HC Deb 08 June 1864 vol 175 cc1423-37

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. DUNLOP

said, that in proposing the second reading of this Bill, he felt it necessary to preface his observations by a brief explanation of the aim and purport of this Bill, as he understood that it was intended to raise some objection to it. It had been said that it was an exceptional measure, and that it had been brought forward in the interest of the Railway Companies. He did not mean to assert that the railway interest would not be benefited by it, because he believed that that interest suffered more from the injustice of the present system than any other; but he begged to disclaim any intention of supporting the Bill either for railway purposes or for those of any other class exclusively. His sole object in bringing forward the Bill was to remedy a particular grievance, in which certainly the railway interest participated, but which extends to nearly every class of the owners of land and property, except those who simply possess land without houses. The House would no doubt be cognizant of the fact that in Scotland there was a general yearly valuation of property, which originated in an Act passed in the year 1854. Under that Act there was a valuation of the gross rental, or the gross value of land, and the reduction of that into the net value for the purpose of rates was left to the local authorities, by whom the particular assessments are levied. He believed that that mode of fixing the gross value had given general satisfaction. It was done by the county officers appointed by the Commissioners of Supply, who were the landed proprietors of the county, and an appeal lay to the Commissioners of Supply and from them by means of a short legal process to the Court of Session. All parties were agreed that the fixing of the gross valuation was so far very valuable and useful, and that it thoroughly answered the purpose for which it was introduced—namely, the establishment of a basis on which the rating for the poor could be fixed. But in turning that into rateable value, or ascertaining from the gross value the rateable value for the purpose of assessing to the poor rate, it had to go through another and very different process. Each Parochial Board itself fixed the deductions which were to be made, and those deductions were made for each parish separately without any uniformity of rule. The consequence was, that property running through two or three different parishes might in one case receive a deduction of 15 per cent, in another of 20 per cent, and in a third of 25 per cent. One of the principal objects of this Bill was to provide an uniform machinery for fixing the rateable value, similar to that which had already been provided for fixing the gross value. At present the only mode by which that could be done conclusively was by an appeal to the Court of Session, which was attended with great expense, with considerable trouble and delay, and was altogether most unsatisfactory. What he proposed was, that the rateable value should be settled, in the first instance, by the same officer who was now required to furnish the gross value. Considerable objection was entertained to that proposition; but it was a question of detail which might hereafter be discussed, and which did not give a sufficient ground for the rejection of the Bill. There was likewise an element in the measure which had created a great amount of opposition—namely, that the whole of the local rates of Scotland were not at present levied on the rateable or net value. For example, the poor rate was, and therefore it was necessary now that the rateable value should be ascertained; but there were other rates of different kinds which are raised by the Commissioners of Supply, and since a general valuation had been provided, it had become the practice to lay on the assessments according to the gross value instead of the rateable value. Then, again, a difficulty had arisen in reference to Private Bill Committees in this House, who had assumed that the general valuation, instead of being intended to form a basis for fixing the rateable value, was itself intended to be the rateable value; and, accordingly, in all new assessments for roads which had been proposed the rates had been arranged on that footing. The Private Bill Committees had reported generally to the House that great injustice was inflicted by the course thus adopted, and they had recommended that there should be an alteration in the valuation roll, so as to admit the deductions which ought necessarily to be made. It was to follow out the recommendation of those Committees that he had introduced the present Bill. There could be no doubt at all that to lay on a rate, and, above all, a new rate, upon the gross value instead of the rateable value, was most unjust and intolerable. If all property were of the same kind—if all property in the same county or parish were exactly of the same kind—there would be no objection to the present system of assessment; but where you had land with houses, and land without houses, and railway or canal property, some of which required only a deduction of 2½ per cent, while other parts might require deductions varying from 5 to 20 or 30 per cent, the laying on of the same uniform rate upon the gross value of the whole property was obviously unjust. In the Poor Law Act this was expressly guarded against; deductions being made for the cost of repairs and insurance and for other expenses. There were thus two objects contained in the present Bill. The first was to provide that the deductions which must be made from the poor rate should be ascertained, not by each parish as an act of arbitrary will, but that these should be ascertained by the public officer appointed to make the general valuation, subject to an appeal or review of his conduct similar to that which was granted in the case of the general valuation. The second object was to provide that other rates besides the poor rate, and especially new ones imposed for the first time, should be laid according to the rateable value, and not according to the gross value. It was said that this would create a great deal of confusion and difficulty. That might be so for the first year or two, and great attention would be required; but it would not be the case afterwards. Gentlemen in this country were well aware that this was done in the case of the unions without any considerable amount of trouble, and with very great uniformity. At the same time these were all matters of detail, which could easily be dealt with in Committee, and he should have no objection to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had no wish to ask the House for anything that might not be considered reasonable and fair; but he certainly thought that some more satisfactory proceeding might be adopted with regard to the valuation of property for rateable purposes than that which now existed. All he asked was that property in Scotland generally should be placed on the same footing as property in England and Ireland, and as property in Scotland itself was already placed in reference to the poor rate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

said, that having been chairman of the Committee before whom several of the Scotch Road Bills came for consideration, and also a member of the Committee before whom some Bills of a similar character came last year, he was anxious to say a few words with regard to the special Report which had been made by the Committee this year. The main difficulty in dealing with Bilk of this description had arisen when they came to the consideration of the burdens imposed upon the country. We invariably found that under the operation of the Scotch Valuation Act very unequal rates were imposed upon different descriptions of property, and the same deductions were not made as would have been made in the case of similar property in England. For instance, with regard to railway property hon. Members must be aware that very considerable expenses are incurred in maintaining the value of that property; yet, under the Valuation Act, no deduction was made for the expense of maintaining the line of railway and of repairing the permanent way. The persons who had opposed these Road Bills on the part of the railways and other heritages had very much pressed the Committee to allow them some deduction by introducing clauses to that effect into such Bills. The Committee was unanimously of opinion that it was not within their province to adopt the suggestion thus made to them; and they drew up a special Report, and, in order to give the House time to consider the question, they deferred the operation of the Peeblesshire Roads Bill for two years, thinking that in the meantime some Bill might be introduced in order to remedy what certainly appears to be a considerable injustice.

MR. MACKIE

said, he had hoped that the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) would have conceived himself bound by the unmistakable opinions of the Scotch Members, and would have withdrawn this Bill. The Bill had been placed in the hands of the Scotch Members on the very day when they left town to attend their county meetings, and the consequence was that the county meetings knew nothing about it. It was not too much to hope that a Bill introduced under such circumstances should be withdrawn, at any rate until next Session. With regard to the Bill itself, the statement of the hon. Member for Greenock was so clear that he had nothing to add or take from it. The Bill would change the whole system of local rating and assessments in Scotland. At present, they pay upon the gross value in all cases, except with regard to those rates which were imposed under the Poor Law Acts, and even with regard to the Poor Law Act there were many parishes in which the rating was still upon the gross valuation, such rating having been in vogue before the passing of the Poor Law Act in 1845, and having been continued since that period with the approbation of the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh. If the hon. Member was so anxious to obtain uniformity, how much easier it would have been for him to get at that uniformity by changing the rating under the Poor Law Act. At present, as he had just stated, some parishes were assessed to the poor rate upon the gross valuation. Let the hon. Member, therefore, introduce a Bill to go back to this system, and require the other parishes to be rated upon the gross valuation. In that way he will get at uniformity at once. What he (Mr. Mackie) wanted to know was, who were the parties aggrieved — who were the parties complaining? It was usual when a Bill of this kind was introduced—a Bill dealing with every acre of land throughout the length and breadth of Scotland—to show that it was demanded by the public. There were thirty counties in Scotland, but who were the parties complaining in this case? At present, the general ratepayer was perfectly satisfied with the present system of assessment. He found that in that system of assessment there was uniformity. He found a standard of valuation in reference to which he could calculate his quota upon any assessment that might be proposed. But if the Bill passed in its present shape, how would that be in future? The effect, in his opinion, would be that a man would not be able to ascertain what his due quota to the contributions required for local rateable purposes was to be, or what that of his neighbours was. Surely, before a Bill of this magnitude was passed, upsetting the whole system which has prevailed for so many years in Scotland, a very strong case of grievance ought to be made out; and he contended that his hon. Friend had entirely failed in making out a case of grievance. In fact, he did not know what the meaning of the Bill was until that morning, when he found on his table the following circular, to which he would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire:—

"Valuation of Lands and Heritages (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill.

"SIR,—The honour of your attendance is earnestly requested on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill to-morrow. It is a measure of the greatest importance to all Railway and Canal Companies, and it is believed to be framed also with due regard to the interests of the general ratepayers.—I am, &c.,

"JAMES FERGUSSON."

He thought this document was one of very questionable propriety; but he certainly learnt from its contents that the Railway Companies were really persons promoting this Bill. Now, in the Valuation Act of Scotland the case of railways and canals had been considered and provided for; for Clauses 21 and 22 of that Act provide for the appointment of a railway and canal assessor. He presumed that this special appointment was made in the interest of the Railway Companies In point of fact, they knew that railways do claim and do get most substantial allowances. It, therefore, seemed to him that the railway interests had the remedy in their own hands. But if the hon. Gentlemen who promoted this Bill had been able to make out a grievance, the remedy which they propose was one which it would be impossible to adopt. What is the remedy they offered? They propose that every assessor acting under the Valuation Act should ascertain and fix what is to be the annual cost of repairs, insurances, and other expenses necessary in maintaining lands and houses, and also of the rates and taxes and public charges that are payable in respect of the same. Now, there were thirty counties in Scotland, with thirty assessors. Every one of those assessors, dealing with the same class of property, might put down his own idea of the rateable value of these different lands and heritages; so that, in point of fact, you would have thirty different ratings according to the view thirty different assessors may take in regard to the same subject in different localities. It seemed also to him that the proposal contained in the Bill, if carried out, will be most expensive in its operation. Inasmuch as the lands and heritages dealt with extend over every county in Scotland, these assessors will have to ascertain and assess the rateable value of the whole property of the kingdom. Every proprietor would of course send in an application for deductions, whereupon the unfortunate assessor has to sit in judgment on the claims, and put down a rateable valuation. In cases of appeal, who was to consider them? Who was to constitute the Court of Appeal? Were the Commissioners of Supply to sit in judgment in September and settle all these questions? He did not think that they would be disposed to do anything of the sort; nor would the month of September be sufficient for the proper hearing and disposing of all cases they would have to deal with. He thought the Bill would be found wholly unworkable in all respects, and that it would involve great and unnecessary expenditure. In the interests of his constituents, he therefore thought it right to propose that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Mackie.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANT

said, he was in no way connected with the railway interest in Scotland, and had no wish to enter into any details with regard to the machinery of this Bill. He merely rose for the purpose of confirming the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) with regard to the views the Committee took in reference to the new system which of late years had been adopted, and which was becoming every year more and more general in Scotland, of throwing all the roads and highways upon the counties of Scotland for assessment at their full gross value. In the assessments for the poor rates, certain deductions were made, and among those deductions came the sums paid by railways for repairs and maintenance of the permanent way, but in assessing for other purposes no such deduction was allowed. That question came under the consideration of the Committee on Scotch Road Bills—of which he was for one or two years chairman, and of which the noble Lord opposite was chairman this year—and it was admitted that great injustice would be done to the Railway Companies if they were compelled to pay on the gross rental, for which they were entered on the valuation roll. The Railway Companies wished the Committee to fix a specific value for each railway included in the Bill; but the Committee decided that they would not enter into the question in that partial way, and be the means of introducing a most anomalous system of rating, which might vary in each case according to the opinion of the Committee before which it might be brought. But on all occasions the Committee felt that some public measure ought to be passed for the purpose of placing the railways upon some clearly defined footing. The Committee inquired from the railway assessor whether any deductions were made from the gross value of railway property for the purpose of repairs, and he stated that no deduction was made for maintaining or repairing the permanent way. That alone was, in his opinion, a strong reason why something should be done to put the railways upon a fair footing with regard to valuation, and for that reason he should support the second reading of the Bill.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, it was not because he did not feel the force of the arguments used by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) with regard to the general principle of allowing in Scotland the same deductions which were allowed in England, that he could not consent to vote for the second reading of the Bill. The whole question was, whether you can enforce the deductions in the manner proposed by the Bill, or without introducing a much more extensive principle involved in the measure. The hon. Member said that he was quite ready to go into a Select Committee, and consider the question of the principle of the rates. But there was another principle which he must also consider, which laid at the root of the question—namely, by what public body was the question to be determined. It was proposed by the Bill that the valuation should be fixed by the officers for the county—the same officer who assessed for the income tax. To such a proposal he entirely objected. From the way in which his hon. Friend proposed that this officer should determine what in every individual property was the deduction to be made, the result would be that the assessor would make a separate valuation, and every individual assessed would appeal in the autumn to the Committee appointed by the Commissioners of Supply for the purpose of hearing appeals. The consequence would be that that body would be overwhelmed with work, and the appeals would be so numerous that it would be impracticable to carry out a measure of that sort. It was upon this ground of practical difficulty that it was found impossible to do anything with the question when it came before the House some years ago. His hon. Friend had referred to the case of England: but in England this duty was not done by an assessor but by the Boards of Guardians. He was perfectly ready to consider whether they should not form boards for the purpose of carrying out this proposal, but that was not a question that could be determined by affirming the principle laid down in the Bill. Then the time at which the Bill was brought forward was exceedingly inconvenient; for in many cases the rates had already been levied on the max- imum valuation. Another objection was, that if the Bill was sent to a Select Committee it could not be a very brief one, and the Bill would come back to the House when nearly the whole of the Scotch Members would be out of town, and when it would be impossible to give proper consideration to the question. He must therefore impress on the hon. Member that which was urged upon his consideration at the meeting of Scotch Members—namely, that he should not persist with the Bill at this moment, when there was no opportunity of considering it. If on some future occasion the hon. Member would move for a Select Committee he (Sir E. Colebrooke) would be happy to support him.

LORD ELCHO

said, that no one who knew the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) would suppose that he was actuated by any desire other than that of promoting the public interest; but, strange to say, this Bill, which is brought forward to remedy a public grievance, and which one would think ought to be approved of by all the interests concerned, was approved of, so far as he (Lord Elcho) was aware, by no interest in Scotland except one. The object of the Bill was to place a burden which is now borne by all classes upon the shoulders of one. That was a proposal which he hoped the House would not readily sanction. Any doubt that might have been entertained as to the nature and character of the Bill must have been removed by the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire, and his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel D. Pennant), both of whom spoke as chairmen of Road Committees, and both of whom were in favour of this Bill The Railway Companies, who had a common interest and a common purse, fought the question four days before the Committee; but the Committee thought that the question was one for general legislation, and could not be dealt with as a private Bill. Failing there, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire, who he believed was one of their railway magnates, attempted to introduce a clause when the Bill was before the House. That attempt was also defeated. Since then the matter had been brought before a Committee upstairs; and as that also failed, the promoters of the Bill sought to obtain their object by a general measure. He hardly thought that the attention of this House had been sufficiently drawn to a matter which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright. He certainly agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright, that the extraordinary document which had emanated from his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire was one of very questionable propriety. Here was a Bill purporting to be a Bill for general purposes to alter the valuation of land in Scotland generally. That was the specious guise in which it came before the House, and yet from the office of one of the chief Parliamentary agents in Parliament Street proceeds this letter— The favour of your attendance is earnestly requested on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill to-morrow. And why? Because "it is a measure of the greatest importance to all Scotch Railway and Canal Companies;" and mark this, "it is believed to be framed also with a due regard to the interests of the ratepayers." Signed, "James Fergusson." This document had not been sent broadcast throughout this House. He (Lord Elcho) had not received a copy of it, and upon communicating with other Scotch Members he found that they were in a similar position. Whether it was from a spirit of chivalry before they entered the lists with the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright that they sent him a copy, he could not say; but his hon. Friend was a railway director, and it looks very much as if the Parliamentary agent had sent out the circular simply to those whom he believed to be connected with the railway interest. This, he thought, ought to be a warning to the House of Commons respecting the manner in which these Railway Companies manage their affairs. Now, as to the course the House should take in reference to a measure affecting a Bill which was passed ten years ago, the whole question relative to rating every description of property was then fully considered, and to show that railway interests were not neglected, he (Lord Elcho) might mention that out of 42 clauses not less than 10 were devoted to the way in which railway and canal property was to be assessed. Now, a measure to establish one uniform system of valuation brought in deliberately by the Government, on the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, ought not to be tampered with by a private Member of the House. If an Amendment of the Act was necessary, the Government were the proper parties to bring forward a measure for that purpose; and if they were not prepared to do so without further inquiry, let the right hon. Gentleman propose a Committee to inquire into the subject, and he (Lord Elcho) would be happy to second the proposition. But he certainly objected to private Members dealing with a subject of this great importance.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he wished to make a few remarks in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite, that railways were by the present operation of the law subject to great injustice on account of the opposition made to them, and that no allowance was made for repairs, for maintenance, and for the cost of keeping them in a condition to command the rate. Now, evidence had been given on this very point before Committees of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons in a Bill relating to tolls; and one very competent witness stated not only that railways did not pay 40 per cent higher than other lands and heritages, in consequence of their being rated at the full valuation, but he said he knew the fact to be exactly the reverse—that they got many deductions that other land and heritages did not get—that in fact they got a deduction of 100 per cent after paying every possible expense. Therefore his hon. Friend and the noble Lord opposite were misinformed when they said that railways receive no deduction, but were assessed on the full amount of their property. He objected to this Bill on various grounds. One of them had been alluded to by the noble Lord. This was a public Bill. It is one of these measures which the Lord Advocate prides himself upon, he having passed one which has been useful, and has given satisfaction to Scotland. It has been looked upon in Scotland as the only fitting one by which you can arrive at a fair valuation. The Bill proposes to introduce elements of uncertainty between the assessor and various classes of persons affected by it. In his opinion the Bill would introduce great confusion in the Valuation Act without producing any benefit whatever. If any Bill was necessary, it ought to be introduced by the Government after due deliberation, and not be left to any private Member. Considering the Bill most inexpedient and unjust, he should certainly give his vote against it.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he wished to say a few words with reference to the heavy charge which had been brought against him. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had done him the honour of reading a circular requesting the attendance of hon. Members on the present occasion. He was sorry that the noble Lord regarded this as an improper proceeding. At any rate, it was one of common occurrence, for hardly a day passed on which he did not receive circulars from parties interested in measures, and begging his attendance and support. When the House recollected the little attention that was paid to Scotch business, he did not consider it improper, when great interests were concerned and important measures were to be considered, that the attendance of hon. Members should be requested. [Lord ELCHO: Why was it not sent to all Members?] He was not aware that circulars were usually sent to all Members, but only to those who are presumed to be supporters of the particular measure. If that were an improper proceeding, it is, as he had already intimated, a very common one; and he should not be deterred on any future occasion, if he considered that any measure demanded the attendance of Members, from endeavouring to secure that attendance. The noble Lord who had been so careful in pointing out his duty to him had fallen into a slight error in regard to the nature and intentions of the Valuation Act of 1854. The noble Lord said it was intended to serve as a basis of valuation in Scotland. An opinion much more entitled to weight than that of the noble Lord—namely, that of the Lord Advocate—was very different. He said the principle of the Valuation Act was the ascertainment of the gross valuation wherever the assessment was directed to be made, and that the valuation roll should only afford the basis upon which the deductions were to be made, without affecting the principle or the extent of the deductions themselves. The noble Lord was entirely under a mistake. In conformity with that opinion, the Judges of the Court of Session on a recent occasion pointed out how manifestly unfair it was to assess property which was liable to deterioration and repairs in the same proportion as property that was not so liable. He believed that the Court of Queen's Bench had lately ruled in the same manner with regard to parochial assessments in England. All that was wanted by this Bill was to have the system of rating in counties and burghs and parochial rates placed on the same footing in Scotland as ill England—and that deductions should be allowed for repair, maintenance, and so forth. He hoped the House would not be led away by the assertions of hon. Members that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of any one class more than another. There could be no doubt that, railway property was the most hardly hit by the existing system; but it also affected gas companies and other similar properties. But if one class was more affected than another, surely it was entitled to make the loudest claim for redress. He trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering its details.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

expressed his regret that any course should be taken which might result in giving a limited effect to the Bill as now proposed. The question is a very important one, and can only be properly dealt with by a general Bill. The question ought not to be considered as affecting one class over another, but entirely with reference to the general interests of Scotland in the matter. The object of the Bill was to remedy what was unquestionably a defect in the Valuation Act of 1854. It was not a defect which was now newly discovered, because it was a defect of which they were perfectly conscious when the Bill of 1854 passed into law. The question arose in the Select Committee before which that Bill came—whether it was desirable, in the first place, and, if so, whether it was possible to make the valuation roll so that it would show the gross and also the rateable value? Two modes were proposed for accomplishing that object. The first was, that all assessments should be made on the gross value, and that the whole system of deduction should be founded on the gross value. The Committee did not see their way to that course, and it was resisted by a considerable majority of the representatives of Scotland. For himself he thought there would have been no practical injustice if that course had been taken, as the system of deductions was complex, cumbrous, and inconvenient. Another course was then suggested—namely, to insert in the Act a schedule of deductions to provide for certain classes of property a certain percentage of deductions. A great deal of discussion took place on that proposition, but in the end that was also found impracticable, for the reason that the same class of assessments in different parts of the country were not on the same footing as regarded deductions made upon them; that is to say, that deductions which were made in reference to mill property or house property in one part of the country were found to be wholly imapplicable to other parts. The Valuation Act as it passed provided solely for the ascertainment of the gross value, and left the rateable value to be ascertained by the persons or the body who are entitled to lay on the assessment. In all subsequent legislation the assessments had been made upon the gross value; but as regards the poor's rate, there were provisions for making deductions previous to the passing of the Valuation Act; and they remained precisely as they were, the only difference being that the gross valuation was taken as the sole criterion of the value from which, the deductions were to be made. The object of the present Bill was to provide that the assessment should not be made on the gross rental, nor that a percentage of deduction should be laid down, but that the assessor should fix the gross value the same as he fixed the rateable value. He did not see any difficulty in the matter. The assessor could not be less competent to fix the assessment for the net value than the assesor of the Parochial Board, who must go through the same labour before the rateable value was ascertained. On the contrary, he thought the assessor for the county was more competent from his skill and knowledge to arrive at a satisfactory result. He did not see why the Bill should be considered as a Railway Bill. That could only be on the assumption that the assessor, whose duty it was at present to ascertain the gross value of railways, would make larger deductions in ascertaining the net value than the assessor of the Parochial Board. His object in any support he might give to the measure was certainly not to favour the railways or any other class of proprietors or owners of property, but simply to accomplish now what they failed to accomplish in 1854, and to make the valuation roll a record of the rateable as well as of the gross value in order to supersede the necessity for a double valuation in each parish. He thought the course the House ought to adopt was to read the Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.