RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. (Hansard, 30 June 1922)

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed."
I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in support of this Motion. The object of the Bill is to provide that machinery which is not affixed to the building shall not be taken into account with regard to assessment, for rating purposes.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. The hon. Member, as I understand, desires to move, on the consideration of this Bill, that it be re-committed. I want to quote a few words from Erskine May about the re-committal of Bills. I am afraid I have here a rather old edition (1906), but I find on page 497 a statement which I do not think has been altered in subsequent editions. It is as follows: On consideration of a Bill on Report, no Clause or Amendment may be proposed which creates a charge upon the public revenue, or upon rates or local burthens upon the people, but the Bill may be recommitted in respect of any such proposed Clause or Amendment. Here there is no Clause or Amendment which imposes a charge upon the public revenue or on the rates or on local burthens. Therefore, according to Erskine May, a Motion for re-committal on consideration of a Bill can only be made as regards a Clause which imposes a charge upon the local revenue or upon rates or local burthens. I am further strengthened in that view by words which occur later on. They are these: It may be necessary to recommit a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and occasionally to a Select Committee, before it is read a Third time. 2504 I venture to say that the proper interpretation to be put on these words is this, that when, on consideration of a Bill, a Clause is going to be proposed which does impose a burden in any way, the Bill can be recommitted in respect of that particular Clause, but where there is no Clause of that sort, the proper time to move the recommittal of the Bill is on the Third Reading, and not now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not read the words quoted by the right hon. Baronet in the way in which he has put them. I read the first part and the second part as distinct propositions, the first part dealing with what may or may not be moved on consideration of a Bill, and the second part containing the simple announcement of the fact that a recommittal Motion is possible. Therefore I do not think the point raised by the right hon. Baronet is a good one.

Sir D. NEWTON
The object of the Bill is that machinery shall not be taken into account for rating purposes if it is not affixed to the premises. We were told in the Debate on the Second Reading that one of the objects of the Bill was to give to England and Wales that which Scotland has long enjoyed, namely, an equitable and efficient system of assessment for rating. I regard this rather as an attempt to force on England and Wales a system which would not work equitably, and would not prove a valuable addition to our present rating system. Some of us are not prepared to admit, as a matter of course, that a principle which is working well in Scotland will of necessity, work well here, and I venture to suggest there is no parity between the respective rating systems operating in Scotland and in England and Wales at the present time, nor will this Bill bring about such parity until and unless the same course of action is taken in regard to abatements, deductions, allowances and other factors of that kind affecting what the ratepayers have to pay. On the Second Reading of this Bill we were informed that our manufacturers were finding themselves manacled and shackled. A similar Bill was brought to the attention of this House 32 years ago and the Measure has made 17 different public appearances. It seems very strange, if the Bill were really a workable proposition, that no Government should have taken 2505 it up officially and that it should have been so long before the House and made such extraordinary little progress. Is not that a clear indication that during that long period Parliament has felt that this would be an unwise and improper concession? This, however, is not the ground on which I ask the House to sanction the recommittal of the Bill. I want to urge it upon broad general grounds—on the ground, namely, that the information before the House is not sufficient to justify a far-reaching Measure of this kind. This Bill will not introduce the millennium; on the contrary, it will bring a great deal of friction into our already complicated rating system. It does not offer any clear cut definition in regard to certain vital points. In the first place, it does not give any definition of "first motive power," and that is a very important point.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. Is it not out, of order on a Motion to recommit a Bill to deal with whether or not it is a good or a bad Bill, or whether a certain new provision should be put into it, because a fresh provision can be put into it on Report? Because a particular alteration should be made, that is no reason why we should proceed to make it now, instead of waiting for the Report stage. It seems to me that the hon. Member is really making a Third Reading speech.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think it will be necessary for the hon. Member to show some reason why the Bill should be recommitted and dealt with otherwise than by the whole House on Report.

Sir D. NEWTON
Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As a new recruit, I find it very difficult to conform with all the technicalities with which the right hon. Baronet who has twice interrupted me is familiar. I would respectfully ask for the sympathy of the House in regard to the way in which I am venturing to present my case. This matter, only last Wednesday, came before the County Councils' Association, a body which represents every county council in England and in Wales, and they unanimously decided to ask this House to recommit the Bill on various grounds upon which I hope to be able to satisfy the House. 2506 The, Association of Poor Law Unions is also a body—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am afraid that those are matters which can hardly be dealt with on this Motion. The hon. Member may put forward such reasons as that the Bill has been inadequately considered in Committee, or that the Government has not, intervened in the Committee to advise on points which should be considered by them. Those would be relevant reasons, but, the merits of the Bill, or the views of public bodies upon it outside the House, are really not relevant to the Motion.

Sir D. NEWTON
My general ground is that the Bill has not been adequately considered. When it was before the Committee, they had not the advantage of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland. That was a very strong Committee, presided over by Lord Dunedin, and its Report has only been issued quite recently. The Committee's terms of reference were: To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised by local authorities for local purposes in Scotland, to report whether the,system is equitable and economical, and, if not, to suggest what alterations in the system are desirable. On those terms of reference, dealing with the question of machinery, I should like, if the House will allow me to do so, to quote the observations which that important Committee made, and I do so because the principal argument which was used in support of this Bill on the Second Reading was, "Look at what Scotland has got; look at the advantages her manufacturers have. Why should not those advantages be extended to English manufacturers?" Dealing with that question of the rating of machinery, this Committee reported as follows: We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery, and as to what items are to he considered assessable in industrial works.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member has made a statement which is incorrect. He says that the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland did not come out until after the Standing Committee had sat; but the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland came out on the 11th May, and I hold in my hand 2507 this statement: "Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922." Therefore, the Report came out—

§ Mr. TOWNLEY
On a point of Order.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
You cannot interrupt.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member can only interrupt if the point of Order be not persisted in.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. Friend has, quite unintentionally I am sure, made a misstatement which upsets the whole of his argument, because, instead of—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I rather deprecate so long an interruption upon a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting, under the guise of an interruption on a point of Order, to put himself in the position of being able to make two speeches.

Sir D. NEWTON
If I have made a mistake I am very sorry, but at the same time—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN
The Report was not available.

Sir D. NEWTON
I venture to think that the facts contained in this Report had not been circulated to and digested by the Members of the Committee when they were dealing with the matter. The Report continues: There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machines. Blame has been laid on the fact that the word "first" is used before the words "motive power".… The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors, which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities. It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think this a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions in regard to these classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must, we consider, be undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose. I venture to suggest, in view of this very important statement made by a Committee of experts upon this subject of the working of the Act in Scotland, 2508 that it is only wise that we should carefully consider the matter and see whether the Bill should not be referred back to the Committee, in view of this further information, to see whether a definition cannot be incorporated in the Bill which will not be misinterpreted and which will really ease the situation and enable assessments to be made on an efficient and equitable basis. It is on these grounds that I desire respectfully to ask for the support of the House in moving the recommittal of the Bill. There are many arguments which, as I understand from the interruptions which have been made, I am not now entitled to introduce, such as have been used on the Second Reading. If that is the situation—I am not quite clear whether it is or not—I must confine myself simply to the one point that there was not sufficient information before the Committee when this Bill was under consideration, that more information is absolutely essential if hardship and injustice is not he imposed upon the ratepayers and that we must have a definition of the words "first motive power" and of the manner in which the Bill is likely to operate if it is given the effect of law.

§ Mr. TURTON
On a point of Order. I was Chairman of the Standing Committee which dealt with that Bill, and we had the advantage at that time of the attendance of a representative of the Ministry of Health. Are we not entitled to ask, as a matter of procedure, that there should be a representative of the Ministry of Health on the Front Bench when we are dealing with this Bill, having regard to the statements which were made before the Committee?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not a point of Order, and it hardly justifies the hon. Member in interrupting.

Sir D. NEWTON
I will conclude my remarks, having, I think, now made my point, by saying that this is a very complicated matter. Anything which is going to take, as this will, 30 per cent. of the rates off certain people—[Interruption.]—I could show that the effect would be to take 30 per cent. of the rates off the shoulders of certain manufacturers and place them on the shoulders of others who might or might not be able to bear that burden.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is an argument on the merits.

Sir D. NEWTON
I will only conclude by saying that any Bill which will have such far-reaching effects should be very carefully considered, and that this complex subject does require further consideration if justice is to be done to all the interests and all the parties concerned.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Does the right hon. Baronet oppose the Motion?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Yes.

§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS
When the right hon. Baronet rose just now to a point of Order, I thought you ruled that it was not a point of Order but a speech. In that case he has already spoken. Can he speak again?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It was an attempted speech. I took care it was not an actual one.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I wish to oppose this Motion, and I do not think there can be any doubt that if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, the House will unanimously reject his proposal, because he has not brought forward, with one exception, which was not correct, a single argument in favour of recommitting the Bill. The whole of his arguments, with the one exception which was incorrect, were against the principle of the Bill. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that he is right, and that there ought to be further Amendments introduced before the Bill proceeds, his proper course is to allow consideration of the Bill to take place when a great portion of the Members of the House are present, and when they can put in, at his instigation, those Amendments which he thinks ought to be put in. Then if he thinks, notwithstanding that, that the Bill is one which ought to be rejected, he will have an opportunity of making on the Third Reading the speech which he came down provided with, which he could not then make, but which will be in order on the Third Reading. To recommit a Bill you must give reasons why it should be recommitted, for instance, that it has not been adequately considered in Committee. The hon. Member has not given one single instance to show that the Standing 2510 Committee did not adequately consider it. The only thing he brought forward was a statement that there had been a report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland on 11th May, which was not before the Committee. Here is a Report of Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922. That is six days after the Report. There were 41 Members present and the Chairman. That is an extraordinarily good attendance. It is double the quorum, and you could not have had a better attendance. There is no reason whatever why the Bill should be recommitted.

Sir D. NEWTON
Was the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland circulated to these 41 Members who were present, and was their attention drawn to the particular paragraph?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
That, of course, was the duty of those Members who were on the Committee and who held the view of the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was a bad one. It is no use coming here afterwards and saying that members of the Committee who share the hon. Gentleman's view did not do their duty.

§ Sir JAMES REMNANT
There were many Scottish Members present on the Committee.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Supposing the members of the Committee did not know of the Report, everyone here knows of it, and here is an opportunity which ought not to be lost in the interests of the hon. Gentleman himself. He will be able to bring forward, not before the Standing Committee, but before the whole House, the arguments which are in this Paper and he cannot then say people were not aware of it, because he and I have both drawn the attention of the House to the statement, and if he does not do it, when we consider the matter on Report I will give him an undertaking that I will do it. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the proper course is at once to proceed to consideration of the Bill and advance arguments for and against.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY
rose

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Under the Standing Order, I must put the Question forthwith.