VALUATION FOR RATING [MONEY] (Hansard, 10 June 1953)

§ Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
I am afraid that I cannot apologise to the Committee for raising this matter at this hour because we are quite helpless in the matter. The Government have put down this Money Resolution for this time of the day, and therefore we are bound to use it for the purpose which we consider to be important.
I am bound to intervene at this stage in order to call attention to a matter to which I have referred before, and I hope that on this occasion we shall have from the Minister a slightly less frivolous response than we had on a previous cccasion. It was perfectly true that prior to the Second Reading of the Valuation for Rating Bill, I did not give him notice that I intended to raise this special point. But then I was under no obligation so to do, and therefore the complaint made by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was completely beside the point. The support he received from his hon. Friends behind him appeared to lead to the conclusion that the spokesmen for the Opposition must now send in their speeches to the Government beforehand in order that they might know to what they have to reply.
The particular point I wish to ask the Committee to consider is one of great seriousness, but I am bound to say at once that I am going to be dependent upon the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, because it is one of such complication that I am not quite certain that I know what the Parliamentary position is. But, as it concerns Parliamentary control over public moneys, I hope that I shall be able to receive the attention of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.
The Money Resolution now before the Committee provides That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision as respects the gross value for rating purposes of dwelling-houses and private garages and of hereditaments partly used as private dwellings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session— (a) in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (1) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Local Government Act. 1948; Section 4 of the Local Government Act, 1948, lays down the provisions 381 under which the valuation lists are to be prepared. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is this. Section 3 of the 1948 Act sets out the principles by which the new valuation lists are to be prepared, and Section 143 provides the authorisation of moneys from Parliament for that purpose.
The Act of 1948 made provision for the suspension for one year of the publication of the valuation lists because it was apprehended, as turned out to be the case, that the Inland Revenue Department would not be able to recruit sufficient officers to prepare the valuation lists in time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) found it necessary to postpone publication for one year.
The present Minister of Housing and Local Government came forward last November with a special Bill, which in the circumstances he had to propose, suspending the operation of valuation under Part III of the 1948 Act, but he made no provision for any new system of valuation. In the meantime he started recruiting staff to prepare lists on the principles of the 1948 Act for entirely different purposes, of which Parliament had not approved. The Minister has been using staff and spending public money making provisional valuations on a basis not approved by Parliament.

§ The Chairman
I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I must point out to him that the Money Resolution says "any Act of the present Session." It does not apply to any Act already enacted in a previous Session.

§ Mr. Bevan
For what purpose?

§ The Chairman
The payment of any increase: attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session— and not to increases in money spent under any other Act.

§ Mr. Bevan
It is either entirely retrospective or it is not. The Money Resolution before the Committee either states in terms that it relates to increased expenditure for the purposes of the existing Bill or it is attempting to validate expenditure under a previous Act. It is one or the other.

§ The Chairman
The Money Resolution asks for money for any increase under a Bill not yet passed in the present Session. Increases under the provisions of any other Act do not apply.

§ Mr. Bevan
If you look at the Money Resolution, Sir Charles, you will see that it says: sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (1) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Local Government Act, 1948. It revives for the consideration of the Committee the provisions of the Act of 1948.

§ The Chairman
Only so far as an increase is concerned.

§ Mr. Bevan
Certainly, and we are now trying to find out from the Government what the increase is due to. If one can look at the Act of 1948, there ought to have been a reduction in expenditure and not an increase. Therefore, I am not dealing with the content of the 1948 Act or of the Bill but specifically with the authorisation of moneys to be spent by Parliament upon this Bill. If we look at Section 143 (1) of the Act of 1948, to which this Money Resolution refers——

§ The Chairman
Surely it refers to any Act of the present Session and to any increase caused by any Act of the present Session. It has nothing to do with any previous Act.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Money Resolution now before the Committee says: in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (1) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Local Government Act, 1948. " What does subsection (1) say?

§ The Chairman
We need to look earlier than that. That is the last part of the Resolution. The earlier part says it relates to any increase that is asked for now. There is no increase asked for under the old Act. It relates to any Act of the present Session.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect to you. Sir Charles, if this is irrelevant, then it should not appear in the Money Resolution. The fact that sub-paragraph (a) of this Money Resolution refers to Section 143 (1) of the 1948 Act, revives the authority of Parliament to consider it.

§ The Chairman
What it does is to increase payment under a new Act. All it does is to ask for an increase.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am specifically directing the attention of the Committee to finding out why that increase is necessary. The Committee is being asked to authorise an increase in expenditure, and all I ask is why is that increase sought. That, quite specifically, is the point.
Under the 1948 Act there was authorised certain expenditure, and last December the Minister asked the House of Commons to suspend the publication of valuation lists under that Act. He now seeks the consent of the Committee for an increase of expenditure under Section 143 of it. Why the increase? That is the whole point before the Committee. We want to know what he has been doing between now and last November?
So far as we understand it, the valuation officers and the estimators recruited to provide valuation lists under the 1948 Act have been used to make provisional valuation lists in a way not approved by Parliament.

§ The Chairman
That may be so. but it is not under any Act of the present Session.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Minister asks for the authority of Parliament to pay increased sums of money, and we ask, for what purpose? At the present time, Parliament has not authorised these moneys. Is it, therefore, improper for an hon. Member to ask for what purpose this increase is sought?

§ The Chairman
I am not objecting to that. I am objecting to the other Act being discussed.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am not discussing it.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman is invoking it, and he is not allowed to go back.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am simply asking precisely why it is that the Minister requires to have increased sums of money under this Bill, and the reason I ask is that between now and the passing of the Act of 1952, the Minister has been employing staff, on his own admission, under terms not authorised by Parliament.

§ The Chairman
He may have been, and he may be wrong, but it is something 384 which does not arise under consideration of this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Bevan
Then is the Minister attempting to validate this expenditure? If he is, then we want to know under what provision of the Money Resolution before us tonight is he validating it. If, on the other hand, he has been spending money which he is not validating in this Money Resolution, then by what Parliamentary sanction is he doing it?

§ The Chairman
He may be, but not under this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
On a point of order. What strikes those of us who have been trying to follow this extremely intricate and important problem is this. Supposing the Government were, by this Money Resolution, seeking to cover up some wrongful, unauthorised use of public moneys before, that would be a reason why the Committee ought not to pass this Money Resolution today. Therefore, I submit that we are quite entitled to examine what has been the financial behaviour of the Government in the matters leading up to this Money Resolution before we are asked to decide whether we will pass it tonight or reject it.

§ The Chairman
As I read it, this Money Resolution is nothing to do with what has happened in the past. It is asking for money for the future, for an Act of the present Session. It is nothing whatever to do with the past; it is asking for money for future expenditure.

§ Mr. Silverman
How are we to judge the question whether the money proposed to be provided by this Money Resolution ought to be provided to the Government unless we are able to examine the question of how the money comes to be necessary, what has happened so far, what has been spent so far and under what authorisation it has been spent? On those facts the Committee will decide whether to give the Government the Money Resolution they are asking for today or not to give it. If we are precluded from examining the financial conduct of the Government in this matter so far, then we are being precluded from exercising the rights of the Committee to determine whether the Money Resolution shall be given now or not given now.

§ The Chairman
The point is that there has been no money spent by the Government under this Act so far. It cannot have been. The Act is not passed. It is perfectly clear from this Money Resolution what they are asking for. What they have done in other respects I do not know, but as far as this Money Resolution is concerned they are asking for an increase under the Act of the present Session.

§ Mr. Silverman
But what for?

§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)
with great respect——

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I might be allowed to conclude. We always ask for money in advance in Money Resolutions.

§ Mr. Silverman
We are entitled to decide for ourselves, as a Committee, whether the money which the Government are asking for is necessary or not, and whether it ought to be provided or not, but we cannot possibly reach a determination of that question unless we are entitled to look at the matters which have led up to the present position; otherwise we cannot determine the question at all. It is quite true that the Money Resolution has nothing to do with the past Act; it is quite true that the Money Resolution only asks for money to be spent for the purposes of the Act now before Parliament, but we still have to decide whether the Government ought to have that money or not, and we cannot decide whether they ought to have that money or not until we know what they have done so far.

§ The Chairman
Well, that may be a point of view——

§ Mr. Silverman
That is just what I am saying.

§ The Chairman
—but it is not my view, and I am Chairman.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect. The language of the Money Resolution is: it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase"— of any increase— which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session. But the Act under which the 1948 provisions were suspended was in November, the same Session.

§ The Chairman
That is quite true, but that is not under an Act of the present Session.

§ Mr. Bevan
Of course it is.

§ The Chairman
Order. This Money Resolution refers to an Act which is going through its various stages now.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect, Sir Charles, we are dealing with an Act of the present Session and it is either this Act or that Act but they are both in the same Session. In November of last year the right hon. Gentleman, by his Bill which became an Act, suspended the operations of the 1948 Act, Part III.

§ The Chairman
But this Money Resolution is asking for new provisions regarding—— the gross value for rating purposes of dwelling-houses and private garages.… It is quite a new expenditure.

§ Mr. Bevan
It says for the purposes of any Act of the present Session. I am dealing with this Session. I am pointing out the fact that in November of last year the right hon. Gentleman suspended Part III of the 1948 Act and is now asking Parliament to provide moneys for any Act of this Session with respect to those provisions.

§ The Chairman
Not any Act.

§ Mr. Bevan
Any Act of the present Session in respect of certain things——

§ The Chairman
Exactly, and those are the new provisions, and that is what the money is asked for, not for old provisions.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect, Sir Charles, I said earlier that this was an extremely difficult and complicated matter, and where it is complicated arises from here. I wish to get the permission of the Committee to try to make it clear. The Act of 1948 laid down certain conditions under which residences were to be valued. The right hon. Gentleman obtained the consent of Parliament to suspend those provisions. He then proceeded, on his own admission, to employ staffs to value residences on entirely different principles not approved by Parliament. He now comes before Parliament and asks that Parliament shall 387 validate expenditures used for principles to which Parliament has not agreed.

Hon. Members
Nonsense.

§ The Chairman
No. As I read the English language we cannot possibly draw that conclusion from it. It is an "Act of the present Session" to do certain things and an increase is caused by it. We cannot go back to what has happened under another Act and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to——

§ Mr. Bevan
Then, with all respect——

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I might be allowed to finish my sentence? I am trying to be helpful. I am here to see that the Rules of the House are carried out. The right hon. Gentleman is going beyond this Money Resolution, which is what is now before us.

§ Mr. Bevan
In my submission there is no precedent for a Money Resolution which uses language of this kind—— which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session. It would normally apply to the provisions of this Bill. Either it applies to this Bill in particular or to any Act of this Session.

§ The Chairman
Any Money Resolution always uses the word "Act" but perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a Bill, because it is not an Act until it is on the Statute Book.

§ Mr. Bevan
That appears to give me my case entirely, Sir Charles. Either we are speaking of an Act or of a Bill. If we are speaking of an Act then it embraces an Act in the present Session dealing with the same subject, or it deals only with this Bill.

§ The Chairman
That is the point about which I do not agree and I do not want my Ruling to be continually thwarted because I am convinced in my own mind of what this means.

§ Mr. Hugh Dalton (Bishop Auckland)
We are very much at a disadvantage because, when the Money Resolution was moved, the discussion was not begun by a statement from the Government side of the Committee. Therefore, we are at a loss to know for what purpose this money is required. I venture to submit that it is perfectly reasonable, in terms 388 of the Money Resolution, that account should also be taken of the Act of last November. That was within the present Session and therefore it is covered by the phrase for the purposes of any Act of the present Session. And it is covered by the further words to make new provision as respects the gross value …. because in fact the Act of last November postponed the existing provisions and therefore, to that extent, replaced them by further provisions which were certainly new though they were not very definite.
11.45 p.m.
I, therefore, venture to submit to you, Sir Charles, that it is perfectly in order to call in evidence what was provided in the Act of November last year, within the present Session, and to invite the Government, at the appropriate moment, to give an explanation of what this money is needed for; to say whether or not any of this expenditure arises out of the postponement of the previous arrangements under the Act of 1952; and, if so, why this additional money is required; and, in particular, to say whether it is being used in regard to the remuneration of staffs who have been engaged for purposes Parliament has not authorised.

§ The Chairman
I have no doubt that the Government, in due course, will make an explanation. It is not my affair who rises to speak, but it is my affair to try and keep the debate in order. It is clear that all that is asked for is in regard to an Act of the present Session.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ The Chairman
Because it says so here.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Are we competent to discuss why?

§ The Chairman
It is quite competent to ask why the money is required, but this is going much further than that. I will not allow the Minister or anyone else to discuss matters which are not in order.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I am sure that all hon. Members are anxious to try and appreciate your Ruling. Sir Charles. I was hoping, if I succeeded in catching your eye at a later stage in 389 this debate, that I should be able to give some arguments why I am opposed to this Money Resolution being passed, and to explain why I wish to vote against it. To enable me and other hon. Members to do so, we must have an opportunity of ventilating the matter and giving our reasons. What my right hon. Friend is doing is to indicate reasons why we are opposed to this Money Resolution.
One reason I am opposed to it is that I am in the dark as to why this money is wanted. I do not think the money is necessary and I was hoping to put questions designed to give the Minister an opportunity to explain. After all, we are in Committee and our debates are relatively informal compared with the debates which take place on Second Reading. Time is no great object, and this is the traditional opportunity for Parliament, through the Committee, to control expenditure carefully. What my right hon. Friend was trying to do, and what we are all trying to do, is to elicit information from the Government before we can be in a position to vote upon this Money Resolution. My right hon. Friend was trying to assist the Minister, when he replies, by indicating the kind of points on which it is essential we should have information before expressing our opinion.
We must be in a position to put, as clearly as we can, the questions on which information is required. These questions involve information as to what has happened to make it necessary that further expenditure should be incurred. This involves consideration, not only of the provisions of this Bill, but of the Act passed in this Session, which is called the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Act, 1952.

§ The Chairman
It is clear this Resolution is for Valuation for Rating. That is the name of the Bill for which this money is being asked. It is quite in order to ask how much money is wanted and what it is for, but it only deals with an Act of the present Session.

Hon. Members
No.

§ The Chairman
It is no use saying, "No." It is as clear as daylight.

§ The Chairman
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I am sorry if what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say is not in order on the Money Resolution, but it is my duty to keep the Committee in order.

§ Mr. Bevan
All I am desirous of doing is to find out how we can address certain questions to the Minister. What the Money Resolution says, and it is a most original form of words, is That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session… The only other Act of the Session with this subject matter is last November.

§ The Chairman
That does not make provision——

§ Mr. Bevan
It does.

§ The Chairman
—for the increase now asked. That is the whole point.

§ Mr. Bevan
What it does, with all respect, is to authorise the payment of moneys by Parliament under any Act of this Session dealing with this subject matter which makes new provision. The only other Act—and it is wrongly phrased, because it is not an Act, it is a Bill—the only instrument this Session which makes new provisions for the valuation of residential property is this one now before the Committee.

§ The Chairman
No. That is where we part company. This Money Resolution asks to make new provision regarding to the gross value for rating purposes under the Bill before the House at the present time.

§ Mr. Bing
The Government may be at some disadvantage in this matter. As I see it, the difficulty is that it is quite likely, owing to the impetuosity of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that the Government may have incurred some illegal expenditure. Under those circumstances the House, in the tolerant attitude we adopt towards the right hon. Gentleman, may well choose to include in this Bill a Clause dealing with some indemnity for this illegal expenditure. But if we allow the Money Resolution to pass without making provision for the illegal expenditure incurred by the right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage we shall not be able at a subsequent stage——

§ The Chairman
That could not be done under this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Bing
No, Sir Charles. That is exactly why——

§ The Chairman
Order. It could not be done. The phrase is That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session … It is always called an Act. I have never seen other words used.

§ Mr. Bing
With respect, Sir Charles, that is the reason why, as I understand my right hon. Friend, we should reject this Money Resolution, because under it we cannot indemnify the right hon. Gentleman. If we proceed with the Bill we shall be unable to deal with the illegal expenditure incurred. That is the reason why we should have a Money Resolution wide enough to deal with the unfortunate failure of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with money as allocated by Parliament——

§ The Chairman
If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted a Money Resolution to deal with that he would have instructed the Parliamentary draftsmen to that effect. He has not done so and it cannot arise.

§ Mr. Bing
With respect, it is because the right hon. Gentleman has failed, as you yourself have said, Sir Charles, to give proper instructions to Parliamentary counsel the Committee should reject——

§ The Chairman
I did not say any such thing. I said that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to provide in such a way he would have instructed the Parliamentary draftsmen to do so. The Money Resolution before us is all that we can consider and I hope that we may get on.

§ The Chairman
Order. I am confident that I am right. I hope that we may get on.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I have your guidance, Sir Charles? As I understand the position what you are saying is that the Money Resolution deals only with expenditure authorised under this present Bill and that consequently——

§ The Chairman
Increase in expenditure.

§ Mr. Bevan
Exactly.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order.

§ The. Chairman
I thought that the right hon Gentleman was on a point of order. He was asking for my guidance. I shall be very glad to answer anyone I can, but I can only deal with one at a time.

§ Mr. Bevan
I was asking for your guidance, Sir Charles. As I understand the position, the present Money Resolution authorises only expenditure under this present Bill——

§ The Chairman
An increase in expenditure.

§ Mr. Bevan
An increase in expenditure under this Bill. In 1952, the valuation lists made under the 1948 Act were suspended. May I, therefore, take it for granted that any increased expenditure which the Minister has incurred between 1952 and the present time is not validated by this Money Resolution?

§ The Chairman
It certainly could not be unless the Bill was retrospective; but under this Money Resolution it would appear that it could not be.

§ Mr. Bevan
So, in point of fact, the present Money Resolution does not authorise any expenditure between 1952 and the present day. In fact there is no indemnification in this Money Resolution. If that be the case, I am perfectly satisfied.

§ The Chairman
That is my reading of the matter.

§ The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan)
I, too, shall have to seek your guidance, Sir Charles, because I am not quite sure how far I should be in order in replying in any detail to the points which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has put. On this occasion I wish to pay my tribute to him. He was good enough to give me notice some hours ago that he intended to raise this matter. He took some objection to the fact that I thought that on the Second Reading of the Bill it would have been more courteous if he had given me notice that he intended to raise it then. However, perhaps I was wrong. It was out of order then and apparently it is out of order now.
393 On Second Reading I made a reply which he was good enough to refer to as a frivolous response. The only point was that he was not there to hear it. I understand that he had an engagement of far greater importance than attendance upon the House of Commons. He was at a meeting of the Labour Party Executive. He was fighting for his life——

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
On a point of order. You have been busily occupied, Sir Charles, in keeping Members within the bounds of order in what they were saying. I want to know if you will rule in the same way when Front Bench speakers talk about Labour Party activities in connection with this Money Resolution.

§ The Chairman
I was waiting to see whether the point had a bearing on anything which the right hon. Gentleman intended to say.

§ Mr. Macmillan
I was replying to the observations of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Hon. Gentlemen are very sensitive about all these matters. Perhaps it was only a Turpin and Humez affair after all, this great battle. Never mind, we now come to what this Resolution does.
12 midnight.
If I understand your Ruling, Sir Charles, I had better confine myself to what it does. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, having introduced many Resolutions in very much the same terms, that this is pretty well a stock form. Clause 7 of the Bill is more or less the stock Clause designed to cover any increase which the Bill might cause in the cost of the valuation service, and that is its first function. Then, as we always have to do, it covers any increase which the effect of the Bill may have upon the working of the equalisation grants, because almost any change which might take effect might have its reflex action upon the distribution of the equalisation grants according to the formulas which are applied. So this is almost a stock Clause to take the power to have the necessary expenditure to cover both of these possibilities.
In point of fact, it is expected that, if this Bill, for which this is the Money Resolution, should come into effect, the 394 expenditure will probably be rather less than if we were to go on with the 1948 system, but there is the possibility that it may be a little more, so it is always necessary to take these powers in case there might be a slight increase in the new system of valuation, if approved by the House and by Parliament. This is merely the ordinary stock form. Indeed, these are actually the same words as were used in the Act of 1948, in connection with which the right hon. Gentleman moved a Money Resolution: For the purpose of any Act"— not Bill— of the present Session to amend the law … They are almost the same stock words as in this Resolution. That is the purpose of the Resolution, and it is its sole purpose.
I should be out of order, and, therefore, do not intend, to open up an agreeable discussion on whether I am permitting some improper procedure, for which I shall be held personally liable by the Public Accounts Committee, mulcted in immense damages which I should not be able to pay, so that I should have to ask the aid of the right hon. Gentleman to get an Indemnity Bill. When it comes, I shall certainly take his help. He has the famous name of the man who was shot to encourage the others. He will have a kind of hereditary interest in helping me, but, as all that would be quite out of order, I shall not refer to it.
I shall merely assure the Committee once more that the Resolution does exactly what it says. It provides for any increase, should there be an increase, which we do not think likely, in the new method of valuation over the old, and it provides for any increase which in consequence of its results might flow into the equalisation grants, because it may have the effect of different results in different local authorities, and that must be provided for. If there has been this crime, which I am alleged by the right hon. Gentleman to have committed, there may perhaps be a Supply day or some other opportunity when we can debate it, when I would be very glad to rebut the arguments he might put up, but I will leave it at that for tonight.

§ Mr. Bevan
The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear, as the Chair 395 made it clear, that what we are now dealing with is merely a Money Resolution to validate what may be an increase in expenditure under the terms of the present Bill. If we were suspicious of the term "any Act of this Session" it is because of the sharp practice of the present Administration, which, only quite recently, completely reversed the procedure of Parliament for over half a century by concealing in innocent and formal language what was, indeed, a trick. We were anxious to find out from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, his interpretation of the words contained here validated the expenses which he has incurred between November of last year and the present Bill.
We now understand from him—and we have understood from the Chair—that that expenditure is, in fact, not validated, and that all we are dealing with is the increased expenditure under the Bill. We have got that far. With his customary courtesy the right hon. Gentleman has used a private explanation which I gave to him. I met him this evening and told him I intended to raise this matter. I told him why I was not able to be present on the last occasion, and with his usual good taste he has used a private conversation for public disclosure. All I can say to him is that in the future I shall treat him like the cad he is.

Hon. Members
Order.

§ The Chairman
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. It is out of order to call each other cads across the Floor. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark.

§ Mr. Bevan
I regret that in the circumstances I was led to use a form of expression that normally I would not use, but it is not customary in the procedure of the House of Commons for Members to use, in public, explanations given to them in private conversation. It is not normal, and if I am asked to withdraw what I said the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw what he said. I ask him now to withdraw.

§ Mr. H. Macmillan
I cannot let that pass. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me today he would raise this matter, and gave the reason why he 396 was not present at the end of the last debate, and to say I am not allowed to make ordinary use of what I thought was a piece of fun——

§ Mr. John Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)
Hypocrite !

§ Mr. Macmillan
—is a most monstrous accusation. The right hon. Gentleman has really tried to make a great mountain out of a very small mole hill and a little piece of fun across the Floor. The fact is that he likes chaffing and attacking other people, but, like many people who make attacks, he is very sensitive to a counter-attack. Since I know his character, since we have had a long friendship in this House, far apart from party discussions, going back for many years, if I have in any way offended him I am sorry, and I hope he will take it in the spirit in which it was given—as a piece of fun.

Hon. Members
Oh !

§ The Chairman
I think we might try to calm ourselves. I think I heard the hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) call the Minister a hypocrite.

§ Mr. Baird
So he is.

Hon. Members
Order.

§ The Chairman
I hope that that remark will be withdrawn. We really must behave properly.

§ Mr. Baird
I did use the word "hypocrite," Sir Charles, and if it is an unparliamentary term I certainly withdraw it, but the argument of the Minister was such that it is difficult to find a word for it.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Minister has withdrawn what he said in an extremely discourteous fashion. Nevertheless, it must be obvious to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee that if private conversations are used in public then there is no possibility of verifying what has been said. I could say what I thought the right hon. Gentleman said to me, and where would we go from there?
It has always been considered the proper thing that private conversation between Members ought not to be used in public debates. That is all I say, and I accept the withdrawal of the right hon. 397 Gentleman, and hope he will not do it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "You withdraw."] I have done so. We are now in Committee on the Money Resolution, and the Report stage has still to come. We shall have to consider what we have to do because, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has been spending public moneys without Parliamentary validation, and we——

§ The Chairman
That is the very point which I said could not be discussed. It has nothing to do with this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), although he may not feel it right to press his point further tonight, will, nevertheless, reserve it for the Report stage of the Money Resolution. For my part, I am bound to say that I am not in the least satisfied with or impressed by the explanation given by the Minister.
It is quite true that he has said that nothing in this Money Resolution would validate any improper expenditure incurred, and it is quite true—and I think we are grateful for it—that you, Sir Charles, have expressed the same opinion. But I hope I shall not be thought disrespectful if I say that the interpretation of Acts of Parliament is not accepted in the courts according to the opinion either of the Minister in charge of the Bill of how they ought to be interpreted, or, with the greatest possible respect, of the Chairman of the particular Parliamentary Committee who happens to be presiding at the moment.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in spite of what you, Sir Charles, have said, I am not at all satisfied that the courts if called upon to interpret the Bill we are now considering and the Money Resolution would not, nevertheless, come to the conclusion that they did validate expenditure which, but for this Money Resolution, would not have been legal. I am not saying whether they would be right or wrong in that opinion. I am saying that the interpretation of an Act of Parliament will not be for the Minister and will not be for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but for the courts.

§ The Chairman
I have not the advantage of being a lawyer, so I cannot 398 express an opinion as to what the courts would do. All I am dealing with is what is on the Order Paper, which I must do, and I am saying what I think is right.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am not quarrelling with it for a moment, and I am not seeking to reopen the discussion which my right hon. Friend wished to open and which you, Sir Charles, thought it would be wrong to pursue. I accept your ruling. What I am saying is that although it has been said that the Money Resolution, in the form in which we are being asked to pass it, would not, in fact, do certain things, and that therefore it is not proper for us to discuss those certain things, I am not satisfied that the courts would come to the same conclusion. Until we are satisfied of that, I suggest that the Committee and the House would be very ill-advised to give the Government the Money Resolution for which they are asking without very much clearer and fuller explanations than we have so far been given. That is why I am asking my right hon. Friend not to abandon his point at this stage, even though he is precluded for the moment from pursuing elucidation of it.
I quite see that the word "Act" in the Money Resolution must obviously be interpreted as including the Bill and which will some day be an Act. Of course, any Act of the present Session must include the Bill we are now discussing, but that is not the point raised. The point is whether it is exclusively limited to the present Bill or whether the words any Act of the present Session do not include, besides the Bill we are now considering, any other Act on the same subject which Parliament has passed within the calendar limits of what we describe as the present Session of Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reserve all his rights in this matter. No function of Parliament is more fundamental to the proper operation of the Constitution of this country than control over money. It would be quite wrong of hon. Gentlemen on this side to abrogate their function of seeing that money is not expended by Ministers without proper Parliamentary control.

§ Mr. Bing
I wished to address the Committee for a few moments to show 399 why I do not think it is desirable to pass this Money Resolution. If, by way of preface, I deal with the affairs of the Conservative Central Office and the battle that raged in 1774 when the Tory Government were very much at fault, I hope that you will allow me the same latitude as you allowed to the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Charles.
The Committee ought not to pass a Money Resolution as restricted as this. The Government are not coming here asking for all the money that they require. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that he had spent money in advance of passing the Bill. His system of accountancy is a typical Conservative one, rather as it is done in the City; you spend the money first and you account for it afterwards. It might be better to deal with public money in a rather stricter way than that by which the right hon. Gentleman works his housing figures.
Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side ought to consider whether this Money Resolution is wide enough. My suggestion is that it will be nothing like wide enough when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee and find that we shall have to put in a Clause to excuse the unfortunate irregular expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman, which I am sure he did in the utmost good faith. It is necessary to preserve proper form in these matters. We shall find in Committee on the Bill that the very Clauses that the right hon. Gentleman will want to move, in order to regularise the position, are cut out by his own Money Resolution.
It would be a great mistake on the part of the Opposition if we were to take transitory advantage now and let the whole thing go through on the nod, and later say to the Minister, "You cannot complain, because you passed the Money Resolution." It is only fair to give an opportunity to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has a direct interest in this matter, to explain that the Government would like to withdraw this Resolution and deal with it at a little later stage, after reconsidering the matter.
Therefore, I make an appeal to the Committee. It is apparent to all sides that there has been irregular expenditure on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I think you 400 yourself, Sir Charles, reproved hon. Members for indicating their views by shakes of the head. If any hon. Gentleman thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has not committed irregular expenditure will you let him get up and say so? [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be out of order."] If I were out of order, Sir Charles, I am sure that you, at least, would stop me.

§ The Chairman
Hon. Members are going beyond the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Bing
Of course we are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is exactly what I am saying. The problem we have to deal with is not dealt with by the Money Resolution.

§ The Chairman
We have to deal with it in this Committee.

§ Mr. Bing
With great respect, surely we cannot deal with the matter in Committee unless we arrange that the Money Resolution is wide enough to deal with any Clauses which the Government may wish to insert during the Committee stage? It may well be that the Minister still thinks he has not incurred any illegal expenditure; but supposing he has. Would it not be reasonable——

§ The Chairman
We cannot consider that because if he has incurred illegal expenditure, he has certainly not done it under this Money Resolution. The expenditure may have been illegal, but it has nothing to do with this.

§ Mr. Bing
Surely it is because this expenditure has been incurred—expenditure which is illegal—that——

§ The Chairman
We cannot talk about illegal expenditure, because that cannot possibly arise; and it cannot arise because this Bill is not law yet.

§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)
I should like to seek your guidance, Sir Charles. I should like you to tell us how much wider of the rule is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) than was the Minister when he so disgracefully divulged to the Committee the contents of a private conversation which he had several hours ago with my right hon. Friend.

§ The Chairman
I have to be quite impartial in ruling hon. Members out of order. We have had this matter thrashed 401 out thoroughly, and my Ruling, I should have thought, is perfectly clear. If the Committee disagrees with it, I cannot help that.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I take it that the point put by my hon. and learned Friend is that he does not think the Committee ought to adopt the Money Resolution now before it because, on the rulings which we have had, it is not wide enough to cover something which he thinks ought to be covered in the Bill. Why is that not a good argument to be advanced in a debate where the question is whether the Money Resolution be adopted or rejected? It has repeatedly been ruled from the Chair that the Money Resolution does not deal with an allegation—if an allegation is possible about unauthorised expenditure in the past—but if my hon. and learned Friend comes to a conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there was some unauthorised expenditure and the Bill ought to indemnify——

§ The Chairman
I have tried for an hour to say that if there has been unauthorised expenditure, it has nothing to do with this Money Resolution; nothing whatever, and it cannot be discussed now.

§ Mr. Silverman
I accept the Ruling that there is nothing in this Money Resolution about unauthorised expenditure under the Bill or any other Act of the present session. But my hon. and learned Friend's argument is founded upon that fact because he thinks that no Money Resolution ought to be adopted by the Committee unless drawn in such terms as would enable the Bill to which it was related to validate any mistake of that kind which might turn out to have been made.
With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, I find it very difficult to understand why any hon. Member of the Committee should not be entitled to argue that this Money Resolution ought not to be adopted precisely because it is far too narrow to cover things which might, on the Committee stage of the Bill, turn out to be necessary to be covered. I should have thought that the kind of point which has been argued out, for and against, on every consecutive Money Resolution I have heard debated in this Committee during the 18 years I have been a Member of the House of Commons.

§ The Chairman
The Question is, "That for the purposes"——

§ Mr. Bing
With great respect, Sir Charles, I had not finished addressing the Committee on this matter. I gave way only to hear what you had to say. If I would be in order in so doing—and I hope I will be—perhaps I might refer to the actual words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill itself. I refer the Committee, if I may, to the part headed "Financial effect of the Bill" which says: Clause 7. The Bill may possibly involve an increase in the amounts payable under section 143 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1948, for the remuneration and expenses of valuation officers and their assistants and the expenses of Ministers under that Act. The argument that I have been attempting to address to the Committee is that this Financial Resolution is not wide enough to cover what is foreshadowed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum because, as we understand from the Minister, already a good deal of this expenditure has been incurred and these men have been set to work on these new tasks in anticipation of the passing of the Bill. If that is so, it may be perfectly proper and right, but the Financial Resolution——

§ The Chairman
It would be most improper under this Bill to start expenditure until the increase has been granted.

§ Mr. Bevan
Under the Financial Memorandum.

§ The Chairman
The Financial Memorandum is not part of the Bill. We are dealing now with the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Bing
All I am asking—and I think we ought to have some reply from someone opposite before we proceed further—is, what are these increased expenditures? Perhaps I can put it in this way. Has the Minister had any previous experience of applying staff to the tasks which they will, in fact, carry out under the Bill? Let us leave aside the question whether the expenditure is legal or not. At least we can get some indication of the sum involved if we hear from the Minister and have a definite answer to the question. Have people been engaged before, up to this date, on the tasks that they will be engaged on if this Bill becomes law? If they have 403 been it will give the Committee a very good idea of the sort of expenditure likely to be incurred under this Bill. If the Minister has already been employing these people to do these jobs, leaving aside the question whether he has any Parliamentary authority to do so or not, and assuming for the purposes of this debate that he has got full Parliamentary authority, that somehow the thing slipped through in the Estimates and neither you nor I, Sir Charles, noticed it——

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I did not notice it, but I do notice that it cannot be done under this Money Resolution.

§ The Chairman
I do ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether this has not gone far enough. He knows perfectly well how far he can go, and I am getting a little cross now.

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of order. Until now we have been dealing with whether it is possible to discuss the validation of expenditure by the Minister between 1952 and the present time. You ruled, Sir Charles, that this present Money Resolution, whatever it does, does not validate any expenditure, whether illegal or otherwise. We leave that point. The next point we come to is whether the Minister can give us any idea at all as to what is the increased expenditure which is being authorised by this Money Resolution. That, I submit, is in order, if anything can be in order.

§ The Chairman
That is in order, and the reply has been given.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect, it is not for the Chair to say whether a reply has been given. That is for the Committee.

§ The Chairman
I am here to conduct——

§ Mr. Bevan
Oh, no.

§ The Chairman
Let me finish my sentence. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what I am going to say. I am here to conduct the affairs of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of order and asked whether to ask the amount of expenditure was in order. I said it was quite in order, and the answer has been given; I heard it myself.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect——

§ The Chairman
We are on a point of order, are we not?

§ Mr. Bevan
Yes.

§ The Chairman
Well, I am answering it.

§ Mr. Bevan
With great respect, Sir Charles, the Chair is not in a position to pass judgment upon the adequacy of a Ministerial reply.

§ The Chairman
I did not express any opinion on its adequacy; I said the matter had been replied to.

§ Mr. Bing
It seems to me, with great respect, that my speech was directed to exactly this point. I was suggesting that the Minister had instructed various valuation officers to make valuations on the new basis. He can tell us, first of all, whether that is so or not. If, in fact, that was done, he is then in a position to give us some indication of the cost. Up to now he has said he does not know, but surely he must know what the cost is if he has instructed the valuation officers to make a valuation on the new basis, because he will know how many he has to employ.

§ The Chairman
He cannot have done that legally under the present Act and, therefore, we cannot discuss it.

§ Mr. Bing
He may not have done it legally.

§ The Chairman
If he has done it illegally it does not arise now. The Committee is being asked for an increase under an Act of the present Session.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
It is difficult to follow this Ruling, Sir Charles. Supposing it should turn out on inquiry that all the work contemplated by this Bill has been done and has been paid for, whether legally or illegally. Surely that would be a relevant part for the Committee to consider when it is asked whether it will grant the Government more money to do a job which, on that hypothesis would already have been done. Surely we must be entitled to ask the Government, "How much of the work which you propose to pay for by the moneys under this Money Resolution has already been done? Because, if it has 405 all been done, you will not need any more money."

§ The Chairman
It cannot have been done under this Act.

§ Mr. Bing
Surely we are concerned now with whether it is necessary to make any further provision for any sums to be spent. If by some oversight the total sum needed has already been paid out, whether legally or illegally, there is no need for us to vote it because the job has been done. If, for example, there was a Bill for building a battleship and the battleship had been built by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—who is always inclined to do those things without any appropriate authority—then we might say that it was unnecessary to pass the Bill. In the same way it is unnecessary to pass this Resolution if the Minister has done all this work before the Bill is introduced. All I am trying to seek is some information from the Minister of Housing as to how much of this work has been done already, because that will give us some guidance.

§ The Chairman
None of it can be done legally under this Act.

§ Mr. Bevan
That does not matter.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)
On a point of order, Sir Charles. Do you not think it would be a good idea if we had one speech which was remotely in order? Every speech to which I have listened so far has been clearly out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Unless it relates to future expenditure, it is out of order.

§ The Chairman
I am sorry if I have not satisfied the Committee. I am doing my best, but have not been very successful I am afraid.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order, Sir Charles. You have said—and I am sure that you are right—that no money can have been spent already under this Bill. That is a proposition with which I am sure every hon. Member will agree. But, with respect, that is not the point which is troubling us. We are being asked under this Bill to pass a Money Resolution which will enable the Government to spend moneys under the authority of the Bill. What the Committee is concerned with is the question whether it is necessary to do 406 so. Whether moneys previously spent were spent under the authority of this Bill or any other Act, or no Bill or Act at all, is not relevant here. The important thing is whether the job, for which money is now sought, has been completed and paid for so that no more money is necessary. Whether any previous work done had been paid for under a Money Resolution or by this Bill is irrelevant to that question. We are only concerned whether the Government requires any more money, such as this Money Resolution seeks to provide.
Clearly, if work still needs to be done, it will have to be paid for and Parliament will have to provide the money. If the work has already been done and paid for, no further money will be required. We have to decide that question tonight. How can we decide it without knowing what work has been done already which bears upon the work contemplated and which is to be paid for under this Money Resolution?

§ Mr. Bing
My point seems to be very reasonable. I cannot understand the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), whom we all congratulate on his recent honour, and whom, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman consulted about procedure before taking any step in this matter. At least, we are entitled to some explanation as to how much the work has cost already? He can either tell us or——

§ The Chairman
The work cannot have cost any money already under the present Act. There is no authority for any expenditure under the present Act.

§ Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
Take a hammer.

§ Mr. Bing
It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman is acting illegally. Whether he is or not does not matter in assessing the amount of the expenditure. He knows how much it cost. That is what we want to know. The fact he was not authorised to spend the money is neither here nor there. The horrible fact is that he has spent the money whether he was entitled by Parliament to do so or not.

§ The Chairman
That is the whole point hon. Members have been trying to make. That may or may not be so, but it does not arise now.

§ Mr. Bevan
We have dealt with the other point, which you have been good enough to advise the Committee about, Sir Charles, and now we come to the second point. Why is the Minister for Housing and Local Government unable to give the Committee a clear idea of what the increased expenditure, if any, will be? He is asking the Committee to give him a blank cheque. He said that there might not be increased expenditure at all. In my experience, whenever we have discussed Money Resolutions, we have always required a certain amount of precision. Quite frequently, Money Resolutions contain an estimate of the amount of money involved. This Money Resolution contains no estimate, and I understand if hon. Members opposite do not care very much if the Money Resolution contains any. We are in a very unusual situation.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government defended his Bill last November on the grounds that, in fact, it enabled the Government to make explorations. He said: I must refer once more to the question of the irregularity … I explained it to the House in August, and I explained it again in November"— this is what the right hon. Gentleman said on this Bill immediately before the Recess— —and I think it was a perfectly straightforward account. We have continued to make a certain number of valuation tests in the old manner, and we have made some in the new manner of an exploratory kind. I do not see how anyone can complain of that on the part of the Inland Revenue so long as these tests are purely exploratory. The only thing which would be wrong would be if they tried to give such valuations legal effect when there was no legal power behind them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 2393.] Quite right, but no Minister in my recollection has had so many opportunities as the right hon. Gentleman has had of making pilot tests which would lead him to conclude what would be the increased expenditure, if any. I am not questioning at the moment the legality or otherwise of it, but he has been permitted by the House to spend the money and to use officers for the purpose of making tests as to what would be the effect of the new principles of valuation contained in the Bill.
Therefore, he is in a better position than any Minister has ever been to tell us how much increased expenditure if 408 any this Bill will involve. But he has given us none. He has already said that he does not know whether it will cost any more money or not, yet he had had these pilot tests. I should have thought that it was perfectly in order for the Committee to ask the Minister to give more precise information as to the conclusion he has reached on the tests he has already made.

§ Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)
How could he be more precise than he has been?

§ Mr. Bevan
We are at liberty to explore what financial obligation the Committee is undertaking. Hon. Gentlemen ought not to be impatient.
There is another issue, too. We do not know what effect the proposals that the Minister is now asking the Committee to undertake will have on the general level of valuation. Under the second part of the Resolution if the rateable value of local authorities is reduced higher Exchequer grants are attracted under the Equalisation Fund. Under the Act of 1948 the Government are under an obligation to make good any decline in revenue the local authorities may get from the Equalisation Fund.
If the right hon. Gentleman has made these exploratory tests then, even if he cannot say under the first heading how much more money the staffs will cost in making the new valuations, he ought to be able to say if there will be any increase in the Equalisation Fund or not. He will know whether the rateable value per head of the population in his test areas has gone up or down. If it has gone down that will attract more money under the Equalisation Fund. Is he unable to give us any idea at all whether there will be any increase and, if so, how much?
This is the precise second heading of the Financial Resolution. The first heading I am prepared to dismiss although I thought that we could have more precision. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has taken many thousands of test cases—at least 50,000 or 60,000. If he has taken them in the areas which attract money heavily—in Yorkshire, Durham and South Wales—he should be able to say what is the effect of the new principles on the rateable value per head of the population.
409 Has he no information? Is he suggesting that his pilot schemes have given him no precision of any sort? If precision has been given are not we entitled in the Money Resolution to know how much additional Exchequer money will be attracted? Are we to have this ambiguity? I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise precisely what they are agreeing to. I was a Minister for 6½ years and I say that if Ministers are to be permitted to spend money on exploratory schemes not sanctioned by Parliament—and that I do not discuss—then an entirely new epoch opens up. I hope that hon. Members will remember this. This chicken will come home to roost all right. I am not arguing that. All I say is that if the right hon. Gentleman has been able to spend money in an entirely original fashion he ought to be able to frame his Financial Resolutions with more precision than he has done and to tell the Committee what, in fact, the increased amount of money, if any, will be.
The right hon. Gentleman has not done the passage of his Bill any good. He could have been more candid. He could have been less provocative. He could have tried to guide the Committee in what he considers will happen. The local authorities are frightened about that. They are very alarmed about the effect of these provisions on Government finance. We have had resolutions already from local authorities all over the country, including Tory authorities. Indeed, we all know that privately the right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly alarmed about the effect on industrial hereditaments and residential property which will result from the legislation which has been passed and that which is now going through Parliament.
Local authorities are, naturally, anxious to find out whether the rateable value of their residential property will go up or down, because if it goes down they get more money and if it goes up they get less. We fear that in areas where there is an abundance of small cottage property the new principles of valuation will bring the valuation up and reduce the amount of money from the Exchequer whereas those areas where in the main larger houses exist will benefit. Therefore, we are anxious to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman 410 has made any estimate whatever of what may be the effect on rate equalisation grants of the new principles of valuation which he himself is operating under this Bill and which he is asking authority for in this Money Resolution. At least, we are entitled to have that. Whatever else may have been out of order, those two questions are in order.

§ Mr. H. Macmillan
It would be most discourteous of me not to answer the points which the right hon. Gentleman has now put. I might say that he has this advantage. If his batteries are not always very heavy, they are exceedingly mobile, so that after arguing for a considerable time about the part of the Resolution which deals with the cost of valuation he can now say, "I do not press that any more; I have nothing more to say about that; I now come to the second part." What has been the whole subject of the discussion up to now— the precise cost or the possible additional cost—the right hon. Gentleman waived aside and went on to another very important point, but one which he himself pressed for the first time—the effect upon the equalisation grants.
On the first point, I repeat that I do not anticipate that, if Parliament should authorise this new method of valuation, the cost of doing it will, in fact, be no greater than the cost at present. It may quite probably be a little less, but, in a Bill of this kind, it is common form to take these powers in case there should be some small additional cost. I do not think the cost will be greater, but we must cover it.
When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the impropriety of introducing a Money Resolution without an estimate of the cost, if he looks at the one accompanying the 1948 Act, which ran to two columns of HANSARD, he will find no estimate of the cost, nor, indeed, is it common practice. There is another on the Order Paper today, and it is common form to provide in these cases for an increase if there should be an increase. I can only say that there is not likely to be an increase in the cost, but there may be a small one, and, therefore, we have to take the necessary powers, like all previous Governments have done, to provide for it in case it should happen. I think I have now dealt with that point.
411 I am not going into the question of an Act of indemnity for my so-called illegal operations, which, tempting though it may be, would be out of order. I will refrain from doing so, because the attack on me was thin, and it is hardly necessary for me to reply to it. The second point, however, is important, and, here again, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing from two different points of view. If the right hon. Gentleman says that, out of propriety for the House of Commons and our procedure, I ought to be able to say what additional cost may fall upon the Equalisation Fund as a result of the 1948 valuation, as amended by this Bill, the only reason for doing that would be if we anticipated that there might be some heavy additional cost upon the Equalisation Fund, when Parliament ought to be informed if there was likely to be a heavy addition, but the whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the fear, not of an addition, but of a reduction, and, if there was to be a reduction, it would not be necessary to take a Money Resolution to deal with an addition.
Then, the right hon. Gentleman says that, if we find that the standard of assessment is raised, there will be a reduction in the amount paid, but, whatever the argument on that may be, this is a Financial Resolution the sole purpose of which is to provide for a possible addition. That is the purpose of the second part of the Resolution, in case more money has to be provided by the House of Commons, and I can only repeat what I said before. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the equalisation grant is paid to all counties and county boroughs which, in any year, have a rateable value less than the standard rateable value, which is the measure of the financial resources of the authority.
Nobody can say at this stage—it is quite impossible—what will be the effect of the revaluation when it comes into being over the whole field, but it is necessary to take provision under our ordinary procedure that, if there should be an increase, the Financial Resolution agreed to by the House should ensure that the increase which will be due to the local authorities will be forthcoming out of money provided by Parliament.