§ Mr. H. G. WilliamsMay I address you, Sir, a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether you have considered the provisions of the London Rating (Site Values) Bill, and whether, in view of the questions of public policy and the issues raised by its provisions, they should not more properly be embodied in a public rather than in a private Bill?
§ Mr. Herbert MorrisonBefore you give a Ruling, Sir, if it is your intention to give a Ruling, upon this Bill, I should like you and the House to give me an opportunity to submit certain considerations as to why this Bill should be allowed to proceed. It is a Bill to bring into rating certain property, namely, land, which is now not a subject of rating, and the object of the promoters is to bring justice and relief to the general body of ratepayers. There are certain exemptions in the Bill, and it would be competent for the Committee upstairs to consider any representations as to further exemptions. The Bill is promoted by the London County Council. It is approved by a majority of the Metropolitan borough councils and has been approved by the people of London at two London County Council elections. All that we are asking is that the Bill should be considered at the hands of Parliament, that all the interests and the arguments should be heard, and that Parliament should then resolve upon its conclusions as to the Bill.
I wish to submit to you that there are certain precedents for proceeding with a Bill of this kind. There is, first, the precedent of the London Rating (Unoccupied 951 Hereditaments) Bill, 1936, which brought into partial rating certain property which hitherto had not been rated. A point of Order was raised with you, and the Bill was permitted to proceed. The London Building Acts, which restrict owners of property in London very seriously, have been dealt with by Private Bill Procedure. There were Bills a few years ago for the co-ordination of London passenger traffic promoted by the then London County Council and the London traffic combine, which materially altered and involved great questions of public principle in the control of London passenger transport. They were permitted to proceed. There was in 1926 a Newcastle Corporation Bill, which proposed powers for town planning built-up areas, which were then outside the scope of Public Acts respecting town planning, and obviously affected property owners within the city of Newcastle. That Bill was permitted to proceed and was actually enacted. The London County Council promoted a Bill affecting the green belt in London and the Home Counties, and notwithstanding that a wide area of the country and very extensive areas outside the council's area were involved, that Bill was permitted to proceed, and it found its place on the Statute Book. Moreover, it is well known that Private Acts affecting London have been frequently before the House and have been proceeded with. Many of them actually involved the amendment of Public Acts.
I further submit that London rating is already exceptional in relation to rating in the rest of the country. It is a distinct code, with distinct provisions from the rest of the country. This Bill proposes to preserve that general code. It proposes no repeal of general Public Acts, not one, and, indeed, all it proposes is that a new column should be put into the valuation list and that land should be brought into rating. The authorities for rating would remain the same under the Bill, and the procedure would remain substantially the same. It is, indeed, I submit, only a modification of the London Rating Acts. There are, it is true, many opponents of the Bill who have deposited petitions, and it is, of course, right that they should be heard in Committee, and that their friends, or those who agree with them, should argue their case on the Floor of the House, but it seems to us that this is a legitimate Bill for the House 952 to consider. Administratively it will work, even though it will be a somewhat different system from that in the rest of the country, and I venture to submit that the Bill ought to proceed.
If you will permit me, I will refer to one other point. There was a ruling by Mr. Speaker in 1895 with regard to the London Valuation and Assessment Bill. The Speaker at that time ruled that that Bill could not proceed, on the following grounds: the magnitude of its scope, the magnitude of the area, and the multiplicity of the interests involved. I submit that that precedent would largely fall now, because there are many private Acts for London which have proceeded notwithstanding those objections. That Bill repealed Public Acts of vast magnitude and covering a vast area. This Bill repeals no Public Acts. That Bill, the Speaker held, affected not only local rating but Imperial taxation. This Bill does not affect Imperial taxation. That Bill, the Speaker held, involved interests which were much more than local. This Bill is a London Bill. It may affect people who do not live in London, but that is equally true of the London Building Acts and amendments thereto which have passed through this House. Finally, that Bill proposed to create a new court in the matter of assessment. This Bill does nothing of the kind. In these circumstances, having regard to the strong feeling which exists for the Bill—and I admit that there are strong feelings against it on the part of those who have a right to be heard—I ask in view of the precedents, in view of the nature of the Bill and in view of the fact that it does not repeal general legislation, that the Bill should be permitted to proceed.
§ Mr. SpeakerIn reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I have, of course, given the fullest consideration to whether this Bill should be introduced as a Private Bill or should be a Public Bill. The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has put many points before me which, of course, I have considered carefully before coming to a decision. He has quoted a good many different Bills, which have been treated in various ways. Some of them have been treated as Private Bills, and others have been ruled by the Speaker of the day to be Bills that would require to be introduced as Public Bills. Of course, I have 953 looked into all those points. The Bills which have been allowed to proceed as Private Bills have never raised questions other than practically local questions, and have never sought to alter the whole basis of taxation by a Private Bill. As regards the last one which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the London Valuation and Assessment Bill, 1895, the question was raised at the time with Mr. Speaker Peel as to whether that should be introduced as a Private Bill or necessarily introduced as a Public Bill. No doubt some of the reasons which the Speaker of that day gave why that Bill should not be introduced as a Private Bill are not relevant to the present Bill, but there are certainly two of the objections which induced him to form the opinion that that Bill had to be a Public Bill which apply to this Bill. One reason he gave was the magnitude of the area and the multiplicity of the interests involved, and the second that it involved interests which were much more than local. Taking that as a precedent, and having considered whether this Bill should be introduced as a Private Bill or a Public Bill, I have come to the conclusion that since it raises questions of public policy of great importance, and affects interests of vast magnitude, interests which are much more than local, the Bill ought to be introduced as a Public Bill and cannot be allowed to proceed as a Private Bill.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonMay I ask you, Sir, whether, in reaching the conclusion which you have intimated to the House, you have taken into account that 1895 is a long time ago and that since then the attitude of this House, on both sides, to questions involving property has been modified, and that considerations which might have been applicable in 1895 may not be necessarily applicable in 1939, when the Houses of Parliament, both of them, have taken different views on questions affecting the rights of private property?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have taken that point into account. I am quite aware of the fact that since those days of 1895 and the formation of the London County Council, which controls a large area, many things have been done by Private Bills which formerly would not have been done in that way, but they have been Bills granting some exemptions from rating or instituting some new system of 954 valuation based upon the existing rating law, and none of them has made a fundamental alteration in the law of rating. Taking that into account, I still think that this particular Bill can only be introduced as a Public Bill.
§ Mr. MorrisonOn that point, may I submit for your consideration that this Bill does not propose a fundamental alteration in the law of rating? It is limited to the point of introducing a supplementary and new source of rating for the purpose of relieving the general body of existing ratepayers.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat point has been considered. The rating proposals in this Bill have never been introduced in any previous Private Bill and this Biill does make a fundamental alteration in the law of rating.
§ Mr. MorrisonMay I put one final point to you, Sir? [Interruption.] I hope there is going to be no excitement about this. I seek your guidance as to my future conduct in the matter of this legislation. You have held that this particular Bill should proceed as a Public Bill. Then if I introduce this London Bill as a Public Bill may I assume, as I do assume, that there can be no question that I shall then be in order?
§ Mr. H. G. WilliamsWould not such a Bill require a Financial Resolution, and could it not be introduced only by a member of His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. MorrisonThere will be no expenditure of public funds under the Bill.
§ Mr. SpeakerI could not give a definite answer to that point. As a Public Bill this Bill would have to go before the Examiners.
§ Mr. MorrisonPerhaps you will let me put that point before you at some future date. I assumed that if this was ruled out as a Private Bill it followed automatically that I could introduce it as a Public Bill.
§ Sir Percy HarrisAre you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Bill dealing with this matter in a Public Bill and endeavoured to get a Second Reading for it under the Ten Minutes Rule?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat may be the case.