring in a Bill giving London manufacturers the privilege to be enjoyed by their neighbours in the country in the matter of machinery. We want fairness, and, if the manufacturers in other parts of the country get a reduction in respect of machinery, the London manufacturers ought to get it also.
§ Captain W. BENN
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opinion, that it is not fair that industrialists in London should not enjoy the advantage which is given to industrialists generally elsewhere; but I understand the decision on this Amendment is based on the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he would undertake the reform of London government by a Bill which is to be introduced, and that is the reason that encourages me to ask him one or two questions about it. Many years ago, when I was a London Member, we always looked to Birmingham as the model municipality, and we only wished that the government of London, which is hopelessly divided into 29 boroughs, might fall into the hands of so experienced and progressive municipal administrators and statesmen as Birmingham has produced; and it would be very interesting to those in London if he could give us any general indication as to the nature or scope of the Bill. Is it to be only a Rating Bill or merely a Poor Law Relief Bill, or, as I most devoutly hope, a Bill to introduce unity into the chaotic government of London?
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I should like to respond to the question of my right hon. Friend whether really this Clause is good or bad. The question as to what Clauses were to apply to London was entirely vague. There would have had to be discussions from the view point of London on almost every Clause. Of course, we have not 1539 taken any part in the discussions from the view point of London on the various Clauses. I am glad it has been left out, although I agree with what has been said as to the curious zigzag course employed by the London authorities. We saw the same thing in Committee. A Member got up and said, "Now the Bill has got this in, let us come in." The right hon. Gentleman yielded a few more points to his back bench friends and hurriedly struck them out again. The Minister yielded again and certain authorities thought they would come in. Now they are to be out and that will close the matter.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of page 43, line 24. stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Remaining words of the Clause left out.
§ CLAUSE 49.—(Transfer of existing officers.)
§ Amendment made: In page 45, line 14, after the word "office" insert the words "or in the performance of those duties." —[Sir K. Wood.]
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 29, after the second "of," to insert the words "all or any of."
This is merely in the nature of a drafting Amendment. The Sub-section deals with the compensation of officers who are jointly performing the duties of clerk to the parish council and assistant overseer. It has hitherto been the practice in such cases to pay the officer, as assistant overseer, out of the rates, and for him to perform the duties of clerk of the parish council without remuneration. The Subsection proposes to apportion his salary as between his duties as clerk to the parish council and assistant overseer. There have been certain cases where there were two officers in the parish jointly performing the duties of clerk to the parish council and assistant overseer. This Amendment is to prevent highly technical argument arising as to how much of the joint salaries ought or ought not to be charged as applicable to the different duties. This Amendment enables that to be decided quite easily.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
When this Clause was before Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) moved Amendment after Amendment, all of which were directed towards increasing the compensation to people who lose their offices. Over and over again the Government accepted his Amendments in Committee. I think there was hardly any of them refused, in spite of the opposition we managed to put up. I did hope that, when the tale of concessions made in Committee was told, we should not have more on the Report stage; but here we have another Amendment, which has been accepted by the Government without a word. The Government is supposed to be the protector of the public purse. How far are they going in accepting those small concessions, which all mean that the unfortunate ratepayers are mulcted in larger sums? No doubt the people who lose their offices are able to apply their time possibly more fruitfully and with greater financial results in other ways. The clerks of authorities get compensation by Acts of Parliament which we pass in this way without consideration. I do not pretend to say whether this Amendment does the same thing, but I suspect it. Anyone who knows the hon. and gallant Member, and who knows the work he put-in in Committee, will realise that this Bill, which is alleged to be a Government Bill, is more his Bill than anybody else's. No doubt he will be vigorously and loyally supported by the people whose interests he has looked after so well; but we have to look after the public interest. Therefore I ask the Minister of Health to remember that he has the public purse to look after.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The right hon. and gallant Member's opposition in this case appears to be founded, not on objection to the Amendment, but to the fact that it is moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The fact that my hon. and gallant Friend has been successful in getting a good many Amendments accepted is because he has been much more industrious than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Where he ha6 found a small blemish on the Bill he has tried to remove it. The right hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to understand what the Amendment is. It is not a 1541 question of compensation, but merely a question of the apportionment of salaries. My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out that in certain cases, of which I never heard before, the result, as the Bill stands, might be that apportionment could not take place. To cover these very rare cases we are glad to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK
I beg to move in page 46, line 22, at the end, to insert the wordsAny question arising under this Subsection as to whether the duties which a transferred officer is required to perform are not analogous or are an unreasonable addition as aforesaid shall unless otherwise agreed between such officer and the assessment committee or rating authority, as the case may require, be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be nominated by the Minister.The present position under Sub-section (9) is that the only remedy for officers who are called upon to perform duties which are unreasonable is to relinquish their office. That is rather arbitrary, and we suggest in this Amendment that such officers should have an opportunity of appealing to an arbitrator. On this point I have offered to the Minister to change the system mentioned in the Amendment, because it may meet his views. T would suggest that instead of referring the matter to an arbitrator to be nominated by the Minister the Amendment should read:to be determined by an arbitrator to be agreed upon or, failing agreement, to be nominated by a Minister.When this Bill was in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary promised that if anything could be done to remove this possible injustice to a certain class of officers, he would consider it.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. The House will generally agree that the provisions in this Bill with regard to the compensation of officers who may relinquish their positions are on very generous lines, and indeed they have been discussed with officers who, generally speaking, are satisfied. The provision that officers who relinquish office under this Bill and suffer any pecuniary loss shall be entitled to compensation does not mean that any officer who gives up any post in any circumstances shall 1542 be entitled to compensation. What we provide is that if within five years an officer is required to perform duties which are not analogous to, or are an unreasonable addition to these which he had to perform before then, he can relinquish his office. My hon. and gallant Friend seeks to make it as easy as possible for an officer by saying that before he relinquishes his office, if he has a dispute with the authority, he is to have the right to an arbitration upon that dispute. If we put in a provision of that kind, there would be constant disputes. Every time an officer was asked to perform any duty to which he objected, he would insist upon arbitration. If that went against him he would be fixed in his place until another question arose in which he might have arbitration. If the arbitration went in his favour he would demand compensation. We want to be fair and just to officers who have to be transferred from their present offices, but at the same time we must remember that we have to protect the ratepayer. In view of the liberal character of the provisions of the Bill, I hope that the Amendment will not be carried.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
We have now finished 49 Clauses. I have been twitted for not having read the Bill. I ask the House whether we can be expected to go through more than 50 Clauses of this Bill after three days of exceptionally heavy work. On the first day we sat until 2 a.m., on the second day until after 1 a.m. [HON. MEMBERS: "11.30."] Now, on the third day, it is after 11.30 p.m. again. There has been no sort of obstruction to this Bill. Most of the talking has been done on the other side. I think we are now entitled to go home. To-morrow again we have to be up all night for the Third Headings of the Tithe Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, and too much is being asked of Parliament. Why could we not have been called together a week earlier if this work had to be done? What is the necessity of rising on 18th December when we could sit a week longer or sit after Christmas? You cannot get good work done if night 1543 after night you allow the House to get into a sleepy condition. We cannot then look after the interests of the taxpayer and ratepayer. The Government has made additional difficulties for itself by continually accepting Amendments from its own side without telling the Opposition that it intended to do so. That is not the ordinary way of doing business in this House. In the interests of everyone, it is impossible to go on sitting late night after night, every day in the week, in the second week of the Session. It is exceptionally hard on people on the Front Bench. I know perfectly well that tempers get short. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You have on one side an overwhelming majority and no arguments, and on the other side a, minority with all the arguments. That is an additional reason why we should rise at a decent hour.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
The right hon. Gentleman's Motion is one which I cannot accept.
§ Captain BENN
On a point of Order. Is it not usual, towards the end of a late sitting, for a formal Motion to adjourn the further consideration of a Bill to be made, if only to give the Government an opportunity of telling Members how far they intend to go?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Such a Motion may be moved on Report, but the Chair may decline to accept the Motion.
§ CLAUSE 54.—(Expenses.)
§ Sir K. WOOD
I beg to move, in page 49, line 24, at the end, to insert the wordsor if incurred during the interval before the first general rate for the area is made under this Act, out of the poor rate.This Amendment makes provision to meet expenses necessarily incurred by a rating authority during the period indicated, and will be brought into operation in relation to the preparation of the first valuation list. The expenses are to be paid out of the poor rate in the interval before the general rate is levied.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Before asking why these expenses should be taken out of the poor rate, may I inquire how far the Government propose to go? Under this drastic system by which we cannot move to report Progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I am very sorry we have no proper way of finding out, but we can ask on an Amendment incidental to that Amendment how far the Government propose to go to-night.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
We propose to go as far as Clause GO, inclusive, to-night. With regard to the Amendment, this money has to come out of the poor rate, because there is no general rate at the time of the preparation of the first valuation list.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The, House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 80.1547
|Division No. 412.]||AYES.||[11.44 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Briscoe, Richard George||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Broun, Lindsay, Major H.||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Davidson. Major-General Sir John H|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Dean, Arthur Wellesley|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Burman, J. B.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Campbell, E. T.||Drewe, C.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Duckworth, John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Elliot, Captain Walter E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||England, Colonel A.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Christie, J. A.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Clayton, G. C.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Bethell, A.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Fenby, T. D.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Cooper, A. Duff||Fermoy, Lord|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cope, Major William||Fielden, E. B.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Finburgh, S.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Forrest, W.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Crook, C. W.||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Loder, J. de V.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Looker, Herbert William||Sandon, Lord|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guttave D.|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Savery, S. S.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Lumley, L. R.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macintyre, Ian||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Grace, John||Macmillan, Captain H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Grant, J. A.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Smithers, Waldron|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Margesson, Captain D.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hanbury, C.||Merriman, F. B.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Storry Deans, R.|
|Harland, A.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Murchison, C. K.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Tinne, J. A.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Nuttall, Ellis||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Hilton, Cecil||Oakley, T.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Owen, Major G.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wells, S. R.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pielou, D. P.||Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Preston, William||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Radford, E. A.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Raine, W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Jacob, A. E.||Remer, J. R.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Remnant, Sir James||Womersley, W. J.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rentoul, G. S.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Wood, Sir Kingeley (Woolwich, W.)|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Lamb. J. O.||Rye, F. G.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Captain Hacking and Major Sir|
|Little, Dr. E. Graham||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Harry Barnston.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Potts, John S.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Riley, Ben|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayes, John Henry||Ritson, J.|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Scurr, John|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Briant, Frank||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Buchanan, G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lansbury, George||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dunnico, H.||Lee, F.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Lindley, F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Lunn, William||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Gillett, George M.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Warne, G. H.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||March, S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Groves, T.||Murnin, H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Naylor, T. E.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. Normanton)||Paling, W.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)||Windsor, Walter||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)||Charles Edwards.|
§ CLAUSE 57.—(Proceedings and signature of notices, etc.)
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 50, line 30, to leave out the words "or any other officer designated for the purpose."
Clause 57 has been discovered to contain words which are really duplicated in
§ another Clause of the Bill. I have two Amendments down to remove the duplication.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 236.1549
|Division No. 413.]||AYES.||[11.54 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hayday, Arthur||Rose, Frank H.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayes, John Henry||Scurr, John|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, G. H.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Stephen, Campbell|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Briant, Frank||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Viant, S. P.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kelly, W. T.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Warne, G. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, George||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, F.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lindley, F. W.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Dunnico, H.||Lunn, William||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Groves, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Potts, John S.||Windsor, Walter|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Riley, Ben||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Ritson, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Burman, J. B.||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Campbell, E. T.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Albery, Irving James||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fenby, T. D.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Fermoy, Lord|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Fielden, E. B.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Christie, J. A.||Finburgh, S.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Clayton, G. C.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Forrest, W.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cockerill, Brigadier-General, G. K.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Balniel, Lord||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Cooper, A. Duff||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cope, Major William||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Bethell, A.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Crawfurd, H. E.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bird Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Grace, John|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Grant, J. A.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Bowyer Captain G E. W.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Drewe, C.||Hanbury, C.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Duckworth, John||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Harland, A.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||England, Colonel A.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Mewb'y)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Smith, H. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Merriman, F. B.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel w. H.|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Murchison, C. K.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Nuttall, Ellis||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Oakley, T.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Inskip Sir Thomas Walker H.||Owen, Major G.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Jacob, A. E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Pielou, D. P.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Preston, William||Wells, S. R.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Price, Major C. W. M.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Radford, E. A.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Raine, W.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Remer, J. R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Remnant, Sir James||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Little, Dr. E. Graham||Rentoul, G. S.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Loder, J. de V.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lord, Walter Greaves-||Rice, Sir Frederick||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Looker, Herbert William||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Lumley, L. R.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|MacAndrew. Charles Glen||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Macintyre, I.||Sandon, Lord||Wragg, Herbert|
|MacMillan, Captain H.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Savery, S. S.|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Shepperson, E. W.||F. C. Thomson.|
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, in page 50, line 34, to leave out from the word "defend" to the end of line 40.
These words are superfluous, in view of the provision made in Clause 60.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 231.1551
|Division No. 414.]||AYES.||[12.3 a.m.|
|Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hayday, Arthur||Scurr, John|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayes, John Henry||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Taylor, R. A.|
|Briant, Frank||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)|
|Bromfield, William||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Viant, S. P.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Cape, Thomas||Kelly, W. T.||Warne, G. H.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Kennedy, T.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lansbury, George||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lee, F.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Dunnico, H.||Lindley, F. W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lunn, William||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Naylor, T. E.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Groves, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Guest, J. (York, Hems worth)||Potts, John S.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Riley, Ben||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Ritson, J.||Barnes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Murchison, C. K.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Albery, Irving James||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Oakley, T.|
|Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Owen, Major G.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Grace, John||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Grant, J. A.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Pielou, D. P.|
|Balniel, Lord||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Preston, William|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)||Radford, E. A.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hanbury, C.||Raine, W.|
|Benn, Sir A. S, (Plymouth, Drake)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Bethell, A.||Harland, A.||Remer, J. R.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hartington, Marquess of||Rentoul. G. S.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Blundell, F. N.||Haslam, Henry C.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Hawke, John Anthony||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowater, sir T. Vansittart||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Rye, F. G.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hilton. Cecil||Sandon, Lord|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Savery, S. S.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Holland, Sir Arthur||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks. Newb'y)||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'land)|
|Christie, J. A.||Jacob, A. E.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Jephcott, A. R.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||King, Capt. Henry Douglas||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Cope, Major William||Lamb, J. Q.||Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Little. Dr. E. Graham||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Loder, J. de V.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Looker, Herbert William||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Curzon, Captain viscount||Lord, Walter Greaves||Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Wells, S. R.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lumley, L. R.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Drewe, C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Duckworth, John||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macintyre, Ian||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Macmillan Captain H.||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|England, Colonel A.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Manningham-Butler, Sir Mervyn||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Margesson, Captain D.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Marriott. Sir J. A. R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Merriman, F. B.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Fenby, T. D.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C R. (Ayr)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Finburgh, S.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Forrest, W.||Morden, Col. W. Grant||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.|
§ CLAUSE 58.—(Constitution of central valuation committee for promoting uniformity in valuation.)
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 51, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words "not being officers of the Department of Inland Revenue."
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 227: Noes, 73.1555
|Division No. 415.]||AYES.||[12.13 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Finburgh, S.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Forrest, W.||Merriman, F B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Morden, Colonel W. Grant|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Murchison, C. K.|
|Balniel, Lord||Grace, John||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Grant, J. A.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Grotrian, H. Brent||Oakley, T.|
|Bethell, A.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Owen, Major G.|
|Bird, Sir H. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hanbury, C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Harland, A.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Harrison, G. J. C.||Pielou, D. P.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Hartington, Marquess of||Preston, William|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Radford, E. A.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Haslam, Henry C.||Raine, W.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hawke, John Anthony||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Remer, J. R.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Rhys, Sir Frederick|
|Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hilton, Cecil||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Rye, F. G.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Holland, Sir Arthur||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sandon, Lord|
|Christie, J. A.||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Jacob, A. E.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jephcott, A. R.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cope, Major William||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Kino, Captain Henry Douglas||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Crookshank Cpt. H.(Lindsey., Gainsbro)||Lamb, J. Q.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. sir Philip||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Doyle Sir N. Grattan||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Drewe, C.||Loder, J. de V.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Duckworth, John||Looker, Herbert William||Templeton, w. P.|
|Edmondson. Major A. J.||Lord, Walter Greaves.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|England, Colonel A.||Lumley, L. R.||Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Mac Andrew, Charles Glen||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macintyre, Ian||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Fenby, T. D.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wells, S. R.|
|Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Wiggins, William Martin||Wise, Sir Fredric||Wragg, Herbert|
|Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)||Wolmer, Viscount||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)||Captain Hacking and Major|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).||Hennessy.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Mayday, Arthur||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Barnes, A.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Stephen, Campbell|
|Barr, J.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Briant, Frank||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Viant, S. P.|
|Bromfield, William||Kelly, W. T.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy. T.||Warne. G. H.|
|Buchanan, G.||Lansbury, George||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Cape, Thomas||Lawson, John James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lee, F.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lindley, F. W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lunn, William||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Dunnico, H.||Murnin, H.||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Paling, W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Windsor, Walter|
|Groves, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Riley, Ben||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Ritson, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Hall, G. H. (Me'thyr Tydvil)||Scurr, John||Hayes.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
§ CLAUSE 60.—(Service of notices, etc.)
Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN
I beg to move, in page 52, line 28, after the word "premises," to insert(e) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, where the hereditament to which the document relates is a place of business of the person to or on whom it is to be sent or served, by leaving it at, or forwarding it by post addressed to that person at, the said place of business.This Amendment speaks for itself. At the same time, I shall be glad to know-that the Minister accepts it.
§ to the speech of the hon. Member? I am sure the House would like to hear some sort of reply, after the thought that he has given to this matter. I do not know that the Minister is too courteous to his own supporters, and I should be glad, as one who has studied this Bill fairly closely, if he would give us some reply. I hope he will not follow the same policy with his own supporters as he follows with Members on this side of the House, of giving them very little attention. [Hon MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 69.1557
|Division No. 416.]||AYES.||[12.25 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Campbell, E. T.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.|
|Albery, Irving James||Blundell, F. N.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Chilcott, Sir Warden|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Christie, J. A.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Clayton. G. C.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Briscoe, Richard George||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Balniel, Lord||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cope, Major William|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Bethell, A.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Burman, J. B.||Crawfurd, H. E.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Remer, J. R.|
|Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Howard, Capt. Hon. O. (Climb., N.)||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Drewe, C.||Jacob, A. E.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Duckworth, John||Jephcott, A. R.||Rye, F. G.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|England, Colonel A.||Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sandon, Lord|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lamb, J. Q.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.||Savery, S. S.|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Finburgh, S.||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Shepperson. E. W.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Loder, J. de V.||Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)|
|Forrest, W.||Looker, Herbert William||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Lord, Walter Greaves.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Lumley. L. R.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Stanley, Hen. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Macintyre, Ian||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macmillan, Captain H.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Grace, John||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Grant, J. A.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Margesson, Captain D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Merriman, F. B.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hanbury. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Harland, A.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wells, S. R.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Murchison, C. K.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nuttall, Ellis||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)||Oakley, T.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Owen, Major G.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hilton, Cecil||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Pielou, D. P.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Preston, William||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Radford, E. A.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Raine, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Reid. Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C. Thomson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Riley, Ben|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayes, John Henry||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Briant, Frank||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Buchanan, G.||Kelly, W. T.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, George||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawson, John James||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lee, F.||Whiteley, W.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lindley, F. W.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lunn, William||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Fenby. T. D.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Murnin, H.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Oliver, George Harold||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves. T.||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.|
§ Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).