RATING AND VALUATION (AIR RAID WORKS) BILL. (Hansard, 14 July 1938)

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill to give effect to the decision of the Government which was reached after representations had been 1649 made by a number of Members to the effect that the existing law might place an obstacle in the way of the provision of structural precautions against air-raid damage. Hon. Members said that alterations that were made might increase the value of the property on which they are made, arid so render the occupier liable to heavier payments for rates and the owner liable for heavier payments of Income Tax. Effect has already been given to the intention of the Government, as far as Income Tax is concerned, by a Clause in the Finance Bill, and the present Bill follows that Clause very closely. It is all the more necessary, since one or two local authorities had already expressed their intention of not rating such improvements; it is clear, if there were not some general principle laid down, confusion might have arisen.
It will be seen that the Bill is a one-Clause measure of which the first Subsection directs that no regard shall be had, in assessing the value for rating purposes of an hereditament, to any additional room or other part or to any structural alteration or improvements made and used for the purpose of air raid protection. Sub-section (2) similarly exempts from rating any separate hereditament so used. These are the gist of the Bill. Sub-section (3) is required only because in its absence it would be impossible to bring into rating in London a room or hereditament which, though designed for air raid purposes, was in fact used for other purposes, until the expiration of the valuation period of five years. The rating law inside and outside London differs in this matter, as hon. Members will be well aware.
A question has been asked, which it may be possible to deal with now, as to whether the protection given by the Bill to an air raid shelter would be withdrawn if the shelter were used for other purposes. It was made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his original statement on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and also when he introduced the new Clause 17 of that Bill, which gave effect to the Government's decision, that so far as Schedule A was concerned it was impracticable to give a concession to cover premises which were used for some other purpose in addition to that of air raid protection. It would not be generally desired that that principle should be introduced. This statement is 1650 not, however, to be read as meaning that the shelters should stand completely idle and completely empty until the emergency arises. The fact that the shelter contains the necessary equipment for its use would clearly not put it outside the exemption provided, just as it is clear that the provision that it should not be used except in the event of hostile attack from the air would not make it impossible for the owner to use it, say, for a rehearsal of air raid drill. It would be a nonsensical interpretation to suggest that that would be prohibited: it would make it impossible for the owner to use the shelter unless an air raid was in progress. Clearly, the concession was not intended in that way, and it must be interpreted in a common sense way. All these matters are clearly covered by reference to the provision that is made for protection against hostile attack from the air. I commend the Bill as a useful complement to the legislation already incorporated in the Finance Bill, the Third Reading of which will take place tomorrow.

§ Sir John Mellor
I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a matter which does not appear to be covered, and which I think might receive consideration. I refer to the case where an owner of property has a cellar which would be particularly suitable for the purpose of protection against air raids. That cellar is now used for the storage of coal or wine. In order to make the cellar available for that purpose he constructs a new cellar to accommodate the coal or wine. Under the Bill it does not appear that that case would be covered. He would not escape on the old cellar because it would not come within Sub-section (1, a) and he certainly would not escape on the new cellar, because it would not be occupied solely for the purpose of protection against air raids. Therefore, it seems to me inevitable in that case that he would have an increase in his assessment. I do not ask my right hon. Friend for an answer now, but I should like him to consider that case and see whether in the Committee stage it would be possible to cover it.

§ Mr. Ross Taylor
My right hon. Friend met to some extent a question which I had intended to put to him, when he said 1651 that the additions to buildings which might be made with a view to air-raid protection will not be completely sterilised in that they may be used for certain purposes, such as rehearsals for air-raid protection, and so on. Will he go a little further, particularly in regard to what might be called industrial hereditaments? Obviously, the owner of an industrial hereditament will have to make provision for shelter for his employés. If his staff is large the premises will have to be large, and in some cases they will have to be very large. It may well be that the owner will not want to use those premises for any part of his trade or business and will not, therefore, wish to pay rates upon them. That will mean that those premises will lie practically sterile, except in the event of an emergency which may never, and which we hope will never arise. That seems to me to be rather an unfortunate state of affairs, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible to allow the use of premises of that kind for purposes which would not bring gain to the owner. I have in mind, for example, the use of the premises for recreation purposes for the staff. I realise that at present it would be difficult to make exceptions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the Clause in the Finance Bill, of what this is a counterpart, pointed out that concessions were really impracticable. I do not think it would be entirely beyond the wit of the draftsman to arrive at an Amendment which would meet these difficulties, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the suggestion before the Bill comes to its later stage.

§ Sir L. Smith
I should like to put a question to my right hon. Friend on a similar subject in regard to industrial hereditaments. In connection with a factory there may be constructed under ground a long concrete tube, in preparation for any emergency that might arise. That tube might be in a position in a confined space where previously a cycle rack was arranged. The concrete tube would be specially built for the emergency, and it might be most convenient to use that nine feet tube to take the place of the cycle rack, so that the employés might store their cycles until such 1652 time as the tube were required for its original purpose. Am I to understand that it would be absolutely necessary for that underground chamber to be assessed if it was used for such a purpose as I suggest, or would it be possible in view of what the previous speaker said that this additional building was not used for the purpose of making profit, but merely for the welfare of the employés, to arrange such an Amendment as would meet that particular case? It is incumbent on this House to make arrangements so that employers can do their utmost to provide such accommodation as is necessary in emergency, and I feel sure that if an Amendment could be made such as I suggest, it would encourage employers to spend the necessary amount of money in order to provide air-raid protection accommodation.

§ Mr. Elliot
We shall, of course, between now and the Committee stage give consideration to the points that have been raised, but it would be fair to say, roughly, that the three arguments which have been used by my hon. Friends indicate the difficulty that would arise if we get away from the word "solely," which is the governing word of the Clause. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir L. Smith) in regard to the desirability of employers doing everything necessary, but I think the House will see that there is a danger that other employers might resent desirable improvements being incorporated by firms which would be de-rated, as they might think, or as the local authorities might think, unjustifiably; and the purpose for which the shelter was constructed, namely, shelter from air attack, might be vitiated by finding that on the day of the emergency the shelter would be filled with articles which it would be difficult to clear out in time. Therefore, while I will give the utmost consideration to the arguments that have been used, it is only fair to say that I think great difficulty will arise if we depart from the word "solely." Furthermore, we must be very careful not to get out of step with the Clause in the Finance Bill, and we must be careful not to do anything which might cause greater disadvantage to those whom we desire to benefit than any advantage which might be given by some comparatively small Amendment that might be incorporated.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
I should not have risen but for various speeches which have been made. We support the principle contained in the Bill. We think that the position as put by the Minister of Health is the position which should be taken, and it will be supported by hon. Members on these benches. If any attempt is made to whittle away the principle that permission to obtain this relief must be in respect of premises solely used for the purpose, it would be very dangerous and lead to great complications. The Bill in its original form is reasonable and sound, and any alteration would make it unworkable and impracticable and would not be justified, taking all the circumstances into account.