- (1) In estimating for the purpose of any local rate, or of the basis or standard thereof, or of any valuation list levied or made on or after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, the value of any hereditament occupied for any trade, business, or manufacture, there shall be taken into account such machinery only as is fixed or attached to the hereditament, and cannot he removed from its place without necessitating the removal of any part of the hereditament.
- (2) This Section shall not apply in the ease of any machinery or plant used in or on a hereditament for producing or transmitting first motive power or for heating or lighting the hereditament.
§ Mr. LORDENI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "levied or made on or after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three."
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which we have just added to the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
2526Major BARNESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words,
such machinery only as is fixed or attached to,and to insert instead thereof the words,(a) machinery, tools, and appliances in or on.I said a little while ago that I had no complaint to make against the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Bill, but I think I have some ground of complaint at the present moment. I think hon. Members opposite, too, have a ground of complaint because the fate of the Bill this afternoon may depend upon a dear understanding of what the Ministry of Health intends to do in this matter. The position as it was left when we were discussing the last proposed new Clause was that some of my hon. Friends here were not clear as to the scope of the Departmental Committee which the Minister of Health has undertaken to set up. I rather gathered that their acquiescence in the course of the subsequent proceedings hinged upon a very clear understanding of what it meant.
Major BARNESIn these circumstances it seems to me that the Minister of Health should be here now. This is 2527 a matter of more than mere courtesy; it is a matter of very great importance. If he had been here I should have proceeded at once to inquire from him most specifically what he was proposing to do with this Departmental Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen promoting the Bill can use any efforts to get him here, but in his absence I feel I must go on with my Amendment as it stands and trying to bring the House to a clearer sense than it possibly has of the difficulties that such a Committee may remove.
The Bill deals with the question of machinery in the first and second Subsections of Clause (1). If hon. Members will look they will find that in Subsection (1) the only word that is used is the word "machinery," whereas in the subsequent Sub-section they will find the words "machinery or plant." That discrepancy between the two Sub-sections is bound to lead to a very considerable amount of confusion in interpreting the Bill. It will seem as if it was the intention of Sub-section (1) to exclude all plant, and that only machinery was to be taken into account, whereas in Sub-section (2) you have both machinery and plant taken into account. This question of differentiating between machinery and plant is a most difficult question. If the Minister of Health had been here I would have reminded him of a memorandum which, I understand, he has received from the Rating Surveyors' Association on this extremely important and difficult technical point. That association does not concern itself in any way with the principle of the Bill or the policy; it simply deals with the difficulties that will arise practically in the interpretation, and the association has submitted these difficulties to the Minister in what, I should like to say, is a very disinterested spirit. There is no doubt about it that if this Bill comes into operation as it is the work of these gentlemen will be immensely increased, and they may look forward to a very prosperous time for at least a few years. Under the circumstances, I think the association have shown a considerable amount of public spirit. The Amendment down in my name, and that of several hon. Friends behind me, is an endeavour to bring the two Sub-sections into absolute correspondence.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to accept the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) which proposes to leave out the words "Machinery as is fixed or attached to the hereditament and cannot be removed from its place" and insert the words "machines, tools, or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their place"? I think that would meet his case.
§ Mr. LORDENWhat about the subsequent Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, that speaks of "machinery, tools or appliances"?
Major BARNESAs I understand the proposal, which to some. extent I think might be adopted the difficulty is this: the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) deals with two questions—first with a definition as between machinery, and machines, tools or appliances; then it also turns to the question of fixtures and attachments. These are two questions which we think ought to be dealt with quite separately. I think that we should first of all determine the question as to the correspondence between the two Sections and the insertion of the same words in each, and then proceed to deal separately with the question of fixed or attached machinery.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)The other Amendment on the Paper deals with the same subject, but if one of these Amendments be moved then it will rule out the other.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANIf the other Amendment is closely examined, I think it will be found to be distinctly different in principle.
Major BARNESI am going to make another suggestion which will enable the Minister of Health to elucidate the position. I would like to move my Amendment down to the word "appliances."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Major BARNESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances."
2529 This raises an important question, and it confines the Amendment to a clear definition of what is affected. I think my hon. Friend opposite will have no difficulty in accepting those words. We have now the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Health, and I would like to inform him what is the position. I do not intend to repeat anything that is unnecessary, but I wish to inform the Minister of Health that some of my hen. Friends behind me are not quite clear as to the scope of the reference to the Committee which he has been good enough to set up. If I have a satisfactory explanation, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment without any further discussion, and if the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the situation, we shall probably make greater progress.
Mr. T. THOMSONI beg to second the Amendment. I wish, however, to make it quite clear that I do not share entirely the views of my hon. Friend. and I reserve my right to move any of the Amendments which I have down on the Paper, no matter what arrangement is come to with the Minister of Health.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONI wish to say that I am in exactly the same position.
§ Sir A. MONDI thought I had made it quite clear when I spoke last on this subject what my proposal was. I think I stated clearly that if the Bill was sent to a Committee, they should deal with technical questions such as those raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East. Newcastle (Major Barnes). I understand now that hon. Members are not prepared to come to any understanding on the subject and I do not see under those circumstances that my acceptance of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member would have any practical utility. It seems to me that hon. Members are opposed to the principle of the Bill. Obviously if this House passes this Measure as it stands I cannot sot up a Departmental Committee to go into the question as to whether the Bill ought to he passed or not, or as to how it affects other industries. Departmental Committees can only inquire into questions which tend to make the Bill better and more workable on the principle which has been accepted by the House.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI have much difficulty in understanding the difference between the two phrases which are used in this Amendment. I do not think the House has been treated respectfully in regard to this matter, because apart from the principle of whether machinery is to he rated or not we are also discussing what is a purely legal question, and I think we ought to have had the assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. This does add to our difficulties because we really do not know what we are dealing with or deciding. I have listened very carefully to the Proposer of this Amendment and I do not understand what is the distinction between the two phrases he has used. I am anxious to accept his Amendment to leave out "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to." My point is that machinery certainly ought to be rated and to that extent I accept that part his Amendment, but when he comes to insert the words, "machinery, machine tools and appliances," I do not know whether that will be an extension or a diminution.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThen it is meant to be an extension of the exemption from rating.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONNo, it is the other way.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI confess that I really do not know what is the difference. I think I shall support the Amendment to leave out the words as suggested, but I cannot support the insertion of the words which are proposed.
§ Mr. LORDENThis proposal does not seem to carry us much further, and if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to withdraw the Amendment and adopt the next Amendment, which covers all the ground, it would clear away any ambiguity there may be at the present time. This Amendment goes a very little way and does not help much. I believe that this Amendment was put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) at the instigation of the London County Council. It achieves what the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) wants to do, and it goes a little further. If he would adopt that Amendment, I think 2531 the promoters of the Bill would be prepared to meet him.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANIf we could get a promise from the promoters of the Bill that they would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington—
§ Sir J. REMNANTI will agree to it at once.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANThat, I think, will remove the bone of contention. Rating authorities are continually going to the Law Courts to decide what is fixed and irremovable machinery, and the acceptance of that Amendment will remove some of our objections. Thousands of pounds are wasted in legal expenses in fighting these questions in the Law Courts, and, in order to simplify the words in the Section and make the position clear, I shall be happy to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington and ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not understand the meaning of these two Amendments. The Minister of Health said that this is not a Government Bill, and therefore it is not necessary for the Law Officers to be present. He is of equal importance with a Law Officer, and he is here. Why, therefore, cannot we have the presence of a Law Officer? It is an extremely difficult Bill to understand, and we ought to have a Law Officer to explain the effect of these various Amendments. I cannot understand the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). He is accepting all the Amendments of his opponents, with the result the Bill will be of little value. The Clause says:
In estimating for the purpose of any local rate or of the basis or standard thereof, or of any valuation list. … there shall be taken into account such machinery only as is fixed or attached. …
§ Sir J. REMNANTOf course, if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington were accepted, the word "not" would require to be inserted after the word "shall" ["there shall be taken into account"]. Otherwise, it would be nonsense.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe have passed that point, and cannot go back. It is not sense as it is, and I do not know what is the position. If we had had a Law Officer present, we should not have got into this mess. As far as I can see, the effect of the Amendment would be that, whereas at present only such machinery as is fixed to the hereditament is rated, all machinery will be rated. I understood that the Labour party were opposed to the Bill because they did not want certain machinery rated.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANNot a single Member of the Labour party has expressed that view. Our view is that the rating of machinery should be made uniform in practice.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was only endeavouring to find out exactly the views of the members of that party. I was mistaken in what I said, and I apologise and withdraw. Had their views coincided with mine I would have given them such little assistance as my ability would enable me to do. I do not think we can accept this Amendment. I do not see how we can. I think it had better be withdrawn to enable my hon. and gallant Friend to put something else in. It is an old rule of the House that an Amendment cannot be made which makes nonsense of the Bill, and, as this Amendment does make nonsense of it, I do not see how we can proceed with it.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not think that the Amendment makes nonsense of the Bill. When it has been dealt with one way or the other, then it will be for those responsible to decide what shall be their next step, but that cannot be decided until this Amendment has been disposed of. I propose to put the Question that the word "such" stand part of the Bill, and if it be agreed that it shall stand part, then the words proposed to be left out will remain in. But if, on the other hand, the word "such" be cut out—and I understand that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is willing that it should be—then all the words of this Amendment come out, and I understand the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) will move to insert the words "in or on." If he does that, the second Amendment after this I think would read properly. I beg the House not to enter on discussions as 2533 to technicalities, but to confine their attention to the question whether they wish the words shall remain in or come out.
§ Sir A. MONDI think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is perfectly logical, and if the House inserts the following Amendment, then the whole thing will read logically. As I understand it the Amendment is to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert instead thereof the words "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances." Then later it will be proposed to insert the words "or fixed or attached thereto save that there shall not be taken into account such machinery, tools or appliances as are not fixed or attached or are only so fixed or attached to the hereditaments that they can". This seems to be to be perfectly logical and there is no great complication about it.
§ Sir J. REMNANTI should be very sorry if I misled anyone by saying that I would accept a compromise on this point. It seems to me, however, that without the word "not" being inserted
§ after "shall" ["there shall he taken"], both these Amendments will he directly contrary to the whole object of the Bill. What we want is that all loose machinery shall be exempt from rating—that is to say all machinery that is not attached to the freehold.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANAre we now to understand that the acceptance of the Clause down in the name of the hon. Member for Accrington (Major Gray) is going to be withdrawn?
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt cannot be.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Amendment of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) will come after this Amendment, if it be accepted. The Amendment is to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert the words "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances." I propose to put the Question that the word "such" stand part of the Bill.
§ Question put, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 28.
2535| Division No. 197.] | AYES | 2.43 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. How Francis D. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Alnsworth, Captain Charles | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C (Kent) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Hayday, Arthur | Parker, James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Parry, Lied.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hogge, James Myles | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert | Holmes, J. Stanley | Purchase, H. G. |
| Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil | Hopkins, John W. W. | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Benn, Sir A. S, (Plymouth, Drake) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Hurd, Percy A. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hurst, Lieut,-Colonel Gerald B. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Irving, Dan | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Stevens, Marshall |
| Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Kiley, James Daniel | Stewart, Gershom |
| Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Lindsay, William Arthur | Taylor, J. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lorden, John William | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Lort-Williams, J. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Vickers, Douglas |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding) |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Windsor, Viscount |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Wise, Frederick |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Murchison, C. K. | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Nall, Major Joseph | |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Captain Sir Hamilton Benn and |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Sir J. Remnant. |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Gould, James C. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hinds, John | Waring, Major Walter |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Lawson, John James | Wignall, James |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. | TELLERS FOB THE NOES.— |
| Finney, Samuel | Sutherland, Sir William | Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan and |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Swan, J. E. | Major Barnes. |
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray), to leave out the words
machinery only as is fixed or attached to the hereditament, and cannot be removed from its place,and to insert instead thereof the wordsmachines, tools, or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their place,is not in order, since it depends on words above.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYOn a point of Order. All that has been done so far has been to decide that the word "such" stand part of the Bill. That was the Motion put from the Chair, and the point of Order that I wish to raise is whether the words that the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) sought to insert should not now be "machinery, tools and appliances."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERNo.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYIf not, then may I move these words?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWhich words does the hon. and learned Member desire to move?
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI desire that the words
machinery, tools and appliances" should come in after the word "such," in place of the word "machinery.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWill the hon. and learned Member read the Clause as it would stand if his Amendment were accepted?
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI will explain exactly what I want to put in. The Clause would then read
In estimating for the purpose of any local rate…there shall be taken into account such machinery, tools and appliances…2536 I want to enlarge the word "machinery," as the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle did, by adding the words "tools and appliances." I only differ from the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the words he proposes afterwards, limiting it to fixed machinery. I wanted more than that, if I could get it; but on this question I should like to move to insert, after the word "such," the words "machinery, tools and appliances."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe word "machinery" is in already. I think the hon. and learned Member would be in order in moving; after the word "machinery," to insert the words "tools or appliances."
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "machinery" ["there shall be taken into account such machinery"], to insert the words "machine tools and appliances."
The object of this Amendment is rather to enlarge the definition of the subject-matter of the Bill. As it stands at present, it is limited to machinery, and there is no definition at all as to what machinery consists of As the law at present stands, in fixing the assessment. for any factory or works, there has to be taken into account, not only what is known as the fixed machinery, including the driving power of the factory and the main shafting and belting, but also, first of all, machinery that is fixed by its own weight or attached by screws, and which might be described as trade fixtures: but that would rather include what are known as machines, not fixed tools.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI thought the hon. and learned Member was moving these other words in a different sense from that already proposed by the hon. 2537 and gallant Member for East Newcastle. Otherwise, as I understand it, the last decision would be rendered nugatory.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI raised this matter on a previous Amendment and got a promise from the occupant of the Chair at that time that this Amendment would be in order, and he distinctly put from the Chair the word "such,' and, because of the confusion that we have got into, it escaped the knowledge and notice of hon. Members with regard to the word "not" on page 2546, which landed us into some confusion and thickness of speech with regard to what was meant by the words of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes), though he was not responsible for it at all, and the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept the wording which I was going to move. There is no meaning in the words "machine tools" at all in the language of the Amendment. What the hon. Member meant was all machines, tools or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their places. I definitely raised the point and for that reason the Deputy-Speaker only put the word "such."
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI think I am right. The original Amendment was to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to." Then it was pointed out, as I understood it, if the whole of those words were put, that would rule out the next Amendment, and for that reason only, so that the House might be free to put in whatever words it pleased after the word "such," that word only was put, and the real Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has never been decided on at all. I should have preferred him to go on and insert the words that he has on the, Paper. I strongly support those words and, as he did not do it, I suggest that I am entitled to do it. These words have never bean put to the House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI was not in the Chair when this point originally rose, and, in view of the twilight which has fallen on the proceedings, I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI am moving this on behalf of the agricultural community, and of those people who live in small 2538 houses in industrial towns. Seeing that the effect of the Bill is, broadly speaking, to transfer from the manufacturers a great part of the local burdens and put them on to the small householders in urban districts, and on to agriculturists and private householders in rural districts, it is to our interest, as representing working-class and rural populations, to see that the rating of machinery is continued, and, if possible, extended, rather than narrowed. These words that I am proposing will put an end to the disputes which continually take place before the gentlemen who have to make these assessments, because there can be no doubt where you have the words "machinery, tools and appliances in conjunction.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI beg to second the Amendment. I do not mind whether it is the word "machinery" or the word "machines." If your ruling is against machinery—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe word "machinery" is already in the Clause. I was going to put the Question, after "machinery," to insert "machine tools and appliances."
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANThat will meet the purpose. The reason we are opposing the Bill in its present form is because of the legal position which has been continually created with regard to the difference as between fixed machinery and machinery that is removable. I shall drop that opposition if the promoter of the Bill is prepared to carry out the promise he made when we were discussing the last Amendment, and allow the Clause as amended to go through. If not, the rating authorities are continually being disturbed. They do not know where they are. Cases are going to the Courts and the burden of the rates upon the union authorities is such that I hope nothing will be done to increase their difficulty. Everywhere in the industrial districts the rates are at the highest point they have been in this century, and if you are going to change the method, at least let us hope it will be changed in the direction of equity and that all machinery, tools and appliances shall be rated and placed upon a uniform basis. I hope to hear from the promoters that the, undertaking they gave will be carried out. I have never known a bargain made across the Floor of the 2539 House departed from. The whole of the litigation has been due to the ambiguity in the present Act of Parliament. These words will make it quite clear and will save ratepayers and rating authorities thousands of pounds in litigation.
§ Sir J. REMNANTI have been appealed to not to withdraw from an undertaking I gave just now. That would be quite contrary to the whole principle of the Bill, unless the word "not" were inserted in the previous Amendment. The arrangement was made under an entire misapprehension, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not bind me to that sort of bargain. I do not now quite see what the Amendment is. I take it it is a new Amendment, after the word "machinery," to add the words "machine tools and appliances." Does mean machine tools or appliances in or on?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe present Amendment is to insert, after the word "machinery." the words "machine tools and appliances."
§ Sir J. REMNANTI do not think there can be much objection, but how you are going to fix a machine tool I do not know.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSIt is perfectly clear that this Amendment is only for the purpose of making the definition more clear. So long as the word "only" follows it, and we alter the word "is" into "are," I do not see why the supporters of the Bill should oppose it. These things are fixed more or less steadily on the premises.
§ Mr. MURROUGH WILSONThe question just mentioned by the hon. Member raises a great difficulty in my mind. We are trying to define a little more clearly what is to he rated and what is not to be rated. The next word which appears is the word "appliances." It is already exceedingly difficult to know whether tools are to be included. When we get to the word "appliances," it is more difficult. In the case of machinery which is erected, you get all sorts of things which are attendant upon that machinery, such as water tanks which are necessary for cooling the engines. Are those appliances? Then when you come to the question of bellows which are necessary in some processes for the machinery, are they included? Before 2540 we accept the Amendment we ought to have an explanation.
§ Mr. GOULDI cannot see why we should accept the words, for the simple reason that they would put us in a very peculiar position. Take the engineering and shipbuilding trade. What about motors? We have motors fixed for dealing with certain things, and in Scotland it has been determined that these are rateable. We contend that they are easily portable from place to place, and that they are put in for the purpose of increasing production. Under the decision of the Scottish Courts they will be excluded from the word "appliances." I am sure that we cannot accept this.
§ Mr. LORDENI hope that we shall have nothing to do with this Amendment. It will destroy the value of the Clause, which says:
There shall he taken into account such machinery only.Now you propose, to put in tools, which are the very things which we want to eliminate from rating.
Major BARNESThis Debate shows the extraordinary confusion which exists, and the advantage which would have accrued if we had carried out the suggestion that I made. With regard to appliances, I might quote a very short extract from a judgment by Lord Salveson, given in the Land Valuation Appeal Court for Scotland, on this question:
Under this same heading a question was raised as to whether certain rails bolted to uprights in the walls of many of the buildings would come under the words of the Act, Machines, tools or appliances.'I would point out that these words are the words in the Scottish Act on which the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to model himself:The facts disclose that the rails are attached to the brackets on which they are raised by screw bolts and movable nuts, and by unscrewing the nuts and withdrawing the bolts the rails can be taken down without the necessity of removing any part of the building or taking the supporting column,, away. They constitute in my opinion an appliance for enabling the travelling crane to move from one part of the building to another, and as the travelling crane is held to come under the Act of 1902 it seems to me that the rails on which the crane travels satisfy the conditions of the Act and cannot be decided to be part of the hereditament. On the other hand the brackets and supports form part of the building and must be treated accordingly.2541 That is the sort of thing which they have in Scotland. The whole question turns on whether these words are of advantage to those who are opposing the Bill. It depends on whether the word "only" is going to remain in the Bill. If the word "only" is going to remain in, then the omission of these words "tools and appliances" is a real advantage. So it is extremely important that those of us who hold the view of my hon. and learned Friend opposite should know whether, when we have disposed of this Amendment, you will accept an Amendment to leave out the word "only," because if you rule that we cannot proceed with that Amendment, I think that it
| Division No. 198.] | AYES | [3.15 p.m. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Gould, James C. | Swan, [...]. E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hinds, John | Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hagge, James Myles | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Wignall, James |
| Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase | Lawson, John James | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Beilalrs, Commander Carlyon W. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holdernees) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Polson, Sir Thomas A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Cautley and Lieut.-Colonel |
| Finney, Samuel | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Watts-Morgan |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| NOES | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Purchase, H G. |
| Alnsworth, Captain Charles | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Haslam, Lewis | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hayday, Arthur | Remnant, Sir James |
| Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Hopkins, John W. W. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hurd, Percy A. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Irving, Dan | Stevens, Marshall |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Bruton, Sir James | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Kiley, James Daniel | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Taylor, J. |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Lindsay, William Arthur | Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lort-Williams, J. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Dockreil, Sir Maurice | McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Windsor, Viscount |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Murchison, C. K. | Wise, Frederick |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Younger, Sir George |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Nield, Sir Herbert | |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sir E. Bartley-Denniss and Mr |
| Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Lorden. |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
§ ould he well to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI could not refuse an Amendment to leave out the word "only."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is not so. The question is, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "machine tools and appliances." That is the Question before the House just now.
§ Question put, "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 40; woes, 106.
2543Major BARNESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert instead thereof the words "as is in or on."
As I pointed out before we divided, the last Amendment was in the nature of a gamble, depending on whether or not we got out the word "only." The effect of the Amendment which I now move is to make the Clause read
there shall be taken into account such machinery as is in or on the hereditament.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSOn a point of Order. I suggest that the Amendment cannot be accepted because it is against the principle of the Bill as passed by the House on Second Reading. The principle of the Bill is to exempt this machinery from rating, and the Amendment would make it rateable by law.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Bill is one to amend the law relating to the rating of hereditaments containing machinery. I do not see that I can refuse the Amendment on the ground suggested.
Major BARNESThe Bill has been left in such a state of confusion that I did not realise the last. Amendment had not been carried. Therefore this Amendment is riot material and I do not propose to move.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANOn a point of Order. Are we not to have a Division with regard to the principle which some of us contest as to the difference between fixed and immovable machinery? I was given a distinct promise by the then occupant of the Chair (Sir Edwin Cornwall) that we should have a discussion on the principle of the Bill. I understand now that you are ruling that out of order.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think that is so. If the hon. and gallant Member wants a Division on the principle of the Bill, he must wait till the Third Reading.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANThe principle was raised in the Amendment to which I am calling attention, and there was a distinct promise made from the Chair that we should have a discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I differ, and I say that the Amendment was accepted by the promoters, at which I was very much astonished.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am afraid this is not in order. I can rule only on what I see before me.
Major BARNESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "removal," and to insert instead thereof the word "disturbance."
This raises a point which is present to every one of the local authorities which have been dealing with this Bill. There is a division of opinion, I admit, on the general principle of the Bill amongst the local authorities, but they are all agreed upon this Amendment, which has reached me, not only from those who disagree with the principle of the Bill, but from those who agree with it. If the Amendment were made, the Clause would read, "without necessitating the disturbance"—instead of "the removal"—"of any part of the hereditament." That is not a trivial point, as I think can be shown by stating the fact that that very point is one which, in the interpretation of the Scotch Act, has been carried to the highest Court of Appeal, and it formed one of the principal points in the case to which I have already referred. The Scotch Act has the word "removal," and, seeing that what we are being asked to do is practically to accept the Scotch Act in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: No!"]—I do not think hon. Members ought to deny that. The whole Preamble of the Bill, when it was introduced, was based upon bringing the law in this country into line with the law in Scotland, and that was the argument which impressed the House—that you had one law in Scotland and another in England.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSThat was not my object.
Major BARNESThe point I am bringing forward now is that this word "removal" in the Scotch Act has raised questions of such difficulty that they had to be taken to the very highest Court of Appeal in Scotland, and in an extremely important case brought before that Court so lately as 22nd February, 1922, which, I would point out, is a date some 20 years after the passing of the Scotch Act, this was one of the most material points raised. There the contention was as to whether a very heavy and valuable machine, which could be removed from its position by breaking away a portion 2545 of the concrete upon which it rested, came within the meaning of the Act as something which could be removed from its place without removing any pert of the hereditament. The Scottish Court took the view that that was not a case in which you could get the benefit of the Act, although to remove the machine you had to cut away a portion of the bed upon which it rested. The case went to Appeal, but I will not trouble the House on this occasion with the words of the judgment. The whole point was as to whether, in applying the Act, and in determining whether certain machines did or did not come under the operation of the Act, the disturbance of the hereditament was something which really amounted to removal. The difficulties which present themselves can be seen very well in the memorandum which was placed before the Ministry of Health by the Rating Surveyors' Association—a memorandum which, I think, is entitled to the respectful consideration of the House. This is what they say with regard to the question of "removability"
With regard to the word 'removability' in the case of a machine in the open air, and not in a building, the machine being bolted to a block of concrete partly above ground and partly below ground, if in such a ease the machine be removed, thereby damaging a portion of the concrete above ground, would it be said that part of the hereditament had been removed?These questions may appear to be in some degree fantastic, but that is because of the nature of the Measure with which we are dealing, and these are just the questions which present themselves to the surveyors and the lawyers who have to administer this Act, and, as far as possible, it is the business of the House to make the matter clear. Those who have promoted the Amendment think that if the word "removal" be taken out, and the word "disturbance" put in, very much less difference of opinion will arise. These surveyors go on to say:In other words, is the portion of the concrete block which is above the ground brought within the words of lines 14 and 15 of the Bill? Under the present law, the concrete block would clearly be part of the rating hereditament, but under the Bill it would be a matter of doubt.As the law stands at present, it is the opinion of these eminent rating surveyors that any damage done to this block of concrete would be a removal, and the idea of the Amendment is to make it per- 2546 fectly clear that if the House wants "removal" to be interpreted in the sense that you can do considerable damage to the hereditament so long as you can put it right afterwards, the House will stand by the word "removal." If the sense of the House is that if you can restore the hereditament into substantially the same good condition after you have removed the machinery as before then that is giving the widest interpretation to the word "removal," and I suppose the House will stand by it. At all events, do let us have the thing clear! We want to narrow the operations of the Bill by inserting "disturbance" so as to make sure that it will only be actually loose and portable machinery that is excluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that he did not want loose and portable machinery to be rated. As the Bill stands the most ponderous machinery, which cannot in any sense be said to be either loose or portable, will be excluded if it can be removed without removing any part of the hereditament. According to the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he would not regard the fact that you had to break down a concrete block—
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSIf it could be easily repaired.
Major BARNESYes, so long as repairs could be made. I think what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend does really give the House some idea of the scope of this Measure. Anybody who has the slightest acquaintance with factories, shipyards, and steel works must know that there is practically no machinery there which could not be removed under these conditions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that is exactly what is wanted. It is just as well that that should be made clear, because I think so far as a great many people think at all about this Bill all they suppose it is going to do is to exclude loose tools and small portable machines such as can be fairly compared, as the Minister of Health compared them, with the furniture of a house. People think that when this Bill speaks of machinery that it is machines that can easily be taken away. What really my hon. and learned Friend has in mind by machinery—I daresay if it was put to him he would say so—is not only machines in the narrow sense, but the 2547 whole of the machinery of an industrial process inside the building.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSThe machinery that belongs to the tenant, which is his property, which he has paid for, which he does not rent, and which he can remove at the end of the term, or which any future tenant can buy from him.
Major BARNESPrecisely. The machinery of the industry. Under this Bill he would, for example, go into a brewery, and would say, if you take away the vats and the tanks—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the beer!"] The more one goes into the question of these words, the more does one see something of their width and scope. Those who favour this Amendment think that differences of opinion should be narrowed down to the least possible amount, and that the word "disturbance" is very much better than "removal." The word "removal" can be given so wide a meaning that it is not a word that could be wisely used here. The word "disturbance," which narrows the operations and would prevent the enormously wide extension that is foreshadowed, is the right word to use.
§ Mr. LORDENI do not know what is meant by the word "disturbance."
§ Mr. W. THORNEIt is more than you can swallow.
§ Mr. LORDENI do not want to swallow an earthquake, and, therefore, I object to the word being put into the Bill. The hon. Member has referred to blocks of concrete, and I would like to say on this point that they are more easily moved than the hon. Member opposite. It would be utterly fatal to put in the word "disturbance." "Removal" is a definitely understood thing, but I really do not know what is meant by "disturbance." You can blow a thing up and that would be disturbance or you can have an earthquake, but to say that the word "disturbance" describes the position better is very extraordinary, not to say ludicrous.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThe last speaker said that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major 2548 Barnes) was endeavouring to cause obstruction. I do not think anyone can complain that there has been any obstruction up to the present. I only wish that on these benches we were as scientific obstructionists as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs the hon. Member in order in making that observation? It is a most uncalled-for remark.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not think it is out of order. I should not deem it offensive if someone described me as being scientific.
§ Mr. THORNEI have been a Member of this House for 16 years, and I say without hesitation that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is the most scientific obstructionist I have ever heard of in this House or any other House. If all the hon. Members sitting on the Labour benches could obstruct in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we should never have got as far as we have done with this Bill.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe are now on the question of the leaving out of the word "removal" and the insertion of the word "disturbance."
§ Mr. THORNEI never intend to be an obstructionist, but I am opposed to this Bill root and branch, and I shall support this Amendment.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONI do not know any machinery attached to a mine that can receive exemption at all under the Bill. Every piece of heavy machinery must be held in place by concrete or something of that description, and under the word "removal" there is no earthly chance of people in mining areas having the benefit of the Bill. Those in industries represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite have made money, but neither miners nor mineowners have made anything at all in recent years, and yet they are to have thrown upon them this burden. The result will be to close down the mines. If this extra burden of taxation be thrown on to them, then, of course, they are down and out. I am afraid that incidentally more harm will be done to hon. Members opposite than they suffer from any grievous burden of taxation.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSThat is not the case. The rating of machinery is not compulsory in this country, and in and about the cotton districts machinery is not rated in 12 out of 19 unions. Even if it were rated, no burden would be thrown upon the mining population.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONThe hon. Member may be speaking of a large city, but I am speaking of the mining area, and I know the machinery which is at present rated is going to be relieved of the
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe next Amendment, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "any" ["the removal of 2550 rating to the extent of 50 per cent. Those who are using machinery in every grade of industry ought to treat their brothers in industry with something like equity, but here hon. Members are refusing to help their brothers who are nearly down and out. I trust that the House will agree to the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'removal' stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 36.
§ any part of the hereditament"], does not appear to me to make any difference to the effect of the Clause.
2551§ Mr. LORDENThe word "any" was thought to be unnecessary.
Mr. T. THOMSONI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
This Section shall not apply in the case of any machinery or plant which has been used in or on a hereditament before the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.The object of this Amendment is to restrict the application of this partial Measure even still further, so that it may only apply to new machinery that is introduced after it passes into law. Many of us believe that, as it is such a partial Measure, the less influence that it can have, until the whole question is reviewed, the better. I move the Amendment also for the sake of its immediate effect, so that the burdens on other property which will be added by the effect of this Bill may not be increased. As has been already said, in large industrial areas there will be a transference of an added burden from industries and works on to others who are less able to bear it in a time of abnormal distress, and the more that transference can be reduced the better.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI beg to second the Amendment. At no period in the history of this country, and at no time in the history of its trade, could it be more ill-timed to make changes than at present. Having already carried an Amendment postponing the application of the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament, which I hope it will not—
§ It being Four of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood Adjournded.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next (7th July).
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.