CERTIFYING OF ANNUAL SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF DEFICIENCY.

HC Deb 29 June 1896 vol 42 cc273-319

(1.) The Local Government Board shall, as soon as may he after the passing of this Act, certify the amount—

1. (a) of the annual grant to he paid to the Local Taxation Account; and
2. (b) of the share of such grant to be paid annually to each spending authority,

under this Act, and for that purpose shall determine in the prescribed manner the amount which for the purposes of this Act is to be taken as having been raised during the last year before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies for the expenditure of each spending authority.

(2.) Such proportion of the whole amount so taken to be raised in respect of any hereditaments or parishes as the Local Government Board estimate to be the proportion of the total rateable value of those hereditaments or parishes which represents the value of agricultural land, shall be taken for the purposes of this Act as the amount raised during the said year, by the said authority, by the said rate, in respect of agricultural land, and one half of that amount shall be taken as the deficiency which will arise from the provisions of this Act in the produce of the said rate.

(3.) A sum equal to the total amount of the deficiencies thus estimated for all the spending authorities in England shall be the amount of the annual grant, and a sum equal to the deficiency thus estimated in the case of each spending authority shall be the share of that spending authority in the annual grant, and the Local Government Board shall certify the same accordingly.

(4.) The Local Government Board, in acting under this section, shall obtain and make such information and inquiries, and in such manner as they think fit.

(5.) The Local Government Board may amend, or for the purpose of meeting any alteration in an area or authority to which a certificate relates may vary, a certificate under this section, and any such Amendment or variation shall have effect from the date of the original certificate, or any later date fixed by the Board; but save as aforesaid, a certificate shall be final and binding on all persons.

(6.) The Local Government Board may give a provisional certificate, if they think necessary, for the purpose of enabling the first payments to the Local Taxation Account under this Act to be made, before they have sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate.

And which Amendment was, after the word "rate," to insert the words— In estimating the value of agricultural land for the purpose aforesaid in cases where such land is rated together with buildings, the Local Government Board shall take as the value of such buildings the sum it would cost to rebuild them, and the rateable value thereof shall be taken to be a sum equal to five per centum per annum on the said cost."—(Mr. Robson.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Debate resumed.

MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.),

whose speech was interrupted at midnight on Thursday 25th June, said the clause as it stood was calculated to produce disastrous results. It might be said that the Assessment Committees were upright and honest, but there was abundant evidence in connection with the old poor-law administration that Englishmen, like other people, fell victims to temptation. There was at present no guiding principle on which Assessment Committees were to act in dividing the assessment between the land and the buildings. The President of the Local Government Board, when pressed on the question, said the only principle he could think of was that they were to assess farm buildings at what might reasonably be expected to be their fair letting value divorced from the land. Many Assessment Committees might take the view that the value of the buildings, on that principle, was nothing at all, more especially when by taking that view they would largely increase the grant to which the parish was entitled from the Imperial Exchequer. It might naturally be argued by Assessment Committees that as the Bill provided a totally inadequate amount of relief from an agricultural point of view, there was no harm in so arranging the assessment as to draw the largest possible amount from the Imperial Exchequer. The House was entitled to know definitely what limitation the Government intended to place upon the power of Assessment Committees in this respect. As the clause now stood it would have a most injurious effect upon the moral tone of Assessment Committees. It would give a direct incitement to rearrange and "rig" the valuations with a view to getting more money from the Treasury. In regard to the criticism of the Amendment by the President of the Local Government Board, he maintained that the necessity for some Amendment had been shown, and if the right hon. Gentleman would propose some alternative it would meet with most careful consideration.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

said this was a question which was specially reserved for Report. It would be remembered that the hon. Member for Hampshire and the hon. and learned Member for Stroud urged that it was impossible to distinguish between land and buildings. That was a view that was entirely rejected by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated that there was nothing-easier than to distinguish between land and buildings. [Mr. CHAPLIN dissented.] He did not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman in any way, but, at all events, he said that the Bill as it stood would be perfectly workable as regarded the separate valuation of buildings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it very strongly upon financial grounds, and went so far as to say that it would be impossible to take the course recommended by the two hon. Members. It was obvious that the Imperial Exchequer might be, and probably would be, very seriously affected by the manner in which the assessment of buildings and land was dealt with. It was quite obvious, as his hon. Friend had said, that it was possible to manipulate this Bill—["Hear, hear!"]—and unless some precaution was taken to protect the Exchequer in regard to the assessment of buildings there would be very great danger, and no man could estimate the sum which might be extorted from the Exchequer. There would also be an injustice in regard to householders who were not leaseholders. Although objection might be taken to the Amendment now before the House, as there were a number of proposals upon the Paper with reference to this question, it would very much assist the House to know what was the view the Government took upon this subject of the assessment of the buildings and the land.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford

said the Amendment which was now before them was one for a specific purpose, and laid down that in valuing buildings which were rated together with agricultural land the sum should be taken which it would cost to rebuild them new, and that the rateable value should be 5 per cent on that cost. He did not think the question put by the right hon. Gentleman arose on this Amendment, but he would explain the views of the Government in regard to the matter on the next Amendment that stood on the Paper.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman explained on Thursday that the intention of the Government was that one-eighth should be taken as the value of the buildings, and the other seven-eighths as the value of the land. At present every valuation was on letting value, but now they were going to have a special valuation of land and of buildings not upon letting value. If they were going to give up letting value they must adopt some new principle, and his hon. Friend's Amendment proposed that they should take capital value. He thought that was a very wise suggestion. It had the approval of the head of the Government and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Several Members of the Government, when they were members of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, recommended, not a 5 per cent., but a 4 per cent. basis upon the capital value, and the Marquess of Salisbury signed the Report of that Commission although he dissented from its being applied only to this kind of land. Had anyone any power of determining what new principle should be carried out? If they turned to Clause 6 of the Bill, they would find that there was an indication given under Sub-head A of the third section which provided that the Local Government Board might, by order, make regulations for fixing the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings and other hereditaments. The First Lord of the Treasury thought this was only a Bill of one clause, and some other clauses for machinery—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—and all the machinery and several of the principles were not to be considered at all by Parliament. There was nothing in the Bill to determine upon what principles the valuations should be made. If they were made, they must either be made on capital value, or they might take what was called the theory of use value. In the county which he represented, and in some others, there were buildings which cost about half-a-million which were only rated at about £500 a year. He thought that Parliament in determining a matter of this kind ought to lay down some uniform system throughout the three kingdoms, otherwise they would have in one district one system of valuation, and in another district another system. If this was really a fight for one-sixteenth he did not think it was worth while fighting for, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well give in on that one-sixteenth. Anyone who had any experience in regard to the matter knew that the surveyors went as near as possible to the capital value. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who knew something about agriculture, especially from the landlord's standpoint, what he thought the bulk of the landlords of England were getting as land rent separate from buildings. He could assure him that in a great many farms, especially in the heavy clay lands of Essex, the land rent had entirely disappeared. Just as economic rent had disappeared in Ireland, so it had disappeared in a great many portions of England. The only fair and intelligible method of valuation was to value on the cost; and he hoped they would get rid of those vague phrases which in the past had enabled landlords to escape their fair share of the rates. The great bulk of landlords were not getting more than 3 or 4 per cent. on the capital value of the buildings and improvements which they themselves had made.

MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

pointed out that the clause under discussion was not a rating section at all, and that none of the arguments raised were applicable to it. They were applicable to Clause 5. The clause only dealt with the certificate of the Board of Trade.

*MR. CHARLES HARRISON (Plymouth)

thought the clause could not be regarded as other than a rating clause, because it assumed the rating of the hereditament under the Poor Law Act remained undisturbed, and to be taken as that out of which the valuation under this clause was to be made out. Under the Poor Law the test of what was known as "separate assessment" of a hereditament was, and only took place in, those cases where the hereditament assessed was capable of being let and occupied separately, and without such separation of occupation there was no power under the poor-law rating to sever or divide the hereditament, or to sever buildings on the land from the land itself. The word "land" in poor-law rating covered buildings, and they could only be separately valued when separately occupied. The whole object of this clause was to direct the Local Government Board to certify the division for poor-law purposes of that which was not yet in law divided into two parts, and to make two separate valuations, one for land and one for buildings. For the first time in a Bill relating to rating, including poor-law purposes, it was proposed to introduce a valuation of buildings by themselves. In the Rating Act of 1833, relating to lighting and watching rates, the word used was not buildings, but "buildings rateable" according to the valuation list for the poor rate. So that there was no greater power of division of buildings from the land than what existed under the poor-law rating, namely in those cases where the hereditament was capable of separate occupation. In the Act of 1875 the word "buildings" was not used at all, but "land," which carried buildings not separately occupied; and by the Act of 1875 buildings were not to be separately valued, but land was to be assessed at ¼ only of the net annual value thereof as entered in the poor-law valuation. Buildings did exist for the purpose of assessment to Imperial taxation, but that was quite separate, and they were under the two Acts—the one relating to the Property Tax, and the other to the Inhabited House Duty. In the Act of 1842, relating to the Income Tax, there were pages devoted to laying down rules for the separate assessment and valuation of buildings. So also, with respect to the Inhabited House Duty, there were statutory provisions for ascertaining how that which was to be divided ought to be divided. But there were no such provisions in this Bill; and, unless the division was made most carefully by competent persons, the result might be that the valuation of the land would be wholly inadequate to the real value. Whether the percentage laid down in the Amendment was correct or not, some such principle ought to be adopted, and the separate valuations ought to be carried out by those who had to do the work for the purposes of assessment to Imperial taxation.

MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

pointed out that, in order to work out the sums which were required under Clause 4, the Local Government Board had to determine the separate value of buildings as distinguished from the land, and therefore he submitted that it was very relevant to consider upon what rules, or according to what principles, the value of buildings as distinguished from land in an agricultural holding were to be determined.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said that what he complained of was that there was no principle whatever foreshadowed in the Bill for dealing with the valuation now under consideration. While it was extremely important that the future valuation should be made on fixed principles by the overseers, it was also extremely important that it should be made upon some principles, whatever these might be, in the present instance. The two valuations they were discussing affected very different portions of the public interest. The valuation by the local authority which had been so much referred to, would affect only the relative amount that had to be contributed by the ratepayers in each locality. But in the initial valuation, where the Local Government Board had to separate between the values of lands and buildings in the first instance, the persons who would be affected would be not the local ratepayers at all, but the general body of taxpayers—that was to say, what would be determined would be the sum total that had to be given in each locality for the next five years from the central fund. The latter was much the more important as affecting the sum total which would be required in order to carry out the Bill. He pleaded, therefore, that the House should settle exactly what was to be the principle of separation between lands and buildings, in order to protect the public purse. If it were not settled beforehand what was to be the division between those two portions of the property concerned, then they had nothing but the absolute fiat of the Local Government Board. As to the particular Amendment, he could conceive considerable amendments to it. He did not think it was in the happiest form, but it would give definiteness to the matter. He would submit, however, that it was a fair plan to take what it would cost to erect the buildings, to take a percentage on that, and for his part he should like to see the percentage varied in proportion to the age of the buildings. But something of the kind would have to be done by this House, and should not be left to the Local Government Board. That Department must have made up its mind by this time as to the general lines they intended to go upon, and if the House were informed what those lines were, they would then know how far it was necessary to pursue the present Amendment.

*MR. E. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

was strongly opposed to the Amendment, but only intervened in the Debate because its hollowness was not exposed by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and people in the country would naturally suppose that no arguments could be offered against it because of the silence of hon. Members opposite. Now, in supporting the Amendment the hon. Member for Caithness laid it down that in making the calculation referred to the cost value of the buildings was the only value that ought to be taken. That was an entirely fallacious argument to use as regards farm buildings, inasmuch as buildings which might have had a high value 20 years ago might be of no practical use now at all. To say that such buildings should be valued at their cost of rebuilding and that the rateable value should be taken to be five per cent. of that cost would be very unfair. There was a general desire on the part of landlords at the present time to give all the advantages they could to their tenants by erecting and providing good and suitable buildings on their farms, but he believed the effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, might be to discourage them from doing so. He could give instances in which large and expensive buildings that had been used for cheese-making were now lying idle through the effects of foreign competition, the farmers having now to dispose of their milk by sending it to London instead of making it into cheese. The hon. Member for East Mayo, on the previous Friday, made a statement which, if accurately reported in The Times, entirely killed the Amendment. The hon. Member said that the buildings without the land would not let—that they would be useless. He believed that statement to be in accordance with the fact, and therefore he held that to value those buildings at the cost of rebuilding and to fix the rateable value upon that cost was unfair and unjust. He would only further repeat that he should not have intervened in the Debate, if any hon. Gentleman opposite had risen. He should have the greatest confidence in going into the Lobby against the Amendment, because he believed it would, if carried into law, set up a dangerous principle and inflict considerable damage on the agriculture of the country.

MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said that it was surprising that the Members who assumed to be friends of the landlords did not perceive the injury they were doing the landlords at times by the course they took. The hon. Member who had just spoken had stated in effect that, if any division of value was made between land and buildings, the landlords would not in future erect good buildings on their farms.

*MR. STRACHEY

said he did not state that the landlords would not do so, but that the effect of the Amendment, if it was carried, might be to discourage them from expending large sums of money in erecting large buildings.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said the effect of the correction was to say that unless the landlords were encouraged by a sort of bribe from the Treasury they would not do their duty. He felt that he was bound to defend the landlords from any such insinuation. [Laughter.] He did not think they would be influenced by such sordid considerations, but believed that if a fair estimate was established between the value of buildings and land as regarded the proposed assessment they would act fairly in the matter. He supported the Amendment, as other hon. Members had done, because no definite plan, or any plan at all, was laid down in the Bill as to the distinction between buildings and land in regard to valuation. As to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, quoted by the hon. Member for Somerset, of course the buildings would not let, as he said, without the land. Both had to be taken in relation to each other. The value of the buildings was their position—the value of their power of use, and in that sense they certainly had a considerable value. But the objection to the Bill as it stood, and the reason why he and other hon. Members supported the Amendment, were that no distinction—no definite plan—was laid down in the Measure as to any rule of valuation in regard to the buildings and the land. The valuation must be based on either the capital or the letting value. The calculation on the letting value would of course involve great difficulty; for it would have to be left to the decision of each Board of Assessment in the different parishes. In that case would it not be better to take the capital value? But the Bill set forth no principle of action at all. It seemed to him that the best course to pursue was to adopt the Amendment, and make it the basis for further action if it were thought advisable to do so. Some clear and specific basis of action ought to be laid down in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 257.—(Division List, No. 283.)

MR. PICKERSGILL moved, after the word "rate" to insert the words:— In estimating the value of agricultural land for the purpose aforesaid, where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of a house with or without buildings, the rateable value of the house, whether with or without buildings, shall not be less than one-eighth of the gross estimated rental of the hereditament; provided also that the rateable value of the house and buildings (if any) shall in no case be loss than three pounds, nor shall the rateable value of the house and buildings together be less than the assessment of the house to the house duty when the house is so assessed. The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to limit the amount of the grant payable out of the Exchequer indirectly, and it sought to attain that object by fixing the value of agricultural land relatively to the agricultural building. The Amendment had the great advantage of simply adopting the rule which had been laid down by the President of the Local Government Board himself. The right hon. Gentleman stated on Thursday that it was his intention to issue a provision to the effect embodied in the Amendment as one of the rules under the Bill, and, of course, it was obvious that it would be most unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to impose one rule of valuing agricultural buildings upon the local authorities and to apply and adopt a different rule at the Local Government Board, because it was the purpose of the Bill that there should be established a balance between the two, and the grant from the Exchequer was to apply to the deficiency created by the provisions in this Bill. This House was the guardian of the national purse, and, apart from ordinary considerations of financial prudence, they were bound by their duty to their contituents to limit the amount of the grant from the Exchequer. He had a reason for desiring to embody this rule in the Bill itself arising out of what happened the other night. When the right hon. Gentleman declared his intention of issuing a rule to this effect, what occurred? They all knew with what close attention the hon. Member for Basingstoke had followed the whole course of this Bill, and no sooner had the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement to which he had referred, than the hon. Member immediately rose, made a strong protest on behalf of the agricultural interest, and even went so far as to suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman said less he meant more, and that the object of the rule was not to impose the minimum on the relative value of the buildings but to impose the maximum. That was a most significant demonstration on the part of the representative of the agricultural interest, and one which made it all the more desirable to have statutory security for this provision, whatever its value might be. There was another reason why it was expedient to include this rule in the Bill itself. If it was not included in the Bill, then, in order that the Bill might be effective, they would require the concurrence of two Government Departments. It was not always possible to get two Departments to agree upon a particular line of action, and difficulties might arise through the provision that the rule could not come into force except with the concurrence of two Government Departments. For these reasons he begged simply to apply the rule which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his intention of making operative in the country, and to compel the right hon. Gentleman to apply that rule at the Local Government Board in estimating the amount of the Government grant. He begged to move the Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

said he would take the opportunity on this Amendment to make a general statement as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The questions put to him on the other side of the House amounted practically to this: Could a separation of the values of land and buildings be made as was proposed; secondly, if it could, what should be the proportion; and, thirdly, how was it to be done? Upon the first point, as to whether it could be done, he had received a good deal of information upon the subject, which proved conclusively that it could. The Clerk to the North Witchford Union, in Cambridge, wrote to him that throughout the whole of the Union farmhouses and buildings were separately assessed from the land occupied with them, and this practice had prevailed since 1881. He had received a letter from a gentleman in North Lincolnshire, who stated that for 30 years they had in his district valued houses, buildings, and land and farms separately. In an interesting communication, the Clerk to the District Auditor of the Nottinghamshire Audit District said his experience was that land only, exclusive of the buildings, was assessed at the reduced rate—namely, one-fourth of the rateable value thereof; and Lord Justice Lopes, in a judgment delivered some years ago, expressed the opinion that the scale of rating of one-fourth of the annual value was confined solely to land. The Clerk to the Sleaford Rural District Council wrote stating that the question had arisen in connection with the Agricultural Land Rating Bill as to how far it was practicable to separate farm buildings from farm land for the purpose of assessment to the local rates, and he added: "In this Union we divide farmhouses and buildings from the land." He would just quote from a section of the Lighting and Watching Act of 1833 to show that the existing law on this subject was perfectly explicit:— It shall be lawful for the overseers of the poor in such parish and they are hereby required, whenever, according to the rate made for the relief of the poor, one and the same person shall he rated one and the same in respect of land and also houses, buildings, and other property, to cause such land and also such houses, buildings, and other property, to be separately assessed, and the sum hereby authorised to he levied shall be assessed accordingly. Upon the point whether it was practicable and could be done, he thought he had said sufficient, because he had shown the House that, as a matter of fact, in certain cases, perhaps in very many, it-was done already. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Plymouth, who spoke on the last Amendment, asked how was it to be done unless they laid down instructions in the Bill. The answer was that it was to be done as it was already done. There appeared to be no difficulty in doing it in the cases he had mentioned, therefore, anything in the nature of instructions in this Bill would be quite unnecessary and out of place. With regard to the proportion which ought to be borne by the one to the other, some alarm was expressed by an hon. Friend sitting behind him when he explained what the Government had in their mind in regard to the separation of land and buildings for the purpose of these returns and the statements which were to be made. He admitted that, for the purpose of their statement and the estimate for the grant that was to be made, there must be some protection to the Treasury, and for this reason. The returns were made for the purpose of the grant, and if would he the object of any one, he imagined, in the first instance, at all events, to put the building as low as possible in order to get as much money as possible. ["Hear, hear!"] It had consequently been necessary to provide safeguards against that operation, and in the course of the observations he made the other day he pointed out the various safeguards that were in the Bill. The Surveyor of Taxes was called in, for instance, and the matter had to be submitted to him, and there were various powers of appeal. In answer to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, he stated, roughly, what the Government had in their mind on that subject, and he read out some extracts from the Regulations which had been prepared just before for his consideration. These Regulations only applied to the returns which were to be made for the purpose of the Government grant. But if anyone felt himself unfairly rated in the future, after these returns were made, he would have the same remedies in future under the ordinary law that he had at present. The one-eighth must remain the general rule under the Regulations. Upon that the Government were quite decided. But there must obviously be some qualification and provision for exceptional cases, and it was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and insert a hard-and-fast line. With regard to the Treasury, if hon. Gentlemen who were so alarmed had half the experience he had had of the Treasury they would find that their fears were unfounded, and that the Treasury were quite able to take care of themselves without the adoption of the Amendment. In some cases buildings and houses might be rated too low, and in others, in urban districts, where the Assessment Committee was composed of a large majority of the representatives of rateable property, and in others of the representatives of agricultural land, there might be a disposition to rate buildings unfairly high. With regard to this he could only repeat that he was disposed to look favourably on the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him, and when it was reached he would give it his support.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken referred to the powers of resistance of the Treasury. He himself had great confidence in the powers of resistance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he had not confidence that all Chancellors of the Exchequer would be able to resist the pressure that would be put upon them. There were many other points of finance in which he had entire confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But this matter ought not to rest on personal credit alone. They were dealing with millions of money and an exceptional system of rating, and to leave them in the condition which the President of the Local Government Board would leave them was not sound or proper. He was alarmed at what the right hon. Gentleman said of the Amendment that was to come. It would not be in order to discuss it, but anything more inadmissible he could not possibly conceive. It was fundamentally destructive of all the principles that should be embodied in this Bill. Where there was a disposition to rate houses too high the right hon. Gentleman was going to put security into the Act by accepting an Amendment in that direction; but where there was a danger of rating houses too low, he would not have security at all. It was impossible to conceive anything more inconsistent. He said there might be persons in an urban district who would rate houses high because they thought they should be rated high. Of course they thought they should be rated high, because they knew the land was highly rented, and had an exceptional value which they had created. So they were not likely to favour the notion that these men should be absolved from the rates the value of whose property they had created, and who were probably the richest persons in the whole district. The Member for Shropshire in Committee made some sensible remarks on the point, and said:— Take care what you are about! If you are going to rate the house of the farmer so low, what will the blacksmith, the carpenter, the village shopkeeper say when he finds his house rated two or three times as much as other persons who shared equally with him the result of agricultural depression? His own greatest difficulty in this matter was fixing a particular fraction. It must depend on the size of the farm. They could not touch the system of rating without falling into dangers to the public revenue, and the whole system on which the local taxation of the country rested. Yet this was the essence of the Bill. The Government were dealing with a subject they had not considered. They had brought in this Bill without any provision on the subject, and they were fishing among Amendments to see how they might meet difficulties they ought to have foreseen. Then they said the Opposition were taking too much time in considering questions they had not considered themselves. Here was a matter which lay at the root of their Bill, upon which the amount of contribution to be made by the Exchequer and the owners of house property depended; and the Bill would go forth with that blot upon it, and leak in it, which must inevitably work injustice to one kind of property or the other. It might work injustice by giving less than they intended to the land and more to the houses. It was more likely to work in the direction of giving more to the land and less to houses. But it was certain it would create a grievous amount of friction in all Local Government and Assessment Committees, and be the subject of the most bitter controversy. The Government had introduced for the relief of agricultural distress a "rate war" in every parish. One would say his house was being rated too high, and that another's land was rated too low. This battle would be fought out and would come home to every man in every parish. The Government had not taken the trouble to think out and consider these matters which lay at the root of the Bill, They did not seem to know their own mind on the subject. The President of the Local Government Board said he would favourably consider certain Amendments. That was not the way to deal with the reform of the rating system of this country, involving questions which affected millions of public taxation and the absolute necessity of every householder in this country to know what they would have to pay under the Bill and what differences would be made between one class and another. All this was in a liquid state, utterly unformed in the mind of the Government. They had not taken the pains to examine a question of this kind, which vitally affected the whole financial aspect of the Bill.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

said he could not help thinking, when listening to the denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not considered the effect of one part of his speech upon another part of it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman wanted them to define, either by this Amendment or by some other Amendment, how these matters were to be dealt with, but he had himself shown the extreme difficulty of any attempt of the kind.

SIR W. HARCOURT

My objection to your Bill is that it creates these difficulties, and that you ought to have left rating alone. [Cheers.]

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, with all respect, that that was a Second Beading speech. [Cheers.] They had had an almost unreasonable number of Second Beading speeches on the Bill. He asked the House to put aside the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence and consider the Amendment. They had, no doubt, a very difficult matter to deal with, but the President of the Local Government Board had shown, from practical cases, that where an Assessment Committee under the existing law had felt it its duty to do this very thing, the thing had been done without difficulty or friction.

SIR W. HARCOURT

You are going to lay down Regulations.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said they were going to attempt to lay down a general Regulation for the guidance of Assessment Committees, and it would rest with the Committees to apply the Regulation by the light of their knowledge of the circumstances of each case. He would take care—and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his confidence in him in this respect—that the Treasury would be adequately represented in the consideration of this matter by the Assessment Committees. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] By the Surveyor of Taxes. There was power to do that without any legislation at all. So far as the Treasury was concerned, he believed that would be a perfectly sufficient and satisfactory safeguard. The House must recollect, what he thought the right hon. Gentleman for the moment forgot, that, so far as the Treasury was concerned, the matter would be settled within the next nine months. The grant would be fixed for five years by the decision then arrived at, and whatever variation the Assessment Committees might subsequently make in the proportion of the valuation, as between land and buildings, would in no way affect the amount of relief given by the Treasury in future years. He hoped, in the circumstances, they might be able to dispose of the Amendment without undue delay. He thought it had been satisfactorily and fully shown by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that it would really interfere with a fair settlement of the question both as regards the Treasury and as between different classes of rateable property in the country if they were to attempt to lay down by an Amendment to the Bill a hard-and-fast rule upon a subject which could only be dealt with properly with reference to the particular circumstances of each case. [Cheers.]

MR. J. STUART

said the question they were dealing with was what the Local Government Board were going to do in connection with this assessment which they were going to make. The Local Government Board was going to say in the first instance what amount was to be reckoned for land and what for buildings, and on that would depend the whole grant which the House was to make. Was the Local Government Board going to lay any Regulations before the House? The right hon. Gentleman had said that, generally speaking, the buildings were to be taken at one-eighth, and so, generally speaking, he accepted the principle of the Amendment. But he said there were many exceptions. What were the general lines of these exceptions? The House had a perfect right to know on what principle the Local Government Board was going to decide this matter. If the Government could not make up their mind now, let them take the rest of the Session to do so. It was more important that the House should know the Regulations which were to guide the Local Government Board in its decision in the first instance than the Regulations by which, under Clause 6, the Overseers were to be guided in making any further valuations. They wanted to know what were the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as justifying a departure from the proportion of one-eighth, and what was to guide the Local Government Board in its determination upon those considerations.

*MR. CHAPLIN

We have already undertaken to lay the Regulations as soon as they are ready.

MR. STUART

said the Regulations that were to be submitted were Regulations that affected the action of Clause 6. What he desired to know was this—would the Regulations which were to be submitted to the House deal fully with the separation of the valuation of land and buildings by the Local Government Board for the purposes of Clause 4?

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said there appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the operation of the Amendment. It did not fix, but limited, the amount to be allowed for buildings. It said that the amount "should not be less than one-eighth," not that "shall be one-eighth." If the House was not to put a limit in this way to the amount, it would simply be transferring its legislative powers to the clerks of the Local Government Board, who were to do as they thought best in the matter. If the clause were allowed to remain as it stood, it was certain that in urban districts, where the relief was least wanted, the Assessment Committees would make the assessment of the houses as low as possible, in order that they might get a big share of the Government grant, while in the purely agricultural districts, where distress really existed, and where the laud was worth little for rating purposes—such as in Essex—they would have to make that assessment on buildings as high as possible in order to get something out of the grant.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

said the question at issue was whether the principle of fixing a limit should be in the Act or in the Regulations of the Local Government Board. The precedents were in favour of those who thought it should be in the Act. In the Taxation. Arrangements Act of 1888 there was an elaborate code for the arrangement of such business. The Regulations of the Local Government Board were either to be binding or were not to be binding. If they were not to be binding, that would be a most objectionable course to take; but if they were to be binding, why not put them in the Act? In regard to the proposal that one-eighth should be allowed for buildings, he did not think that it would be a fair allowance in the case of big farms, but as a rough average in the case of all the farms of a union it might fairly be accepted.

DR. CLARK

did not think that one-eighth was a fair sum to allow for buildings on an average. Rents were falling, but why?—not because buildings were deteriorating in value, but because land was deteriorating in value, owing to the stress of competition with the rich and cheap land of foreign, countries. As a matter of fact, buildings, houses, farms, roads, and other such improvements formed the only value that was left, generally speaking, to agricultural land, and if the two values—the value of the land and the value of the buildings—were fairly separated, it would be found that the agricultural value in the economic rent was gone altogether. In his opinion, seven-eighths was the value of the improvements, and only one-eighth that of the land itself. But things were to be reversed, and a fictitious value was to be given to land in the interests of the landlords.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

asked whether, if the Regulations to be laid on the Table would not include Clause 4 in their purview, the Government would accept an Amendment which should secure the presence of an official assessor at the assessment of agricultural land and buildings for the purposes of the Bill? He thought that ought to be done for the protection of the general taxpayer. It would be most unfair to the general taxpayer to leave the making of the assessments entirely to a local body whose object would be to depreciate buildings in order to get as much as possible of the money advanced by the State.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said the Government were not prepared to accept the principle that there should be an official assessor present at the making of the statements and returns by the Assessment Committee. Clause 6 provided what they considered to be sufficient safeguards in the interests of the ratepayers. The statements and returns to the Local Government Board were to be made by the Overseers of every parish, corrected by the Assessment Committee, and sent to the Surveyor of Taxes, who was to have the right of appeal, and it was stated by the Attorney General in Committee on the Bill that he was prepared to accept an Amendment providing that any aggrieved ratepayer might also appeal. He would also point out, in answer to other objections, that Sub-section 3 of Clause 4 provided that the Regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for the purposes of the Act were to be— for fixing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the purpose of the division, in the statements, of agricultural land from buildings or other hereditaments, the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings or other hereditaments. It was obvious that when that regulation was made it would control the statements which were to be prepared for the purpose of enabling the Local Government Board to give its certificate. Further regulations were not wanted. It would be preposterous to enact that the Local Government Board should make regulations for itself in dealing with each individual hereditament. It had not to deal with individual hereditaments; it had to give certificates of the share of the grant which was to be paid annually to the spending authority.

SIR W. HARCOURT

How is the Local Government Board to judge supposing that the directions given to the Assessment Committee are not fulfilled?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said that the Surveyor of Taxes was there for the purpose of seeing that the regulations were observed, and if they were not he might appeal. The statements were furnished to him. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth had said that while he had unbounded confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer he was doubtful as to his possible successors. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that this grant was to be made once for all, and would be made within the next six months. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must have unbounded confidence in proper precautions being taken to secure that this grant should be adequate and not more.

MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

said that there was one material question which had not been answered. When were these regulations to be laid before the House? For the sake of the taxpayer and of the people whose property was to be assessed the regulations ought to be considered before the close of the Session.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

They must be, to bring the Act into force.

MR. CHANNING

Have we an assurance that there will be a discussion of them in the present Session?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Yes.

MR. CHANNING

hoped the discussion would be taken before midnight.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

rose to continue the discussion, when

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Cheers.]

*MR. SPEAKER

As the Debate is apparently drawing to a conclusion, I will not stand between the hon. Member and the House. [Opposition cheers.]

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

pointed out that the appeal of the Surveyor of Taxes would be to the Court of Quarter Sessions—the very people who were likely to be offenders in raising the value of land and lowering the value of buildings. Further, as to the amount of the grant being fixed, the Local Government Board was given power to amend the certificates; so that provision was practically worthless.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 263.—(Division List, No. 284.)

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

proposed, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words:— (4) The Local Government Board shall lay before Parliament a statement showing the amount of the share of the annual grant to be paid annually to each spending authority.

*MR. SPEAKER

suggested that, as the statement referred to was not one to be made up annually, but once for all, the proper course would be to move for it in a Return which, no doubt, would be granted.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

explained that the figures would be at the disposal of the Government a considerable time before the end of the financial year, and he wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would consent to present such a Return to Parliament at as early a date as possible.

MR. CHAPLIN

I hope the hon. Member won't press this. There will not be the slightest objection to give the information as early as required.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after the word "fit," to insert the words:— and with this object in view the Local Government Board shall obtain an independent valuation of the agricultural land in each parish. He said that his object was to secure that the Treasury should not be absolutely at the mercy of the Assessment Committee and the overseers. The overseers were simply the nominees of the very persons whom the Bill proposed to benefit, being appointed at parish meetings or Parish Councils. The Assessment Committees were not an independent authority, for the reason that landlords and farmers were appointed upon them in large numbers. He insisted that in the working of a Bill of this kind the Treasury ought to take steps to secure that the assessment on the buildings should be perfectly fair, and the only way in which this could be secured was through an entirely independent valuation. For his own part he could not see any difficulty in the matter. What was there to prevent the Treasury from utilising for the purpose in question the services of the officers already appointed to assess land and buildings in connection with general taxation? Surely the machinery in existence for the separate valuation of lands and houses could be utilised in the working of the present Bill, and he thought it might be done without great expense. ["Hear, hear," and Ministerial laughter.] Unless some means of an independent valuation other than the Assessment Committees were provided, the tenant-farmers would be at the mercy of the local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] The case he wished to make out rested wholly on this—that the assessment should be left in the hands of the people whose interest it would be to make it as large as possible in order to ensure as heavy a contribution as they could get from the Imperial Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"] For the protection of the Treasury itself, the work should be in the hands of an independent body. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. CHAPLIN

said the Amendment amounted to this—that the Local Government Board should undertake the enormous task of making an independent valuation—whatever that meant—of the whole of the agricultural land in the country. Surely the hon. Member must see that that would impose on the Board a task which it was practically impossible for the Department to fulfil. Moreover, it would entail an enormous expense. There was not, however, any real justification for the Amendment, because, as had been already shown, ample safeguards had been already taken against any unfair treatment in the matter of the assessments.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have heard the reasons given by the hon. Member for Carnarvon in support of his Amendment, and no wonder, considering the loud conversational interruption designedly carried on by hon. Gentlemen opposite while the hon. Member was speaking. ["Hear, hear," and Ministerial laughter.] If the right hon. Gentleman had heard what the mover of the Amendment had said, he would at least have appreciated the argument that it was in the interest of the Bill itself that no opportunity should be given to localities to make unfair assessments in their own interests. ["Hear, hear!" and interruption.] The hon. Member for Carnarvon had shown how the difficulty might be provided against, but no reply had been given to his arguments.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment did not commend itself to him. It was by no means satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] Both as to the great expense which the right hon. Gentleman alleged would be involved in providing for an independent valuation and as to efficient safeguards in the Bill against unfair assessments being made, he differed from him altogether. ["Hear, hear!" Amendment after Amendment had been submitted with the view of meeting obvious defects in the Bill, but no attention had been given to them by the Government. The object of the present Amendment was to ensure a protection against injustice, which the Bill did not give, and which was certainly necessary. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)

said hon. Members of the Opposition only wanted some sort of security that a fair valuation, or assessment, would be made under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact that the Bill did not give that security was a defect in the Measure which had been pointed out again and again, and if that defect could be removed he believed the passing of the Bill would be greatly facilitated. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] Unless some precaution was taken, there would undoubtedly be great danger of injustice being done in the work of assessment under the Bill.

MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants,) Basingstoke

hoped the country would take note of the distrust which hon. Gentlemen showed in the Assessment Committees. ["Hear, hear!"] The Parish Councils and the District Councils were created by the Party of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; the former appointed the Overseers, and the latter appointed the Assessment Committees, and both bodies were freely elected by the people, in whom Radicals pretended to feel such confidence. [Cheers and laughter.] Yet by their arguments in this case they practically declared that they had no confidence in the action of the public bodies elected by the people. [Cheers.] There was not, however, any solid reason to suppose that the Assessment Committees, under the operation of this Bill, would be composed largely of those who had a direct interest in the work—namely, landlords and farmers, and in illustration of what he said he might mention that he had just received a letter from a gentleman who stated that out of 12 persons appointed to form an assessment in his district, he was the only representative of the agricultural interest among them. ["Hear, hear!"] The distrust which had been expressed of the Assessment Committees was, in fact, very unjust, for, as a rule, they carried out their duties in the country with great judgment and fairness. The demand made by the Amendment for independent machinery to carry out the work of assessment under the Bill was, therefore, entirely unnecessary, apart altogether from the enormous expense it would involve. ["Hear, hear!"] In those circumstances he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

*MR. HARRISON

contended that whenever the Imperial Exchequer was concerned in assessments on rateable property it was always protected by its own assessors, and by certain statutory provisions or rules laid down as to the mode or standard to be adopted for fixing the assessment. That was the case as regards assessments of lands, houses and buildings to property tax under Schedule A, and as regards houses, farmhouses and buildings under the Inhabited House Duty Acts. Here the Imperial Exchequer was interested in the first valuation of the land and buildings; and after the first valuation their assessors, rather than assessment committees, were the better authority for ascertaining the relative valuations as between the landowners and occupiers and those interested in buildings and houses. These Government assessors worked under the Inland Commissioners, and the Local Government Board had no such similar staff. If the officials proposed by the Amendment were good enough for the assessment of property to Imperial taxation, they were good enough to be intrusted with the apportionment of the poor-rate as between houses, buildings and land, though in the same occupation.

MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said that no attack was made on the Assessment Committees in the discharge of the duties they had been called upon to discharge up to the present. The Bill threw new duties upon them which might lead them to swerve a little from right and justice. He contended that his hon. Friend was absolutely right in asking that, as large Imperial funds were to be given out under this Bill, there ought to be an independent valuation. Somebody would have to make that valuation, and if the Government would say that the Local Government Board would take steps to see that a satisfactory valuation should be made by someone of whom they approved, the object of the Amendment would be secured. If some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would say that some such independent and reliable valuation would be made, he thought this discussion might come to an end.

MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicestershire, Harborough)

thought the Amendment was a most serious one, and he hoped the Government would give a better answer. The Amendment sought to do nothing unreasonable, unjust, or unfair to anybody. It only sought to provide that a really effective valuation of agricultural land should be made by an independent valuer. The Assessment Committees were composed of men vitally and financially interested in this Bill, and, therefore, they were not the men to make the valuation. The real point of the Amendment was that these Assessment Committees, whether composed of farmers, tradesmen, landowners, or agricultural labourers, would all of them be desirous in the interest of the ratepayers they represented to get as large a subsidy from the Imperial Exchequer as possible. Therefore it was only right and reasonable that the Government should concede the point asked for in the Amendment, and make some arrangement whereby an independent tribunal should assess the value of the land to receive the benefit under this Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 220.—(Division List, No. 285.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

proposed to leave out the words "may amend or." He explained that it was proposed that the Local Government Board should have absolute power to amend at any time the certificates respecting the amounts to be paid to spending authorities. The Department would be able to alter the valuation of buildings and lands in any part of the country by the simple expedient of amending the certificate. That was a very arbitrary power to confer upon the Local Government Board, and in no previous Bill had it ever been proposed to give such extensive power to a Government Department. In what cases did the right hon. Gentleman propose that this power of amendment should be exercised? Supposing that the rateable value of a parish went down with the result that the Treasury contribution became more than sufficient to meet the grant, did the right hon. Gentleman propose that the Local Government Board should have power to amend the certificate so as to reduce the amount contributable to that particular parish?. Or, supposing the rates went up in a parish, and the Treasury contribution was not enough to pay half the rates upon the agricultural land, would the power of amendment conferred by this section be exercised for the purpose of increasing the Treasury contribution? As far as he could understand, the section would give the Local Government Board unchecked power to increase or decrease, as it thought proper, the amount certified as that which a parish ought to have. He held that the clause ought to be amended in such a way as to protect the Treasury against attempts by the Local Government Board to make alterations in the certificates for the purpose of arbitrarily increasing the Treasury contributions. With that view, he begged to move his Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

said that he did not know why the hon. Member should imagine that the Local Government Board would be governed by any sinister motives. Why should the Department wish to increase grants unjustifiably and without the knowledge of the House of Commons? He could assure the hon. Member that the Department had no intention of the kind, and he could not understand why the hon. Member should attribute to it a desire to do absurd things. ["Hear, hear!"] If this Amendment were accepted, the effect would be that the Board would only be able to alter a certificate for the purpose of meeting a case of alteration in an area or authority. It was obvious, however, that other circumstances might occur rendering amendment of a certificate necessary. Mistakes, for example, might be committed, and might have to be rectified. The Board might find that in consequence of some inaccuracy in a Return a certificate provided for a payment in excess of the sum that ought to have been certified originally. Similarly the sum originally certified might be too low. In such cases power of amendment was, of course, necessary. It was desirable to amend and rectify the certificate, and he thought that the hon. Member would see that the power to do so was only reasonable and right.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said there was no suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, though according to his observation the greatest mischief in the world was occasionally done by relying on good intentions. The House had been assured that this matter was going to be settled within six months, but, considering the nature of the transaction, he thought it would take a great deal longer than that to settle whether the assessments over the country were or were not properly made. The right hon. Gentleman must see that this clause as it stood opened the whole question for the future. [Cheers.] The door, so to speak, was not closed in six months, and how wide it might be opened depended entirely on the discretion of the Local Government Board and its head. He thought that some limitation ought to be introduced in the clause.

MR. LEWIS

said that the Opposition did not attribute any sinister motives to the right hon. Gentleman, but it was needful to remember that the policy of the Department was controlled by its head. The head of that Department was naturally influenced by his political opinions in regard to agriculture, or what might be done for its benefit by the general community. It was possible that the Minister's opinions might be unconsciously coloured in that way, and in consequence the community might suffer. For example, the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) might be at the head of the Local Government Board, and the country might see some extreme things done in the interests of agriculture. It was dangerous to entrust the extensive powers of this clause to any Government Department.

DR. CLARK

thought that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point. He suggested, however, that the certificate should be amended "in case of error." The clause as it stood was far too vague, and gave too much power.

MR. BROADHURST

said that he and his hon. Friends were not supporting this Amendment on the ground that they suspected the future action of the right hon. Gentleman. But they mistrusted his heart, and were suspicious of the fact that he was being pressed from behind by a greedy body of supporters. He asserted that amendment of certificate should only be "in case of error."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said the Government would accept those words and insert "in case of error."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Words "in case of error" inserted.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) moved to omit Subsection (6). He pointed out that before March 25 these things had to be done—new valuations had to be made; separate valuation lists had to be produced; separate valuation lists had to be adopted by the Assessment Committee and confirmed: and two kinds of appeals were open in the case of valuation lists. It was practically impossible to carry out these arrangements between now and March 25, and the certificates made before that time would practically be provisional. It would be far better in the interests of the Imperial Exchequer and the rates that this transaction should be delayed a certain number of months in order to enable the Local Government Board to issue final certificates once for all for each amount to the various spending authorities.

MR. CHAPLIN

thought that the reasons urged by the hon. Member were arguments in favour of the retention of the sub-section. Whatever date was selected, he should feel it necessary to insert a provision of this kind in order to guard against contingencies impossible to foresee or absolutely to prevent. If it was to be a final certificate, as was proposed by the hon. Member, delay on the part of a single authority to furnish the necessary Returns would prevent the certificates being given before the date named, whatever it might be, and under those circumstances the whole grant would be delayed. It was absolutely necessary to have some provision of this sort in the Bill, and he must therefore decline to accept the Amendment.

SIR W. HARCOURT

really thought the Government ought, out of respect for their own reputation, to accept this Amendment. What did the sub-section say? That the Local Government Board were to grant a provisional certificate if they had not got sufficient information! He would suggest that this clause should be put as the preamble of the Bill and that, not having sufficient information, this should be a provisional Measure. [Laughter and cheers.] That was really the history of the whole thing. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were obliged to provide that this grant should be given upon provisional certificates. Why? In order that they may get the money before the Local Government Board had got the information. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, otherwise he would have appealed to him not to let them have the money until the information had been obtained. ["Hear, hear!"] This was carrying the greediness of the class for whom this Bill was promoted to an extent that was almost intolerable. [Cheers.] They were so greedy to swallow this money that there was actually a clause introduced into the Bill providing that there should be a provisional certificate to enable them—what should he say?—to collar this money, to use a vulgar expression, before they had the information which would justify the giving of it. [Cheers.] Who ever heard of a proposal being made in a Bill such as that? What would be the result of this provisional certificate and this giving of the money? It assumed that they did not know who had to pay what share of the rate. Nobody who was acquainted with a rural parish could conceive what a condition it would be thrown into by this Bill—a rural parish with a provisional certificate for a rate which nobody understood. This showed that this Bill had been drawn without information—[cheers]—and that, in its construction there had been no proper consideration of the question dealing with the rate. They had, in an old legal saying, "the culprit confessing" on the very face of the Bill. There was a blank cheque upon the Exchequer to be drawn without information by a provisional certificate! Was ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons, which was supposed to be the guardian of the public Exchequer? [Cheers.] Under this provisional certificate, was there money to be paid which, if it was too much finally, was to be repaid? And to be repaid by whom? If there was not enough money paid, how was anybody to discover, among the classes of ratepayers, who got too much and who got too little? In such a hurry were these gentlemen to get hold of this money that they would not wait until the case had been ascertained and a proper certificate could be given. If ever there was an Amendment to a Bill which was justified by the character of the Bill, it was the present Amendment; and certainly, whether they succeeded in the Lobby or not, the arguments in its favour appeared to be quite unanswerable. [Cheers.]

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite regarded this Bill with so much antipathy that he could never resist the temptation to make an attack upon the general principle of the Bill. [Cheers.] He thought it was not out of place to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the consideration of every Amendment was not a proper occasion for attacking the principle of a Bill which had been sanctioned by the House. [Cheers.] With the permission of the right hon. Gentleman—[laughter]—he should like to recall the House to the question of what the Amendment was. The right hon. Gentleman asked, were certificates to be granted without information? Surely there was such a thing as having enough information to know that the amount of the grant was certain to reach a certain figure and would probably be more than that. They did not know exactly what would be the amount, and they could not therefore give a final certificate, but they had enough information to be certain that a certificate for, say, £1,000 would be in the mark. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spent a good deal of time in pointing out that it would be difficult to have the certificates ready by March 31. Was that not an argument in favour of the power to grant provisional certificates? [Opposition cries of "No!"] It might be an argument for throwing out the Bill altogether, but that was not the question they were now discussing. They were now debating this Amendment, and if they could not have these certificates ready, as the hon. Gentleman argued, by March 31, surely the right and sensible thing was to say that, as soon as they were able to see that the amount to be certified would certainly reach a certain figure and would probably go beyond it, they might give a provisional certificate. There was not, he submitted, as soon as the real character of the Amendment was looked at and as soon as the question was divested of the irrelevancies imported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—[cheers]—the slightest ground for saying that this was intrusting any novel or arbitrary power to local authorities. [Cheers.]

MR. LOUGH

said he would like to suggest another reason to the right hon. Gentleman for looking favourably on the Amendment. If they did not strike out the sub-section the right hon. Gentleman would, when they came to discuss it, find himself in very considerable difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had himself put down Amendments to it, and if the sub-section was bad as it stood, it would be infinitely worse if they considered it in the light of those Amendments. The sub-section said one certificate. The right hon. Gentleman was going to suggest in his Amendments that many certificates should be given.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The proper time to discuss those Amendments will be when they are reached.

MR. LOUGH

thought it might abbreviate the discussion when the time came. All he suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman himself had seen the difficulties of this sub-section. It had received a good deal of his attention, and he was trying to lick it into shape by the Amendments of which he had given notice. It was a bad job making these payments at all, but if they had got to do a doubtful act they should do it at once, shut the door behind it, and forget all about it. Instead of adopting that policy, the Government were now opening the door to payments of cash on account continually. Once they got that door open, they would never be able to shut it.

*MR. HARRISON

said they were asked now to pay out a total sum from the Exchequer into the Local Taxation Account on a provisional certificate. To what did the certificate as in the Bill defined refer? Evidently to a certificate of the sum total of the deficiency mentioned in Clause 2—after examination of the amounts due to all the spending authorities had been ascertained. Now it was asked by the Amendment to substitute for this certificate of a total sum provisional certificates for each particular payment to each spending authority. It was irregular enough to ask that the Imperial Exchequer should be operated upon by even a provisional certificate of the total sum of deficiency, which could only be arrived at after careful investigation of the sums required in the case of each spending authority. If the Standing Orders had been amended so as to apply to this Bill, no dealing with Imperial funds would have been possible except after a Vote in Committee of the House specifying the total. But now provisional certificates were asked to be sanctioned. There should be no dealing with total expenditure except by a certificate relating to a total, and not to its component parts.

SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

said that whoever was to blame in this Debate it was most certainly not his hon. Friends below the Gangway. They thoroughly foresaw what was coming when they proposed to alter the date of the Bill, and they had proved themselves responsible guardians of the public purse. This was a perfectly novel transaction that was now taking place, and for the very first time public money was going to be paid by a portion, instead of by the whole, in relief of public burdens. Under these circumstances all those guarantees and precautions provided in previous parts of the Bill should take place in their full chain of proceeding before one single halfpenny was paid out of the Treasury, and, therefore, it was proposed to alter the date in order that the process might be carried out in its entirety. Of course mistakes must occasionally be made, and for that reason the House passed the previous sub-section in this clause. This, however, was not a question of mistake, but of money being paid out of the Treasury at an earlier or later date. It did not concern the public that it should be paid at an earlier date; it concerned only the individuals, and when these individuals were receiving a large, immense, and anomalous advantage by this Bill, certainly Parliament ought not to disturb the course under which public money had hitherto been paid out of the Treasury for their advantage.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

agreed that this sub-section was a mischievous one. It was to the interest of the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and it ought to be to the interest of everybody, to expedite the proceedings in order that when the time came the amount could be ascertained and fixed before it could be paid. If the local authorities knew that unless the valuation was complete, and had been submitted to the Assessment Committee, unless the appeals were disposed of they would not get a penny of the money, they would be more likely to make a fair valuation; they would be tempted to come to terms with the Surveyor of Taxes, not to court appeals, and get the whole machinery in order before the 31st March. But when they knew that there was a provision in the Bill that whether they got the machinery into order or not, whether they made an extravagant demand on the Treasury or not, there was a power of appeal, and when they knew they had a President of the Local Government Board who would regard every claim that came from the agricultural interest with indulgence, they would prefer dealing with provisional orders based upon insufficient information to orders which had been made after full examination, after appeals had been disposed of and after the Surveyor of Taxes had been consulted. They would prefer to deal, not with the Surveyor of Taxes, but with the President of the Local Government Board, and that was why this sub-section had been inserted. The Solicitor General had not answered the question how he was going to guess the figure for which he was going to make this provisional certificate. Suppose a local authority made a valuation which was too high, and the Government insisted on a repayment of the amount in excess, the whole local finance of the country would be disarranged. He prophesied that those provisional certificates would come into operation in hundreds of cases throughout the country, and if at the end of the year they were either in excess or less than they ought to be, the whole system of local finance would be thrown into utter confusion.

MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

desired to know whether under the Bill as drafted it was possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority?

MR. CHAPLIN

Certainly.

MR. DALZIEL

Then we are in this position—the right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own Bill. He has said it is possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authorities. I say it is not possible.

MR. CHAPLIN

That is the object of the Bill.

MR. DALZIEL

Then I will read for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what this subsection is:— The Local Government Board may give a provisional certificate, if they think necessary for the purpose of enabling the first payments to the Local Taxation Account under this Act to be made, before they have sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate. Your provisional certificate does not deal at all with the spending authority. I say that as the sub-section stands you have no power at all under the Bill to pay from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where he takes that power?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing an Amendment different to that at present under discussion. He is discussing a subsequent Amendment which proposes to add the words "and out of."

MR. DALZIEL

I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. I will point out that the right hon. Gentleman said this subsection gives him the power, and I am pressing him to tell us where that power is.

*MR. SPEAKER

I did not under stand him to say that, but what I think he said was that the Bill gave such power.

MR. DALZIEL

contended that the Bill as drafted, and as it now stood, did not give the right hon. Gentleman power to pay money from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority so far as the provisional certificate was concerned. He complained that the intention of the Government, in the first place, was evidently to limit the provisional order certificate to the Local Taxation Account, and that now, for some reason they had not explained in the course of the Debate, they intended it also to apply to the spending authority.

MR. R. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

observed that by this clause the Local Government Board might give a provisional order certificate before they had sufficient information. He attacked a clause of this kind upon general principles. He thought such certificates ought not to be given before they had the information, and he had always had an idea that sufficient information was necessary to take any proceedings that might ultimately be found to be valid or safe. He listened with intense interest to the explanation made by the learned Solicitor General. He knew the value of a statement coming from his mind, and as far as he could make out the illustration the hon. and learned Gentleman gave them, was that if the Local Government Board thought they were safe up to, say, a thousand pounds, to be under the mark, they could proceed to give the certificate without sufficient information. But the hon. Gentleman was assuming that the Local Government Board with insufficient information would always be under the mark. But what security had they for that? None whatever. If they could proceed under the mark with insufficient information, they might also go above the mark, and he objected entirely to the Local Government Board, or any Board, or any people, or any authority whatever being intrusted with the power to do what they liked upon insufficient information. If a cause of this kind was set up by the authority of Parliament, there was no saying what it might lead to. He knew that when any authorities actually proposed to legalise procedure upon insufficient information, it would never lead to good, but could only lead to evil. He listened with great respect the other night to a lecture by the Leader of the House on the decadence of Parliament, and he would say that if a clause of this kind were to be legalised, there could not be a more perfect supplement to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman then made. He desired to speak in the most serious way he could, and to warn the House that if legislation of this kind were carried out, and authorities were to be armed with the power of doing what they liked upon insufficient information, Parliament would certainly become decadent to a degree that he, for one, had not before feared.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

observed that in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill he had felt it necessary to call attention to the unbusinesslike arrangements in connection with it, and there could be no more unbusinesslike arrangement than that of authorising for the future the granting of a number of provisional certificates in order that a certain class of the community might receive money from the rest. The Local Government Board would have a lot of work to do under this section, and the Opposition had pointed out all along that the date fixed in the Bill was hardly remote enough for that work to be accomplished in. They were assured it was, and that all would be finished by March 31. They now found that the work could only be done by acting upon information which was incomplete. Even by the confession of the Solicitor General himself these certificates were to be made on a conjectural basis. This was a method of conducting business which would bring a private firm to ruin at once. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said there was nothing conjectural about it.] The spending authority would give the information to the Local Government Board, and before there was time to analyse it they had to pay the amount. They had nothing to show they would be under the mark, and the tendency and interest of local authorities would be to make their certificates above the mark. No business could be successful which was conducted on a system of this kind, by which payments were made based on what were practically conjectures, because if there were not conjectures the Local Government Board would have sufficient information to make the proper amount payable. In the interest of the proper conduct of public business the Opposition were bound to protest against this provision of the Bill and to divide upon it. ["Hear, hear!"]

Question put, "That the words '(6) The Local Government Board may give' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 286.)

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

proposed to leave out the words "a provisional certificate," and to insert instead thereof the words "provisional certificates," for the purpose of enabling the first payments under the Bill to be made to the Local Taxation Account before they had sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate.

MR. BROADHURST

thought that the evils of which complaint had been made would be multiplied indefinitely by the Amendment. During the five years the Act was to be in operation the Local Government Board was to be allowed to issue any number of preliminary certificates without sufficient information. That made the case against the clause all the stronger. And this indefinite multiplication of the gross, glaring, and enormous evils of the Bill—making the chaos of local government already created by the Measure worse confounded—was sought to be rammed down the throats of the House without a word of reason or explanation from the President of the Local Government Board. [Laughter.]

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

was sorry the hon. Member felt it to be his duty to expend so much oratory on this Amendment. Complaint had been made that his right hon. Friend had not explained it; but the fact was, the matter had been so fully discussed that it was felt not to be necessary to enlarge upon it. They had a series of Second-Reading speeches——

MR. FLYNN

asked if the hon. Member was in order in speaking again on this Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member is not in order in speaking again except by the indulgence of the House.

MR. FLYNN

said the hon. and learned Member had not asked the indulgence of the House. If he had done so, no doubt it would have been extended to him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said he should not have spoken but for the invitation extended to him by the Member for Leicester.

MR. BROADHURST

said he understood that the Member in charge of the Bill had moved the Amendment,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Certainly not. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course he could only speak with the indulgence of the House, but it seemed to be thought necessary that someone should make an explanation. The House had already discussed whether it was necessary that the money should remain tied up to the last moment. He was quite aware of the objection taken, but it was not necessary to make these speeches over and over again.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said what they really liked to have was an explanation by the right hon. Member who put the Amendment down, not a vicarious oration from the Attorney General. They should discuss that Bill as often as they thought fit. [Cheers.] When the Attorney General indulged in the foolish taunt that they were making Second Reading speeches he only showed his inexperience and ignorance of Parliamentary practice. [Cheers and counter cheers.] They had a perfect right to discuss any clause which affected the complete texture of the Bill. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward an Amendment on his own clause. [Laughter.] The clause was closured against amendments proposed by the authors of the Bill.

MR. CHAPLIN

The amendments were not then on the Paper.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said that all the amendments down were excluded, and he was glad that these discussions had opened the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he was able to see the defects of his own Bill. Do not let them be charged with a factious opposition to the Bill. This Amendment showed that the Bill wanted amending. What they objected to was the multiplication of the provisional certificates; they might have a succession of them. He could not conceive why these words were introduced.

MR. CHAPLIN

said he could quite understand the irritation of the right hon. Gentleman at being reminded that he had made so many Second Beading speeches. The way in which the Bill had been discussed was an entirely novel feature in Parliamentary proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Attorney General with not being so long in Parliament as himself. Well, he had been as long in Parliament as the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Yes, we were born together. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAPLIN

No, the right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me by more than a dozen years. [Laughter.]

SIR W. HARCOURT

May I ask what is the Amendment before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

having read the Amendment,

MR. CHAPLIN

said he had expected that the Bill would be discussed in Committee in the ordinary way. He never anticipated that anything approaching this kind of discussion would take place. He was willing to introduce some provision to allow for exceptional cases which might give rise to difficulties. The Local Government Board would get the information on which to issue the provisional certificates as soon as the Assessment Committees has settled the revision in the existing valuations between houses and buildings on the one side and land on the other. But under the Bill there might be all sorts of appeals, and some of them might require a great expenditure of time. The Bill, as originally drafted, contained a provision that the Local Government Board might issue the provisional certificates for payments into the Local Taxation Account, which would be absolutely necessary, whatever date was fixed for the Act coming into operation; and he thought it necessary to promise a similar provision with regard to the payments out of the Local Taxation Account. He did not think these cases would be very numerous; but the proposition was a reasonable one which would commend itself to the general sense of the House. He was perfectly well aware, however, that it would not commend itself to the sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, the course of these Debates had convinced him, were only too glad to fasten upon anything and everything which they thought could possibly lead to the destruction of the Bill either in the House or in the proceedings elsewhere. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. DILLON

said if the principle of the Bill was vicious and impracticable, it was not the fault of the Opposition. Under the guise of a very simple Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make an extremely important change in the Bill. The Bill as originally drafted provided for one provisional certificate for payments into the Local Taxation Account, which would be under the control of the Government. The Amendment provided for the issue of an unlimited number of provisional certificates for payment out of the Local Taxation Account. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to complain of prolonged discussion of such an Amendment. It was useless to make an appeal to the Opposition when—

MR. CHAPLIN

I made no appeal.

MR. DILLON

said that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely irritated by the attacks on the Bill. It could be no hardship on the Local Authority to wait for the payment from the Local Taxation Account until the Amendment had been finally determined. It might turn out that too much had been said, and then there would be no remedy at all. As to the appeal from the Assessment Committee—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! that question does not arise on this Amendment.

MR. DILLON

said, that he was led into the digression by the right hon. Gentleman, who founded his argument on the possibility of these appeals causing long delays. Some reason ought to be given for this proposed extension of the provisional orders, which had not occurred to the Government when drafting the Bill.

MR. DALZIEL

said that, as to the charge against the Opposition of having unduly prolonged the Debates the recent course of the discussion had had a remarkable effect upon the attitude of the Government. Before the dinner interval the right hon. Gentleman said that there were provisions in the Bill for the payment of money from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority. Now he was altering the Bill to effect that very purpose, while he explained that the original intention was to allow provisional orders only for payments into the Local Taxation Account. The hon Member here read Sub-section 3 of the clause, and, continuing, said that the question to be decided was under what conditions the money was to be paid to the spending authority from the Local Taxation Account.

*MR. SPEAKER

The only question now before the House is whether provisional certificates may in certain cases be issued.

MR. DALZIEL

said that they were now discussing the question of one or of several certificates.

*MR. SPEAKER

I understand the question to be that in addition to the certificate for payment into the Local Taxation Account there shall be power to give a further provisional certificate for payment out of the Local Taxation Account. That will be only one pair of certificates.

MR. DALZIEL

said, that if the Amendments were adopted even as they stood on the Paper, they would enable the amount to be paid into the Local Taxation Account by means of not one only, but perhaps half-a-dozen certificates. He contended that the case for the several certificates had not yet been made out. They had had at an earlier period of the Bill practically an intimation that they would have the information by the 31st March. The money had to be paid by then, they had authority to pay it within the six months preceding the 31st March. Why, then, between now and the 31st March, should they require several certificates? They had abundance of time, and unless they had stronger reasons for the issue of several certificates they ought to reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LEWIS

opposed the Amendment because he believed it would lead to in-definite prolongation and delay. On the Committee stage he had had an Amendment to omit Sub-section 6, but owing to circumstances over which he had no control, he was unable to move it. The Amendment would certainly make the Sub-section worse than it was originally, because it would only give the Local Government Board the opportunity of indefinitely prolonging the issue, of the final certificate. Their object at earlier stages of the Bill, in wishing to fix some definite date, was that they might have a limit within which the local authority might know exactly what they expected to obtain; when they attempted to fix that date they were met with the reply that there was plenty of time. Their opinion was overborne. Now they were told that the time would not be long enough, and that it might be necessary to issue provisional certificates, not only with regard to payments made into the local taxation account, but also with regard to payments to be made out of the local taxation account as well. He be believed it would lead to the greatest inconvenience to local authorities; and would almost put a premium upon delay on the part of the Local Government Board,

SIR WALTER FOSTER

said that they had on another occasion divided against this section on the ground that a single provisional certificate was objectionable, and it was now proposed that this condition should be doubled. ["Hear, hear!"] The confusion would be worse confounded, and the unbusinesslike arrangement contemplated by this clause had, in his experience, never been equalled. Here was a great public Department, which was the guardian of the public money, actually arranging to pay out money without knowing what the final charge upon it would be. These certificates were of two kinds, and the whole objection to the scheme was multiplied by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and they could not, therefore, consent to it.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. RITCHIE,) Croydon

said he was astonished that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a speech, because he must know from his connection with the Local Government Board that with regard to matters of this kind there was always a certain amount of elasticity. Parliament in the Act of 1888 gave into the hands of the Government a power infinitely greater than any power asked for now. In the Local Government Act the Government took power to vary Acts of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "That's not taking money."] It was a much more important question—[cries of "Oh!"]—as Parliament put into the hands of the Government the power of varying that Act and other Acts connected with Local Government for the purpose of correcting errors and mistakes. So much was the House impressed with the necessity of this elasticity, that they continued that power year after year by a continuation Bill. The hon. Gentleman ought to know, and no doubt did know, that the money was distributed not after all the accounts had been closed, but from time to time by certificate of the Local Government Board, it being impossible to say what the accounts would ultimately result in.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

That is money distributed over the whole community.

MR. RITCHIE

I do not see what that has to do with it.

SIR W. FOSTER

I say we are bound to be extra jealous here, because this is money taken from the whole community and given to a class. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. RITCHIE

That is one of the most irrelevant observations of the many which I have heard from that Bench (the Front Opposition Bench). [Cheers.] The question whether the money was taken from one class or another was one for Parliament to decide, and what they were discussing now were the precautions to be taken as to the distribution of the money. To say that inconvenience would result was perfectly absurd. If it turned out that too little had been distributed, then the remainder could be made up; if too much, then the excess would be taken off from the next allocation. The hon. Gentleman and the House must know that every one of these payments might possibly be appealed against, and were they to retain the money in the Local Taxation Account before one single penny was distributed to the local authorities? ["Hear, hear!"] Such a proposition bore its own refutation. This was an innocent Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that it followed the precedents.

MR. EDWARD MORTON (Devonport)

said the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had told them that if the Local Government Board certified for too great an expenditure in any one year, the excess would be deducted from the money of the following year. But how was it possible for the Local Government Board to avoid certifying for too much, even in the second year, and how could they make a deduction for the second year to balance the account of the first-year, unless they had the complete accounts before them? But if they had to wait for the complete accounts, why should they not wait before they certified for any money at all in the first year?

*MR. HARRISON

said no provisional certificates would be necessary for the purpose of paying in to the account, except one, that was to say, the total amount, because the Bill did not provide for a payment out of the fund or anything more than a transfer from the Exchequer to the Local Taxation Account, which was equally a Government fund. This being the case, it was obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not require to know from time to time what were the demands to be made on the Exchequer. The Central Authority in London, through the Local Government Board, annually received upwards of one and a half millions, but not on provisional certificates, and they were continually in arrear, and the guardians and the local authorities in London were continually complaining that the Central Authority did not distribute the Imperial grant quickly enough. It would be perfectly monstrous to operate upon a fund—which it was only proposed on future occasions to operate upon after a Resolution of the House—upon a mere provisional certificate. For these reasons he strongly opposed the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'a provisional certificate' stand part of the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 221.—(Division List, No. 287.)

Words "provisional certificates" inserted.

MR. CHAPLIN

proposed, after the first word "to," to insert the words "or out of."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

rose to discuss the Amendment, when——

*MR. SPEAKER

said that this and the next Amendment were consequential on the previous one, and all of them hung together. On those lines the Debate on the previous Amendment had proceeded, and many hon. Members, in speaking on the previous Amendment, had discussed the question of the impropriety of paying out of the Local Taxation Fund. He must say that in these circumstances a discussion on this Amendment was very much to be deprecated.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Very well, Sir, I accept your ruling.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 113.—(Division List, No. 288.)

MR. CHAPLIN moved to leave out the words "a final certificate," and to insert instead thereof the words "final certificates."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5,—