Commons Sitting of 6 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.>
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Kingsway Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet received the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the possible use of the Kingsway Tunnel.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds: Could not the Minister say when the Report is likely to be received? Is there not some way in which this tunnel can be used in the meantime?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the Committee is to study the matter at its meeting fixed for the 15th of this month. Of course, I do not know what its conclusion will be.

    Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to make a statement giving details of the progress being made in the work of completing the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The preparatory work of overhauling the existing plant and equipment which was authorised in January last should be completed about
    1100
    the end of this year. I have now formally authorized the main tunnel scheme, and this should enable the scheme to go out to tender in September.
    Mr. Dodds: Jolly good.

    Lay-bys, Scotland
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will initiate a programme for the construction of lay-bys for use by heavy road transport on all main trunk roads in Scotland.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have for some time been constructing lay-bys on trunk roads and many have already been provided in Scotland. I propose to continue to provide them where needed.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that in the recent scheme for straightening the road between Aberdeen and Elgin, carried out in the last few months, no provision was made for a lay-by, although an already macadamised road was alongside the track and could have been used for that purpose?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will look into the point to which my hon. Friend has been good enough to draw my attention, I have particulars of a number of roads where the work is being done, or is authorised.
    Mr. Vane: When my right hon. Friend makes provision for the construction of lay-bys, will he make sure that they are properly looked after, for many are becoming dumps for an enormous amount of rubbish, if not public lavatories?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Responsibility for that state of affairs depends on whether they are trunk or classified roads.
    Mr. Slater: Do we understand, when the right hon. Gentleman says "where needed," that it depends on the local authority making application to the Minister for this work to be put in hand?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would prefer to put it that the views of the highway authority on the need are matters to which I give weight.

    A38, Gloucester
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many road accidents took place in 1952, 1953, and 1954 on the road A38 between the

    1101
    Gloucester City boundary and Berkeley Road Station; and what was the number of killed and injured involved.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the Minister aware that when necessary resources can be

    ACCIDENTS AND CASUALTIES ON A38 BETWEEN GLOUCESTER CITY BOUNDARY AND BERKELEY ROAD STATION

    Year

    Accidents

    Casualties

    Personal injury

    No personal injury

    Total

    Killed

    Seriously injured

    Slightly injured

    Total

    1952

    …

    …

    54

    76

    130

    2

    33

    48

    83

    1953

    …

    …

    44

    76

    120

    —

    26

    40

    66

    1954

    …

    …

    55

    116

    171

    4

    29

    43

    76

    Bath Road, A4
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the dangerous traffic conditions on the Bath Road, A4, between its junction with the Parkway and the eastern end of the Colnbrook by-pass; and what action he proposes for the improvement of this road.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to widen this road and improve the refuges next year.
    Mr. Hunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that the local authority concerned has a request for a subway, and would he kindly consider a subway again?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My present proposal is to proceed by improving the refuges, which, I think, is the best method of dealing with what is, I agree with the hon. Member, a rather difficult stretch of road. I think the right thing is to try that. If it does not prove successful, I will look into the alternatives.

    Improvement Scheme, Wrexham
    Mr. Idwal Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now grant to the Wrexham Borough
    1102
    found for the building of a Severn Road Bridge that will do a great deal to relieve difficulties and dangers on that important road?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take the point which my hon. Friend has put forward, and I am sure that he will consider the figures I am circulating.
    Following is the answer:
    Council permission to carry out improvements in the main road near the zebra crossing at the junction of Kenyon Avenue and Chester Road, Wrexham.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to authorise this scheme very shortly.

    Trunk Road Diversion Scheme, Louth
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he anticipates starting building the proposed trunk road diversion north of Louth; and, in view of the heavy traffic carried on this road from Grimsby and its many dangerous bends, if he will give the alterations urgent priority.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to include this scheme amongst those which I shall put in hand on the Norman Cross-Grimsby trunk road. I cannot at present give a date.

    Development Plans (Progress)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has so far been made in carrying out the road development plans announced in his statement on 2nd February, 1955.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In my statement on 2nd February I named twenty-seven

    1103
    large schemes which I hoped to authorise this year. I have no reason to doubt that they will be duly authorised. I expect that actual work will have started on at least a quarter of those schemes by the end of September and that work on practically all the remainder will start before the end of the financial year. Many other smaller schemes will of course also be put in hand this year.
    Mr. Williams: While that interim progress report appears to be satisfactory, would it not be more helpful to give details of the progress of particular schemes such as those for the Catterick by-pass and the Newcastle-Throckley dual carriageway improvements?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I announced on 2nd February a number of larger schemes, and, as I then said to the House, for the sake of keeping the programme reasonably flexible, I did not want to announce too many ahead. I should like to consider what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the preliminary work is being undertaken progressively on the Doncaster by-pass?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have very much in mind the Doncaster by-pass, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to talk over with me the other day.
    Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people may, by the announcement he made yesterday, have been misled into believing that the February programme has in some way been extended or expedited? Would he say what is holding up this programme? Is the reason technical or financial?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The programme, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate if he reads the report of the Answer I have given, is proceeding satisfactorily.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: All these schemes which have so far been authorised represent one-quarter of those announced. How many of them were included in the programme of December, 1953, of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the Exchequer expenditure during the current financial year? Will it be more or less than what the right hon. Gentleman's
    1104
    predecessor estimated in December, 1953?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman wants more information than that I have already given the House on the subject, perhaps he will be good enough to table a Question about it.

    Victoria and Alexandra Gates, Hyde Park (Traffic Congestion)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the daily congestion of traffic at the Victoria and Alexandra Gates of Hyde Park, he will construct roundabouts at both places forthwith.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Work in the parks is within the control of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. I am discussing these questions with him and the highway authorities concerned.
    Captain Pilkington: In view of the terrible congestion at both these entrances, does my right hon. Friend not think that action ought to be hastened? Does not the layout there allow for the construction of roundabouts, which would speed up the traffic? Will my right hon. Friend look at the situation there himself, to see how bad it is?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of the facts about both those places, but I must not be led into giving an expression of opinion on matters in which I am only one of the three authorities concerned.

    Railway Level Crossings
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that a number of fatal accidents have recently taken place at unattended railway level crossings; and whether, in order to promote road safety, he will arrange for the provision of better safety devices at the crossings.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. In the light of recent accidents I have been inquiring into the old and thorny problem of occupation and accommodation crossings. The difficulty arises not so much in determining the types of safety devices needed as in deciding who shall pay for the additional measures required as the result of the increased use of the crossings. I am reviewing the whole matter.

    Unclassified Roads (Upgrading Basis)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the basis upon which applications made by highway authorities are considered for the upgrading of unclassified roads to Class III roads.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Applications are considered on the basis of the value of the road to through traffic and its relation to the general traffic system.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister reexamine the situation, in view of the ancient formula there is regarding through traffic, which is of no great use in hilly country such as we have in Wales? Ought not local usage to be taken into account in such areas? Will he re-examine the method of application?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That raises, as I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, a very much wider question indeed, affecting the financial relations of the central Government and local government, which I had better not comment on at Question Time.

    Accidents (Information Procedure)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will ask for a return either from the local authorities or from the police of those places where accidents are abnormally high in order that he may see to what extent road improvements in such places should be carried out immediately.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Under existing arrangements, the police are asked to forward information to local highway authorities where accidents appear to have been caused or contributed to by deficiencies in the road. These arrangements, however, are under review and I hope to issue a circular to local highway authorities on the subject soon.
    Captain Pilkington: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to the excellent publication, "Roadway to Safety," and does he not think that the improvement of these bad spots is the quickest way of saving lives and preventing accidents?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly, Sir; that is why I am glad to say that we
    1106
    shall be clearing up some hundreds of them this year.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Minister aware that even where only moderate investment is involved, the burden of proving a spot dangerous falls on local road safety committee? Is there not a case for speeding up decisions, bearing in mind such classic cases as Mackley Corner near Lichfield, which has been known to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry for over two years? When the various authorities who have responsibility have got themselves into a Gordian knot, should the Minister not cut it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said in my original answer that I am not satisfied with the existing procedure and I am trying to bring it up to date. I have in mind something like the preparation of accident maps, which would show the incidence of accidents on the road more clearly than does the present system.

    Toll Bridges
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many toll bridges in England, Wales and Scotland are still in existence; and what steps he contemplates in his roads programme to take over these bridges or supersede them by the provision of new road bridges.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Fifty-seven, Sir, including footbridges. At present, I am concentrating the resources available on construction of roads and bridges.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does that answer mean that the Minister is going to supersede some of these toll bridges in his roads programme? As the Minister is probably aware, in my constituency we have one problem which is causing not only irritation and inconvenience, but considerable expense to my constituents.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the case about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned but, as I told him on an earlier occasion, at the moment I am giving greater priority to actual construction works rather than the redemption of tolls.
    Sir L. Ropner: Does my right hon. Friend recall the promise given by his predecessor that Selby toll bridge was on the top of the list of bridges to be freed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure whether that is a precise paraphrase of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, but I am aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's proper concern about this matter.

    Cromwell Road Extension, Chiswick
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what improvements are to be made to Chiswick High Street and the approaches to the Great West Road during the period before the new approach road is complete, and when that will be.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The highway authority for Chiswick High Road is the Middlesex County Council, which has not made any improvement proposals to me. The Cromwell Road Extension scheme includes an altered layout at the junction of Chiswick High Road and the Great West Road and I expect this to be completed before the new road is open to through traffic.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that some time long before this very necessary new extension is completed traffic on this important approach to London will seize up if it goes on increasing at its present rate; and while part of the road may not be under the direct control of the Minister it must be a matter of concern to him? Could he not ease some of the obstructions as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman studies my Answer he will appreciate that by the time of the completion of the road the approach to the other road which he has in mind will be dealt with, and the question of its condition further up can certainly be considered with the highway authority responsible.

    New Kerbs and Road Widening
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made in the elimination of raised kerbs and the provision of more road space by reducing verges and unnecessarily wide pavements on roads under his control.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Where new kerbs are necessary it is my general policy to provide flush or splayed kerbs. I am
    1108
    proposing to send out a circular to highway authorities in the next two or three weeks containing advice on this point. It is the normal practice to widen substandard roads when resurfacing, if sufficient verge width is available.
    Mr. Grimond: Does that answer mean that while the new roads are to have this new type of kerb the Minister is unable to take away some of the dangerous kerbs which are on existing roads?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not a question of what I can do in respect of a large number of roads which are the responsibility of the highway authorities. What I am doing is to amend substantially the advice given by my predecessor some years ago on the subject of kerbs, which I have no doubt the local highway authorities will find helpful.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister aware that recently many of the arterial roads for which he is responsible have been provided with these high, steep and dangerous kerbstones, and that we cannot wait until they wear out? Should he not rectify the matter at the earliest possible moment in order to reduce the accident rate and the seriousness of it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can assure my hon. Friend that I dislike all vertical kerbs except where they are rendered necessary by the overwhelming importance, for local reasons, of preventing vehicles getting off the roads, for example, in the case of a footpath. I share my hon. Friend's general approach on this matter and, as I have indicated, I am trying by means of this circular to get some improvement on past practice.

  TRANSPORT

    Public Transport (Lost Property)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration has been given by the Central Transport Consultative Committee into the regulations relating to property found by members of the public on public transport; and when action will be taken to introduce regulations more in keeping with modern practice.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the Committee has made good progress and that the matter will be considered at its next meeting on 12th July.

    Flashing Indicators (Accidents)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many road accidents during the past twelve months have been attributed to flashing indicators; and how many have been fatal.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This information is not available.
    Mr. Crouch: As statistics are kept about road accidents, and in view of the growing public opinion against these lights, which are sometimes called "blushing ears," cannot my right hon. Friend have a very careful check made to learn what is the number of accidents caused through the use of these lights?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are no separate statistics kept about them by the police, but, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the Road Research Laboratory is looking into the question of the use of these indicators, and I am awaiting its report.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Birmingham City Police have discarded flashing indicators and prefer the side arm as better for road safety? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the appalling number of road accidents, that that course should be generally approved?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member may well be right, but when a thorough investigation by a highly expert body is being made, I think the right thing is to suspend judgment until one knows the result of that investigation.
    Mr. P. Williams: Would it not be a good thing to advise motorists to open their windows and use their arms?

    Omnibus Services (Rural Districts, South Wales)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many applications have been made to the South Wales Licensing Authority for the reduction of omnibus services in rural districts and how many have been allowed and how many services have been cancelled during the last twelve months.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Applications were made to reduce twenty-one services to a greater or lesser degree. Seventeen
    1110
    of these were granted; one was refused; three have not yet been decided. One service was withdrawn. I understand that at the same time about thirteen services have been improved in one way or another.

    Little-used Canals
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the Government have now accepted the recommendations made in paragraph 139 relating to little used canals of the 1951 Report of the Land Drainage Legislation Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee made to Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to make an announcement about those recommendations?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

    Unlighted Motor Cars (Regulations)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the Regulations by which owners of cars can leave them without lights if within 100 yards of public lighting, will come into operation in London and in the provinces.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the end of August.

    Draft Charges Schemes (Procedure)
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to speed up the machinery for the consideration of the draft charges schemes which are submitted from time to time by the British Transport Commission to the Transport Tribunal under Section 76 of the Transport Act, 1947.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Holt: Is the Minister satisfied with the speed of the machinery, when it is borne in mind that the hearing of the draft charges scheme for merchandise goods which was published by the British Transport Commission on 21st March will not, in fact, be before the Transport

    1111
    Tribunal before October? In view of the urgency of this matter, is the Minister satisfied about the time lag?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is extremely important in matters such as this very Comprehensive charges scheme that all the interests concerned should have a right to put their views to the Tribunal, and I should hesitate very much before curtailing that right. If the hon. Member will consult Section 23 of the Transport Act, 1953, he will find that there is provision for emergency procedure.

    Motor Lorry Accidents (Drivers' Working Hours)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give instructions that in all serious accidents involving motor lorries on trunk roads, inquiries shall be made as to how long the drivers have been on duty during the previous twenty-four hours.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that it is the normal practice of the police to make such inquiries in all serious accidents involving motor lorries.
    Mr. Hastings: What use is the right hon. Gentleman making of the information which he could so obtain from the police? Is he aware that it is freely stated that many of these lorry drivers are working far too long hours?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that we can rely on the police if, in the course of their investigations, they find that there is any indication of a breach of the law, to take the normal steps.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonly alleged that drivers are driving for 23 hours at a stretch? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they were doing it before the Act was passed. Is there no method of discovering drivers who are driving dangerously long hours and trying to put a stop to that, as these things lead to accidents?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That raises the wider question of records and the inspection of records. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not arise out of the Question, which relates expressly to accidents.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend not think that if these
    1112
    drivers were allowed to travel at 30 m.p.h. the number of hours during which the men would have to drive would be reduced?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a hypothetical question.

    Road Congestion
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what estimate he has made of the wastage to the community resulting from the present road congestion.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Very large.
    Captain Pilkington: In view of the fact that it is very large, does my right hon. Friend not think that he ought to expand his present plans and expedite them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a fascinatingly interesting question, but it does not arise out of this Question.

    British Road Services Vehicles (Disposal)
    Mr. Irvingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the unemployment among drivers caused by the disposal of units of the British Road Services at Swanley and other depots; and if he will make a statement on the compensation payable to such drivers under his regulations.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no evidence of other than purely temporary unemployment. Compensation is payable in appropriate cases under the British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1953.
    Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, out of forty to fifty vehicles sold, only two are to remain in the district, it will be impossible to absorb these drivers locally? Is he aware that no amount of compensation can compensate them for the loss of employment which they have had for 20 to 30 years? Is he aware that this break-up will cause a cessation of trunk services between Kent and Cheshire? In view of these disastrous results, will he stop the sale of these vehicles?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I gather that the effect of the hon. Member's question is that he is against road haulage disposal.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that this unemployment will not be merely temporary but is likely to be permanent, not only causing trouble in industrial relations, but, I am told, likely to result in the industrial community making a complaint to the Minister?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My information about employment is to the contrary but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, further questions about employment are better directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman review the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) because the Act provides that vehicles should not be operated from different bases, and that if these are changed they are subject to the surrender of the licence? Will the Minister look into that to ensure that the law is observed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member cares to define more precisely any breach of the law, I will look into the matter. The compensation is, of course, under denationalisation more generous than it was under nationalisation in 1947.
    Mr. Davies: But is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said that the vehicles were being moved from Swanley to another part of the country? Is he aware that that in itself would be a breach of the law, because under the Act the vehicles have to operate from the same place and if they are not so operated the licences are taken away?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly do not accept the hon. Member's interpretation of the law.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he has taken on the dispute referred to him under Section 3 (8) of the Transport Act, 1953, in regard to the disposal of the British Transport Commission meat vehicles.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have asked the British Transport Commission for further information bearing on this matter. When I receive this, I will consider the matter.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister state what is the cause of the difference between
    1114
    the Commission and the Road Haulage Disposal Board? Is it a question of price or a question whether the tenderer is a reputable buyer or not?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to what is stated in the Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, which the hon. Member has no doubt seen.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has given his consent to the Commission to sell its contract hire vehicles as chattels under Section 6 (1) of the Transport Act, 1953.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My consent was asked for as part of an arrangement for dealing with the Commission's contract hire vehicles that had been agreed between the Commission, the Disposal Board and the Road Haulage Association. As the arrangement was a good one I gave my consent.
    Mr. Davies: How can the arrangement be entirely a good one if these vehicles are to be sold off since, although the British Transport Commission has succeeded in renewing a large number of contracts, the Minister's permission has been given to sell the vehicles as chattels, presumably, at bargain or low prices? Can he explain the situation a little more?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman understands, the disposal of vehicles requires, during the currency of the contract, the consent of the other parties to the contract. In those circumstances, it seemed to all the bodies concerned that this was a workmanlike way to handle the matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: If the Commission is tendering for some of these contracts again and is likely to get them, as I understand from the Report it is, how is it going to be in a position to carry them out if it has sold these vehicles as chattels?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In its very form that is a wholly hypothetical question.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what estimate he has now made of the loss likely to be incurred in the disposal of vehicles under the Transport Act, 1953.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My estimate, for the purpose of determining the rate of levy, of the road haulage capital loss made last September is £20 million. I have not yet had occasion to revise this estimate.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister believe that that estimate is likely to prove correct in view of the sales which have taken place since it was made? Surely he does not think that the situation has developed in the way he anticipated at that time. Further, in view of the fact that the British Transport Commission Report states that during 1954 some £14 million was received from sales, should not Parliament be informed of what the loss is on that amount?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may well be so, but certainly not in answer to this Question. So far as the Question is concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Transport Act the present rate of levy continues for the rest of this year and, as I said in my answer, I have not yet had occasion to revise it.

    Road Transport
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will hold a comprehensive inquiry into the present position of road transport, with a view to securing a clear idea of the parts to be played respectively by private enterprise and British Road Services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still some confusion as to what transport is going to be in the hands of private enterprise and what is to be in the hands of public enterprise? Would it not facilitate the Scottish Committee which is going to deal with the co-ordination of transport if this matter could be cleared up at the earliest possible moment? Is he further aware that there is a considerable amount of concern that great chunks of Scottish transport are being handed over at bargain prices to people who are occupied in other sections of his Department?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly do not accept that large chunks of any Scottish or other transport have been handed over at bargain prices, and I would say that in all cases a fair price has been
    1116
    paid. The right hon. Gentleman's Question asks for an inquiry in order to secure a clear idea of the subject. So far as I am concerned, I have one.

    Driving Examiners (Qualifications)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent lower qualifications are now required of applicants for the position of driving examiner.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the next competition, motor cycling experience, although an advantage, will not be an essential qualification, but successful candidates who do not possess it will not be employed in testing motor cyclists. No other changes in qualifications has been made.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not be better, in order to get the requisite number of driving examiners, to pay a wage sufficient to attract people with higher qualifications rather than reduce the qualifications in order to get people who failed previously?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the starting rate for this job has been raised by £45 a year from 1st July.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is still too low.

    Driving Tests
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many L drivers are now being tested weekly in the London area; and how many pass the test.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the week ended 25th June, 1955, 5,158 tests were conducted in the Metropolitan Traffic Area, and 56·8 per cent. of candidates were successful. The figures in the two preceding weeks were similar.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Even assuming that all the people pass the test on the first occasion and no more applicants come forward for tests, is it not going to take a very long time to clear the backlog of applicants?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should like to see the process quickened, and it is for that reason that, with the aid

    1117
    of an improved starting rate, I am making considerable and successful efforts to increase the staff of examiners.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will take steps to abolish the driving test required of drivers of motorised bicycles with engines of less than 50 c.c.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every country in Western Europe no test and no licence is imposed on these very small machines? Would it not help the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the tremendous number awaiting tests if this particular category of motorised cyclists were exempt from the process altogether?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Many of the vehicles that come within the definition which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put in the Question are really in the nature of light motor cycles. Many of them are far more difficult to handle than they appear to be, and I do not think it would be consistent with road safety to allow people to drive them without a test.
    Mr. Page: Have not the figures for accidents to these motor cycles gone up phenomenally in the last few months, and is there not a case here for stiffening the test rather than for abolishing it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not go the whole way with my hon. Friend, but there is a good deal of evidence that these bicycles require careful and skilled handling.

  SHIPPING

    Merchant Shipping Act, 1894
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to bring up to date the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Callaghan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans for bringing up to date that Act, which is now some sixty years old, in view of the fact that the National Union of Seamen has made plans about it, and in view of the fact that there is obvious dissatisfaction in the Merchant Service?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am always prepared to consider representations that the National Union of Seamen or other responsible bodies may make to me, but as to bringing up to date this sixty-year old Measure the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be aware that since its enactment it has been amended on no fewer than 40 occasions, five times since the war.
    Mr. Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is hardship for dependants in the cases of life claims under the present low statutory limit of liability?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will gladly look into any further point which my hon. Friend has in mind on that matter.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Seamen had a Bill prepared to make this reform many years ago, that his predecessor had the relevant problems under consideration a long time, and that the present state of affairs is causing industrial unrest at the ports? Will he look into the matter and take energetic steps to rectify it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no doubt at all that the National Union of Seamen, which is a union with which, I am glad to say, I have very good relations, is quite capable of putting its point of view to me from time to time, as I am glad to say, it does.

    Crew Accommodation Standards (Ships)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recent strike of the crews of certain Transatlantic liners, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the living conditions of the crews of liners.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The standard of crew accommodation in ships, including passenger liners, is governed by statutory requirements, which are reviewed from time to time in consultation with the National Maritime Board. The accommodation initially provided in each ship is approved by my surveyors, and any subsequent alteration must also be approved by them.
    In the circumstances, I do not think there is any need for a special inquiry to be made, but I am, of course, always

    1119
    prepared to consider any representations which may be made to me by the National Maritime Board or any of its constituent bodies.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the travelling public are greatly concerned about the reports that the recent strike was due to bad accommodation in liners? If they be true, would not an inquiry lead to improvement? If they be untrue would it not be fairer to the shipping companies to give the information?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no question that there has been a great improvement in the more modern ships in the standards of crew accommodation provided. The Regulations which my predecessor made, which came into effect on 1st January, 1954, in respect of ships constructed after that date constitute a very considerable advance. I do not think there is any reason to have the inquiry which my hon. Friend has in mind. I am constantly in touch with all concerned on this very important matter, and a special inquiry would not bring to light anything not already known.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that in 1948, when the last amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, was put on the Statute Book, that the provision of accommodation for crews in liners was lower than that in modern ships generally, and that the Government specifically did not adhere to the international Convention? In view of this recent dissatisfaction does not the Minister think that the time has come for him to review this question again to see whether we ought to adhere to that Convention?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct: there have been amendments to the Act since the date to which he referred. On the main issue, as I have already said, there is really no difficulty in ascertaining the facts. I am in constant touch with the whole matter, and therefore there is no reason for a special inquiry.
    Mr. Callaghan: But has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry? Is he aware that it is the Government's responsibility to decide whether to adhere to the Convention? In view of the recent dissatisfaction, is it not the responsibility of the Minister himself to set inquiries of this nature on foot?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will study the answer, he will know that through my surveyors I am completely in touch with the facts. The Convention is a quite separate question from that which appears on the Notice Paper. If the hon. Member wants to deal with that, perhaps he will be courteous enough to put a Question on the Paper.

    Merchant Seamen (National Service Deferment)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many waiters and stewards who previously had been granted indefinite deferment from National Service have left the Merchant Navy within a short time of their attaining the age of 26 years.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an impression that many of these men retire from these jobs immediately they are past the age for the call-up? Why give them a deferment when, for instance, scientific research workers in universities are not granted such deferments?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of deferment is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour. As far as this category is concerned, all I can tell my hon. Friend is that these statistics are not available.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Anglo-Eireann Agreement (Discussions)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the discussions with the Government of Eire about amending the Anglo-Eireann Agreement so as to allow air services between Wales and Ireland.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Discussions have recently taken place in London between British European Airways and Aer Rianta and are due to continue in Dublin shortly. I hope to resume inter-Governmental discussions when these talks have been completed.
    Mr. C. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these negotiations have been going on for a long time, I think since 1951? Is he further aware that the existence of this monopoly of Aer Lingus is retarding the progress of civil aviation in Wales? Will he hear that in mind and take it into consideration before he enters into a final settlement?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully realise that these negotiations have taken a very long time indeed. That is due to the fact that we are negotiating against the background of an Agreement, the effect of which the hon. Member has substantially summarised but which was not an Agreement which I concluded. It was made in 1946.

    Airports
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the annual cost of the civil airports in this country; and how much of this is borne by the taxpayers, passengers, and freight consignors, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The gross annual cost of civil airports in this country, including technical services, was £3,873,000 in 1953–54. Of this the taxpayer paid £1,667,000. No direct charge is levied on passengers by the Government, but the airlines paid £239,000 in respect of passenger service charge. Separate figures for freight consignors are not available. These figures do not make any provision for capital or depreciation charges.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that it seems perfectly fair that the airlines should pay more than they do towards the cost of these airports, but can he ensure that the method of payment is, if possible, by an addition to their own charges and not by the rather tiresome extra charge made on passengers at the airport?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The charge is levied by my Department on the airlines, but the steps that they take to pass on the charge, if they pass it on at all, is a matter for them. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that a great many of them have adopted the policy of incorporating the charge or at any rate securing that it is paid at the same time as the fare.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister say how much income is derived from landing
    1122
    fees, rent of shops, and so on, at these airports?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For rents as a whole, which go far wider than shops and include office premises, the figure for the last year that I have was £723,000. I cannot, without notice, give the other figure for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to state, to the nearest convenient date, the actual amount of money on Civil Vote, expended on the development of London, Gatwick, Ridgway, Renfrew, and Prestwick airports; and the sums allocated on Civil Account for further development in each case but not yet spent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will, with permission, circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    (A) Expenditure to 31st March, 1955

    (B) Sums allocated for further development

    £

    £

    London

    …

    21,900,000

    5,300,000

    Gatwick

    …

    30,000

    6,000,000

    Manchester

    …

    440,000

    75,000*

    Renfrew

    …

    580,000

    100,000

    Prestwick

    …

    1,500,000

    1,400,000

    * Represents the amount included in current estimates on account of a development programme, details of which have not yet been settled.

    B.E.A. Board (Membership)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give his reasons for increasing the number of members on the Board of British European Airways.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To strengthen the Board.
    Mr. Rankin: Could the Minister say whether or not he had any representations from the Board that it was so overworked that it needed this extra strength; and if it needed it so badly, why did the right hon. Gentleman make a part-time appointment and not a full-time appointment? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the salary that attaches to this appointment?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reply to the first part of the supplementary question is that it is my responsibility to secure that the Board is properly manned, and even with the most recent appointments there are still vacancies within the total complement provided by the Act passed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The salary will duly appear in the White Paper on the nationalised boards which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary lays annually.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Exercise "Medflex 3"
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Defence how many members of Her Majesty's Forces belonging to which Services, were due to take part in the exercise "Medflex 3" in mid-June.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): About 1,700, practically all of whom were from the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say whether he hopes and expects that there will now be a resumption of joint exercises with full Greek participation under N.A.T.O., pending the holding of the conference recently announced?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that this matter is one in which the Greek Navy is concerned to some extent. The reason for the cancellation of this exercise given by the Commander-in-Chief was that the strain upon the Greek Navy as a result of the earthquake at Volos was such that it was unable to take part.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that those were the only reasons for cancellation? Further, can he say now whether any new joint exercises are planned?
    Mr. Lloyd: The reply to the first part of that supplementary question is that we certainly accept the assurance given by the Greek Commander-in-Chief. In reply to the second part, I have nothing further to say.

    Forces, Canal Zone (Maltese and Cypriot Civilians)
    Major Wallasked the Minister of Defence what steps are being taken to repatriate Maltese and Cypriot civilians
    1124
    now employed by the British Forces in the Canal Zone who are not able to obtain employment in the Zone after the evacuation is completed.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Some of the Maltese and Cypriots in the employment of the Services in the Canal Zone are entitled to repatriation under their terms of service. This will be done. Most of the remainder were living in Egypt when they were recruited. Her Majesty's Government will give all possible assistance to these men in obtaining further employment.
    Major Wall: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the British community in Egypt are worried that a large number of British nationals may become unemployed in that country, and would he consider making representations to extend the scheme of assisted emigration to Australia to operate from Suez as well as from Malta and the mainland?
    Mr. Lloyd: There are about 240 persons in the category referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I will certainly bear his suggestion in mind.

    Cancelled Rearmament Contracts (Payments)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Defence the cost to public funds through the payment for cancelled contracts in connection with the rearmament programme.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: A total of between £12 million and £13 million in the four financial years ending 31st March, 1955. I should, however, point out, to avoid possible misunderstanding, that this does not include the liability in respect of the Swift.

    N.A.T.O. (Officers' Views)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what submissions on the subject of defence have been made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by Field-Marshal Montgomery; and whether he will acquaint hon. Members with their substance.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no authority to disclose the views expressed confidentially, in the course of their duties, by British officers serving in international appointments within N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Shinwell: As I understand that references have appeared in the Press to submissions of this kind, may I ask whether they have been taken into account in considering the review which the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates of the position of our own defence Forces?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot reveal whether or not confidential views have been expressed, but to the extent that such views have been expressed they certainly will be taken into account.

    Communist Countries (Armed Forces)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what recent information he has about the steps taken by the Communist countries to increase the strength of their armed forces.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There has been a continued increase in the number of Soviet naval units, particularly submarines. New equipment is being continually developed for all their armed forces. The number of men and women in their services has remained substantially the same over the past year.
    With regard to the Chinese Communists forces, there has been a steady re-equipment of their air forces with jet aircraft.
    Mr. Hughes: But has the Minister any information that since the Paris Agreements were signed and German rearmament decided upon, the Communist countries have increased their armed strength, and does he think that we are relatively stronger in men and military organisation than we were before the German rearmament proposals were entered upon?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have no definite information that there have been any specific measures as a result of the Paris Agreements. The matters to which I have referred are all much longer-term plans.

    Nuclear Warfare (Defence Organisation)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Defence when he expects to be in a position to inform the House of the Government's survey of defence strategy and tactics; and whether he is prepared to issue a White Paper setting forth the Government's conclusions.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot add to what I said last week on this subject.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that unless the House gets early information on the changes that are likely to take place, which will have a considerable effect on Service Estimates, to say nothing about manpower estimates, Parliament is not in a position to judge of the demands of the Government when they are made? Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman be a little more forthcoming with the House in what is a very serious matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the seriousness of this matter. Of course, there is a pattern on which these matters are discussed by the House. The Defence White Paper was a very full one, and it indicated the lines along which the Government are thinking. I agree, however, that new problems are presented to us all the time. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that they are being seriously considered, and all I can add is that if a statement can usefully be made to the House—and I appreciate his point about the advantage that would be to hon. Members commenting on the Estimates and future defence plans—I will try to make one.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend to make a statement on this subject until the White Paper is presented to the House? Could he not make an interim statement before the Summer Recess, so that we might have some knowledge of the intentions of the Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can give no promise of a statement before the Recess; in fact, I should think that extremely unlikely. I am sympathetic to the points put forward by both right hon. Gentlemen, and if, before the Service Estimates are considered, we can usefully do this, I will certainly try to do it.

    Soviet Air Force
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement about the Soviet military aircraft recently displayed.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have studied the accounts given to me of the air display

    1127
    in Moscow last week-end. The display did not include any types of jet bombers or fighters which had not been seen before. The Soviet air force is clearly developing along the lines expected.
    There is no ground for any complacency in this country with regard to the great efforts required if we are to keep pace with the Soviet development.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing photographs of the latest type of Russian jet aircraft, both bombers and fighters? These photographs have appeared in American journals and they might help people in this country to realise the threat if they were also published in this country? Also, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider cutting down the number of projects which we are backing in this country so that our more slender scientific effort can be used to speed up the bringing into operational use of new weapons which are badly needed to match the formidable weapons of the Russian Forces?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the suggestion in the first part of that supplementary question. The second part opens up a wider series of problems than come within the terms of the original Question.

    BRITISH EMBASSY, OSLO (GARDEN PARTY)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost of the garden party in the British Embassy in Oslo on Saturday, 26th June; who was invited; and why Mr. Michael F. Cullis, a counsellor at the Embassy, prevented Norwegian newspapermen from attending.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): This garden party was a joint Commonwealth undertaking. It is not yet possible to state what will be the cost that will fall on Her Majesty's Government.
    Two thousand two hundred invitations were sent to Commonwealth citizens resident in Norway, and to some Norwegian citizens serving in British and Commonwealth diplomatic and consular posts in Norway. Both British and Norwegian Press reporters were invited as guests to the party and unlimited
    1128
    facilities were given to Press photographers to photograph the Queen's arrival; but following the practice at Buckingham Palace garden parties no photographers were admitted to the Embassy garden. Her Majesty's Ambassador has received no complaint from any quarter about these arrangements, which were entirely understood and accepted by the Norwegian Press.
    It is to be regretted that certain newspapers should have made this matter the occasion for an unjustified personal attack upon a member of the Ambassador's staff without first attempting to check the facts.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that all will be pleased to find that at long last one of the false reports contained in British newspapers is contradicted by Her Majesty's Government? Can we have an assurance that if false stories are published in future, the Minister will be pleased to refute them?
    Mr. Nutting: I shall always be pleased to refute, if I am invited to do so in the House of Commons, any inaccuracies.
    Hon. Members: The "Daily Express."
    Mr. Nicholson: On a point of order. Is not an hon. Member answerable for the accuracy of statements contained in his Question, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member makes himself responsible for the accuracy of any statement in his Question.

    DR. TRUCHNOVICH (KIDNAPPING, BERLIN)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has yet been received to his most recent protest concerning the kidnapping of Dr. Truchnovich in the British Zone of Berlin in 1954.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. But Her Majesty's Ambassador at Bonn has personally reminded the Soviet High Commissioner that a reply to his letter of 3rd May is still outstanding.
    Mr. Peyton: Has my right hon. Friend any information about Dr. Truchnovich? Can he, for instance, say whether Dr. Truchnovich is still alive? Will he convey to the Soviet authorities the distinct

    1129
    message that such sinister and cynical reticence as they have shown in this matter gives the worst possible impression?
    Mr. Nutting: I think that Her Majesty's Ambassador has already made it quite plain to the Soviet authorities that their attitude and behaviour in this incident gives the impression to which my hon. Friend has referred. We do not know where Dr. Truchnovich is, for we have no information, nor have we had any satisfactory replies to our communications.

    BRITISH-BORN WIVES (EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions during the past five years representations have been made about the cases of Phyllis Sispera and other British-born wives of Czechoslovak nationals to the Government of Czechoslovakia; what was the nature of those representations and the replies which have been received; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nutting: Since July, 1950, Her Majesty's Embassy in Prague has addressed six notes to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in which the Foreign Minister was asked on humanitarian grounds to give facilities to those twelve British-born wives who wished to come home. Four notes remained unanswered. One reply was that six applications for permission to leave Czechoslovakia could not be granted as long as the women's marriages subsisted and that one woman had been divested of Czechoslovak citizenship. The other reply gave particulars of two more women who had been similarly divested.
    Oral representations have been made four times this year by Her Majesty's Embassy at Prague on behalf of Mrs. Sispera and other British-born wives. The Czechoslovak Foreign Minister replied that one wife could travel to this country taking her children with her, that Mrs. Sispera could also go but must leave her children behind, and that the applications of two other wives would be refused.
    Her Majesty's Embassy have frequently stressed to Czechoslovak officials the
    1130
    humanitarian aspect of this problem and the deplorable effect on Anglo-Czechoslovak relations produced by the restrictive policy of the Czechoslovak authorities. This aspect of the matter was further pointed out to the Czechoslovak Chargé d'Affaires on 2nd July.
    I regret to have to add that, according to information which has just reached me, Mrs. Sispera was removed from her home yesterday morning by the Czechoslovak authorities. Her Majesty's Embassy is making urgent inquiries, and I should prefer not to say anything more for the moment.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he thinks that it might be helpful to convey to the Czechoslovak authorities the fact that the case where a wife and children were allowed to leave together probably had a very good effect upon opinion abroad; and to plead with them again to reconsider the other cases on humanitarian grounds?
    Mr. Nutting: I think that the Czechoslovak authorities must be well aware, from the number of times we have told them, of the deplorable effect on relations with this country that their restrictive policy has had, and they must be equally aware that when they have allowed somebody to go, as they have recently done, that has had a good effect on Anglo-Czechoslovak relations.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British-born wives of Czechoslovak nationals are registered with British consulates in Czechoslovakia or known by his Department to be in that country; how many of them have retained British nationality; and how many of them are known to be divorced.
    Mr. Nutting: Ninety-eight. As far as is known, none has lost her British nationality. Five are known to be divorced.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British-born wives of nationals of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Roumania are known to be in those countries; how many are registered with British Consulates in those countries; what inquiries have been made during the past five years into their welfare; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nutting: In Poland 246 British-born wives are registered at British consulates, and of these seventy-three have made application to leave the country. In Hungary thirty-three are registered and six have applied to leave. In Roumania twelve are registered and four have applied to leave. So far as is known, there is only one British-born wife in Bulgaria and she has not registered.
    Her Majesty's Government have constantly made representations on humanitarian grounds to the Governments concerned in the interests of those British-born wives who wish to return home. In Poland the position has recently improved, permission to leave having been granted to fourteen applicants since 1st January last.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the respective Governments of these countries that the sad plight of these unhappy women is a matter of profound concern in this country?
    Mr. Nutting: I have already done so on several occasions, and we shall continue to press for a more humanitarian policy.
    Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand that the British-born wives want to bring their husbands with them whenever they can, or do they want to leave their husbands behind?
    Mr. Nutting: In some cases the women have been divorced from their husbands, but they are still not allowed to leave. In some other cases they have even been divested of their second nationality, but have not been allowed to leave. In other cases they are allowed to leave but are not allowed to bring their children with them because the State concerned claims the children. In all cases we have pointed out to the authorities the deplorable effect upon relations with this country if no more humanitarian policy is pursued.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these British nationals have free access to British consulates, or are they in any way impeded? Is he satisfied that the list that he has given is comprehensive and there are no others who have not been allowed to register?
    Mr. Nutting: So far as I am aware, nobody has been refused permission to
    1132
    register with the British Consulate, but there are, of course, cases—I prefer not to list the countries for obvious reasons—where British-born wives have not registered because they fear that they might be molested if they were to have anything to do with the British authorities.
    Mr. Daines: Can we have an assurance that British consulates maintain active and continual contact with the women because of the danger that once the case gets out of the publicity range action may be taken such as is suggested in the case of Mrs. Sispera?
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The fact that, 24 hours after the unhappy incident which took place yesterday in the case of Mrs. Sispera, we heard about it, shows that we are in constant touch, but, of course, we are in constant touch only with those who are registered with us and not with those who prefer not to be.

    DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's policy towards the proposals submitted to the Disarmament Sub-Committee, including the Soviet statement of 11th May made to the Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Nutting: As I indicated on 13th June, when I welcomed the new Soviet proposal of 10th May as an important step forward, the Western Governments are studying that proposal in detail.
    Mr. Warbey: As the right hon. Gentleman is in a mood to refute false Press reports, will he give us a categorical denial of the suggestion made in some sections of the Press that, now that there is a distinct prospect of agreement on disarmament being reached, the Government have revised their policy and no longer believe in either the possibility or the desirability of nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Nutting: I have seen nothing to suggest that, and I am happy to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman and this House that our policy remains, as always, to try to work for a comprehensive, general and internationally-supervised disarmament agreement.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Disarmament Sub-Committee
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Government's represented on the Disarmament Sub-Committee that the Chinese People's Republic shall be invited to attend future sessions of the Sub-Committee in order to discuss the ceiling for her armed forces which has now been agreed by all the members of the Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.
    Mr. Warbey: If disarmament has now become a realistic prospect and not just a distant dream, is it not time China was associated with the discussions, which have reached the point of already agreeing upon the limit to her own armed forces?
    Mr. Nutting: It is not for the Disarmament Sub-Committee, which is an agency of the United Nations and was set up by the United Nations, to decide upon its composition. It is working well and happily at present with its existing composition, and I see no reason to change it.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now announce the date for the resumption of the meetings of the Sub-Committee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.
    Mr. Nutting: The date for resuming meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee was discussed at San Francisco by the four Foreign Ministers. No decision was reached and the matter was referred for discussion through the diplomatic channel.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply mean that the meetings of the Sub-Committee are not likely to be resumed until after the Conference at Geneva?
    Mr. Nutting: I do not think that we could possibly fit in any meetings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee before the Geneva Conference, but it is our hope that the five Governments concerned will be able to agree to an early resumption after the Conference.
    Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether the senior representative of the United Kingdom will be of Ministerial level?
    Mr. Nutting: I very much hope so. I hope to be able to attend myself.

    Economic Development (Special Fund Proposal)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will support the proposals contained in the latest Report to be considered at the next meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in favour of the creation of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.
    Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government are studying this Report, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister make it clear that the Government are not going to maintain their rigid attitude towards the problem of a Special United Nations Fund, and that they will examine the new proposals with an objective approach and not decide to wait until a disarmament agreement has been reached?
    Mr. Nutting: We shall certainly examine the proposals. I am seeing their author, M. Scheyven, in the near future.

s.s. "ANSHUN" (EGYPTIAN ATTACK)
Mr. Shinwell(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the shelling of the s.s. "Anshun" by the Egyptians.
Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. At about 5.30 a.m. local time on 3rd July, the British ship s.s. "Anshun" was fired upon and hit as it was passing through the Enterprise Channel en route for Aqaba. There were no casualties. The ship, which was on the pilgrim run between Jedda and Aqaba was returning empty northward to Aqaba at the time.
The master has reported that the shot, which struck his ship above the waterline, was fired by an Egyptian battery. He was signalled to stop when he was already abeam of Tiran Island. Because of a head wind and ebb tide and because the ship was light he was unable to make an immediate stop without jeopardising his ship. After the firing of a first shot the master stopped his engines. Two minutes later a further shot was fired and the ship received a hit.

1135
The master was then interrogated by an Egyptian frigate and asked what the ship and cargo were and whether he had any Egyptian authority to enter through the Channel. He was told to await permission from Cairo. About 50 minutes later permission to proceed was granted.
Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires in Cairo has been instructed to lodge a vigorous protest with the Egyptian Government for this unwarranted attack and to reserve the right of Her Majesty's Government to claim compensation for the damage done.
Mr. Shinwell: Are not this and similar acts by the Egyptian authorities quite illegal and a violation of the Resolution passed by the United Nations? In view of the activities of the Egyptian Government, may I ask the Minister whether it is still considered wise to export arms to that country? Ought we not to take positive action to prevent Egypt from undertaking escapades of this kind?
Mr. Nutting: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government, like their predecessors, have never recognised the legality of the Egyptian blockade either of the Canal or other waters, such as the Gulf of Aqaba, leading to Israeli ports. As to the policy of arms supplies to Egypt, we endeavour to maintain—so far as lies within our power and having regard to deliveries from other countries—a balance of arms supplies to Middle Eastern States. I think that that balance has been fairly kept in the past.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it not anomalous that we should export arms to a country engaged in illegal activities which has been condemned by the Foreign Secretary, by the Government and by this House over and over again—and by the United Nations? Ought we not to take action to prevent Egypt from obtaining arms until that country gains some wisdom in these matters?
Mr. Nutting: The export of arms to Egypt is for Egypt's defence—[Laughter.] Yes, indeed; it is strictly for its own defence and strictly within the terms of the Tripartite Declaration, to which the right hon. Gentleman's Government was a signatory. In our view, the export of arms to Egypt does not in any way assist or encourage that country in illegalities of this character.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is it not the case that the Egyptians are now trying to pretend that they never shot at the ship at all?
Mr. Nutting: The Egyptian authorities have said that they did not hit the ship, and that they fired a warning shot across her bow. If that be true, the Egyptians must either be poor marksmen or poor observers, or both.
Mr. P. Williams: In a Press report of this incident there is a statement that there were pilgrims aboard this vessel returning to Aqaba. Is there any truth in this, and if so, were there any casualties?
Mr. Nutting: No, my hon. Friend will have heard there were no casualties. The ship was returning north to Aqaba and at the time there were no pilgrims on board.

ANGLO-MALTESE ASSOCIATION (ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE)
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With permission, Sir, I will make a statement about Malta.
In the discussions which he has been holding with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, the Maltese Prime Minister has put forward proposals for a closer association between Malta and the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government welcome this initiative. They feel sure that in all parts of the House there will be a sympathetic response to the suggestion that the two peoples should draw more closely together.
The administrative, financial and constitutional aspects of these proposals are closely linked. The administrative and financial aspects are at present under discussion with the Maltese Government delegation. On the constitutional side, there is included a proposal that Malta, while retaining its own Legislative Assembly, should, in the future, be represented in the Parliament at Westminster. The Government feel that all sections of political opinion in Parliament should have an opportunity to consider, and express their views upon, a new constitutional development of such importance.
They therefore propose to convene a round table conference, comprising representatives of all the political parties at Westminster, to consider constitutional

1137
questions arising from these proposals. This conference will meet during the Summer Recess. It will call into consultation representatives of the political parties in the Legislative Assembly of Malta. Her Majesty's Government believe that by this procedure of practical cooperation between the two Parliaments this imaginative proposal can be considered in a way that accords with its constitutional importance and with the interests of both peoples.
Mr. Attlee: I welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. I think that the proposals put forward by the Maltese Government are of very great interest and importance and that we should not be afraid of setting a precedent. I do not think that there is a precedent in this case. The position of Malta is quite exceptional as one part of Europe which is attached to us and seeking self-government. This is a question which, I think, involves all of us in this House. It is for the House to consider any addition to its number of Members and, therefore, it is right that it should be considered by all hon. Members.
I would add one other thing, that in these constitutional matters time is of the very greatest importance. If the right opportunity is let slip, sometimes the whole matter slides away, various extremists take charge and the favourable moment is lost. I therefore welcome the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this round table conference shall be held in September in order that the Maltese people may not feel that there is any undue delay. When these matters are considered, it is my hope that they will lead to a closer association between the people of this country and the very gallant people of Malta, whose services in the last war we remember so well.
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should add that the procedure we had in mind was that in order to set up this conference there would be consultations through the usual channels about membership, numbers and other matters of that kind. I am informed that it is not necessary to have a Resolution. I should also add, for the convenience of the House, that we considered, as an alternative, procedure by Select Committee. We thought, however, that this procedure was preferable as being less
1138
rigid and better adapted to a constitutional matter of this kind.
Mr. C. Davies: I should like to add my own welcome to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has announced. This is a matter of such vital importance to the people of Malta, and of this country, that it must be considered very carefully by Parliament as representing the people. I assume, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's idea is that this is essentially a Parliamentary matter rather than an Executive matter.
While, of course, the round table conference would primarily be concerned with the constitutional question, will it also consider the administrative and financial matters, as I think that the two matters are so closely linked that they cannot be separated into watertight compartments?
The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I think I said in the statement, there are these three aspects of the issue. It will be for the round table conference to make its own decisions about the publicity and how it works, and so on, but I should imagine that it would be open to the conference—and should be—to consider the related matters, both financial and administrative, and indeed, judicial, and others which arise in this matter. It would certainly be able to call for whatever witnesses it thought right, who would provide evidence on the matter.
Mr. Teeling: Can the Prime Minister assure us that in the present discussions and the coming ones, the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the principal religion in Malta, will be safeguarded, and also that the principles in education and the discipline of the Sacraments as laid down by the Church will have the same consideration as they have heretofore enjoyed from Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister: It is quite evident, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, that the question of the Church in relation to this question is one of the matters which will have to be considered, but I myself would not have thought it a question that it was impossible for us to deal with. There are many precedents, in our experience, where the handling of Church matters has been achieved by our

1139
Constitution by a method of tolerance and fairness to all concerned.
Mr. J. Griffiths: As I understand the statement, the discussions about the administrative and financial implications of the proposals are to continue. Will the conclusions arrived at from those considerations be made available to the round table conference by the time it comes to consider them, in September? Secondly, is it proposed that the Government or the round table conference itself will appoint a chairman?
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised the first point. I think that the short-term financial arrangements will be concluded fairly soon—I trust so—but there will be long-term proposals and discussions related to the round table conference which, I imagine, will not be concluded before the conference meets. Therefore, the discussions will be pari passu in that sense.
I think it would be usual for the Government to appoint a chairman, but perhaps we could discuss that matter through the usual channels.
Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say what proper part in the discussions on this matter the Dominion and Commonwealth Governments might have? Surely the situation of Malta is not one for us alone.
The Prime Minister: We have considered that, and, of course, the particular topic with which this round table conference will have to deal—the constitutional topic—will be for the Parliament of this country because this country will have to handle it, but we shall, of course, keep in contact with the Commonwealth countries as we proceed in the matter.
Mr. Robens: Can the Prime Minister say whether this decision has been communicated to the Prime Minister of Malta and whether the reaction of the Prime Minister is such that he feels satisfied with the decision arrived at and with the success of his mission?
The Prime Minister: This decision has been communicated to the two leaders of the delegation, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in this country, but I think I ought to leave it to them to say anything which they feel
1140
they want to say about the outcome of the suggestions we have made.
Mr. Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend feel assured that his bold initiative in this matter will, at any rate, excite the interest of everybody in the House, and, I am sure, the sympathy and support of a great many; and, further, will he feel confident that in such imaginative approaches to constitutional matters both within and without this island he will have the support of hon. Members on this side of the House as well as that of hon. Members opposite?
The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bellenger: As this seems to be an unusual or, at any rate, a very rare method of dealing with these matters, and as it undoubtedly affects Parliament, can the Prime Minister say whether the deliberations of this round table conference will be in private or whether, as in the case of a Select Committee, the House will have access later to some of the evidence which the conference will have to consider?
The Prime Minister: It is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, unusual, but it is not unknown. There have been precedents—for instance, in respect of the Indian round table conference about which many hon. Members know. It will be for the round table conference itself to determine what parts, if any, of its deliberations it wishes to have in public or private. I think that we must give that measure of decision into the hands of representatives of this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): As the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons) Bill seems likely to commend itself to hon. Members generally, it is hoped that the House will find it convenient to take the Second Reading on Friday next after the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, which has already been announced for that day.
Mr. Attlee: We have no objection to that.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Relief from rates for charitable and other organisations) and the new Schedule standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Sandys.—[Mr. Sandys.]
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to this Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) would be out of order in Committee as transcending the Money Resolution. Therefore, I do not select it.
  Question amended, by adding, at the end:
  "and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 7, page 11, line 46, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Elwyn Jones."—[Mr. Lewis.]
  and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Clause 7.—(OTHER RELIEFS FROM RATES.)
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, in page 11, line 46, at the end to insert:
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the outfall sewers of the London County Council.
  The Amendment affects the County Borough of West Ham and also other boroughs and county boroughs in and around the East End of London. As the Clause stands it will mean that the county borough will lose the northern outfall sewers for rateable purposes. There are some other borough councils—which will, no doubt, be referred to by some of my hon. Friends—which will also lose a certain rate income, but I want to deal with the question as it affects West Ham.
  The northern outfall sewer in the borough is not the ordinary type of sewer, as one understands the general interpretation of the word. Generally speaking, a sewer is a pipe which is under the ground. This one is most unusual, and
  1142
  perhaps unique, because it is not underground; it is not even lying on top of the ground; it is about 21 feet high and is placed upon a huge raised embankment, which stretches right across the centre of the county borough. The loss of rate income, owing to the fact that the ground which it occupies cannot be used for building purposes, is about £26,000.
  At the moment the borough claims and draws from the London County Council a rate income in respect of the sewer, ands. I am given to understand that the county council and the borough are quite contented with the position. The sewer belongs to the London County Council; that is why it has been paying a rate in respect of this monstrosity—which, I think, is a better word than "sewer." Besides serving the East End of London it also serves other boroughs, as far west as Acton and, in a north-westerly direction, as far as Willesden. A pumping station which is associated with the sewer has a rateable value of about £7,000 a year. If the Amendment is not accepted both these hereditaments will be relieved from the rates, and the borough will lose a rate income of more than £46,000 a year, which is equivalent to a rate of about 9d. in the £.
  The sewer is an absolute eyesore. I must be careful, because Parliamentary language will not enable me adequately to describe it, but the people of West Ham feel that, apart from any other considerations, they are already handicapped, simply because this sewer is in their area. I emphasise that point because, when we discussed this question during the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that he had great sympathy with West Ham and would like to do something in the matter. He said that his difficulty was that if he did something here other boroughs would probably ask for similar treatment.
  I then challenged him to mention any other area in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales—and, if he likes, he can include. Europe or any other part of the globe—which has anything similar to this sewer. He may be able to give examples of sewers which are above ground, or which go for a few feet across a roadway, river or canal, but I challenge him to tell us where there is another sewer which is 21 feet above the ground, upon a raised embankment spreading over 31 acres of land

  1143
  I do not know of any. I notice that the Minister is laughing. Fortunately or unfortunately, he was not present when this point was mentioned during the Committee stage, but he has probably read the report of the debate.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I opened the extension to this sewer last Friday.
  Mr. Lewis: That is just the point I was leading up to. It seems that the Minister has not read the report of the Committee stage as closely as he might have done; otherwise he would recollect that we mentioned that we knew he was going to Barking to open the extension to this sewer, and we suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister might hold up our Amendment pending the Minister's personal investigation of the situation. We knew that he was going, and we thought that the sight which would hit his eyes when he travelled down the Beckton Road and the Barking bypass might cause him to appreciate the justice of our case, which I put forward not only upon general grounds but also upon the particular ground of West Ham's very precarious financial position.
  4.0 p.m.
  West Ham was the worst bombed borough in the war. It suffered enormous damage to every type of property. It lost more than a third of all rateable property; hence it lost more than a third of its rate income. Because of that it now has the very grave and serious problem of trying to build up its industry and particularly of housing. Its housing problem is enormous. It is getting on with the job of housing, but every house it builds is a rate liability. The more it deals with the problem of housing the more it increases its rate liability and financial difficulties within the borough.
  It has lost a third of its rates because of the war and is adding to its problems because of difficulties connected with rebuilding. It is losing a fantastic sum because of industrial derating, which matter I shall not develop, Sir Charles, because you would call me to order if I did so. For all those reasons West Ham now has a rate of 28s. in the £ and it is almost certain that the rate will again
  1144
  be increased in the next financial year, If the Bill goes through as it is, at least another 9d. in the £ will go on the rates.
  On many occasions we have asked the present Minister, his predecessor, or other previous Ministers, for special financial assistance because West Ham is in a difficult position. I am pleased to say that each of the Ministers has acknowledged and accepted that fact. We are grateful that they have given extra financial assistance, but it is no good giving West Ham financial assistance to overcome some of its economic difficulties and, at the same time, completely removing rate income of £46,000.
  I speak on behalf of a number of boroughs. I cannot speak on behalf of the L.C.C., but to my knowledge the L.C.C. does not object to the present position. Why should the L.C.C. be relieved of £26,000 in rates when, although I would not say it is not anxious to be so relieved, it is not pressing to be relieved from the present position?
  I ask the Minister to bear in mind the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he felt there was a difficulty. He could not see how it could be dealt with in isolation. The object of this Amendment is to deal with the position in such a way that it can only apply to the northern and southern outfalls of London County Council and cannot be interpreted as covering any of the other normal types of sewer, which seemed to worry the Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the facts I have mentioned, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Sir Ian Horobin: In two or three sentences, I wish to renew the support I gave to this proposal in the previous discussion in Committee. The general case has been argued. Whether some analogies can or cannot be found, this is a quite exceptional case and can be dealt with as an exceptional case.
  The point upon which those who know the area will want to be satisfied is why we cannot be left as we are? Nobody wants any change. This is a rare occasion on which those who get the money, those who pay the money and those who live in the district concerned want to be left alone. The proposal of the Bill seems a quite unnecessary piece of Departmental tidying up the only effect of which would be to annoy everybody and to do

  1145
  a grave injustice to a borough which has many problems. Relations of London County Council with metropolitan Essex —to put it mildly—have not always been as unanimous and friendly as they are on this matter. Finding one happy occasion when the interests and wishes of all these great authorities go the same way, why should the Department stir up trouble? All we are asking is that the position should remain as it is.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: When I spoke in Committee on the Bill on Thursday last I reminded the Minister that he was visiting my constituency the following day and that I hoped he would have a look at this monstrosity. I have no doubt that he did so, because he could not fail to see it even without any aids to ordinary vision. I hope that when he looked at it he came to a conclusion that it must be regarded as something exceptional.
  Again and again, London has been regarded in our legislation as something distinct from the rest of the country. That is not only because it is the capital city, but because of geographical conditions. London would have the greatest difficulty in getting rid of its sewage within the area of the County of London. The consequence has been that to deal with sewage and turn the fluid part safely into the mouth of the River Thames, and get rid of the solid part by means of sludge vessels, the County Council has taken the sewage to Kent and Essex to sewerage works on the borders of the estuary of the Thames.
  In doing so, in order to save pumping the sewage up again to ground level at the sewerage works, the sewers have been run above the level of the ground in spite of the eyesore which has resulted. So far as I know the London County Council, of which I happen to be an alderman, has never raised any objection to paying rates for that privilege. Because of this huge erection, running right across a large area of metropolitan Essex—a district which is, to a large extent, built-up—the affected areas have been unable to have houses built which would pay substantial rates. For that reason, very rightly, no one has objected to substantial rates being paid by the owners of the northern and southern out-fall sewers.
  1146
  Metropolitan Essex, including my own constituency, derives no benefit from this sewer; it does not discharge its own sewage into it. Indeed, the sewer is a disadvantage. It is a potential danger, and during the war it was not only a potential but a very real danger. As a result of bombing, a large area was flooded with London sewage, which meant possible danger from water-borne diseases. Even without war conditions the existence of such a huge sewer is not only a disadvantage but a danger, because we know that sewers may easily leak, and where the sewer is above ground the leakage is liable to spread, not under the surface of the soil but above it. In epidemics, or even sporadic cases of typhoid fever in the London area, such leaking would expose my constituency and others to a very real danger.
  On behalf of the borough which I represent, as well as on behalf of those north and south of the Thames which are involved, I appeal to the Minister to give this Amendment very careful consideration. As has already been stated, no one is asking for anything fresh. It is only asked that the present state of affairs, which has existed for a number of years—and about which no one, as far as I know, has objected—shall remain unchanged. We do not seek to change the whole structure of the Bill, but only to make London a particular case as has happened in connection with a number of different types of legislation in the past.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): It might be helpful if I answer the speeches so far made on the subject of this great sewer, which has played a very prominent part in our discussions on the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) said, it is not an ordinary type of sewer. He rightly quoted its outlandish dimensions—21 feet high, I think—as a fact very relevant to the Amendment. This work occupies 31 acres of land and the hon. Member described it as an eyesore and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) described it as a monstrosity.
  It is plain that this is a vast sewer, and not in any way attractive—though I should add that my right hon. Friend, on his visit last week, was impressed, in

  1147
  a kind of way, by its grandeur. I think I should add—and I am sure that it will be accepted by the Committee—that neither size nor aesthetics are factors of which it is very easy to take cognisance in rating matters. Were either outlandish size or ugliness to become considerations in rating we should have even greater complications than we now face.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted what I said when we last discussed this sewer, and I should like to recall my exact words. I said:
  "… without undertaking to do anything at all, I will satisfy myself between now and the next stage of the Bill whether this is an absolutely unique example and with which there is nothing comparable anywhere else in the country."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 544.]
  There were obvious reasons for seeking to make absolutely certain that that was so.
  There has never been a survey of our sewers—there is no complete record of their sizes, heights, and so on—but I think that it is firmly established that there is no sewer comparable in size with this. There are 48-inch sewers running overground in various parts but they are Lilliputian compared with this one. In the light of my remarks I therefore interpret the discoveries which we have made as meaning that we should accept this Amendment. That we shall do. Perhaps I should add that the term,
  "… the outfall sewers of the London County Council"
  is not a sufficiently distinctive definition. It does not make it absolutely clear that the Amendment relates to the portion above the ground. Perhaps we could be allowed to do something about the wording, which we will undertake to do. Otherwise, we accept the Amendment.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman will remember that there are two sewers, each, I gather, equally gigantic and peculiar. One is the northern, and the other the southern out-fall. I take it he will agree that his undertaking extends to both outfalls?
  Mr. Deedes: Yes.
  Mr. Hastings: I should like to thank the Minister, and add to my thanks the hope that he will again visit my constituency.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I, too, should like to thank the Minister on behalf of boroughs—of which Woolwich is one—which will be particularly grateful for his assurance about the southern outfall.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sure that we are all very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted the Amendment, even if not its actual wording. On behalf of all those concerned, I should like to express to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary our grateful thanks. In view of hon. Gentleman's promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(RELIEF FROM RATES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS.)
  (1) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say—

  (a) any hereditament occupied for the purposes of an organisation (whether corporate or unincorporate) which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion. education or social welfare;

  (b) any hereditament held upon trust for use as an almshouse;

  (c) any hereditament consisting of a playing field (that is to say, land used mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or of open-air athletic sports) occupied for the purposes of a club, society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit and does not (except on special occasions), make any charge for admission of spectators to the playing field:

  Provided that this section shall not apply to any hereditament to which section six of this Act applies, or to any hereditament occupied by a local authority (within the meaning of the Act of 1948).
  (2) For the purposes of the making and levying of rates in a rating area, for the year beginning with the date of the coming into force of the first new valuation list for that area (in this section referred to as "the first year of the new list"), and for any subsequent year, the amount of rates chargeable in respect of a hereditament to which this section applies shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be limited as follows, that is to say—

  (a) for the first year of the new list, the amount so chargeable shall not exceed the total amount of rates (including any special rates) which were charged in respect of the hereditament for the last year before the new list came into force;

  (b) if, by virtue of the preceding paragraph, the amount of rates chargeable in

  1149
  respect of the hereditament is less than the amount which would have been chargeable apart from that paragraph, the proportion by which that amount is required to be reduced shall apply to any subsequent year during which the hereditament continues to be one to which this section applies, and accordingly the amount of rates chargeable in respecct of the hereditament for any such year shall be reduced by that proportion:

  Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Adjustment of relief for charitable and other organisations) to this Act in cases falling within that Schedule.
  (3) Where paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection has effect in the case of a hereditament, the rating authority may at any time give notice to the occupiers of the hereditament that, as from the end of a year specified in the notice, being a year ending not less than thirty-six months after the date on which the notice is given, the limitation imposed by virtue of that paragraph shall either cease to apply to the hereditament or shall be modified as mentioned in the notice; and where such a notice is given—

  (a) if the notice states that the limitation shall cease to apply, paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection shall not apply to the hereditament as respects any year beginning after the end of the year specified in the notice;

  (b) if the notice states that the limitation shall be modified, then, subject to the operation of any further notice given under this subsection, the said paragraph (b) shall have effect in relation to the hereditament as respects any such year with the substitution, for the proportion mentioned in that paragraph, of such lesser proportion as may be specified in the notice.

  (4) The rating authority for a rating area shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any rate charged in respect of a hereditament to which this section applies for the first year of the new list or any subsequent year, including power further to reduce or to remit the payment of any rate in the case of which the amount chargeable is required to be reduced by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section.
  (5) The preceding provisions of this section, and the provisions of the Schedule (Adjustment of relief for charitable and other organisations) to this Act, shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, in relation to rates charged for a rate period forming part of the first year of the new list, or of any subsequent year, as they have effect in relation to rates charged for the first year of the new list, or for any subsequent year, as the case may be.—[Mr. Sandys.]
  Brought up and read the First time.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The Chairman: It might be convenient, if, on this Motion, we discussed the Amendments to it as well.
  Mr. Sandys: While I should be very glad indeed that the Amendments should be discussed at the same time, Sir Charles, I thought that, with the Committee's permission, I would reserve my remarks until after I have heard what may be said in support of the Amendments. I will not, therefore, deal with them in my opening remarks. Having created such an agreeable atmosphere by accepting the previous Amendment, I hope that we shall have an easy passage on this new Clause. I should like to explain, in some detail, its purport.
  On an earlier occasion, as hon. Members will remember, we had a very full debate on the whole question of reliefs and exemptions for charitable organisations. I purposely did not then attempt to suggest a particular solution, because on such a matter—which is certainly not a party controversial issue, although I think there is a good deal of other kinds of controversy involved—I thought it would be more useful to have a general debate and then to study this in the light of what various hon. Members said and of the various suggestions made. I took the opportunity to explain to the Committee the very real difficulties there are—difficulties of definition, of deciding what exemptions should be made, and whether they should be by statutory exemption or left to the discretion of the local authorities.
  I should explain that this new Clause replaces Clause 6 (4); it is not an addition to it. Subsection (4) was the main object of our earlier discussions. I have considered very carefully indeed the remarks which were made by hon. Members in our earlier debate. I have considered, in the first place, the proposal which was made by several hon. Members in respect of the different types of organisations, and the idea that there should be statutory exemption or statutory remission, that is to say, either total exemption of certain organisations from rates or, alternatively, the remission of a fixed proportion of the rates, as laid down by Parliament.
  As I explained on the earlier occasion, there are two very serious difficulties in following this course. The first is the practical impossibility of fixing what shall be the minimum figure of derating to be applied to these organisations. There can be no doubt that there will be no agreement in Parliament as to any given proportion which shall apply equally to all these different types of organisations.

  1151
  There is also the danger that what is intended to be a minimum would very soon become a maximum. Local authorities might feel that as Parliament had expressed its view as to what it was right to do in the way of exemptions for this kind of organisation, they would be doing the right thing by the organisations if they did what Parliament had prescribed.
  There is no doubt that if we fixed a minimum figure, which hon. Members regard as not unreasonably high for many of the organisations which may be included in this category, this would undoubtedly result in local authorities adopting that figure as a maximum, and this might seriously prejudice the situation which these organisations now enjoy.
  The second and perhaps the most serious difficulty of all—we came up against it in our discussions the other day—is the absolute impossibility of defining the types of organisations to which we wish these exemptions and remissions to apply. We all know the kind of organisations which we feel deserve this assistance, but when we come to define them in a Bill, we are up against the sheer impossibility of defining them in legal form. I felt that having reached a complete dead-end along those lines of thought, it would be best to go back to the starting point, and try to think this out again from the beginning.
  I felt that the first thing that we ought to be clear about was the purpose of this exercise. In the process of discussing all these various organisations, I think that some of us were inclined to forget what we had in mind when we first approached this problem. Listening to the debate the other day, I was impressed by the fact that no hon. Member, so far as I am aware, proposed specifically that any charitable organisation should have its position improved as a result of these arrangements. It was, naturally, open to local authorities at their own discretion to improve the position if they wished to do so.
  At any rate, the main purpose of the Amendments and the main purport of the speeches which were then made was not to get some additional favours for charitable or other organisations, but to protect those organisations from having their position prejudiced as a result of the changeover from the old system to the new.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate on that. We did wish to exempt community centres and village halls, equating them with church and chapel halls to which he is giving absolute exemption.
  Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is probably right. That was, perhaps, the one exception.
  I think, however, that, by and large, he will agree that the necessity that was felt in all parts of the Committee was that as a result of the changeover from the old system, under which local authorities give sympathetic assessments to these charities, to the new system, under which they have at their discretion to give remission of rates as distinct from sympathetic assessments, and as a result of the local authorities reviewing their lists, as they will have to do, charities might find that their position was not maintained in as favourable a way as it is at present. I think that these anxieties are justified, although they are very hard to define. We must recognise these sympathetic assessments have been going on in most cases for a very long time.
  Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what statute anybody makes a sympathetic assessment?
  Mr. Sandys: Under no statute. They have just been going on.
  What has happened is that a local authority has taken a favourable view towards certain organisations, and they have used the power, which they undoubtedly had, to decide that rateable value of these organisations, instead of being £100, was perhaps £10 or £5. That, in most cases, has been decided many years ago. It has gone on with no particular challenge or review for a long time.
  There is the danger, particularly after revaluation, that local authorities, looking through their lists, will see what a tremendous amount of rates they could have collected if they had charged these organisations rather more rates, and also that, while still wishing to be sympathetic, they may not be quite so sympathetic as they have been in the past. We want to see that in this process of changeover there is not an all-round deterioration of the position of these organisations, which, I think, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee wish to uphold and protect.

  1153
  It seemed to me, therefore, that three things were needed. The first was to see these charities—and I use the word "charities" to cover all the other organisations concerned, playing fields, universities, and so on—safely through the changeover process. The second was to give time to see what is going to happen, so that Parliament can, if necessary, legislate before any serious harm is done. We all realise the difficulty of legislating, and it seems to me important, if we can, to dispense with the necessity of legislating now on the understanding that we are not losing the opportunity to legislate if experience should show that it is necessary.
  The third thing was how to get round the difficulty of defining and, at the same time, preserving local discretion, which is the only way in which we can arrive at a commonsense definition as to which are the deserving charities and which are not. That is what the new Clause does by the simple method of freezing the position of these organisations for three years, and requiring local authorities to give three years' notice if they wish to increase the rates to be paid by them.
  4.30 p.m.
  The result will be that whatever sympathetic under-valuation a charity now enjoys under the old system, that will be automatically carried over into the new system and converted into a percentage remission of rates. We shall get these organisations established on the new system without prejudice to their rate burden. Local authorities will then, of course, be able to revise these benefits and increase the rates payable by these organisations if they so decide, but if they do—and this is important—it will happen not just as part of the process of reorganising themselves on the new basis but as a result of a decision by the local authority applying its mind to the merits of each individual organisation. It will not just happen by mistake and—and this is the essence of this proposal—there will be a three years' warning.
  I reckon that after about eighteen months—perhaps even sooner—it should become fairly clear whether local authorities generally are changing their policy towards charitable and other organisations covered by this Clause. I have not yet thought out exactly how best it
  1154
  could be done, but I propose to arrange for the facts to be collected and presented to Parliament in a convenient form at the appropriate stage so that Parliament can then see what the position is.
  I do not myself believe—and such consultations as I have had confirm this view —that there is any intention whatsoever in the minds of local authorities to adopt a less sympathetic attitude towards charities than they have done hitherto, but the purpose of this Clause is to make the thing doubly sure. At any rate, there will be a warning period before anything happens which might severely prejudice these organisations, and this will ensure that in any case there will be plenty of time for Parliament to consider the position and decide whether to legislate.
  If we adopted the principle of the statutory exemption to which I have referred, we would have difficulty in defining the organisations to which it would apply. By preserving this local discretion, we are able to widen the Clause which we could not have done if we had adopted the principle of statutory exemption or remission. We would have had to be very jealous about the scope of this Clause, to be quite sure that we were not giving exemptions to a whole range of organisations which nobody really wanted to assist in this way, in order to include one or two which fell into that category, whereas by leaving the principle of local discretion we are able without risk sufficiently to widen the Clause as we have done here to embrace all the organisations for which special treatment was requested by hon. Members in the course of our earlier debate.
  In particular, the new Clause will now include, where appropriate, universities, playing fields, community centres and alms houses, all of which were referred to by hon. Members. It would include also organisations whether they are corporate or non-corporate—a matter in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) is interested.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Will these organisations include great public schools which were begun under the auspices of charitable organisations?
  Mr. Sandys: Yes, they certainly will, provided that they come within the terms of the Clause, namely, that they are
  "not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are … concerned with the advanment of … education."
  I would prefer to reserve any remarks I may have to say on that point until the Amendment is moved. I would make it clear that such organisations in the main will derive benefit from this Clause only by reason of the fact that they were enjoying a sympathetic assessment in the past. That is the important point. It will not give wholesale reliefs or exemptions to organisations which were not enjoying that sympathetic assessment in the past.
  Mr. Donald Wade: Am I to understand that new charities will not come within these pro- visions at all?
  Mr. Sandys: The purpose of this Clause is to protect the existing position. Under this Clause, of course, local authorities will still have exactly the same discretion as they had under the old subsection (4) of Clause 6, which is that they may remit or exempt rates for any organisation within this field.
  To sum up, the method proposed in this Clause gives us the flexibility which is derived from local discretion, while at the same time preserving the possibility if necessary of intervention by Parliament before any serious harm can be done. I hope the Committee will agree that this new Clause provides a fair and workable method of meeting the problem of charitable and other organisations, which I am sure all of us wish, within reason, to support and protect.
  Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that every hon. Member will desire to thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has outlined the effect of this new Clause. The more we fear it the greater will be our thanks, for there has certainly been a completely open confession as to the extent to which this new Clause deals with the situation which confronted us rather less than a week ago when we were discussing the problem.
  I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to ask about this question of sympathetic assessment. I must have been brought up in very old-fashioned local government circles, because when I was an overseer
  1156
  of the poor, or a member of an assessment committee, or chairman of a county valuation committee, any suggestion that there should be other than the strict application of the law of assessment was frowned on by every one of the persons who advised me.
  Sir Patrick Spens: None the less, in most cases the sympathetic assessment was made.
  Mr. Ede: In my case it was made unwittingly. I am reminded of the story of the Non-conformist ministers who were visiting Germany, just before the First World War. At a banquet some very stimulating liquid refreshment was provided for them. One of them turned to his neighbour and said, "What excellent lemonade." The other said, "It is not lemonade, it is champagne." The minister gulped what was left in his glass and said, "If I sinned it was in ignorance."
  I was taught that it was the duty of the persons collecting the rate to excuse, in certain circumstances, the payment of rates on the ground of poverty, and all exemptions and remissions so granted had to be submitted to the local government auditor, who examined them most carefully. Apparently there have been numerous cases throughout the country where, instead of that procedure, which was certainly within the law, sympathetic assessments have been made by the persons doing the assessment.
  As a consequence, such bodies as the great public schools have never had to go to the person collecting the rates, appealing very much as men of Gibeon and saying, "We have no money with which we can pay." I hope that if they claim on the ground that they are a charity, the original terms on which the charity was founded will be examined and we shall make certain that they are still complying with the wishes of the pious founder in the way in which they administer the charity.
  Let us make this quite clear: on this side of the Committee we joined with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) in his plea for the playing-fields, which, in the main, are those administered by corporate bodies who have placed upon them specific duties in the discharge of trusts. We are sympathetic with those cases and welcome anything which gives an opportunity for the wishes of the hon.

  1157
  Member for Oldham, East and ourselves to be carried out. As the Minister said, we do not want any increase which falls on this kind of body to be made by mistake.
  It is possible, however, so loosely to word a definition that a large number of people may creep in whom we do not want to creep in. That can even happen with playing-fields. I am certain that one of the things which we all desire to achieve is that, in developing neighbourhoods, open spaces for organised games shall be preserved permanently and not that some land, which in the old days was described as ripe building land, shall be used for a few years, until a speculating builder can be discovered who is willing to develop it, and then shall pass out of use so that fresh playing-fields have to be sought further away from the houses of the people who wish to use them.
  I understand that on its educational side the Clause is not supposed to apply to the commercial preparatory school. In my experience I could always find a defender of everything in the educational world except the proprietors of preparatory schools. The pupils who have attended such schools seem to have no affection for them in the way that pupils have affection for a public school, or even the way in which I have affection for the old-fashioned elementary school which I attended.
  Nevertheless, I see no reason why, under the Clause as worded, we should not have a company running a preparatory school, with the headmaster as a director drawing a salary and with the income and expenditure so arranged that, having paid him about the same salary as that which he now draws as a profit, it would become an educational institution not being run for profit. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) is inclined to disagree.
  4.45 p.m.
  Captain Christopher Soames: Surely the Clause applies only to hereditaments which are now benefiting from a concession in rates. In the case of any new charity which begins later, surely, it will be for the local authority to decide whether or not it shall be given a concession.
  Mr. Ede: Such a school would have from now until the beginning of the next rating year to make such arrangements.
  Captain Soames: Not if it is not receiving the concession already.
  Mr. Ede: I am trying to give a layman's view of the Clause as it is worded, and I suggest that we must be very careful, in trying to leave it open so that it covers all those things we wish to see covered, that we do not leave loopholes through which others may enter whom we do not wish to enter. After all, they have available the period between now and 1st April next year, which is a considerable time from the point of view of ingenious people anxious to get benefits to which they are not entitled. We want to be sure that the Clause is not left so that such people can come within its provisions.
  I do not know how far the Minister has had consultations during the last few days with those who will be most injuriously affected by the new arrangements. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), for instance, gave us the other evening a concise history of what happened in the case of the hereditaments with which he was mainly concerned. He told us that originally, just under fifty years ago, they were valued at 9d. a cubic foot, that they were then raised to 10d. a cubic foot and that if the law, as interpreted up to present, were now applied, he thought they would be valued about 5s. to 6s a cubic foot.
  Sir P. Spens: Not if the law is observed, but if the same basis of valuation is continued. I do not say whether that is lawful or not.
  Mr. Ede: I want to be quite fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He expressed the same view to me privately and I know that I have his support in what I have said about what is the law at the moment. The position is very doubtful, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the matter into court I have no doubt that he would be able to prove that the contractors' basis has no legal validity. Nevertheless, it has happened and we are faced with that problem.
  On the matter of educational institutions of another kind, there have been prolonged negotiations, not merely with the local education authorities, but with the rating authorities, and an agreement has been reached between the principal valu-

  1159
  ation officer and the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association and the Association of Education Committees, who may be regarded as the people who are interested in local authority schools. Also parties to the new arrangements were the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association, which are not education authorities but which are representative of the rating authorities, and, of course, the way in which the rating of local authority schools works out differs between the county boroughs and the counties.
  In a county borough, the county borough council is the local education authority, and it is also the authority which provides all the local authority services that serve the schools, so that in such a case it may very well be said that it is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. It is not really quite as simple as that, because it is astonishing into whose pockets local authorities can dip when they are looking round for money, and they get approximately 60 per cent. of what they raise in this manner from the Ministry of Education in the way of a grant. The grant is affected by the produce of a rate of 30d. in the £, which means that when the assessment goes up the grant goes down. It is a rather complicated matter, on which, at this stage, I do not want to say anything further.
  When we come to the counties, the case is altogether different. While the county council is the local education authority, the authority that provides the local government services is the non-county borough, the urban district council or the rural district council, and they also are the authorities which have to provide similar services for the public schools. For instance, the Eton Urban District Council has to provide for the drainage of Eton College and for the roads leading to the school, and so on, and throughout the country the same thing happens.
  When we take the case of a local authority school, the assessment is likely to be very substantially increased. I have taken the trouble to ascertain exactly what that means, and no one contends that there is any question of sympathetic assessment here. I have made particular inquiries into the details concerning two counties,
  1160
  the names of which I am quite willing to give to the Minister.
  In the case of the first, the schools which the authority has built since the war will be rated at three times the amount at which they are rated today, and in another county it is estimated that the rates will be trebled in respect of all types of schools. That will be the total effect. I cannot myself understand why, when that kind of arrangement is made with regard to the county schools, which I think is a fair criterion of what the increased value of the services to them is to be, we should continue at precisely the same level the income to be derived by these small county district authorities for the schools which will come within the benefits of this new Clause.
  I should have thought that to freeze their assessments for three years at a time when the small local authorities—and, in the main, they are the smaller local authorities, such as small urban districts and rural districts throughout the country—will have to be paying the increased costs of labour and materials which have led to such a startling increase in local authority expenditure since the war, was unwise.
  I should like to know whether the Minister, in framing this new Clause, has had any consultations with these smaller local authorities—the non-county boroughs, the urban districts and the rural districts—within which most of the schools which get the benefit from this new Clause are to be found. If he has not, I think that, before we could accept this Clause as it stands with regard to these particular hereditaments, we ought to be assured that there has been consultation and that an agreement on this matter has been reached.
  This will continue for them a very heavy liability. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South pointed out to us, these institutions, except where there have been extensions of the school buildings, have not been re-assessed for a very great many years. They are still paying on 10d. per cubic foot, which rate was fixed a good many years ago, practically at the beginning of the time when the phenomenal increase in municipal costs began to arise.

  1161
  Concerning charities such as almshouses and similar hereditaments, which ought, in the old days, to have been excused on the grounds of poverty, we agree that they must, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, be seen safely through this period of revision. It appears from something that was said by the Member for Oldham, East during an earlier stage of the Bill, and from what the Minister said, that this will give time for the new legislation that is required, and that we shall probably have a Rating and Valuation Bill every Session during the present Parliament. I cannot see, with this loose definition in this Clause, that we shall not be faced almost at once with the kind of anomaly that will call out for immediate remedy.
  I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to preserve the discretion of local authorities in dealing between one hereditament and another, with which it is almost impossible —indeed, I would say it is quite impossible—for this House to deal fairly, because what would be true in the area of one rating authority may be quite untrue and unjust in the area of an adjoining rating authority.
  Therefore, to give the local authority discretion in this matter is wise, but I am very doubtful whether it is wise to give it in the assessments of great and powerful charitable corporations which on occasions represent more than half the rateable value of an area, and in some cases even have the right to have members on the local authorities which deal with the matter. It may be wise on the part of the Minister to examine the proposals in the Clause to see whether some of the people who will lose rates that they might otherwise have had ought not to be consulted before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, so that their views on the matter may be heard.
  5.0. p.m.
  The Minister thinks that within eighteen months the attitude adopted by local authorities will be clear, and he promised—we ought to express our gratitude to him for the promise—to try to find a way of letting the House know how the discretion is being exercised by the local authorities who will have the power to use it. We shall then be in a better position to deal with the kind of anomaly that no Minister, with the best
  1162
  will in the world, can prevent arising under a Clause drafted in general terms, as this Clause is.
  I have had, of necessity, to be somewhat critical of the exact form that the proposed new Clause has taken, but I have no doubt that the Minister will console himself with the thought that if some of the openings for anomaly that I have pointed out had not been created there would probably have been others equally objectionable, no matter what words had been used, if he was to carry out his intention of leaving sufficient discretion.
  I conclude as I began by thanking the Minister for the detailed care and attention he has given to the matter and for-the clarity of his exposition. Sometimes it is a disadvantage to a Minister to be so clear in his explanation that everybody understands what he is doing, because it gives an opening for detailed criticism that a less frank Minister might have avoided. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that on his main purpose we are united. When it comes to the application to the community or to particular individuals of even the soundest general principle it is astonishing how much, in a free country, perfectly honest and frank people can differ.
  Sir P. Spens: I would add to what has just been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in thanking the Minister for the proposed new Clause which covers a point left very indefinite in the old subsection (4), whether or not incorporated bodies responsible for schools were included.
  When I was speaking the other day, I pointed out that there are two bases of assessment for colleges and schools. One was and still is the per capita basis; the other is what is called the "contractors'" basis. The right hon. Gentleman rather assumed that colleges and schools were assessed on the contractors' basis. I do not know whether that is so or not, and I do not know what schools or colleges are assessed on the per capita basis. I tried to make it clear that those for which I was speaking were assessed on the contractors' basis, but they are by no means all the schools, colleges and universities in the country. So far as I know, there is not an assessment on the per capita basis, so that the difficulties cannot arise.

  1163
  Assessment on the contractors' basis is a sympathetic assessment. I do not know how it came into being, but it has existed for many years. The fact that it exists today raises the difficulty that if schools and colleges—who do not want in any way to escape their proper liability—are reassessed in the same way as they have been assessed previously, the result will be three or four times their existing assessment. That would shift on to them a much larger proportion of rates, in comparison with other hereditaments. These institutions do not want to avoid their full liability, but they point out that if this increase is to be suddenly sprung upon them they will be placed in a very difficult position.
  I understand that under the proposed new Clause the proportionate liability of these institutions will be frozen at what it is for the current year, but that it can be altered in three years by the giving of a year's notice. That appears later in the Clause.
  Mr. Ede: Surely it is not their proportionate liability but their present actual liability.
  Sir P. Spens: I meant their present actual liability. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That can be altered in three years by giving one year's notice. That will enable everybody to see, every three years, how the assessments in the area work out and whether or not these colleges and schools are paying their proper proportion of the rate poundage that automatically falls on their shoulders as on those of everybody else.
  It is not quite right to suggest that anybody is losing rates. It may be suggested that during the three-year period they are not paying the full rates which they would pay if they were reassessed on the same basis, but there is no question of loss of rates for the time being or of the rating authorities being any worse off during the current year. It is within the discretion of the local authority, when the notice has been given, to work out the right proportion between the educational establishments and the other hereditaments in the area.
  I hope that this will give an opportunity to educational establishments to consider their position.It gives to the rating
  1164
  authority the opportunity, if necessary, to serve them with a three-year notice and then to take such further action as it thinks fit to protect itself in the days to come.
  Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) will allow me, on the strength of a fairly long personal acquaintance, to tell him that that was a very specious performance. Let me explain to him why I use what he may regard as hard words. It seems to me that we must consider both the new Clause and the Amendments put down to it in the light of what we all know, that there is to be a very considerable increase in rateable values generally. Consequently, those who maintain the existing rateable values will probably have a lower poundage to pay—
  Sir P. Spens: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. There is no question of their maintaining the existing rateable value. They are to be assessed to the full extent. The only remission is that for the first year. They are not to pay more in cash than they paid during the previous year.
  Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I started too soon. Let us begin with the new Clause itself. In effect, it retains the discretion of the local authorities to reduce or remit rates of certain hereditaments. It adds to that a freezing which, I agree, applies to the total payable amount of rates. It takes the classes of hereditaments and makes an addition to them. It adds playing fields, and follows the excellent habit of calling a playing field a playing field rather than a private open space devoted to certain purposes.
  We on this side of the Committee cordially agree with the object of the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause. We agree with his general intentions relating to playing fields, and we are glad that in general he has preserved the discretion of the local authorities. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that there are or may be difficulties in the application of the new Clause. I think the Minister appreciated them himself when he promised to give the House an indication of how it was working when he had collected information from the localities. We were very glad to have his promise.

  1165
  However, it seems to me that to a considerable extent the difficulties are safeguarded against by two things. First, the freezing itself, though for the moment it has the limit of the existing rates paid, subsequently will be within the discretion of the local authorities. Secondly, side by side with the freezing, there remains the power to reduce or remit rates. I should think that in practice this will work, as far as one can judge in advance. It seems to me to be ingenious, and as near as one can reach to a thoroughly workable arrangement for what is undoubtedly a very difficult business. We are bringing in not merely the strictly charitable organisations but also those which are only partly charitable in the strict sense of the word.
  Therefore, so far as the Clause itself is concerned, while one reserves the right to see how it works, I should say that it seems to us in general to be in accordance with our intentions in this matter —the intentions of the whole Committee, I believe—and to do at least one perfectly good thing, to bring in playing fields, about which there was some doubt before, and about which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) has made such effective representations on several occasions.
  5.15 p.m.
  Turning to the subject of universities and schools, I find very considerable difficulty in following the reasons for which the Minister has expressly excluded the hereditaments belonging to local authorities. By so doing he may have excluded some minor local authority property, but the main and obvious point is that county schools are excluded, while the public school, in the ordinary sense of the words, will get the benefit of this freezing arrangement. It will also, of course, get the benefit of the local authority's discretionary power to reduce or remit, which is the more modern and more legal form of the sympathetic assessment it may or may not have had in the past. It will get all that, and so, too, will a university. Those are very considerable concessions. How considerable must, of course, depend on what the practice has been in the past.
  I turn from that to the position of council schools. I feel certain that everyone in this Committee, at any rate on this side, would not wish to give public
  1166
  schools—I am using the words in the ordinary way in which they are used: public schools in the traditional sense—and some of our institutions such as universities and colleges any treatment which was either preferential as against the county schools or even appeared to be preferential as against the county schools. The new Clause as it stands undoubtedly appears to give the non-county schools, the public schools in the colloquial sense, the universities, an entirely special preference, and on this side of the Committee we take the strongest objection to the appearance of doing so. Moreover, it seems to us that it is more than an appearance, and that there is a real preference.
  It is a rather complicated question. I hope I can put it clearly. The present position, as I see it, is that rating affects county schools in two ways. For simplicity, I take the case of a county where the authorities are separate, and not the case of a county borough. In the case of a county, the county, as the local education authority, pays rates on the county schools, and those rates are collected in the first instance by the district councils, and the district councils are the authorities which benefit from that. It is true that this is complicated by the fact that the county rate is also collected by the district council and one cannot, without an elaborate analysis in each case, say exactly how it will work. Broadly speaking, however, any special exemption from rates will favour the county councils as the local education authorities and will prejudice the position of the rate-collecting authorities, the district councils.
  I am afraid that the problem is a little more complicated than that. We are now, as I said at the beginning, certain to have higher assessments, higher assessments of domestic property and even higher assessments of some other property such as the business property we were talking about a short time ago, and the general rateable value in some areas is certain to go up. We are dealing with places where the assessments at present are proceeding on old values. There is no need to develop that. We all know that perfectly well. Accordingly, the product of a given rate will in all probability be considerably higher on the new assessments. At the same time, the local authorities, of course,

  1167
  will no doubt equalise that to a very considerable extent by reducing the rate poundage. The product of a 1d. rate and, therefore, the product of a 2s. 6d. rate will go up considerably.
  The product of a 2s. 6d. rate, from the point of view of the local education authority, is a deduction from what is called the main education grant for education purposes. Consequently, if the product of a 2s. 6d. rate goes up, the local education authority will suffer a bigger deduction from its educational grant even if it does not actually have to pay more rates on the school. Therefore, the way matters now stand, it looks as if the local education authority—the county council in the case I am talking about—will get it both ways. First of all, it will not have the benefit of this freezing arrangement, this discretionary reduction or remission of the rates. Secondly, it will get it by suffering a greater reduction from the main grant for educational purposes.
  This is an exceedingly complicated business. It confirms my opinion that there is a Chinese mathematician in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and I feel sure that only he, with his particular knowledge, could work this out in detail. How are we going to defend the position that we benefit Eton or Oundle by giving them, first of all, the benefit of a discretionary reduction and, secondly, this freezing arrangement, at the very time when we refuse to do so in favour of the county schools, and the county schools are also going to suffer because the education grant is surely going to be reduced?
  That is a very simple proposition, and I wonder what the Minister has had in mind. To quote Shakespeare, I am sure that he is "a reasonable man." I do not think that there was anything deliberate or wicked in this arrangement, but I put it to him that, in a sphere of considerable uncertainty as to how all this will work, it is rather a remarkable proposition to say to the Committee, "Here is a concession in favour of the universities and the public schools and it is expressly not to be given to county schools."
  I am speaking for myself and, probably, for my hon. and right hon. Friends when I say that we shall require a great deal of convincing that there are no circumstances in which these arrangements will
  1168
  not inure to the disadvantage of the county schools as against the other institutions. We bear in mind that when one comes to the operation of this discretionary power by local authorities one will have difficulties both ways. I do not know how it will work out, but that is all the more reason for seeing that the two types of schools are put on exactly the same footing. That is our reason for bringing forward the Amendments, the effect of which we think is simply to include the local authority schools exactly on the same basis as the traditional schools and universities and similar places.
  Sir I. Horobin: I should like to say, first, something about the Amendments we are discussing with the new Clause. It is that, for a different reason, I wait with considerable interest the Minister's observations on the point raised in the Amendments.
  The reason why I want to understand this matter in more detail than any of us do at present is simply that if we use, as presumably we shall, the machinery of the new Clause for dealing with the circumstances of the public schools and universities, whereby they will be endeavouring to preserve a discretion in their favour, it will be disastrous to put them in a position in which they are prejudiced from the start by a feeling on the part of the people to whom they have to go for discretion that they are asking for and obtaining something which is refused to the schools of the local authority to whom they are going.
  It would be putting them in a very difficult position and prejudicing their case before an authority which otherwise might be sympathetic. I am not presuming yet to form a final judgment on the merits of the Amendments, because this is a largely technical point of putting money from one pocket into another, but, for that quite different reason which I have explained to the Committee, I hope that the Minister will satisfy us that there is no discrimination between one type of school and another.
  I am convinced that one of the merits of the new approach in the new Clause is that emergency treatment is given to the serious problem of the rating of universities and public schools and charitable and, if not strictly charitable, non-profit-making institutions. I am sure that I am

  1169
  right in saying that the Clause could not inure to the benefit of profit-making preparatory schools.
  I welcome the new Clause and congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it. It is not all that some of us would have liked, but I think and hope that it deals with the root of the matter. As the Committee knows, I have been making a nuisance of myself to successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government since 1948. I think that the charities of England will have reason to feel pleased that one hon. Member woke up in 1948 to what was going to happen. If the chambers of trade and chambers of commerce had done the same, there might now be some other hereditaments which might have a better time next year.
  I believe that in the new Clause we have found a reasonable compromise. The new provision is extended much more widely than the old, and the new Clause regulates the extremely doubtful position of the very beneficial procedure which has applied to charities and near-charities in the past. It makes sure that the local authorities, where they wish, can help all this enormous variety of good works which, as the Minister so justly said, could not be brought within the strict definition before. The new Clause will see us over the crucial three years by the end of which we hope we shall have settled down as between local authority and charity more or less where we were before. It will get us over this very dangerous transitional period.
  I hope that the new Clause will meet the other points which were worrying the Committee—the points about the risk of a form of blackmail of the local authorities and of the danger of exerting pressure when negotiating with local authorities on questions relating to open spaces. The new Clause is advantageous in that respect, and it also gives charities security from a budgetting point of view. I feel that on the whole this is a good way of dealing with——

  ROYAL ASSENT
  5.30 p.m.
  Whereupon, The YEOMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Austrian State Treaty Act, 1955.

  2. German Conventions Act, 1955.

  3. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1955.

  4. Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Order Confirmation Act, 1955.

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (RECOMMITTED) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

New Clause.—(RELIEF FROM RATES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS.)
Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
5.43 p.m.
Sir I. Horobin: I was just concluding a short argument to the effect that it seemed to me that, on the general problem before us in this new Clause, a reasonable compromise had been found which would secure the rights of local authorities, which would regularise and extend their powers to assist, where they thought proper, the various beneficient objects with which we are concerned and, at the same time, while not giving complete protection, would give the necessary protection for the danger period and would give reasonable warning and opportunity for making any necessary representations if, in the course of time, the position of the charities was being worsened.
The only point to which I want to direct a few observations further to the

1171
Committee is to take up what seemed to me, although it occurred in only a few sentences, to be one of the most important parts of the proposal of the Minister, although it will not involve legislation. My right hon. Friend said that he would take such steps as, after further consideration, he thought most expedient, to see that Parliament was fully advised in the future of what it has never been advised before, of exactly what the local authorities were doing in this important field. Of course, for informed discussion, and criticism if necessary, and still more if further legislation in this matter should be necessary, it is vital that we should have this further information in the best form.
If the Committee will allow me, in view of its importance I would like briefly to put forward one or two of the considerations involved in the choice of the method which the Minister may take for doing what he proposes to do, most of which I welcome. There are considerable advantages in it being an annual report to Parliament by the Minister. The Minister and his Ministry are in close, constant touch with local authorities. They can often put friendly, or even not so friendly pressure, on authorities who are being unreasonable in one way or another, or simply lax in using their powers and therefore not up to the standard of other authorities. It can be done privately and in the ordinary way of business. Local authorities are used to it and are perhaps less likely to resent anything of the kind.
5.45 p.m.
On the other hand, it has considerable disadvantages. I have an open mind on the matter, but the Committee ought to direct its attention to the advantages and the disadvantages. We all know the disadvantages which have arisen and which are strongly felt where, in somewhat analogous fields, the Minister's inspector holds an inquiry and observations are made. Nobody knows whether those observations are incorporated in the report to the Minister. Nobody knows whether the Minister has taken that into consideration. Nobody knows whether other observations, which have been impossible to check, have altered his opinion. We know there are genuine difficulties on both sides in this matter if we have up and down the country prob
1172
lems where one authority is thought to be unfair or one authority has acted quite differently in the same field to another. It will be unfortunate if nobody knows what is happening when observations are made, or may have been made on evidence which may or may not have been compelling.
On the other hand, if something in the nature of a Departmental committee were set up it would have some advantages which would get over the difficulties I have described, because in the first place it would be obvious that some body or some bodies on that committee would be persons of good authority in the local government world. Equally, they would be persons of authority in the charitable world. On the face of any document they presented to Parliament there would appear the evidence or representations—whether in the treatment of schools or universities or playing fields or almshouses. On that body persons who would see that the case was properly presented and, on the face of it, Parliament would have, when deciding the matter, the views —if necessary dissenting and different views—of all concerned. There would be no fear therefore, that the report to Parliament had, so to speak, been cooked-up and agreed so thoroughly by the interests involved that it would be impossible to get it altered afterwards.
The second advantage which we ought to have in our minds in this part of the Minister's plan is that, without any disrespect to local authorities, they are organised bodies, they are very properly powerful pressure groups, and we all know the effect of a sudden flood of circulars that reach this House from the A.M.C. or the County Councils' Association. I say that it would be unfortunate if, when the Minister was presenting any report and any suggestions for improvement or criticism, let alone impending legislation, the immediate reaction of the great organised local authorities was to gather themselves together to resist. On the other hand, if it had come before a Departmental committee and it was known that persons of standing and repute had already considered it all, they would not be automatically mobilising themselves to protect their interests.
This is one of the most important and most valuable parts of the Minister's schemes. It will be of immense value to

1173
local authorities and charities to have something which they have never had before, something in the nature of an annual report on the way in which the relations between them are being conducted. It is worth giving very serious consideration to the best way of doing it.
I express no final opinion, but these are some of the considerations on both sides which ought to be in our minds. I congratulate the Minister upon doing something to relieve genuine anxieties in many important and valuable pieces of work in the country, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Clause.
Mr. Sandys: It might be useful if I now replied to the points which have been made—
Mr. Douglas Houghton: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Will the Minister's remarks close the discussion? I would draw your attention to the fact that there have been only two speeches from this side of the Committee, one from an hon. and learned Friend of mine who has just gone from the back benches to the Opposition Front Bench, and one from a right hon. Friend of mine who has just gone from the Opposition Front Bench to the back benches.
The Chairman: I do not think it will end the discussion. I was not proposing to accept a Closure Motion.
Mr. Sandys: If it would be more convenient for the Committee, I would gladly speak later, but I thought it might be a good thing if I intervened at this point. I want to reply to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that there might be some impropriety in extending the scope of the Clause as widely as it has been extended. I thought I ought also to reply to the Amendment which proposes that local authority schools shall be included in the scope of the new Clause.
The right hon. Member for South Shields said that there was great difficulty in defining exactly which were the organisations that we wished to help and that we ought to produce a definition which would include all the organisations we wished to help and strictly exclude all the organisations we did not wish to help. That is what we all want to do, but we have found great difficulty in doing so, and the
1174
right hon. Gentleman did not suggest any way out of the difficulty. However, he was good enough to say that he felt that, taking everything together, the Clause would probably be a fair and workable arrangement, and that, in any case, we could see how we got along.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned various possible rackets which might be developed under cover of the Clause, such as the preparatory school headmaster turning his private profit-making school into a company, giving himself a comfortable salary equivalent to the salary he would otherwise have got through running the school in the ordinary way, and qualifying under the Clause to be treated as a charity and receiving exemption from the local authority. If a local authority were a party to that sort of thing, a lot of other things could go wrong apart from that, but we must rely, as we have always been able to do in the past, on the good sense of local authorities not to be parties to rackets of that kind.
It might be well if I replied to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said he was pleased that the Clause retained the discretion of local authorities to reduce rate payments and that we were not attempting to prescribe it all by law. He also said that he agreed with the object of the Clause and that in practice the Clause would work. On the other hand—I assume that he was then addressing himself to the Amendment, although he did not refer to it specifically —he compared the positions of the public schools and the local authority schools. He said that public schools would get the benefit of the freezing arrangement and also the benefit of the local authorities' discretion——
Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Does the fact that the Minister is now replying to the speeches which have been delivered mean that other speeches on the subject of the Clause and the Amendment will not receive a reply from him? I represent a constituency which is more affected by the Clause than any other constituency in the country. I should have hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman made the reply which he is now making about public schools he would have listened to the rest of the debate.
The Chairman: I have already been asked that point. The debate can only be brought to an end if a Motion for the Closure is moved, accepted and carried. I have no intention of accepting such a Motion.
Mr. Sandys: I regret speaking before listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He was not in the Chamber just. before I rose, and I did not notice that he had returned. I was expecting him to make a speech. If he raises any further points in his speech, I shall be very glad to reply to them.
Mr. Brockway: For the purpose of the record, I was in the Chamber when the right hon. Gentleman rose to begin his speech.
Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber just before that, because I looked to see whether he was in his place, as I had expected him to make a speech on the subject. What I am saying may provide him with some more ammunition with which to make his speech.
It was said that the Clause would give the public schools the benefit of the freezing arrangement, which is, after all, only temporary, and also the local authorities' discretion. I think we must leave the question of discretion to local authorities and rely on their good sense.
So far as the freezing arrangement is concerned, as I said earlier in respect of all these organisations in general—the public school is in no different position from any other organisation, and some of them will not qualify for the benefit of the Clause at all—they will only receive the benefit of it if within its scope they have been receiving sympathetic treatment in the past. It is not a matter of conferring upon them something new. What we are doing in the Clause is trying to preserve the position of all those organisations so that, as I said earlier— the right hon. Member for South Shields repeated it—they shall not, by mistake in the process of changing over from one system to the other, lose the benefit which they have enjoyed, and so that they and Parliament will have plenty of warning if local authorities decide—I do not believe they will—to adopt a generally less sympathetic attitude towards educational bodies, charities and so forth.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, "How about the local
1176
authority schools? They are not getting all these benefits which are being conferred upon universities, public schools, charities, and so forth." They are not, of course, but we must remember the purpose of the whole Clause. It is not to relieve rates in general; it is to help certain charitable organisations of various kinds which are considered to be an important and valuable part of our national life and to have made a great contribution to it, and which would be liable to suffer if there was a sudden increase in the rates which they had to pay. It is to prevent some sudden, unexpected prejudicial effect on these organisations which might cripple them and make their position difficult.
6.0 p.m.
I do not attach much importance to whether local authority schools should be treated similarly. I have an open mind on the subject. From the Government's point of view I see no objection to putting local authority schools in the same class, because it would make practically no difference. The only result would be to alter the book-keeping of local authorities. However, I consider that it would be a bad principle and tend to confuse the whole purpose of this Clause.
When I say that there would not be any difference, I should add that it would make this difference; if local authority schools did not pay rates their total expenditure would be reduced by that amount. Since the education grant is based primarily on a percentage of the expenditure they incur, to that extent—with one other adjustment to which I shall not refer, and which does not fully counterbalance it—local authorities would receive a lower education grant from the Exchequer as a result of not paying rates. It may seem strange, but that is what would happen, and if we wished to preserve their position, it would be necessary to make an adjustment in the arrangements for education grants.
Mr. Ede: They still pay 40 per cent. after getting the grant, and in the county areas it is not the same local authority.
Mr. Sandys: I am aware of that. But taking the simple case of the council of a county borough, the net result would be that it would receive a slightly smaller education grant and a slightly smaller equalisation grant.
Mr. G. Lindgren: Assuming that it was receiving an equalisation grant.
Mr. Sandys: Yes. If not, it would lose nothing. I think we shall get into some confusion if we go into the question of equalisation grants.
The point has been made about the effect on local authority education grants if public schools and other educational bodies receive remission. If they are exempted, the product of a 30d. rate will be reduced, because there will be a less amount of money raised in rates in the whole area. Therefore, the amount to be deducted from the expenditure before payment of the education grant will be reduced and the grant will be increased. Curiously enough, the effect of exempting public schools from rates would be to cause a very slight increase in the education grant payable to the local education authority. If local authorities were not to pay rates, they would lose a small part of their education grant, and if public schools are exempted to some extent from paying rates, the local education association will in fact receive a slightly higher education grant. I mention that to show that there is nothing in the argument that they will lose financially by anything in this Clause.
Mr. Lindgren: I appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman. He is dealing entirely with the question of education, and from that point of view many of his claims are correct. But in the counties there are two authorities, the county authority and the minor authority. The urban district, the rural district and the non-county borough are rating authorities, and there are other things in local authority expenses beside education. Even public schools need street lighting and cleansing and drainage and all the rest of it, which are expensive services.
Mr. Sandys: I dealt with the education grant, because that point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and I was trying to reply to his speech.
Generally—apart from the question of exempting other organisations—and dealing solely with the question of whether it would be an advantage to local authorities to have their schools exempted from rates, in a county borough, where the whole thing is one unit, it would make no difference at all. Similarly, if county
1178
schools were evenly distributed over the whole county it would make no difference. But, of course, they are not, and the only effect of exempting county education authority schools would be to redistribute the burden in a rather haphazard way, which would work to the advantage of some authorities and to the disadvantage of others.
I have done my best to secure the views of local authorities on this matter. I cannot claim to have had exhaustive discussions on the subject, but generally speaking local authorities are opposed to any Parliamentary restriction on their discretion in these matters. To that extent, what we have been discussing is not wholly acceptable to local authorities. I think I am right in saying that they have no desire to see local authority schools exempted from rates or treated in a special way because, as I have explained, it would create inequalities between different districts, and, on balance, would provide no advantage.
They do not wish their schools to be treated as charities, nor do they wish school buildings to be treated differently from other local authority buildings. Were we to treat local authority schools in one way, there would be no reason why other local authority buildings should not be treated in a similar manner and given whatever exemption is decided, because all the expenditure comes from the Exchequer.
Mr. Lindgren: This is an important point. This memorandum, issued by the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association, the Urban and Rural District Associations and the Association of Education Authorities, states that the agreement with the valuers is on schools and school buildings. Other hereditaments owned by local authorities are treated in a totally different way. This is not a statement on the valuation for the whole of local authority undertakings, including the council offices, the depot for public works and the rest. It is merely an agreement about schools and school buildings.
Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman did not say to which document he was referring, but I assume that it is the document entitled "Revaluation of Local Authority Schools," dated April, 1955.
Mr. Lindgren: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Sandys: The purpose of that document is to define how a school is to be valued, which is not always an easy thing to decide. I think I am right in saying —although I have not had the opportunity of detailed consultations about it—that local authorities would like to adhere to the agreement which was negotiated after a great deal of discussion. They would not like any new Clause or Amendment introduced which would upset the agreement. I think that those are the main points which I wanted to make at this stage, but, if any other points are made by the hon. Gentleman or by any other hon. Member, I will gladly consider replying to them.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I cannot feel that the Minister has replied very convincingly to the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in favour of the Amendments. The way in which the Minister dealt with those arguments was to say, "Let us examine what would happen if schools were exempt from rates." He then developed what would happen in that case, and argued that it would really mean no great advantage to local authorities or to local educational authorities if schools were exempt from rates.
My hon. and learned Friend did not suggest that schools should be exempt from rates, and neither has anybody else suggested it. What he suggested was that they should be given the same limited and temporary protection as is afforded to other institutions by the Minister's proposed new Clause. The question that we have to ask ourselves is not what would happen if schools were completely exempt from rates, but what would happen if this Measure came into operation with this new Clause embodied, but without the Amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
Surely, what would happen is that the assessments of local authority schools would be decidedly higher than they are at the present time and that the amount of rates which a local education authority would have to pay in respect of its schools would be decidedly higher than at the present time. At the same time, the increase in the total rateable value of the area would have the result of reducing that local education authority's grant
1180
from the Exchequer. The local education authority, therefore, would "get it" with both barrels.
I am very happy indeed that I was called immediately after the Minister and while I could still remember the exact tenor of the argument which he put forward, because I am quite sure that I should not have been able to remember it after the lapse of some ten minutes. The Minister argued that the partial de-rating given to the independent schools by this Clause, by reducing the rateable value of the area, would tend to increase the amount of the education grant to the local education authority, and, consequently, that that authority would get some help. But the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that the amount of help which it would get would be very slight.
If local education authorities are going to be faced with the situation which I have just described, they will have increased education expenditure and reduced grants. The tiny help which they will receive as a result of what was contained in the argument of the Minister will not be worth taking into consideration. I hope that I have said enough to suggest that the local education authorities have good grounds for some concern about the effect of the Measure as it now stands, but to say what exactly will happen to their education expenditure and to their education grant is something upon which nobody could venture an opinion. There is great complication in it.
One of the arguments used by the Minister in support of his new Clause was that the matter was complicated, that it was uncertain how things would work out for a body like a great public school, and than, therefore, we ought to have this period of three years during which, in effect, one could wait and see how things worked out. If that argument holds good for the independent schools, then surely it holds good all the more for the local authority schools, in relation to which the matter is very much more complicated by the mechanism of grants for local authority expenditure, and in respect of which, therefore, the need to wait and see for a period of three years is, if anything, even greater than in the case of the independent schools.

1181
6.15 p.m.
We are asking the Minister why, when he makes what seems a quite reasonable provision in respect of independent schools, he does not make it in respect of local authority schools, which may be in even greater need of it because they are faced with the prospect of increased assessments and reduced grants, or, at the very least, with a situation which nobody can describe with dogmatic certainty and in regard to which a period in which we can wait and see and observe is even more desirable than in the case of the independent schools.
It is really the more remarkable that the proposal to give to independent schools a form of help that is not given to local authority schools should be made in a new Clause dealing mainly with charitable institutions. In his reply, the Minister made a very strange comment. He said that the local authorities did not want their schools to be treated as charity schools. Are we to understand that the governors of the great public schools have approached the right hon. Gentleman saying that they wish their schools to be treated as charity schools?
The term "charity school" has, of course, been in use in our language, but one associates it mainly with the novels of Dickens. When we use that term, Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and the rest, do not immediately spring to mind. Of course, although a great public school is, in a sense, a charitable organisation, it is something very much more. It is an instrument for preserving a particular class structure in society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is one of the facets. I am quite prepared to admit that in another aspect the public school is in many ways an admirable institution, but if I am prepared to concede that, then hon. Members opposite ought to be willing to concede a perfectly obvious fact about public schools.
We normally associate the word "charity" with helping people who have decidedly less than the average of the good things of life, but one of the objects of the public school is to help a group of people, who already have a good deal of the good things of life, to remain in a social and educational position in which they will go on having them. I am not objecting—and this shows how generously I approach the problem—to the public
1182
schools having the assistance which the Minister proposes to give them under the new Clause.
None of us on this side of the Committee has argued against that. All we are saying is that the right hon. Gentleman has not made out the case for giving the assistance to them and not, at the same time, dealing with the undoubted difficulties and perplexities which will face local education authorities as the result of what is happening in the rating field.
I welcome the maintenance in the new Clause of the old subsection (4) of Clause 6 of the Bill, which gives local authorities discretion in the help which they afford to charitable concerns of all kinds.
Mr. Sandys: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument so that I may reply to him, but I have not understood what advantage he suggests that local authority schools would receive by having their rates either exempted or remitted. If I could see any advantage that they would acquire as a result of that, then I would gladly consider whether they should be included.
Mr. Stewart: The right bon. Gentleman should put out of his mind the word "exempt." Nobody is proposing to exempt local authority schools from rates. That is not what we are discussing. We are saying that the prospect now facing local education authorities is a rise in the amount of rates which they may have to pay in respect of their schools.
Mr. Sandys: Paying to themselves.
Mr. Stewart: Not necessarily in some cases, and by no means in all cases; and, at the same time, they will be faced with the prospect of a reduction in the education grant. That creates for them a position of some anxiety, and I should like the Minister to say whether he will give them the three-year respite which he is offering independent schools under the Clause. That is all that he is being asked to do.
I welcome the maintenance of the old Clause 6 (4), which gives wide discretion to the local authorities, because I am very much of the opinion that if we wish to help a charity out of public funds—

1183
and that is, in effect, what we are doing —we should make it, as far as possible, a matter of local discretion. We must not forget that whenever we say that any institution, however worthy and charitable, shall not pay the full amount of rates, what we are, in fact, saying is that the other ratepayers in the area shall make a contribution to that charity. It may be a very worthy charity, but it should be left as far as possible to the ratepayers in the area to decide whether or not they want to make a contribution to it.
That consideration will apply especially in the case of a small and not very well-off local authority which has in its area one or two very large institutions which may be affected by the operation of the new Clause. I do not think that the Minister has yet mentioned whether or not he has had consultations with some of the smaller local authorities which may be adversely affected. There may be a case for giving some form of public help to independent schools, but if we are to do so I should feel happier if, instead of doing so by means of a very involved process in a rating and valuation Bill, we did it openly and avowedly in a context in which the whole relationship of those schools to the community and to the national system of education could be fully discussed.
Mr. G. B. Drayson: I thank the Minister for introducing the new Clause, because it makes the position of charitable organisations quite clear, especially in regard to playing fields, but I should like him to state what will be the position of shooting ranges, such as that at Bisley. The National Rifle Association is rather worried about the situation. It feels that it is faced with an increase in its rateable value of possibly five times the old assessment.
If the Minister cannot give me the necessary assurance now, I feel that the matter could be dealt with in another place by Amendments to subsection (1). It would be an advantage if, in line 5, after "education or social welfare," we could add
"or in the interest of defence"
because that is one of the objects which the Association was founded to foster. Its Charter states its objects to be:
1184
"The encouragement of rifle shooting throughout the Queen's domains in the interest of defence and the permanence of the auxiliary forces, naval, military and air."
Again, it would be of advantage if, in line 9, after the words
"for the purposes of open-air games or of open-air athletic sports"
there could be added the words
"or rifle or pistol shooting."
We are concerned with this problem in Yorkshire, where we shoot annually for the Scorton Arrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about archery?"] I think we can take it that archery is included in open-air games or sports. I know that all those concerned with the shooting at Bisley would like to know how they will stand under the provisions of the Clause. I would remind the Minister that during this week hundreds of schoolboys will be taking part in the competition for the Ashburnham Shield, and they will all be anxious to know the answer to this point.
Mr. Houghton: I am sure that we could all add to the list of sports. I can think of one—bowling greens belonging to working men's clubs. They are generally played upon by those who are a little lower in the income scale than the people who are able to indulge in the pleasures of archery.
I commend the Minister for the clarity of his explanation of the new Clause, but some doubts still seem to exist about it. As I understand it, the Minister has substituted a statutory duty for what was previously a power of discretion. In the earlier debates we were discussing the merits of the alternative principles of statutory exemption and local discretion. A suggestion was made that a harmony between the two might produce the best results—if some hereditaments were exempted by Statute and others given relief by discretion of local authorities.
The earlier part of the new Clause, however, places upon a local authority the statutory duty of freezing the amount chargeable to rates at this year's level for those hereditaments falling within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1), which seems to me to place upon local authorities the responsibility for definition. Perhaps the Minister will say whether this will mean that those responsible for hereditaments which they claim to be covered by those paragraphs will

1185
have the power of proceeding against the local authority for the benefit of the relief which the new Clause would bestow upon such hereditaments if it could be established that they came within the definition of the new Clause.
That seems to open up fresh possibilities which local authorities will hardly face with equanimity. One can well understand, as the Minister has said, that local authorities would prefer to have the right of discretion rather than have imposed upon them this new and undoubtedly troublesome statutory duty. The hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) rather suggested that it would be clear whether a certain hereditament qualified for benefit under the new Clause, because if it did it would already be the subject of some concession. I doubt whether that is a proper interpretation.
Some of these bodies might not know whether or not they have any concession, because we understand that the term "sympathetic assessment" has taken, not the form of an actual and noticeable relief from the rates which would otherwise be levied, but the form of a deliberate fixing of the gross valuation below that which would be required to conform with the law. Some of these charitable bodies might not be sure whether or not their gross valuation was below or in parity with what may be required by the law. They may think that it had merely been the practice of the local authority in the past to put these valuations at a rather lower figure than might otherwise be the case.
6.30 p.m.
According to my interpretation of the Clause, whether or not a body is conscious of having received the benefit of a sympathetic assessment in the past, it can claim to have its rates frozen at this year's level if it claims to come within the definition of the new Clause. Indeed, as one understands the proposed new Clause, some of the bodies, including their playing fields, can claim the benefit of it, although they may not have received or ever have claimed to receive, the benefit of sympathetic assessment in the past.
If this is the proper interpretation of the Clause it would be useful for the Minister to say so. Such an interpretation clearly takes away from the valuation officer any responsibility for saying
1186
whether or not a body is charitable or educational or is a playing field or whatever it may be, for the purposes of the proposed new Clause. That decision will now rest only upon the local authority. In lines 19, 22 and 25 of the new Clause the reference is to the amount of rates chargeable and not to the amount of the assessment. For that relief the valuation officer ought to be grateful. He will carry out his plain statutory duty of putting what is regarded as the proper valuation upon the hereditament, according to law. The rest will be in the hands of the local authority.
It would have been useful also if the Minister had given us a few examples. I do not know, for instance, whether public schools are at present valued upon a level lower than that which is likely to apply in the future. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) about it, and he did not know. If they have been the recipients of any beneficial treatment in the past, it would be useful to know from some examples, without mentioning names, whether any real benefit is to come under the proposed new Clause for some of those educational stablishments. We are assuming that they will get additional benefits but we do not know.
The discretion of the local authority is still retained in the latter part of the proposed new Clause, and it can still continue to be exercised in respect of newly-formed bodies or hereditaments which come within the jurisdiction of existing bodies and in respect of which the local authority may be asked to use discretion.
Obviously, the Clause is not free from difficulty in its administration. Nothing of this kind ever will be. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) was in rather a hurry to be getting on. He seemed pleased with his victory and went on at high speed to suggest what would happen three years from now. He made a few suggestions to the Minister for the permanent settlement of this difficult problem. I commend the hon. Gentleman for telling us that he has been awake since 1948. Whether the National Chamber of Trade went to sleep at any time during that period I do not pretend to know, but it will be wide awake indeed between 1st January and 31st March, 1956. That is one of the

1187
things which the Minister has coming to him—but it has nothing to do with the proposed new Clause.
I hope that the Minister will be able to correct or to confirm the construction which I have put on the duty of local authorities in this connection. It is a very heavy duty and may involve local authorities in a considerable amount of difficulty which they have not had before, and which will not be welcome in the future.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: My constituency will be more affected by the proposed new Clause than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. It is a double-double-barrelled constituency. It contains the great contrast of Eton, the home of the College, and of Slough, a great industrial centre. Eton is affected by the proposed new Clause itself, while Slough will be affected in a quite extraordinary way by the Amendments, because we are probably building more new schools than any other borough in the country, because of the expansion of the town.
What I am going to say about Eton College does not arise from any unfriendliness towards its staff or its boys. I have very good relations with both. During my Election campaign the meetings at Eton are attended by the staff and by 300 of the boys and are always the most enjoyable of the whole campaign. I hope that they are enjoyed by the boys and the staff as much as by the candidate. I was present there at the most graceful happening which has occurred in my political life. I had been attacking a speech made by a right hon. Member of this Government. A boy got up in the front row. He bowed to me, turned and bowed to the audience, and marched out. I have never seen anything more dignified or graceful.
Mr. Houghton: Or more eloquent.
Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman whom I was attacking was the Minister in charge of this Bill, and the boy who rose and made that graceful protest was his son.
The right hon. Gentleman knows Eton probably better than I do. It is a small urban area. There is a delightful little High Street which I hope will never be spoiled. I hope that the right hon. Gentle-
1188
man will seek to preserve it by urging one of his colleagues to construct a bypass road as soon as possible. There is the College and the College houses, the great open space of the Brocas at the edge of the Thames, the playing fields, and the small housing estate of Eton Wick. The district is absolutely dominated by Eton College. I have inquired from the clerk to the urban district council and am informed that the College meets between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the total rates.
The Minister has said that whether or not public schools are to have the advantage of the proposed new Clause will depend upon whether they had sympathetic assessments in the past. It is extraordinarily difficult to define a "sympathetic" assessment. That is why I was not able to reply categorically to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he put his question to me. It may be a matter of per capita assessment or of contractors' assessment. The Minister being aware, as he is, of the extent of Eton College in that urban district council area, not merely the College but its playing fields, and the ownership of the Brocas and of the agricultural areas, he will agree with me that 40 per cent. of the total rates is a very small proportion indeed.
I wish to make another point. The urban district council is dominated by members of the staff of Eton College. I am not suggesting that those members are acting primarily in the interests of the College. Indeed, I know many of them who have withstood demands which the College, as an institution, has made, because they desire to represent the area and population of the Eton Urban District Council as a whole. Many of them are my friends and I respect them greatly. I do say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that in a small area dominated as Eton is by the College, to offer the advantages which this new Clause offers to such a college in direct contrast to its treatment of public schools is a proposal which ought not to have the support of the Committee.
That leads me to the contrast of the other part of my constituency—the Borough of Slough. I think it quite likely that in the building programmes in the last three years we have had more schools than perhaps any other area. We have 17,000 of London's population coming to

1189
us on two great estates, and the last school building programme included seven new schools. Those schools are already being rated in a way that is intolerable compared with the rating of the industrial concerns in Slough.
I have in my hand details of the ratings of our schools and of our industrial concerns. Last year the Orchard Secondary Modern School paid £2,050 in rates. If the estimate of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is correct, that rating will, under the Bill, be increased to about £6,000. On the other hand, there are large industrial concerns in Slough which are paying no more than £2,000, £2,100, £3,600, £2,600. Indeed, I know of only one industrial company in the Borough of Slough which will, under this Bill, pay higher rates than the Orchard Secondary Modern School. That concern is Hawkers Limited. It pays £9,700 a year and every year under industrial derating is excused the tremendous sum of £29,000.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly justify that. He cannot justify the giving of privileges to what are called public schools—but which are the last institutions which should be so called—and, at the same time, refuse to grant to our real public schools—the schools under local authorities—similar treatment.
He may say, as he has done this afternoon, that it makes no difference; that either the borough, the county council or the Exchequer must pay the amount but, whoever pays, there will be an additional charge upon our educational cost, and every such additional charge will make it more difficult to get more teachers, more schools, smaller classes, better equipment and all that education requires.
I appeal to him to see that this problem is much bigger than the issues which we have been discussing during the debate on the Clause; that he really must put into operation as early as possible a revision of our whole rating system. Until he has done that he should not give privileges to the institutions included in this new Clause at the expense of shopkeepers and house occupiers in small areas such as Eton. He should look again at the Clause.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Lindgren: I think everyone will agree that we have had a most interesting debate on the proposed Clause and
1190
the Amendments to it. It is surprising how interesting we can make a debate on rating and valuation and the variations we can introduce. May I now indicate that I am moving the Amendment in line 2—
The Chairman: Before we take the Amendments we shall have to get the Second Reading of the new Clause. The arrangement was that we should take the new Clause and the Amendments together and that the Amendments could be put formally at the end of the debate.
Mr. Lindgren: Thank you, Sir Charles.
Though suggesting that he had no objection to bringing local authority schools within the scope of the Clause, the Minister asked, "Why do you want to bring them in?" We want to bring them in for exactly the same reason that the public schools want either to be brought in or to stay as they are. Both the Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said there was no advantage to the public schools or these other bodies because they would have to pay the same rates, but the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) rather emphasised the point which I am about to make.
Local authority education costs in 1954–55 are lower than they will be in 1955–56—and certainly lower than they will be in 1956–57. The reason is that the costs of labour, material and everything else are going up, and a service required by a local authority which cost £1 last year is quite likely to cost 22s. 6d. or 25s. this year. In Eton and Slough—or anywhere else where there are these institutions—that additional cost is being borne by the present domestic, shop-keeping and other ratepayers. I cannot see why that should be. No one has said exactly who is to come into and who is to be excluded from the provisions of the Clause. As for the schools which are included within the provisions of the new Clause, we are prepared to let that aspect go, but when it is proposed to include those schools there must also be included the local authority schools. They also are educational institutions and should be put on the same basis.
It appears that some public schools are rated on an assessment contract

1191
system and some on a school-place basis. This new system which has been agreed between the Inland Revenue and the local authorities puts the local authority schools on a school-place basis. Local authority administrators say that the effect will be to treble the existing assessment of local authority schools. If the other schools were put on exactly the same basis it is only fair to assume that their rates would go up to a similar degree. I do not mind that, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. colleagues will say that what is good enough for the one class of schools should also apply to the other. If the present intention of the Clause is to freeze the amount of rates paid this year for the next three years for public schools, we say that principle should apply to the local authority schools.
The Minister's case is as follows. We do not know exactly what the extent of the existing valuation has been and we do not know exactly what the extent of the new valuation is to be. The new valuation will go on the rate book and then the local authority will remit all the difference between what it could have levied under the new valuation and the amount which was actually paid in the previous year. All we do is to freeze the amount to what is being paid now. If that is good enough for the public schools—Eton and the rest—is it not equally justifiable that a local authority should be able to see what the effect of this valuation is going to be?
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned the three times the existing value. The local authority which I got in touch with said exactly the same, particularly so far as the post-war schools are concerned. The local authority officer went to great lengths to make clear that this was only a guess on first looking at the scheme. He said, "This is what I think is going to happen, but I do not know what is going to happen. We shall have to wait and see how the Inland Revenue apply it." Is is not equally justifiable to ask that the local authority should be in exactly the same position to carry on with its existing payments and grant arrangements for the time being, so that it can see what the effect of this will be on the rateable value of the county, how it will possibly effect the Ministry of
1192
Education grants and any effect of the 30d. rate and the rest?
I am asking the Minister to give us an indication as to whether he is prepared to accept the Amendments when they are moved. The present intention of my colleagues is that if he is not prepared to do so we feel so strongly on this point that we should be prepared to divide the Committee.
Mr. Sandys: The last part of the debate has centred on the point that if independent schools are to be included within the scope of this new Clause, the local authority schools ought to have the same treatment. That is the point to which I wish to address myself. A good deal has been said about Eton, and I notice that at the moment Eton's representation on the Government Front Bench is outnumbered by two to one by that on the Opposition Front Bench. But that is not the issue this afternoon.
I think that there has been considerable misunderstanding about this matter because, as I made clear earlier, the Government have no objection in principle to the inclusion of local authority schools within the scope of the Clause. As I said, I think that it would be an untidy arrangement but in principle there is no objection to it. What I cannot understand is what advantage is claimed for this proposal. Frankly, I do not see that it would be an advantage. Such consultations as I have had with local authorities, through the local authority associations, indicate that they can see no possible advantage to local authorities in exempting their schools from the payment of rates.
Whatever may be said, the rates are paid to the local authority. Therefore, the rates paid by one local authority to another local authority are rates paid out of one pocket into another. In the case of a county borough the payments are by the same local authority to the same local authority—it is paying itself, exempting itself or remitting itself. I think that we can accept that, apart from the very nice points which we were discussing earlier about the slight effect on the education grant and equalisation grant which, as I said earlier, do not amount to very much. I only refer to them because the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had himself referred to them earlier.

1193
I am not making a point of that. I think that the amount involved is very small I only want to point out that it would not have the opposite effect. It would not have a prejudicial effect on the finances of the local authority. Leaving that aside, in a county borough this Clause would merely be a book-keeping transaction within the offices of the local authority. When we come to the county education authority, I agree that it is a case of one local authority paying rates to another local authority—
Mr. Mitchison: Even that is not quite correct, is it? Would it not affect the amount of the deduction from the main grant for the education authority in the county borough?
Mr. Sandys: Yes, but I pointed out earlier that, so far as I could calculate, on balance it will be to the disadvantage of the local authority. I do not want to go into this matter again.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present when I gave the explanation, but the effect of not paying rates reduces the expenditure of the local authority and since the education grant is a percentage payment on the expenditure incurred, a reduction would in that respect be a disadvantage. The 30d. rate issue works on the other side, but, on balance, there will be a very slight disadvantage. I think, however, that we can both accept that this is not an issue of importance.
What I want to do is to convince hon. Members opposite that there is nothing to be gained by their proposal. As I have said, in the case of a county borough, I think that it is agreed that there is no issue involved. When we come to a county education authority then, although the payments are being made by a local authority to a local authority, there is more than one local authority involved. Taking the picture as a whole it balances itself.
The question is what is the effect of this redistribution as between one authority and another on the burden of the rates. The only effect that it can have in a county is to redistribute in a different way the burden of the rates. No one has suggested that as the result of this proposal the rates are to be redistributed in a way which will be fairer than the
1194
present distribution. All we know is that it will result in some change in the distribution of the rate as between the authorities in different districts and the county council.
As I have said, if the schools were distributed absolutely evenly as between all county districts, the effect of this proposal would be as little as it is in the case of a county borough. But where schools are not evenly distributed—and that is the normal situation—the effect of including the local authority schools within the scope of this Clause would be merely to work to the disadvantage of the areas which have more than the average number of schools and to the advantage of those which have less than the average number of schools in their area. I cannot see that there is any virtue in doing that. I assure hon. Members that that would be the only practical effect of accepting this Amendment.
7.0 p.m.
I am anxious to go forward with the agreement of the Committee, especially on a matter which I cannot see has any political or other importance. All this argument about public schools and local authorities has nothing to do with this issue. I understand that the Committee as a whole is agreed on, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) says that he accepts, the inclusion of the categories of organisations which are set out in the Clause. All he asks is that local authority schools should get similar treatment. This is really a matter in which we should be guided by the wishes of local authorities themselves, and I am certainly prepared to be guided in that way.
What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that up to now such consultations as I have been able to have indicate that local authorities are quite definitely against the proposals contained in the Amendment; but if, after they have had time to consider the matter further and perhaps to read the arguments that have been advanced in support of the Amendment, they feel that there is some advantage to be gained, and they care to make representations to me between now and the time when the Bill leaves another place, I will undertake to consider most sympathetically any proposals which they may put forward.

1195
I must, however, say frankly to hon. Members opposite that in view of the letters and the representations which I have already received as a result of my consultations, I think it highly improbable that I shall have to implement that undertaking in any way or to do anything except leave the Clause as it stands. That seems to me to be a fair offer. If local authorities really want what has been advocated for them by hon. Members opposite—which I am sure they do not— the Government will look sympathetically at any proposals which are made.
Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to say anything in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whether this new Clause imposes a duty instead of merely conferring a power on the rating authority?
Mr. Sandys: I am sorry if I did not deal with that point, but it was outside the general flow of the debate. If I remember correctly, the point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby was this. He asked who would be responsible for deciding whether or not an organisation came within the scope of the Clause. He was quite right in saying that this was not the duty of the valuation officer. It is a question of fact. The question whether an organisation had a sympathetic assessment in the past is not relevant to this issue. The question is whether it is an organisation which comes within the definition of this Clause. If it is, it will automatically receive the benefit of the Clause. I pointed out earlier that such an organisation would receive very little benefit if it had not, in fact, had sympathetic treatment in the past.
In reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), per- haps I should say that I have looked at figures for the public schools, and as far as one can see from a preliminary review of the position—I am not mentioning names—very few of them indeed, and so far none of the most internationally known ones, have received what would appear to be sympathetic assessments or anything that is very marked in that way. I think that that will perhaps give the hon. Gentleman a quieter night.
1196
On the other point relating to the ascertainment of the category to which an organisation belongs, in the first place it will be the responsibility of the local authority to decide that. If it decides in a way to which the organisation objects, it can in the last resort take the matter to court, but I hope that will not be necessary.
Mr. Mitchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not it has had a sympathetic assessment in the past, it gets the benefit of the discretionary reduction or remission of rates under subsection (4)?
Mr. Sandys: Yes, but I thought we were all proceeding on the basis that we have confidence in the good sense and good judgment of local authorities.
Mr. Drayson: Could my right hon. Friend say anything about Bisley?
Mr. Sandys: I am afraid it is not possible to attempt to extend the scope of this new Clause any further to archery or rifle shooting. Either they come within the terms of the Clause or they do not. I am not going to attempt a definition of precisely what organisations come within the terms of this new Clause. I do not know about archery, but I should have thought that rifle shooting was not included.
Mr. Ede: Do I understand that the plea made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) the other night, specifically addressed to the question of the public schools, was entirely misdirected and that he had nothing to fear?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
Amendment proposed: In subsection (1) (a), after "purposes" insert:
"of a local education authority or."—[Mr. Lindgren.]
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 218.

Division No. 19.]

AYES

[7.8 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Padley, W. E.

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Anderson, Frank

Hale, Leslie

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Pargiter, G. A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Parkin, B. T.

Balfour, A.

Hamilton, W. W.

Paton, J.

Bartley, P.

Hannan, W.

Pearson, A.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hastings, S.

Peart, T. F.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Benson, G.

Healey, Denis

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Herbison, Miss M.

Probert, A. R.

Boardman, H.

Hobson, C. R.

Proctor, W. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

Holman, P.

Pryde, D. J.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Holmes, Horace

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Bowles, F. G.

Houghton, Douglas

Rankin, John

Boyd, T. C.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Reeves, J.

Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Rhodes, H.

Brockway, A. F.

Hubbard, T. F.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hunter, A. E.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Burke, W. A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Ross, William

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Callaghan, L. J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Carmichael, J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Champion, A. J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Skeffington, A. M.

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Clunie, J.

Kenyon, C.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Coldrick, W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

King, Dr. H. M.

Sparks, J. A.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Lawson, G. M.

Steele, T.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Ledger, R. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Cove, W. G.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lewis, Arthur

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Cronin, J. D.

Lindgren, G. S.

Swingler, S. T.

Crossman, R. H. S,

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

MacColl, J. E.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Daines, P.

McGhee, H. G.

Tomney, F.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Mclnnes, J.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Warbey, W. N.

Deer, G.

McLeavy, F.

Watkins, T. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Mahon, S.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Mainwaring, W. H.

West, D. G.

Dye, S.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mayhew, C. P.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Mikardo, Ian

Willey, Frederick

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, David (Neath)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Moody, A. S.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Fernyhough, E.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Fienburgh, W.

Mort, D. L.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Fletcher, Erie

Moss, R.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Forman, J. C.

Moyle, A.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Winterbottom, Richard

Gibson, C. W.

Oliver, G. H.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Greenwood, Anthony

Oram, A. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Orbach, M.

Grey, C. F.

Oswald, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. James Johnson and Mr. Short.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Altken, W. T.

Bidgood, J. C.

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Bishop, F. P.

Cole, Norman

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Black, C. W.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Body, R. F.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Arbuthnot, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Armstrong, C. W.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Ashton, H.

Braine, B. R.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

Atkins, H. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Crouch, R. F.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Baldwin, A. E.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Balniel, Lord

Bryan, P.

Cunningham, S. K.

Barber, Anthony

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Currie, G. B. H.

Barlow, Sir John

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Dance, J. C. G.

Barter, John

Burden, F. F. A.

Davidson, Viscountess

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Cary, Sir Robert

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Channon, H.

Deedes, W. F.

1198

1199

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rawlinson, P. A. G.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Redmayne, M.

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Renton, D. L. M.

Duthie, W. S.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kerr, H. W.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Errington, Sir Eric

Kershaw, J. A.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lagden, G. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

Fell, A.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roper, Sir Harold

Finlay, Graeme

Leavey, J. A.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. P.

Leburn, W. G.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. w

Fort, R.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petertfield)

Shepherd, William

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Freeth, D. K.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Soames, Capt. C.

Galbraith, Hon, T. G. D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Spearman, A. C. M,

Glover, D.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Speir, R. M.

Godber, J. B.

Longden, Gilbert

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kensg't'n, S.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Gower, H. R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Steward, Harold (Stockport S.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Green, A.

McKibbin, A. J.

Stewart Henderson (Fife, E.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Storey, S.

Grimond, J.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Studholme, H. G.

Gurden, Harold

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Teeling, W.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Thomas. Leslie (Canterbury)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Marshall, Douglas

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Mathew, R.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maude, Angus

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Mawby, R. L.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Turner H P L.

Heath, Edward

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Moore, Sir Thomas

vane, W. M. F.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wade, D. W.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Walker-Smith D. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Neave, Airey

wall, major patrick

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Nicholls, Harmar

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Holt, A. F.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Webbe, Sir H.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Nugent, G. R. H.

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Howard, John (Test)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Osborne, C.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Page, R. G.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Wood, Hon. R,

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Woollam, John Victor

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Peyton, J. W. W.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Hyde, Montgomery

Pott, H. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Richard Thompson and

Iremonger, T. L.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Mr. Wakefield.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)58

Raikes, Sir Victor

Clause added to the Bill.

New Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENT OF RELIEF FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER ORGANI-SATIONS.)
1.—(1) The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (2) of section (Relief from rates for charitable and other organisations) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as "the principal section").
(2) In this Schedule "the first year of the new list," in relation to a hereditament, has the same meaning as in the principal section, and "the last year of the old list" means the year immediately preceding the beginning of the first year of the new list.
2. If, by reason of any structural alteration or other event occurring in the case of a hereditament after the beginning of the last
1200
year of the old list, an alteration has been made in the valuation list before the end of that year with respect to the rateable value of the hereditament, then, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the principal section, and for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule, any reference to the total amount of rates (including any special rates) which were charged or would have been chargeable in respect of the hereditament for that year, or for any part of that year, shall be construed as a reference to the total amount of such rates which would have been chargeable if the rateable value as so altered had been shown in the valuation list as from the beginning of that year.
3. If, by reason of any structural alteration or other event occurring in the case of a hereditament within the first year of the new list, an alteration is made in the valuation list with respect to the rateable value of the

1201
hereditament, and accordingly rates are charged in respect of the hereditament for that year partly by reference to one rateable value, for the period before that structural alteration or event, and partly by reference to another rateable value, for the period thereafter, then subsection (2) of the principal section shall not apply, but—

(a) the amount of rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament for the earlier of those periods shall not exceed the total amount of rates (including any special rates) which would have been chargeable in respect of the hereditament for a corresponding proportion of the last year of the old list; and

(b) if, by virtue of the preceding subparagraph, the amount of rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament for the period referred to in that sub-paragraph is less than the amount which would have been chargeable apart from that sub-paragraph, the proportion by which that amount is required to be reduced shall apply to the later of the two periods referred to in this paragraph, and to any year subsequent to the first year of the new list, and accordingly the amount of rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament for that later period, or for any such subsequent year as the case may be, shall be reduced by that proportion.

4. Where, by virtue of the last preceding paragraph, subsection (2) of the principal section does not apply in the case of a hereditament, any reference in subsection (3) of that section to paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2) shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding provisions of the last preceding paragraph:
Provided that a notice given for the purposes of the said subsection (3) shall not be invalid by reason only that it refers (expressly or by implication) to paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2) and not to the corresponding provisions of the last preceding paragraph.
5.—(1) Where a hereditament is one to which the principal section applies for a part, but not the whole, of the first year of the new list, or of any subsequent year, the principal section, and the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall have effect in relation to the hereditament subject to such modifications as may be requisite for securing—

(a) that the amount of rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament shall not be reduced, and no remission or reduction of rates shall be granted in respect thereof, for that part of the year for which the hereditament is not a hereditament to which the principal section applies, and

(b) that any proportion by which the amount of rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament would (apart from this subparagraph) be required to be reduced shall be adjusted proportionately.

(2) Where a hereditament was a hereditament to which the principal section applies (or would have been a hereditament to which it applied if it had then been in force) for a part, but not the whole, of the last year of the old list, the principal section, and the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall have effect
1202
in relation to the hereditament subject to such modifications as may be requisite for securing that any amount calculated by reference to the rates which were or would have been chargeable in respect of the hereditament for that year or a part of that year shall be adjusted proportionately to the part of that year first mentioned in this sub-paragraph.—[Mr. Sandys.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee, and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(EVIDENCE IN VALUATION PROCEEDINGS.)
(1) This section applies to the following returns, that is to say,—

(a) any return made under section fifty-eight of the Act of 1948. or under section forty or forty-one of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1925"), or under any of sections fifty-five to fifty-seven of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (which sections confer powers for obtaining information for the purpose of preparing valuation lists), and

(b) any return made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in compliance with a request of the valuation officer, where the request was made before the passing of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, and was a request for information which would have been reasonably required by the valuation officer for the purpose of preparing a valuation list if the said Act of 1953 had been in operation when the request was made.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any return to which this section applies shall in any valuation proceedings be admissible as evidence of the facts stated in the return; and any document purporting to be a return to which this section applies shall, in any valuation proceedings, be presumed, unless the contrary is shown,—

(a) to be such a return;

(b) to have been made by the person by whom it purports to have been made; and

(c) if it purports to have been made by that person as occupier, owner or lessee of a hereditament, or in any other capacity specified in the document, to have been made by him as such occupier, owner or lessee, or in that other capacity, as the case may be.

(3) Returns to which this section applies shall not be used by or on behalf of the valuation officer as evidence in any valuation proceedings unless—

(a) not less than fourteen days' notice, specifying the returns to be so used and the hereditaments to which they relate, has previously been given to the person who made the proposal to which the proceedings relate (where the proposal was not made by the valuation officer) and to every person who

1203
has served, and has not unconditionally withdrawn, a notice of objection to the proposal, and

(b) the valuation officer has permitted any such person, who has given not less than twenty-four hours' notice of his desire to do so, to inspect at any reasonable time, and to take extracts from, any of the returns specified in the notice under the preceding paragraph.

(4) The two last preceding subsections shall not apply to any proceedings relating to the ascertainment of the net annual value of a hereditament by reference to the accounts, receipts or profits of an undertaking:
Provided that this subsection shall not be construed as preventing the use of any return in any such proceedings in circumstances where the return could be so used apart from this section.
(5) Any person to whom notice relating to any hereditaments has been given under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section for the purposes of any valuation proceedings may give notice to the valuation officer, specifying one or more other hereditaments, as being hereditaments which are comparable in character or are otherwise relevant to the said person's case, and requiring the valuation officer—

(a) to permit him at any reasonable time specified in the notice under this subsection to inspect, and (if he so desires) to take extracts from, all returns (if any) to which this section applies, which relate to those other hereditaments and are in the possession of the valuation officer, and

(b) to produce to him at the hearing such of those returns as before the hearing he has informed the valuation officer that he requires:

Provided that the number of hereditaments specified in a notice under this subsection shall not exceed the number of hereditaments specified in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section in the notice given by the valuation officer under that paragraph.
(6) Where a notice has been given to the valuation officer under the last preceding subsection, and the valuation officer refuses or fails to comply with the notice, the person who gave the notice may apply to the court or tribunal before which the valuation proceedings in question are to be brought; and if on any such application the court or tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, the court or tribunal may by order direct the valuation officer to comply with the notice, either with respect to all the hereditaments specified therein or with respect to such one or more of those hereditaments as the court or tribunal may determine.
(7) The last preceding subsection shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to proceedings on an arbitration as it applies to proceedings before a court.
(8) An appeal shall lie from the decision of a local valuation court on an application under subsection (6) of this section, as if it were a decision in the valuation proceedings to which the application relates.
(9) Section sixty-three of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the service of notices and other documents) shall apply in relation to any notice authorised or required of be given for the purposes of this section as it applies in relation to the notices referred to in that section.
(10) In this section "valuation proceedings" means any of the following, that is to say, any proceedings on or in consequence of an appeal to a local valuation court, and any proceedings on or in consequence of a reference to arbitration under section fifty of the Act of 1948.—[Mr. Sandys.]
Brought up and read the First time.
Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause has been drafted in this form in order to meet, as far as possible, points which were made in the earlier debate, when three Amendments were discussed. One Amendment, which was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Mr. Walker-Smith), asked that rent returns for the purposes of valuation should not be admissible as evidence. There were two other Amendments, one from each side of the Committee. One of them asked that rating authorities should have access to the returns and relevant papers in the hands of the Inland Revenue and the other asked for similar concessions to the ratepayers.
I have done my best to meet, as far as possible, these points in the spirit of the undertaking which I gave at the end of the previous debate. I then said that I would see whether we could draft a new Clause which would put the person who is objecting or is making a new proposal to the valuation court in much the same position as that of the valuation officer in the presentation of evidence based on returns.
I think this Clause goes a long way in that direction. We have provided that the interested parties, whether the ratepayers or the rating authorities—and a rating authority can make itself a party to any of these proceedings if it so desires—should have access to a reasonable amount of information in the hands of the valuation officer for the purpose of bringing evidence about comparable properties in order to argue their case. That goes as far as is reasonable. We are providing that the other interested parties shall be entitled to name a number of properties which in their opinion are comparable, the number not to exceed

1205
that which the valuation officer himself wishes to produce in court; that they shall have access to these returns before the case; and that the valuation officer shall produce the actual returns in court. By and large, that is the position.
I have considered further whether it would be possible to accede wholly to the proposal made in an Amendment put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Mr. Walker-Smith), which would involve excluding altogether these returns as admissible evidence in these proceedings. In the first place, I should again make it clear that, so far as dwelling-houses are concerned, it would be quite impossible not to rely on this form of evidence, for the simple reason that the valuation of these houses is based on 1938–39 rents and the problem of producing witnesses really would be a quite impracticable one.
So far as others are concerned, I considered whether it would be possible to limit it to dwelling-houses and not admit returns for purposes of evidence of current values, but I came to the conclusion that that also was not practicable, for this reason. The only other way in which we could produce this evidence would be to produce the local estate agent or other people who would give evidence showing what, in their opinion, based on long experience of the neighbourhood, such property would be earning as rent. It seems to me rather absurd to have to rely on that kind of evidence when we have the actual facts in the files of the valuation officer in the form of returns which have been provided for by a decision of Parliament.
I assume that the House starts from the assumption that in these proceedings it is right that the best and most accurate information that is available should be made available to the court. If that is so, there are only two ways of producing that evidence. One is the method that is proposed, which is that these returns shall be admissible as evidence to the court, and the other one is to get the individual occupiers of other comparable premises to give evidence themselves that the return which has been produced is, in fact, a return signed by them, and to verify their own signatures to the court.
In the first place, these valuation courts have no power to subpoena witnesses to give evidence, and we could only do it
1206
if the witnesses are willing to come. I think that, even if they do, it would become extremely burdensome if people were being asked, maybe several times, to go to the court to give evidence about the rents of their houses merely to help somebody else to prove what the right valuation for his house was.
I feel that the proposal contained in this revised Clause, which does go a long way towards putting all concerned on a more or less equal footing, is the best way in the circumstances, and I therefore hope that the House will accept this compromise solution.
Mr. Mitchison: As far as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are concerned, we would like to thank the Minister for having given careful consideration to the points raised in this discussion, and for having been duly and properly convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). We are satisfied with this Clause as it stands.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend was good enough to refer to two Amendments with which I was concerned during the Committee stage, and I wish only to add this. I had two main apprehensions then. One was as to the disparity between the ratepayer and the rating authority under the provisions of the Bill as it then stood in regard to the admissibility of these returns, and the second apprehension was in regard to the position of the third parties whose returns would be canvassed in evidence in proceedings to which they were not a party.
My right hon. Friend has met the first of these apprehensions very handsomely in subsection (5) of the new Clause, and has met the second, at any rate to some extent, by subsection (4), which limits the danger which I apprehended, even though it may not entirely remove it. I thank him for the trouble he has taken to meet the points I raised in respect of this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(NEW VALUATION LISTS.)
Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "date" to "it" in line 3 and insert:
"on which the list is to come into force."

1207
This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment moved on an earlier occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), which had the effect of securing publication of the lists at the same time as they were received by the rating authority.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(ALTERATION OF, AND PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO, VALUATION LISTS.)
Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, at the end to insert:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the said section forty, a proposal for altering a valuation list in force at the passing of this Act shall not have effect if (not being made by the valuation officer) it is served on the valuation officer after the passing of this Act, and is made otherwise than by the owner or occupier of the hereditament to which it relates.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the later Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman—in page 19, line 30, after "area" to insert "owner."
Mr. Arbuthnot: The purpose of the two Amendments standing in my name is to close what I feel to be a gap in the Bill. As the Bill stands, the rating authorities will receive copies of the new assessments in December of this year; that is to say, some three months before they come into force.
It seems to me that some local authorities, because of the need for revenue, will have a great temptation to amend assessments in the existing lists in order to bring them into Rite with the higher values. That that can be achieved would seem to be clear by the mass proposals which have already been made, for example, by Sheffield. Furthermore, the valuer will not be able to contend that the valuations which local authorities could put forward in these circumstances are excessive, because they would, of course, be based upon the valuer's own figures.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should be wise to put into this Bill a provision to prevent local authorities from jumping the starting-gate so to speak. Unless these Amendments are accepted, these new assessments, which
1208
may be retrospective, could come into force at the current rate in the pound rather than at the very much reduced rate which we expect to see in 1956–57.
That this is a real danger is I think shown by the interest that is being taken by local authorities in the mass proposals made by the Liverpool and Sheffield local authorities, and I therefore hope that the House will accept the Amendments.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has put one side of the story, but has left out the other one. I do not know whether he thinks, as so many of his hon. Friends seem to do, that it is a bad and evil thing to give local authorities any additional rating and valuation powers. Why he should think that local authorities would be interested only in levelling up a lower assessment to a higher one I do not know, because they have the power and are able to effect the reverse.
A local authority is, in matters of this kind, concerned with equity as between one ratepayer and another, and a local authority could, if it wished, make representations to the valuation officer and the valuation court to reduce assessments which it considered to be excessive. This is a double-edged weapon. The hon. Gentleman might well be doing an injustice to the ratepayers if this Amendment were agreed to, because it would be quite in order, so far as I can understand the position, for a local ratepayer, if he felt he was over-assessed, to go to a local authority and invite its support for his effort to secure a reduction in the assessment. The local authority could precisely do that if it thought fit. Therefore, the local authority will approach this question——
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Arbuthnot: If the hon. Member reads the Amendment he will see it provides that changes are not to be made other than on the representations of the owner or occupier, so that the owner or occupier is safeguarded and can initiate amendments.
Mr. Sparks: Yes, but what the hon. Gentleman is proposing is to rule out the power of the local authority to make a

1209
recommendation. It may be there would be a large number of ratepayers who for one reason or another did not want to proceed to secure a reduction of their assessments, and the local authority may on the basis of equity as between one ratepayer and another itself make representations on behalf of the ratepayers.
All ratepayers are not in a position to understand the intricacies of rating and valuation, but local authorities have a certain power to assist the ratepayers to secure equity in their assessments. It does not follow, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, that local authorities are interested in putting up everyone's assessment to the highest possible point. The reverse is also a function of the authority, and I feel the hon. Gentleman might well leave the issue where it is. In general, we can trust the judgment of the local authorities, and if they have a case for levelling up or levelling down a group of assessments in a particular area, I think they should have the power to, to make a proposal to the valuation officer and, if necessary, take it to the valuation court. It is a safeguard to the ratepayers generally, and I think that the matter might well be left where it is.
Mr. Deedes: The first thing I would stress about the Amendment is that we should not like to exaggerate the likelihood of this contingency occurring in more than very isolated cases. I know the difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has in mind, but it is expected to be a very rare occurrence. Where the events of April were anticipated it could, as my hon. Friend has said, be particularly unfair. The effect of a partial revaluation would be that the assessments of the revalued shop or premises would rise very sharply but there would be no corresponding fall in the rate poundage. Therefore, in the isolated instance where it might occur it certainly would result in a certain amount of injustice.
A year ago the Foreign Secretary, when Minister of Housing and Local Government, said from this Box that he would deprecate any attempt by local authorities to anticipate the results of revaluation. The words which he used then certainly did not fall on deaf ears, and up to now we have felt very reluctant to seek to impose any embargo on all local authorities merely because a few
1210
had not exercised restraint. Now that this Amendment is before the House, my right hon. Friend feels that he cannot do other than accept it. He is willing to do that, but I stress again that it is not likely to be required to meet other than a very few isolated instances.
Mr. Mitchison: Surely this is the kind of case that ought to be left to the discretion and the good sense of the local authority. It is a matter about which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have often expressed considerable solicitude. We have not been told what is the reason for accepting this rather novel and remarkable limitation on the powers of local authorities. If there has been one defaulter or even two, in the eyes of the Ministry, is it right to impose an almost insulting restriction of this sort on local authorities generally?
This is not a matter that is going to have a very long effect. After all, it is only a question of a few months, and I should have thought that if it had not occurred to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that a restriction of this sort was necessary, if things had not reached, in the eyes of the Ministry, a stage when restrictions of this sort were necessary, then it was a lamentable lack of foresight or, in the alternative, a sudden and rather feeble concession by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to the views of their hon. Friends behind them.
At the Ministry it must be known whether something of this sort is needed or not, if they did not propose it themselves, surely it is not the kind of thing to accept on a very vague suggestion from an hon. Member, and without giving the Committee any instance or any particulars of why it is necessary.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Liverpool and Sheffield were two instances, of which I have told the House, of mass proposals of this kind being made.
Mr. Mitchison: I do not recollect the hon. Gentleman mentioning Liverpool at all——
Mr. Arbuthnot: I did.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did and I did not hear him. I apologise, but as a matter of fact the mere mention of that magic name is hardly enough.

1211
What we want to know is what these local authorities have done wrong. If they have done something wrong it should be pretty well known. The position seems to be that the Ministry knew about it but they did not think it was necessary to put any restriction on them. Now at the very last moment on the Report stage of the Bill, the Minister has suddenly decided that Liverpool and Sheffield, instead of being the highly competent and well-intentioned local authorities which we had all supposed them to be, are, in fact, bad boys to be rebuked at the instance of Dover.
Mr. K. Thompson: It had not been my intention to intervene, but I cannot allow this slanging of Liverpool to go on without something being said in the city's defence. I seconded the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) in order to provide him with the opportunity of airing the subject, and I am glad I did so, though now I am in an embarrassing position.
I must say there is a great deal in what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said about proper intentions, and they inspired Liverpool and Sheffield in what they did. It comes a little hard to hear a great local authority being accused of failing to exercise restraint when trying to bring justice into a situation which has been distorted since 1934. In 1955 that
seems to be acting with very great restraint and very great moderation.
Let me add further in justification of what Liverpool has done that this great commercial city had almost its entire centre destroyed by the war, and it is now being rebuilt and brought into modern working condition. It was necessary to equate the rateable assessments of comparable buildings among those that remained from the blitz with those that have been built since the end of the war. For that purpose we had to carry out this considerable revaluation of commercial properties only in the centre of the city—not houses, not factories, not even shops. It was a modest and restrained enterprise, and I hope the House will take due note of that fact.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Apparently the hon. Gentleman's heart caused him to second this Amendment but his head now causes him to oppose it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member, not me.
Mr. Mitchison: May I make one last appeal to the hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order. We are not in Committee now.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 174.

Division No. 20]

AYES

[7.42 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

Bryan, P.

Duthie, W. S.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Errington, Sir Eric

Arbuthnot, John

Burden, F. F. A.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Armstrong, C. W.

Cary, Sir Robert

Fell, A.

Ashton, H.

Channon, H.

Finlay, Graeme

Atkins, H. E.

Chlohester-Clark, R.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J, M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Fort, R.

Baldwin, A. E.

Cole, Norman

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Balniel, Lord

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Freeth, D. K.

Barber, Anthony

Corfield, Capt. F. v.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Barlow, Sir John

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Glover, D.

Barter, John

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

Godber, J. B.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Crouch, R. F.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Gower, H. R.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Bidgood, J. C.

Cunningham, S. K.

Green, A.

Bishop, F. P.

Currie, C. B. H.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Black, C. W.

Dance, J. C. G.

Grimond, J.

Body, R. F.

Davidson, Viscountess

Gurden, Harold

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Deedes, W. F.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Braine, B. R.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Drayson, G. B.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Robson-Brown, W.

Harvie-Watt, sir George

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Roper, Sir Harold

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Heath, Edward

McKibbin, A. J.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Shepherd, William

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Spearman, A, C. M,

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

McLean, Nell (Inverness)

Speir, R. M.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Maddan, Martin

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Holt, A. F,

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Marshall, Douglas

Storey, S.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Mathew, R.

Studholme, H. G.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Maude, Angus

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Howard, John (Test)

Mawby, R. L.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hulbert, Wing-Cmdr. Sir Norman

Neave, Airey

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Nicholls, Harmar

Touche, Sir Gordon

Hyde, Montgomery

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Turner, H. F. L.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Iremonger, T. L.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wade, D. W.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Osborne, C.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Page, R. G.

Wall, Major Patrick

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Webbe, Sir H.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

Kerr, H. W.

Pott, H. P.

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Kershaw, J. A.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Lagden, G. W.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Rawlinson, P. A. G.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Leavey, J. A.

Redmayne, M.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Leburn, W. G.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Wood, Hon. R.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Woollam, John Victor

Llewellyn, D. T.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Longden, Gilbert

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswlok)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Mr. Richard Thompson and

Mr. Legh.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Houghton, Douglas

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Anderson, Frank

Deer, G.

Hubbard, T. F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Baeon, Miss Alice

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwh)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Balfour, A.

Dye, S.

Hunter, A. E.

Bartley, P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Blackburn, F.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Boardman, H.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

Fernyhough, E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)

Fienburgh, W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Bowles, F. G.

Fletoher, Eric

Kenyon, C,

Boyd, T. C.

Forman, J. C.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

King, Dr. H. M.

Brockway, A. F.

Gibson, C. W.

Lawson, G. M.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Greenwood, Anthony

Ledger, R. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Grey, C. F.

Lewis, Arthur

Burke, W. A.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lindgren, G. S.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Logan, D. G.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

MacColl, J. E.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hale, Leslie

McGhee, H. G.

Carmichael, J.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mclnnes, J.

Champion, A. J.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Chapman, W. D.

Hamilton, W. W.

McLeavy, F.

Clunie, J.

Hannan, W.

Mahon, S.

Coldrick, W.

Hastings, S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Hayman, F. H.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Healey, Denis

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Mayhew, C. P.

Cove, W. G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mikardo, Ian

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hobson, C. R.

Mitchison, G. R.

Cronin, J. D.

Holman, P.

Moody, A. S.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Holmes, Horace

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

1214

1215

Mort, D. L.

Rhodes, H.

Tomney, F.

Moss, R.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Viant, S. P.

Moyle, A.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Warbey, W. N.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Watkins, T. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Ross, William

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Oram, A. E,

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

West, D. G.

Orbaeh, M.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Oswald, T.

Short, E. W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Willey, Frederick

Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Williams, David (Neath)

Pargiter, G. A.

Skeffington, A. M.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery>

Paton, J.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Pearson, A.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Peart, T. F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Sparks, J. A.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Probert, A. R.

Steele, T.

Winterbottom, Richard

Proctor, W. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Zilliacus, K.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Rankin, John

Swingler, S. T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Reid, William

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Mr. John Taylor and

Mr. J. T. Price.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 4, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—[Mr. Deedes.]

Clause 5.—(RATING OF GAS BOARDS.)
Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, at the end to insert:
"(a) used as a playing field, or."
The Clause sets out the basis upon which gas undertakings will in future pay rates. The House will observe that the rating is to be based upon the global assessment of the gas board's area, and the rate to be paid is to be based upon the therms consumed in the rating area plus a weighting allowance for a rating area in which there might be, for instance, a gas works.
However, there is no provision for a weighting allowance to be given to the rating area in which is situated, for instance, a playing field. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be completely exempting from rates the playing fields of gas undertakings, but I do not know whether he intended that or not. In my constituency there is a very large playing field belonging to the North Thames Gas Board which is used exclusively by, presumably, employees of the board and is not available for use by local citizens or organisations. We do not object to that so much, but at present the playing field is assessed at a rateable value of £733, and if the Bill goes through as it is now my local authority will completely lose that rateable value.
We feel that the playing field stands in relation to Acton in the same way as the Southall gas works stands in relation to Southall, and that we should receive treatment similar to that which will be received by the Southall ratepayers, for
1216
they will have a special weighting allowance because there is a gas works in their rating area, and that will be in addition to the sum based upon the consumption of therms in the Southall rating area. All that my constituency will get is a rate based upon the supply of therms in its rating area, and the existence of the playing field will not be taken into account in any way.
I raised this matter on the Committee stage. I agree that this is not a major matter in that it does not affect all local authorities; it is very largely a local matter. I do not know how many gas undertakings in the country have playing fields, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared either to exempt playing fields from the new basis of global assessment, as he proposes to do in the case of dwelling-houses and other premises of gas boards, or agree to a special weighting allowance to local authorities in whose area playing fields are located so that they will not suffer a complete loss of rate. The Amendment is fair and just to local authorities, and I think the Minister might well accept it in the interests of local authorities and the interests of gas undertakings as well.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Deedes: I appreciate that, although it is a local matter, this is a significant item in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Having heard his remarks, I am sure that he has moved the Amendment under a slight misapprehension. He said the effect of the Clause was to derate gas board playing fields altogether, and he added words to the effect that a playing field

1217
would not be taken into account in any way.
That is a misapprehension. The value of playing fields and all other extraneous property occupied by the boards will have been covered in the basic totals of rateable value as at 1st May, 1949, which is the starting point from which the new formula is worked out. Except for dwelling-houses and premises for the purposes of a water supply undertaking, everything is taken into account in the groundwork of the formula.
Mr. Blackburn: Although it is taken into account, surely the benefit does not necessarily go to Acton in this case but will go to the whole area.
Mr. Deedes: That brings me to my next point. It may well be said that the benefit is not direct, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the formula was worked out by and agreed beween the local authority associations and the gas boards, and I am sure that point was mentioned during the negotiations.
I would stress that if we excepted playing fields we should not know what else might not be brought forward on equally cogent grounds for exclusion from the formula. In many areas there must be one class of property from which the local authority would receive benefit if it were outside the agreed formula. I do not want to make slavish repetition of the word "formula"—there is no magic in it but it has been agreed, and any alteration in it—and this would be an important alteration—might well delay the date of completion of the revaluation. I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that we cannot accept the Amendment because it would destroy the basis of the formula.
Amendment negatived.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. W. G. Cove: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, to leave out "and."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss this Amendment and the one following in the name of the hon. Member, in line 11, at the end to add:
"and 'manufacture' includes purification and 'manufactured' shall be construed accordingly."
Mr. Cove: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for combining the two Amendments.
This Amendment is to deal with the apportionment of rateable value after it has been decided as a total assessment. The two factors involved in local apportionment are the amount sold and the amount manufactured. There has now arisen a new factor owing to the development of science, particularly in the areas of great steel works. A large proportion of the gas used in South Wales comes from the Steel Company of Wales at Margam. It is purchased by the gas board and distributed afterwards. There is no provision made for the rateable value flowing to the local authority for gas which has been purchased, and my Amendment seeks to ensure that the local authority will, as it were, participate in the apportionment due to the fact that gas has been purchased from the great steel works.
The figures are rather surprising. I do not intend to go into great detail, but for the twelve months ended 31st March, 1954, in the gas board area the round figures were 76 million therms sold; 32 million made and 63 million bought. There is, therefore, an appreciable diminution of the rateable value in the Port Talbot area owing to the fact that the gas purchased is not subject to rateable assessment within the area itself. Were this factor taken into account in the rateable receipts of Port Talbot, it would more than double the amount to be received under the provisions of the Bill, and therefore it appears to us to be a very important factor.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
The gas board in the area of my hon. Friend not only purchases the gas but purifies it, and the question is where we are to draw the line. Is not gas manufactured, at any rate in one sense, when the raw material is bought from the steel companies and, not being ordinary consumable gas, is purified? The same question arises at Corby, as it must arise near any large steel plant, and nowadays the tendency is to have large steel plants. The gas from them is taken and purified. The difficulty of the position dealt with by this Amendment is perhaps illustrated by the case of the comparatively small gas works at Kettering where gas from

1219
Corby is purified and supplemented by gas made from water.
Mr. Blackburn: Although it appears to be the "sacred cow" of the Government, here again we have an example of where the formula has broken down. It seems that when it was discussed, all the snags were not considered. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted, because that would be an act of justice. We are discovering more and more cases where the formula breaks down. It broke down in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and it has broken down in this case. It broke down in another case, but we will refer to that later.
Mr. Deedes: In answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), may I repeat the hope which I expressed that the House will not regard this formula as a "sacred cow." I can give an assurance that the question of purification was considered when the formula was under discussion and it did not take the formula-making party by surprise. I will give the reasons why it was rejected as part of the formula, and I hope they will appear sufficient to the House.
I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said about the possibility of this becoming a problem, because of the new processes and so on. But the hon. and learned Member will, I am sure, accept that it will not be excluded from—indeed it is most likely to be included in—the major review. In many of these details the formula cannot be regarded as the final solution. The difficulty is that if we make a breach in the formula at this stage, we shall make it more difficult to get the formula in working order, and achieve the desired result in a relatively short time.
The effect of the Amendment would be to give equal weight to the purification and to the manufacture of gas. That is not defensible, primarily for the reason that the gas works in which the whole processes of manufacture are carried out must be more valuable than those works, with an equal output, which merely purify gas manufactured elsewhere. I think that will be accepted. The works in which the gas purchased is manufactured will be rated in the ordinary way. Under the Amendment, an area in which the purifi-
1220
cation of gas is carried on would be credited with the rateable value derived from premises already rated, either in the same or in another way. That is the substance of the case against the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that he is right? We are talking about gas bought from steelworks and then purified by the gas company. In the case where the gas is both manufactured and purified the formula would not apply.
Mr. Deedes: The point I was trying to make was that the works which manufacture must be of greater value than works which purify gas. There would be no equality in trying—as is attempted in the Amendment—to give equal weight both to purification and to manufacture.
Mr. Blackburn: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Port Talbot is losing an area of rateable value which might be used for other industrial hereditaments and be rate-producing?
Mr. Deedes: Without knowing the details of the case, I could not commit myself about that one way or the other.
For the reasons I have stated, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberavon will not press this Amendment. There will be a general review of the pool payments, when the question of gas showrooms and other aspects of this business will be discussed. That will provide a better opportunity for dealing with this matter than attempting to tinker with the formula now.
Mr. Cove: On the basis that there will be pooling arrangements, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6.—(RELIEF FROM RATES FOR PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, ETC.)
Amendments made: In page 10, line 13, leave out "subsection" and insert "section."
In line 17, leave out "The preceding subsection" and insert "This section."
In line 34, leave out "subsection (1) of."
In page 11, line 12, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Deedes.]

Clause 7.—(OTHER RELIEFS FROM RATES.)
Amendment made: In page 11, line 31, at end insert "(a)."—[Mr. Deedes.]
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end to insert:
"or
(b) of any structure belonging to a local health authority, or to a voluntary organisation formed for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946 (which relates to the prevention of illness, and to the care and after-care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness), and supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under that subsection; or
(c) of any structure belonging to a local authority, within the meaning of section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which relates to welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and other handicapped persons), or to such a voluntary organisation as is mentioned in section thirty of that Act, and supplied for the use of any person in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section twenty-nine; or
(d) of any structure which is of a kind similar to structures such as are referred to in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection, but does not fall within that paragraph by reason that it is owned or has been supplied otherwise than as mentioned in that paragraph."
This Amendment meets the undertaking given on the Committee stage of the Bill, and extends the exemption of garages for invalid chairs to other structures provided for the use of invalids or disabled persons. It also meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about structures similar to those provided by Government Departments, but which are provided by some other person or agency, and the further point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made that, logically, those similar structures should also be exempted.
The best known example of structures falling within paragraph (b) of the Amendment is, of course, the hut in the invalid's garden for the use and treatment of the man suffering from tuberculosis. Paragraph (c) will cover such things as the shed erected in the gardens of a blind man to serve as a workshop where he can earn his living, and so on. I hope that the Amendment meets the wishes very generally expressed in Committee,
1222
and that the House will feel able to accept it.
Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for having gone as far as he has done to meet us on this point, although I am very much afraid that he has not gone quite far enough. The weight of his promise is contained in paragraph (d) of the Amendment, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the point which I tried to make regarding the housing of mechanically-propelled chairs for injured miners.
Mr. Lindgren: I think that is included.
Mr. Brown: We shall see, but I want to extract the information from the Minister.
The miners in Lancashire have just built three bungalows for cases of this kind. The garage or storage place is not outside, but actually within the building itself. It is a self-contained place. All the latest additions have been placed inside, and they are all under one roof.
The question I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether that portion of the bungalow which houses the mechanically-propelled chair will be exempted from rates or whether it will be included in the rating of the bungalow. That is a point which arises as a result of the improvements that have been made in seeking accommodation for cases of this kind. It is a new venture which is working very well. I should be glad to know whether, because the accommodation for the mechanically-propelled chair is within the building itself, it will be exempted from the payment of rates.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. K. Thompson: Before we part with the Amendment, which I have no doubt the House will approve, I want to say something that may appear to introduce a discordant note. I said it in Committee during the discussion of a similar proposal, and I feel that I must say it again. All the evidence goes to show that the moment that the House begins to tackle a difficulty of this sort in this kind of way, it finds itself in ever greater difficulty.
During the Committee stage, I said that I would go as far as any hon. Member in providing relief and assistance to all who need it, whatever the cause of

1223
their difficulty or whatever the form of their need. I think that the whole House will echo that sentiment. But there are right and proper ways in which the House can use its resources to relieve need, ways which are already well practised and well established and which are working efficiently and to the satisfaction of those who are in need. To use a Measure of this kind in order to permit special rate remissions for a limited purpose and for a limited section of the community seems to me to be entirely wrong.
Let us suppose, for example, that those who are in what I might call general financial need, for want of a better term, go to the Assistance Board and ask for assistance in paying their rent, which includes an element of rates. If the practice contained in the Amendment is to be extended, as now appears to be the intention of this honourable House, then the right thing to do would be to write into this Clause some quite simple provision which would allow the local authority to remit the rates on the houses of those receiving public assistance. That would be precisely the same machinery to serve precisely similar conditions.
I realise that it is not the slightest use my opposing the Amendment, but I want the House to be aware of what it is doing to the local authorities in this country. It is quite wrong to compel a local authority to sacrifice its rate income for the relief of this kind of need when there are many other ways in which it can properly be relieved.
Mr. Lindgren: I have twice previously taken up the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson). I then expressed the view that as the Ministry of Pensions was providing the chairs and had already made a contribution towards the tax and the cost of petrol, the garaging of the vehicle was just another case for similar treatment. I also said that I should have much preferred a cash payment to meet the cost of garaging. However, the Minister did not accept the suggestion.
In answer to Amendments in my name, and which were moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), the Minister then agreed to meet the general principle which we argued ought to be included in this Bill.
1224
I think that the Minister has very fully fulfilled the undertaking which he then gave, and I thank him very much for doing so, even though I should have preferred the other principle. I think that it would be ungracious not to express our thanks to the Minister for what he has done.
Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is quite right. The point which he raised is not covered by the Amendment. The difficulty involved is that of including any structure of this kind which is part of the main structure. The difficulty which arose in the case of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) during the Committee stage was that it could include houses with specially wide doorways or anything of that kind, to allow for the movement of invalid chairs. As I made plain to the Committee on that occasion, there was an overwhelming objection to accepting an Amendment in terms as wide as that, for the obvious reason that the loss of rateable income would be very considerable. The Amendment covers the whole range of structures which most Members of the Committee thought should be included, but it does not cover the point which the hon. Member for Ince raised.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(INTERPRETATION, AND PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)
Amendments made: In page 19, line 27, after "year" insert:
"(except where otherwise defined, or where the reference is expressly to a calendar year)."—[Mr. Deedes.]
In line 30, after "area" insert "owner."—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Third Schedule.—(NEW PROVISIONS FOR RATING GAS BOARDS.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 27, line 19, at the end to insert:
12.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in the case of a Gas Board, where gas is manufactured by the Board in a gasworks which is situated partly in one rating area and partly in one or more other rating areas.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of section five of this Act, the Gas Board shall be treated as manufacturing gas in each of the rating areas in which a part of the gasworks is situated, notwithstanding that no gas is actually manufactured in one or more of those areas.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the gas manufactured in the gasworks in any year shall be treated as apportioned between all the rating areas in which parts of the gasworks are situated, in such proportions as may be agreed between the rating authorities of those areas and the Gas Board:
Provided that if any apportionment required by this sub-paragraph, for the purpose of apportioning the Board's adjusted total of rateable values for any year, has not been agreed between the rating authorities and the Board before the end of the month of September preceding the beginning of that year, the apportionment required by this sub-paragraph shall be made by the Minister and notified by him to the rating authorities and to the Board as soon as may be after the end of that month.
(4) In this paragraph "gasworks" means any group of premises within one curtilage which is occupied by a Gas Board for the purposes of the manufacture of gas:
Provided that a group of premises shall not be treated as lacing otherwise than within one curtilage by reason only that it is traversed by a public highway.
This Amendment fulfils the undertaking which we gave in Committee with regard to the apportionment of gas manufactured in a gas works which extends into more than one rating area. It provides that the gas manufactured is to be apportioned as agreed between the rating authorities and the gas boards. If agreement upon this point is not reached by the end of September the Minister will make the apportionment.
Hon. Members may ask why no formula has been devised to meet this case. The reason is that no method could be devised which would give equitable results in all cases without requiring valuation. For instance, if we based the formula upon 1949 values, it would obviously be unfair in cases where there had since been a change of circumstances. By leaving the apportionment to the local authorities we make sure that all the local circumstances are taken into account, and there is no need for any unduly complicated valuation—which is one of the things that we are trying to avoid in any addition to the formula.
We have made the end of September the deadline for agreement, after which the Minister is to make the apportionment, and time is undoubtedly short. This fact should be stressed, because, under paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule, gas boards must send in all particulars by the end of October. That means that there is no time to spare, and we hope that in the fewplaces where negotiations
1226
will have to take place they will open at the earliest possible moment. If that is done in the three or four instances which hon. Members opposite have in mind there is no reason why we should not get an equitable result, without, I hope, needing the intervention of the Minister.
The Amendment does not go as far as some hon. Members would have liked—notably the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn)—but it meets the commitment which we made during the Committee stage, and I hope that the House will find it acceptable.
Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "means" to insert "(a)."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment can be taken with the following Amendment, at the end add:
"or
(b) any group of premises (whether adjacent or apart and however far apart), of which some (hereinafter called 'the principal premises') are occupied by a gas board for the purposes of the actual manufacture of gas and the remainder for purposes associated with the operations carried on in the principal premises, including the storage, purification, compression or other treatment of the gas manufactured in the principal premises."
Mr. Blackburn: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The purpose of my two Amendments is to give a wider definition to gas works, in an attempt to deal with the problem which I have raised in previous stages of the Bill. I welcome the Government Amendment: I agree that it is an attempt to deal with an injustice. We come back to the formula which I said earlier was the "sacred cow" of the Ministry. The original formula did not meet the case of gas works which were situated within the area of more than one rating authority, and yet were within one curtilage—to use the phrase in the Government Amendment.
It would have been quite wrong to ignore this problem and to have perpetuated this injustice, but by righting one injustice and ignoring another, where a similar principle is involved, the Minister is placing himself in an indefensible position. Is the London area to have justice while other parts of the country are to be denied it? Speaking earlier this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) said, "London has been regarded in our legis-

1227
lation as something distinct from the rest of the country." But we cannot have one system of justice for London and a different system for the rest of the country.
The concentration of gas production in an attempt to reduce overheads is a policy with which no one would wish to quarrel, yet it is manifestly unjust that rates should be lost by a rating authority within whose area is situated a gas works which is no longer devoted to the manufacture of gas but is still used for other ancillary purposes. As I said during the Committee stage, such gas works cover the same area as they did before, and they occupy space which could accommodate other rate-producing hereditaments.
The problem to which I am referring is likely to become much more prevalent in the future, because the gas boards will continue to pursue their policy of concentration. The rating authorities which will be most affected are, in the main, the small industrial towns in densely populated areas. These already have a high rate poundage, and they also suffer considerably because of the derating of industry. They are often the losers because the Exchequer equalisation grants are payable to county councils and not to district councils. Further, they generally have a high proportion of substandard houses. I mention these facts to show that the small authorities have already got their difficulties. They require more rateable value and not less, and need all the help which the Minister of Housing and Local Government can give them.
8.30 p.m.
The same principle is involved here as in the case of London, in respect of which the Minister moved his Amendment. The only difference in the case that I am citing is that the gas works are not within one curtilage. If the Minister is prepared to give justice to London, I hope he will also extend it to the smaller authorities for whom I am pleading.
I hope that I have proved to the House that for the gas works of the rating authorities with which I am dealing the principle is exactly the same as for the gas works with which the Minister dealt in his Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
1228
I shall not take long about it. It appears that the sacred cow has already had one calf, even on the other side of the road. We are trying this time to produce another. There is no particular reason why the definition of a gas works should be purely geographical, especially in a Clause which contains a lot of notional hereditaments. The division could well be functional. It is very rough on the local authorities who will have the decayed and disused gas works, probably in increasing quantities, left for storage if they are not able to get a penny out of what may well be extensive sites. Kettering gas works is not very good.
Mr. Deedes: As I feared, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said that his Amendment was only a logical extension of the Amendment which I moved a few moments ago. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to a calf to which he said the sacred cow had given birth. The Amendment now proposed would not be a calf but something in the nature of a bull elephant, because it goes a great deal further than the Amendment I have just moved, and it would very much widen the scope of this provision. It would cover premises which are wide apart, very great distances apart.
The further they are apart the more likely it is that local government boundaries would intervene, and therefore the greater the likelihood of a very much larger number of cases arising. That is where the great difference lies between our Amendment and that of the hon. Member. The number of cases which might arise under his Amendment is beyond computing. We do not have to compute them, but it is certain that his Amendment would make a substantial and fundamental alteration to the formula. I am sorry to have to repeat the word. His Amendment would open up further opportunities for dispute. Our Amendment does not have these potentialities.
There are obvious grounds for contention in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. There is no reason why any formula should not be subject to contention, but one result which might clearly follow in this case is that we should not be able to settle the apportionment in time for entry into the list by the end of December. If a dispute arises it has to

1229
be resolved. Without doing what the hon. Gentleman has accused us of doing, quoting this formula as a sort of sacred cow, I think there are very strong reasons against accepting an Amendment which might lead to an unknown number of cases arising, some of which are bound to be disputations. Where there was a dispute there would be difficulty in getting ourselves ready for December.
I hope that the House will see the administrative difficulty, which would affect the whole work of the formula and therefore of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I gave an undertaking at an earlier stage of the proceedings, will not now press his Amendment.
Mr. Ede: It is quite certain that any provision in any rating and valuation Bill will be disputatious and will lead to a number of arguments from which learned counsel, professional valuers and other expert witnesses will make a good living for a good many years to come. Therefore, the last part of what the hon. Gentleman has said does not influence me very much. I have sat at too many assessment committee meetings hearing these various people producing contradictory arguments for the confusion of the committee ever to be impressed with a belief that we can have some rating and valuation Bill which will not give rise to disputes and litigation.
The hon. Gentleman's earlier defence of the position he was adopting was that this
was a great grievance and therefore not capable of being dealt with. The more cases that arise the more essential it is that the matter should be considered. All over the area which, prior to the creation of the South Eastern Gas Board was controlled by the old Wandsworth and District Gas Company, there are these gas works that were superseded from time to time as the company that started in Wandsworth extended until it included the Leatherhead Gas Company. At Sutton, Epsom and other places old gas works were thrown out of use. The sites are still retained by the South Eastern Gas Board, and from what has been said I understand that they will cease to be rateable hereditaments in the local authority area in which they are situated.
To recognise a gas works separated only by a local authority boundary from works connected with it and yet to say nothing can be done where there is a similar position, except that the two places do not happen to be contiguous to that boundary, is really a confession of impotence on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary that is greatly to be deplored.
Question put, That "(a)" be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 207.

Division No. 21.]

AYES

[8.38 p.m.

Ainsley, J. w.

Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hale, Leslie

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cove, W. G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Anderson, Frank

Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Cronin, J. D.

Hannan, W.

Balfour, A.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hastings, S.

Bartley, P.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hayman, F. H.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Healey, Denis

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Herbison, Miss M.

Blackburn, F.

Deer, G.

Holman, P.

Boardman, H.

Dodds, N. N.

Houghton, Douglas

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Bowles, F. G.

Dye, S.

Hubbard, T. F.

Boyd, T. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Brockway, A. F.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hunter, A. E.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Brown, Rt. Hon, George (Belper)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fernyhough, E.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Burke, w. A.

Fienburgh, W.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Fletoher, Eric

Jones, J. Idewal (Wrexham)

Callaghan, L. J.

Forman, J. C.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Carmichael, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Kenyon, C.

Campion, A. J.

Gibson, C. W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Chapman, W. D.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

King, Dr. H. M.

Clunie, J.

Grey, C. F.

Lawson, G. M.

Coldriok, W.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Ledger, R. J.

Collick, p, H. (Birkenhead)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Swingler, S. T.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Lewis, Arthur

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Peart, T. F.

Tomney, F.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Logan, D. G.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Usborne, H. C.

MacColl, J. E.

Probert, A. R.

Viant, S. P.

MoGhee, H, G.

Proctor, W. T.

Warbey, W. N.

Molnnes, J.

Pryde, D. J.

Watkins, T. E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Weitzman, D.

McLeavy, F.

Rankin, John

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mahon, S.

Rhodes, H.

West, D. G.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wheeidon, W. E.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Mayhew, C. P.

Ross, William

Willey, Frederick

Mitchison, G, R.

Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Williams, David (Neath)

Moody, A. s.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Short, E. W.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Moss, R.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Moyle, A.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Winterbotton, Richard

Oliver, G. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Oram, A. E.

Sparks, J. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Orbaoh, M.

Steele, T.

Oswald, T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Padley, w. E.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Duthie, W. S.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Arbuthnot, John

Errington, Sir Eric

Kerr, H. W.

Ashton, H,

Erroll, F. J.

Kershaw, J. A.

Atkins, H. E.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lagden, G. W.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Fell, A.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Baldwin, A. E.

Finlay, Graeme

Leavey, J. A.

Balniel, Lord

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Leburn, W. G.

Barber, Anthony

Fort, R.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cambe & Lonsdale)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Barter, John

Freeth, D. K.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, s.)

Glover, D.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A.

Longden, Gilbert

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gower, H. R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Bidgood, J. c.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bishop, F. P.

Green, A.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Black, C. W.

Gresham Cooke. R.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Body, R. F.

Gurden, Harold

McKibbin, A. J.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. p.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, w.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maddan, Martin

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Bryan, P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Manningham-Butler, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Harvle-Watt, Sir George

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hay, John

Marshall, Douglas

Burden, F. F. A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mathew, R.

Cary, Sir Robert

Heath, Edward

Maude, Angus

Channon, H.

Heath, Edward

Mawby, R. L.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Medlioott, Sir Frank

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Cole, Norman

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Holt, A. F.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Neave, Airey

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nicholls, Harmar

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Crouch, R. F.

Howard, John (Test)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

O'Neill Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Cunningham, S. K.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Osborne, C.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Page, R. G.

Dance, J. C. G.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Davidson, viscountess

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)

Peyton, J. W. w.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

Pitman, I. J.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwieh)

Pott, H. P.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Powell, J. Enoch

1232

1233

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Speir, R. M.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Rawlinson, P. A. G.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vosper, D. F.

Redmayne, M.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Wade, D. W.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stewart Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Remnant, Hon. P.

Storey, S.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Renton, D. L. M.

Studholme, H. G.

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Teeling, W.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Robertson, Sir David

Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Robson-Brown, W.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Roper, Sir Harold

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon,S.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Woollam, John Victor

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Shepherd, William

Touche, Sir Gordon

Spearman, A. C. M.

Turner, H. F. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Godber.

Question put and agreed to.

8.45 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Dram: I should like to express appreciation to the Minister for introducing this Amendment in response to the point which I raised in Committee in connection with the Beckton Gasworks to meet a position which would have been quite serious for the ratepayers of East Ham.
The Bill as originally drafted threatened to deal two body blows to the ratepayers of East Ham—one in respect of the sewer about which we have heard so much, and the other in respect of the huge gasworks, part of which is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I, with a number of my hon. Friends, was very gratified to hear earlier in the day that the situation concerning the sewer is being met, and I am equally gratified to know that this Amendment will meet the position concerning the gasworks in my area.
Naturally, I regret, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), that the Minister has not been able to widen the provisions of the Amendment to meet the situation in my hon. Friend's division. But although he has not had satisfaction, I hope he will not begrudge me the satisfaction which I feel about this Amendment. I hope he will agree that half a loaf is better than none, even though I happen to have the half loaf and he has none. I feel that we have done reasonably well for the ratepayers in avoiding these two body blows which were threatened by the Bill as originally drafted, and I should like to express my thanks to the Minister.
Mr. Austen Albu: I have no intention of opposing the Amendment, although the Borough of Edmonton has
1234
some anxieties about what may be the result of accepting it, especially as the Minister was unable to accept my hon. Friend's first Amendment in Committee dealing with the by-products plant. The Minister will be aware that there is in Edmonton a large gasworks and a substantial by-products plant.
I think we can be satisfied with the situation, provided that the apportionment made in accordance with the amended Schedule is reasonable and is based on the capital value of the premises and plant—that is to say, the existing division of rateable value. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it would be based on the 1949 value, with any changes made in accordance with circumstances, and I imagine that it should be possible to arrive at agreement.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) quoted some figures which I am afraid I could not understand. The figure of rateable value which I have for the works alone in the Borough of Edmonton is £4,560, and as far as can be ascertained the figure for Tottenham is £346. That does not include the main it is the works alone, but it includes the by-products plant in the Borough of Edmonton. Provided that there are no substantial changes in the proportions of the rateable value, I think that this provision will be acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO GAS BOARDS.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 28, line 48, at the end to insert:
(2) In the application of paragraph 12 of the Third Schedule to this Act for the said purposes, sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph

1235
shall apply with the substitution, for the words "before the end of the month of September preceding the beginning of that year," of the words "within three months after the passing of this Act," and for the words "after the end of that month," of the words "after it has been made by him."
This is linked with the Schedule which we have discussed, and, I think, will be acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS.)
Mr. K. Thompson: I beg to move, in page 31, line 10, at the end to insert:

Section 55

…

In subsection (1), after the words "eighteen pounds" there shall be inserted the words "for the words 'a higher limit of value' there shall be substituted the words 'a limit of value higher than thirteen pounds'."

The Amendment is clear and self-explanatory.
Mr. Deedes: I do not think there will be any disagreement about this. It was generally agreed when we discussed the compounding provisions which we brought forward with the agreement of hon. Members on both sides. This is part of those arrangements, and I hope that it will be acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think the House will expect a very lengthy speech from me at this juncture, but my right hon. Friend would certainly wish me to take this opportunity to acknowledge very gratefully the assistance, the good will and the co-operation which we have had from hon. Members in all parts of the House at all stages of the Bill.
I think it will be accepted that my right hon. Friend has not hesitated to give the most painstaking and sympathetic consideration to every proposal brought forward, regardless of the quarter from which it has come, provided that it was calculated to improve the Bill and to make its working smoother and more equitable. As the proceedings earlier this afternoon showed very clearly, he has
1236
gone to great lengths to achieve those results.
As must have been obvious during the proceedings, a great deal of preliminary work was done before the Bill was drafted. Those preliminaries involved agreements between local authority associations, gas boards and other undertakings. A measure of such agreement is essential for a Bill of this kind. There is always a difficulty in subsequently altering formula which have been arrived at, but it is very important that the House should always have the last word, and wherever possible, I think, we have shown ourselves willing to alter arrangements already made in order to meet the manifest wishes of the House.
Major criticisms have been levelled at the provisions for the utilities, such as gas and electricity, and those criticisms have not been confined to one side of the House. Although we have not been able to meet them all at every point, I would stress the importance, as I have stressed before, of the forthcoming review, which I think will go a long way towards ironing out the anomalies about which hon. Members have been concerned.
I will only add that, during an earlier stage of this Bill, I expressed the belief that experts on rating were born and not made. At the end of the proceedings, I am absolutely convinced that that is correct, but I think that quite a number have been created by this Bill and the proceedings on it. As my right hon. Friend said when he moved the Second Reading, this is not a big or inspiring Measure, but it sets the seal on seven years' work, to which both sides have contributed and the effect of which will be a radical change in rating and also in the consequences on the finances of local authorities. The whole effect of the seven years' work on which this Bill sets the seal is very great.
Our job has been to make the beginning of this immense operation as smooth and as workable as possible, and in all these respects the work of all the hon. Members who have taken part in the discussions has made a major contribution. On the occasion of the Third Reading, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend and myself most gratefully acknowledge the assistance and good will which we have received.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Lindgren: From this side of the House, I should like to say that we thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the manner in which he has moved the Third Reading and for what he has said about the co-operation of hon. Members on this side during the various stages of the Bill.
The Third Reading stage is something of a congratulatory stage, and we should like to say that we appreciate that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been most courteous during all the stages of this Bill. No doubt, we have got along much better because of their helpfulness and willingness from time to time to listen to discussion or to make a concession, and all that has helped in the progress of the Bill.
There are only two items with which I should like to deal. The trailing of the coat of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) during the Second Reading debate led me to make some observations about shopkeepers, and, as a result, I have received a large number of letters from shopkeepers all over the country. I was going to say that it is rather surprising, but, in fact, the same applies very often in the case of houses, that shopkeepers, and particularly small shopkeepers, regard rent and rates as one outgoing, and as far as rates are concerned, they see in that direction the possibility of a changeover from a profit to a loss.
From the letters which I have received, I find that there is one outstanding factor. It is that the under-assessment of shops has led to excessive rents for shops. According to one letter that I received this morning—and I have dozens here—one shopkeeper is very upset because he thinks that his rateable value may go up, and I am sorry to have to tell the poor fellow that I think it will. His rent is £250 per annum, and the rateable value of his shop is £75 per annum.
It is obvious that, because of low assessments, landlords have been getting excessive rents, because tenants of shops have taken rent and rates together, and, on the basis of one single outgoing, have been prepared to think that they were making a go of their businesses.
If chambers of trade really want to be of some service to their members, now that they have awakened and found out
1238
that something is going on about rating, they might well tackle the question of the rents of shops, because on the basis of the letters which I have received from shopkeepers—and those who have written to me have been comparatively small shopkeepers, not people running large-scale businesses—I would say that their rateable value is likely to go up very considerably indeed. It is obvious that where the rent is £250 a valuer is not going to stand for a rateable value of £75. The ultimate result of it may be that the rent will come down, and subsequently, because rents come down, rateable values will also come down. But on the basis of the rent being exaggerated rateable values will undoubtedly be very considerably increased.
The other point with which I wanted to deal concerns the discussion which we had in Committee on Clause 4 (8). The Minister has promised reconsideration of an Amendment in another place. But since he generously agreed in Committee to consult interested parties on this matter, we have had the Birmingham decision. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary have recently had a lot to do and it may be they have not yet read the Birmingham decision. I hope they will read it pretty quickly now that they have got this Bill out of the way, and, as a result, may be prepared to withdraw Clause 4 (8) altogether.
There was some discussion across the Floor of the Committee as to whether the Birmingham case was a test case or not, and whether Birmingham had been invited to take it. I have read through the judgment in the Lands Tribunal and it is quite clearly stated that
"The appeals are to be treated as test cases under an Order of the President made on the 5th November, 1954."
Undoubtedly, it is a fact that this Birmingham decision now becomes case law.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary attempted to justify this Clause by quoting anticipated catastrophic falls in the rateable value of certain water undertakings. He did not mention the names of either of the two undertakings to which he referred, but one of them—I do not think he will object to my naming it—was Birmingham. He said there was an undertaking with a rateable value of £341,000 which would drop, under the proposals, to £227,000. To put it no

1239
higher, the Birmingham decision shows that the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary—and no doubt he was voicing not only those of his own Department but also those of the Inland Revenue Department—were not well-founded because they have not materialised.
The decision means that the value has dropped to £330,000 and not to £227,000 against an existing value of £340,000. All that has happened is that there has been a drop of £10,000. That is not a catastrophic drop which is going to upset the whole basis of valuation throughout the length and breadth of the land.
The document which deals with the judgment in that case is very technical, and I do not pretend to understand all of it. But I think I have grasped the main points, and I would say that the Inland Revenue Department does not come out of it very well. I hope the Minister will turn to page 7, because there he will see that the Inland Revenue Department was criticised quite severely. The Tribunal did not do so in the blunt language that I would use, but what, in effect, it said was that the Department based its case on a witness who, while quite competent in his own sphere as a chemist, was not a water engineer, had no knowledge of the water industry, and was not the type of specialist upon whom the Department's case ought to have been based.
The Tribunal went even further and said what I think is even more serious, that the Inland Revenue Department employed a distinguished water engineer who was given every facility to inspect the entire Birmingham water undertaking, and that he presented his report to the Inland Revenue but that the Department did not call him as a witness at the inquiry. The chairman of the Tribunal said the Tribunal had its own views as to why the Inland Revenue did not call this distinguished and knowledgeable witness, and I agree with the chairman. Everyone who reads the judgment must know why the Inland Revenue did not call the water engineer. My view is that he would have blown sky high the case which the Inland Revenue was trying to make.
Clause 4 (8) seeks to change the basis of the sinking fund principle which has been used in ascertaining the rateable
1240
value of water undertakings for well over a hundred years. This Birmingham decision gives approval to the sinking fund basis, though it excludes from it the water reservoirs. I suggest that there is a case for the complete withdrawal of Clause 4 (8) since the Birmingham decision now becomes case law and so removes all the fears of the Inland Revenue, the Department, and the political heads of the Department.
The Lands Tribunal is an appeal court set up by the Minister, so there is a protection in that a reference can be made at any time by the Inland Revenue to the Lands Tribunal. This will mean that it will be dealt with on the basis of the Birmingham decision. That being so, it would be in the interests of all concerned if we returned to where we were. Perhaps the Minister will consider between now and when the Bill is taken to another place whether Clause 4 (8) could not be withdrawn?
In any case, I suggest, not in a critical way, that when this matter is dealt with by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, it should be on a basis of direct personal consultation with those concerned, and not merely be done by writing and asking for their views. Not only would that allow them to put their own point of view, but much more can be said in an interview than by correspondence. Nothing but good can come from personal discussion with the interested parties.
With what are, for a Third Reading speech, those comparatively few words, I express again the appreciation of hon. Members on this side of the House for the way in which the Minister has handled the Bill in all its stages. We hope that over this remaining question of the water undertakings the right hon. Gentleman will add to his reputation by willingly accepting the Birmingham decision and by withdrawing Clause 4 (8). Then everyone will be happy, except perhaps a valuer in the Inland Revenue Department who has made a decision to dig his heels in over Birmingham.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: In the course of this Bill, I and several of my hon. Friends have tried to make certain alterations which, in our opinion, would have improved the Bill. Unfortunately, the Chair, in its

1241
wisdom, did not choose to call those proposed new Clauses either in Committee or on Report, and I realise that it is now too late to make any alterations to the Bill.
I believe, however, that under Clause 4 (5) the Minister can, if he chooses, do in great measure what we want done, which is to make more equitable rating arrangements for hotel keepers who reside in their hotels and who, I believe, are more hardly treated in respect of rating than any other section of the country. I should like to say what it is that I think the Minister can do under the Bill and briefly give my reasons for asking him to do it.
We know that now all business premises will be assessed on current value, whereas private houses will be assessed on 1939 values. In his statement to the House on 6th December, my right hon. Friend said that almost all occupiers of commercial premises are also householders or tenants, and, therefore, directly or indirectly benefit from any reduction in rates on dwelling-houses. He said that, as we have all to live somewhere, what we lose on the swings we shall gain on the roundabouts. That applies to shopkeepers. If, for example, I sell groceries in the front of a building and live in the back of it, I am rated on the back premises at the lower assessment as though it was a private house.
That does not apply to hotel keepers. If I owned and ran a hotel of four floors and lived on the top floor, I should be rated in respect of the top floor at the current value, which is much higher. I would press upon my right hon. Friend that in the seasonal resorts where the hotels are open for only a short time in the year the profits are, in many cases, so small that the burden of rates is a very serious matter indeed.
Clause 4 (5) says that the Minister may by Order provide for deductions in the case of any class of hereditaments of such amounts as may be specified in the Order. I should like my right hon. Friend to make a deduction in the following way. I do not suggest that the part of the hotel or boarding house in which the owner lives should be excluded from the assessment, but my right hon. Friend should state that a certain number of rooms—perhaps four rooms and a bathroom—should be taken as the owner's
1242
private residence and be assessed on that basis.
That would not entail any administrative difficulties or any expense in extra charges for valuation purposes because it would be a formula or rule of thumb which would be applied to all hotels. It would provide only rough justice, but it seems to me that even justice qualified by that adjective is tremendously worth striving for. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend sympathetically to consider my suggestion if he finds that he can take such action within the Bill.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. James MacColl: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) in expressing my appreciation to the Minister for the concessions that he has made in the course of the very full and interesting discussions upon the Bill.
The only thing that puzzles me—it has puzzled me throughout the stages of the Bill—is to know on what basis he decided upon the concessions that he would make and the concessions that he would refuse to make. In many instances where I did not think he would make concessions, and doubted whether he would be wise in doing so, he made concessions, the exact implications of which are still to be seen. In other cases where it seemed to me logical that he should make concessions, and the arguments were in that direction, he showed a sudden and perhaps surprising obstinacy.
It is puzzling to understand the way in which the Minister's mind works, but having thoroughly examined the Bill I think it will be accepted that we have improved it a good deal.
One thing which struck me as being odd was the recent remark of the Parliamentary Secretary that this Bill set the seal on seven years of work. That was an extraordinary remark, if by it he meant that this is the culmination of the process of improvement; because anyone who knows anything about these problems will realise that this cannot be the end of the process of improving our system of rating. In every matter dealt with by the Bill we have only very temporary and improvised solutions. During the forthcoming valuation we shall probably be subjected to a great many strains which will have to be corrected before a subsequent valuation takes place. The

1243
whole basis of valuing dwelling houses must be examined again after the next valuation. The valuing of water undertakings has not been settled, and we do not know what will emerge from another place. We have still to obtain a final decision about that.
The Minister himself said, and it was said constantly throughout the proceedings on this Bill, that the whole question of the valuation of national utilities must be examined quickly. That is another matter about which we are in a very unstable situation and have arrived at no final decision. I doubt whether Clause 6 will prove a solution to the difficult problem of making compassionate assessments. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) took us back into the history of charitable assessments.
He said that he found no basis for charitable assessments. As I understand the position—though I may be wrong— until the war there was no means of making a rate rebate, except by reference to the justices. It was only because of the strain imposed on people during the war years that the Coalition Government passed an Act giving the rating authorities power to make great rebates on compassionate grounds. We have developed that principle a great deal in this new Clause, and I welcome it so far as it gives discretion to rating authorities to use their judgment and appreciation of local problems. At the same time, I think that some curious differences have been made and distinctions drawn, and I consider that many authorities will find it difficult to decide what is a clear and fair line to adopt. They will have great difficulty in working the provisions of this Clause and reaching a common agreement which will prove fair as between one area and another.
The Bill might have been improved in many other ways, but we cannot discuss that on Third Reading. The real problems have not been tackled. Important questions have been postponed, and I doubt whether the proposals contained in this Measure will prove effective. But if we manage to struggle through the next valuation, that will be something. After that we may be able to have another look at the whole problem of local government finance. Perhaps by then we shall have
1244
another Government who will do it in a more constructive way than the present Government have so far shown any inclination to do. I hope that, for what it is worth, we shall give this Bill a Third Reading, though I do not believe that it is worth very much.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Wade: I wish to make a few observations before the Bill receives its Third Reading and passes to another place. Before doing so, however, may I express my personal appreciation of the courtesy shown by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary? They have not satisfied everyone by any means, but I think that they have striven to do so. I am inclined to the view that if every Amendment had been accepted, the resulting law might have been even more obscure than it is already.
In saying that, it must not be implied that I do not agree with the purpose of the Amendment which was not called and which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), because I think that there was considerable weight in the argument which that hon. Gentleman has just deployed.
I will, for a moment or two, refer to the uncontentious part of Clause 6, with particular reference to subsection (3). I do so because I am anxious that there should not be any unintended difficulties in the future. Several references have been made to the category of absolute exemption as compared with hereditaments which receive or which will receive sympathetic assessment, but very little has been said on the subject of those hereditaments coming within the category of absolute exemption.
As hon. Members know, there are occasions when church halls and other similar buildings are let from time to time, and, if a profit is made on the letting, it is only fair that they should be rated. In the past, these halls have come within the category of sympathetic assessment, but in the future it will be a matter for the Inland Revenue, and I am not entirely happy about the expression
"expenses attributable to those lettings"
since there is no definition in the Bill.
It may be as well that there should be no definition, as it might be too rigidly applied. A great deal would depend on

1245
the interpretation of those words by the Inland Revenue officials who have not the same scope for sympathetic assessment as have the local authorities.
Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman uttered this nonsense once before, and I did not then have the opportunity of making an intervention. I suggest to him that it is no use complaining about Inland Revenue officials. They work within the framework of the law and use their discretion, as they are guided, in the best interest of equity between one citizen and another. I think that we might as well admit that.
Mr. Wade: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made his intervention, because it enables me to say that I am certainly not casting any reflection whatsoever on Inland Revenue officials, but am merely pointing out what is obvious. I am aware that an obiter dicta from the Minister has no legal effect, but it might, perhaps, be helpful if he thought fit to express his views on the subsection containing the words
"expenses attributable to those lettings."
I think that so long as they are reasonably interpreted, including some of the items which I mentioned on Second Reading, no one will have any cause for complaint. But there may be some difficulties. The trustees may be put to some trouble in making returns of every item of expenditure which is to be offset against the payment they receive from the lettings.
I now turn to Clause 1, and I hope that I have correctly interpreted subsection (6) as now amended. Upon receipt of the new valuation list, the local authority is called upon
"to take such steps as the authority may consider most suitable for giving notice of the list, and of the rights of persons to inspect the list and to make proposals for altering it."
As I understand it, those who wish to appeal after they have inspected the list will not be entitled to do so until the rate demands have been received. If that is so, it should be made quite clear because, at first sight, it would appear from the Clause, as amended, that the ratepayers who have inspected the list may be entitled to commence appeal proceedings before the rate demands have been received and they know the actual amount they will be called upon to pay. I hope that there is no misunderstanding
1246
about this. I raise the matter only because it is not quite clear at first sight.
In winding up the Second Reading debate on 6th April, the Minister said that it was—
"essential to make the existing legislation workable, and that if we shirked this further Measure to tie up the loose ends we should be in the most fearful difficulties…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 1293.]
In other words, the intention of the Bill is to tidy up our rating law. Unfortunately, it is very untidy. As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has pointed out, there are many problems ahead of us, such as re-rating; the allocation of the Exchequer equalisation grant; the differential between the different categories of ratepayers, and the whole question of the basis of assessment. The sense of injustice which certainly exists will remain so long as those problems are there.
Unfortunately, certain ratepayers, especially shopkeepers, not only feel a sense of injustice but, after 1st April, will also feel a very real economic hardship. There is no getting away from that fact. Many small shopkeepers, though performing valuable services, have very small turnovers, and rates form a substantial part of their overhead charges. By virtue of Clause 1, as amended, they will have the right to examine the list before the rate demands are made, and will have the right of appeal—but no appeal will substantially alter the amount of rates that shopkeepers and owners and occupiers of offices will be called upon to pay when the new valuation list comes into effect.
We may as well face the fact that there will be protests, and there may be a spate of appeals. I hope, therefore, that the review which has been referred to several times will not be delayed for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary and, also, that it will not be too narrow in its scope. There is a vast number of problems to deal with, but I want to mention only one. Ratepayers will be inclined to appeal not only because of the rise in their assessments but also because, under our existing rating system, they are penalised for improvements—and many improvements have taken place during the last ten years. I hope, therefore, that that aspect of the problem, as well as many other anomalies in our rating system, will be considered when this review

1247
takes place. If they are not it may be that the rating law will be workable, but it will not be just.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I am the first to realise that this Bill is the culmination of a considerable amount of work over the period of the last seven years. I also fully appreciate that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done their utmost to grant certain concessions during the various stages of the Bill. I am only too sorry, however, that the concessions which I have been trying to obtain for the small shopkeepers and traders have not yet received as much sympathy from the Minister as I would have wished. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) touched upon this subject, as did the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
When the new assessments comes out, small shopkeepers and traders will in my opinion, face extreme unfairness, because industrial premises will still continue to get their full 75 per cent. derating and housing hereditaments will be held back to their 1939 values. This unfairness could have been adjusted during the passage of the Bill. Now the maximum burden of reassessment will fall on the shoulders of small shopkeepers and traders. Every hon. Member will know plenty about that when the time comes early next year, and so will the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary. It is patent unfairness that the burden of these readjusted assessments should fall upon the small shopkeepers and traders, who will find the load very difficult to bear.
I sincerely hoped that the Minister would have done something definite during the course of the Bill to stop the worry which will come in the very near future, and in connection with which I myself have put forward several proposals. Unfortunately, however, the Minister did not do so, but I did appreciate very much his restatement of the assurance he gave that if any extreme unfairness should appear when the new assessments come into operation, the Government, and he particularly, will reconsider the position.
1248
I would, even at this late stage of the Bill, once again make the strongest possible plea. I am convinced that small shopkeepers and traders throughout the country, as in my own constituency, will have a very unequal share to stand of the burden of the new assessments next year. I hope that when that time comes the Minister will see his way clear to act speedily on the assurance which he gave that if my fears are realised something will definitely be done about the matter. Otherwise, every hon. Member will find that he has assented to unfairness which should never have taken place and which could easily have been adjusted during the passage of this Bill.
I well realise that a great deal of good work has been put into this Bill, which has been properly described as a "tidying up" Measure. It is, however, an extremely complicated Measure. I am especially concerned about the effects of the new assessments, and that is why I have felt compelled once more to speak as I have done tonight.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Houghton: I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) about the shopkeepers and small businessmen whose properties will fall to be assessed on the full current value as commercial premises. The problem has been aggravated considerably by the delay which has taken place in carrying out the new valuations.
After all, it is seven years since the responsibility for valuation was transferred from the local authorities to the Inland Revenue Department, and we are fully aware of the difficulties and uncertainties through which it has passed, and upon which legislation in this House has been necessary. It has meant that, while we have been waiting for the new valuation lists, valuations have continued to be made by the valuation office in tone with prevailing valuations which have been in existence in many cases for a long time. We have had the extraordinary spectacle of new buildings, big blocks of buildings, going up in the West End, the City of London and in many of our towns and cities, being valued in tone with the valuations of the older properties round about. When they come into the new valuation list they will have to be brought up to current values.

1249
If they have not realised the higher rateable burden which may fall upon them, there will be, I honestly believe, a considerable disturbance in the minds of tenants, and in the financial arrangements of tenants who have taken accommodation in these buildings. In the intervening period shop rents have risen and other changes have taken place in values which have not been reflected in the out-of-date valuations, which have continued for current rating purposes and which have been waiting for the day when the new valuation lists will be brought into line, with current values.
That undoubtedly will account for the violent change which will take place in a large number of cases. The example quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) can be repeated a thousandfold. I heard of one case where commercial premises were rented at £600 a year, with a rateable value of £65—and the people even applied for derating as industrial premises. They are engaged in some kind of photographic work. What is to happen in such a case? Unless they have sufficient financial substance or enough prospects of success they may easily have to pack up.
That brings me to four points, the first of which has to do with the draft valuation lists. After further thought I still regret that the Minister has made permanent the draft valuation list arrangement. In this difficult and complex field we are feeling our way, and it would have been much better had he kept it as a temporary measure. I notice that one additional reason for regretting that the draft valuation list procedure is being made permanent is now being mentioned in municipal journals. Some discussion is going on as to whether it would be prudent for local authorities, when they fix the new rate poundage, to keep something in hand against the possibility of a substantial reduction in rateable values in the course of the appeals.
We must remember that when asked to fix the poundage local authorities will not have the faintest idea as to how many of the new valuations, upon which they have based their calculations, will be reduced on appeal. We will assume that the work of valuation will be done competently and impartially, and that valuers will apply the law and their very best knowledge. They have a good deal of
1250
evidence about current values at their disposal.
We must assume that the work will be done well. Nevertheless, some quite substantial reductions may be made in the total rateable value by the time all the appeals are heard. It would be a pity were local authorities to be tempted not to give the full reduction in the rate poundage on these new values. I hope they will go to their limit in order that the new balance may be struck with the minimum of additional financial hardship to ratepayers of all kinds.
I refer next to the right of inspection. I am still puzzled as to why the Minister accepted the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and so gave the right of inspection to the ratepayer between 1st January and 31st March before the new combined notice of assessment and demand note reaches him. I do not know, but it may be that the hon. Member for Crosby was more surprised than anyone else when the Minister accepted the Amendment. At all events the hon. Member for Crosby received precious little support from his own side for the Amendment which the Minister decided to accept.
Mr. Graham Page: So far as I can recollect, every single person on both sides of the Committee who spoke on that Amendment supported it.
Mr. Houghton: I fully acknowledge that. But when the Amendment was on the Order Paper it was singularly lacking in support from other hon. Members on that side of the Committee, and when the debate began, the well-known game of chasing the Minister started on both sides of the Committee, and he gave way to it. I should have thought that he would have had more sense, but he gave way and one wonders why he did it.
I think that it is entirely a misconception on any principle of equity that the ratepayers should have a sight of the draft valuation lists merely because the local authority must have it to begin to do their writing job and get out the combined notices of assessments and demand notes.
Mr. MacColl: The principle is a clear one. When one has information which is of value to members of the public, it is a very good rule to give members

1251
of the public that information as early as possible. That is a general principle of public spirit and social justice, and one has to have very strong reasons for not doing it. The hon. Gentleman and I felt compelled to hold that the reasons were not strong enough, and we convinced the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Houghton: Like the Minister, the more one says and does on this Bill the more hot water one gets into. The right hon. Gentleman got into more hot water for giving way than he did for sticking fast, and one sees on this Bill cross-sections of opinion cutting across the parties on both sides of the Committee. I say, in parenthesis, that one fine day I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then the debates on the Finance Bill will be really worth while.
In the meantime, I criticise him for having given way here. My criticism is based on what I believe to be the administrative consequences of his action. When I raised this matter on 27th June, the right hon. Gentleman came to the Committee with reassurances, and he even quoted the Board of Inland Revenue. I must be careful of what I say about the Board of Inland Revenue because it is not here to reply, but he did quote it. He said:
"I can assure the Committee that they look upon the consequences of the adoption of the Amendment with equanimity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 88.]
He went on to say that I was unduly alarmed. May I submit that the Board of Inland Revenue had no experience on which to judge the consequences of the adoption of the Amendment—none whatever. It had not the faintest idea of what is going to happen; and neither have we. We can only think about what is likely to happen when the lists are available for inspection, but before any effective action can be taken. The trouble about the Board of Inland Revenue is that it is always viewing difficulties and administrative problems with equanimity. This is an industrial disease with the Board. It never knows a crisis, and I will tell the House why. It is because it relies on the staff of the district offices to pull through, as they usually do.
I resent an ex parte declaration of equanimity by the Board of Inland Revenue
1252
when there is no basis whatever in experience or fact on which it can express any such opinion. All we know is that citizens who inspect the draft valuation list, and who get hot under the collar about it, and want to rush somewhere to do something about it, will be told that at the town hall or council officers, "It is no use coming here; you will have to go to the rating office. Here is the address, and the sooner you go the better we shall be pleased because we are busy copying out the assessment and demand notices." The ratepayers then go to the rating officer. Is he to shut the doors on them and say, "No grousers admitted here until 1st April, 1956"?
The Minister said, and I accepted his assurance, that he has taken note of the suggestion I made that something should be said to ratepayers when the lists are in the hands of the local authorities which will avoid a frustrating experience for them and overloading the administration. I shall certainly hold him to that.
Mr. Page: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked Clause 1 (4), which says that the valuation officer may make alterations to the list if it appears to him that alterations ought to be made?
Mr. Houghton: Yes, if it appears to him that alterations ought to be made. That Clause says what conditions have to be satisfied before the valuation officer can make a proposal to alter the list, and they are stringent conditions.
I do not wish to be diverted, because I wish to concentrate on the problems of administration. This House is singularly indifferent to problems of public administration. Very frequently when the law is changed and alterations are made in procedure, hon. Members have no realisation of the additional difficulties that they are creating. I am one of the few people, unfortunately, who say these things in the House and who defend those who are not able to defend themselves and have to suffer silently under burdens imposed on them by inadequate regard to the administrative consequences of legislative action.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Does my hon. Friend not admit that these frustrated ratepayers will at least write to their Members of Parliament, and from 1st January onwards hon. Members will be inundated with letters

1253
which, in my case, I propose to forward to the right hon. Gentleman for his attention?
Mr. Houghton: Yes, I am sure there will be numerous remedies which many of us will have to find for the problems which will arise. Although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman acted in perfectly good faith, I think he will prove by experience to have been unwise.
The next point I want to refer to concerns the new Clause relating to relief from rates for charitable and other organisations which we have put into the Bill today. I asked the right hon. Gentleman some questions about procedure in the case of ratepayers who claim to be covered by the concessionary freeze under that Clause and who might be unable to accept the judgment of the local authority on whether they come within the scope of the Clause or not. I have been consulting my legal friends, and it looks as if a body or organisation which claims to be covered by the concession in this Clause and which may have its application refused by the local authority will then have only one course of action, one remedy, and that is to apply for a writ of mandamus against the local authority, which means, as I understand it, High Court proceedings.
That will be a radical departure from the general framework of appeal procedure on rating matters, and it may impose prohibitive expenditure on some bodies or organisations which may feel that they are unjustly treated by the decision of the local authority. This matter may perhaps receive attention in another place. I do not know whether there is any alteration which might make an appeal less costly, but at all events it is worth considering.
The last point on which I wish to comment relates to the old Clause 4 (8) relating to the sinking fund procedure. I understand that the Relay Services Association, which raised this matter with numerous hon. Members, is favourably disposed towards working on the suggestion that I made in Committee to utilise some of the features of depreciation for Income Tax purposes as the basis for depreciation under the profits basis of assessment. I am happy to have received a note from the Minister saying that he will carefully consider whatever proposals come to him from that quarter.
1254
I do not know whether that would cover the whole area of undertakings which are assessed on the profits basis, but at all events it might be a contribution to the solution of a difficult problem.
Having said all that, I naturally join with my hon. Friends in agreeing that we shall give the Bill a Third Reading, and that we acknowledge the Minister's willingness to listen to our discussions and his desire at all times to meet the general wishes of the House.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), although at one time I helped to represent these officers on the Whitley Council, I do not mind if they have a lot more trouble if it means that we get a fairer and more just rating system as a result.
The trouble about the Bill, as I see it, is that far from it being the crowning effort of seven years' work, in fact it takes us to the stage which ensures that the dam will burst in April. The Minister apparently feels that he will get away with it when the demand notes are sent out with enormously increased assessments for shops, offices and business premises and with increases, although apparently everyone thinks not such large increases, for houses. He seems to think that because the rate poundage may be altered downwards—and nobody knows by how much—the Department will be saved from an enormous mass of appeals.
I do not agree, and that it why I personally, and I think most of my hon. Friends, very much regret that the Minister refused to accept the Amendment which would have restored the right to appeal against the draft lists which was in the 1948 Act. Had he accepted that Amendment he would probably have been saved a good many headaches. I am amazed that we should see Conservative Members of Parliament taking away an ancient right of the ratepayers of this country to appeal against the assessment of their property.
Nevertheless, even that provision would not solve the problem. A rating system which punishes the man who works hardest and does most to improve his property, as our rating system does, is obviously bad and unfair, but the efforts which we made during the discussions on the Bill to get rid of the derating Act

1255
were unsuccessful. Those efforts had the support of all sides of the House and all our political organisations. At both the annual conference of the Labour Party and the annual conference of the Conservative Party, resolutions were carried in favour of the abolition of derating and in favour of making the big industrial concerns pay their full share of the rates.
Had we done that—and it could have been done—a mass of the complaints which we shall get in April would probably not have been made. In my borough the abolition of derating would save the ordinary householder about 8d. in the £ on his rates and during the discussions we heard of cases in which the abolition of derating of industrial premises would save householders 3s. 3d. in the £. By throwing away the opportunity to abolish derating, the Government have piled up a lot of trouble for themselves.
I do not think we shall ever get out of our troubles in this field until some Government have the courage completely to remodel the rating system of this country and to remove rating from buildings and place it on land and other things. I presume that if I were to attempt to follow that line I should be ruled out of order, and in any case I had my say at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
I will conclude by saying that, while the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been extremely courteous and ready to listen, the fact is that no important changes have been made in the rating system in this country. In fact, one change which ought to have been made in this Bill in order to give the people once more the right to look at the draft list before they are charged with their rates has not been made; in fact, that right has been taken away.
In these circumstances, it is impossible to let this Bill go through with acclaim from everybody; on the contrary, it is necessary that the country should know that this Bill provides machinery by which and through which people will find that in a few months' time they will have enormously increased assessments. Probably, in some cases, they will have to pay more rates in the £, while, in the case of that section of the community which all shades of public opinion have agreed in recent months ought to be made to pay its fair share of the costs of local government, nothing whatever has been done.
1256
I think the Minister will have a lot of trouble. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said he would send the letters he receives to the Minister. I have no doubt that the Minister himself will receive an enormous number of protests from his own constituents when they realise what this Bill will mean to them in April next.
9.57 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Proctor: I do not take the view of the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary that everything in the garden will be lovely as a result of this Bill. The basic problem which everyone recognises and to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred is that the different basis of valuation is bound to cause a tremendous lot of trouble when the new valuation lists come to be fully operative.
One set of property will be valued on the 1939 basis, another set of property on the 1955 basis, and the third set on the 1955 basis with a 75 per cent. rebate. I am sure that that is bound to lead to a very great deal of unfairness, and I have no doubt that, when reading the "Streatham News," the Minister will hear from his own constituents on this very matter.
We could have had much more information than has been given to the House. In the famous pledge which he made on 6th December, the Minister said:
"I can, however, give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 22.]
I should like to know from the Minister when he thinks the effects will be fully measured. I believe that we could have fully measured them now if the information at present in the possession of the Board of Inland Revenue, which should be available to the Minister, had been made available to this House. Then we could have seen what the result was. No one who listened to that pledge on 6th December thought that the first time the Minister was going fully to measure the effects was when the rates were demanded and when no change could be made as far as the valuation was concerned.

1257
I have also written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking whether he could give me samples of these valuations to be of guidance to hon. Members. I received a reply to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be any use, but it would have been very interesting to me to have had a few samples. The only one that I have been able to get with any sort of authenticity is that concerning a property which is valued at £2,000 on the present basis, and in which case it is expected that the valuation will go up three times to £6,000 when the new valuations come into operation.
We shall have very great difficulty in our constituencies in convincing those who are concerned that this basis is fair. I hope the Minister will give us some indication of what he intends to do in the matter and how he intends to carry it out.
Mr. Page: It has been said many times from the other side of the House during consideration of this Bill that this valuation is unfair. Surely the three different types of valuation which the hon. Member mentioned earlier in his speech are based on the 1948 valuations which the then Labour Government introduced.
Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member cannot pin upon us the responsibility for this. The 1953 Act, for which the party opposite is responsible, perpetuated these things and also the altered basis for houses. To say that we are responsible for these valuation lists when the Labour Party fought the last Election on a proposal to abolish derating is absolute nonsense.
I say the Government ought to have taken the opportunity when the Amendment was before them in Committee to abolish derating, and we could then have had an agreed Measure, which would have made the matter less harsh than it is. In my own constituency, from the calculations I have been able to make, it would appear that at least 2s. 6d. in the £ on the rates represents derating of industrial property. I say that we should have had an agreed Measure to deal with the whole problem in a more efficacious manner. We shall now be inundated with complaints as a result of this Measure, and the people responsible are Her Majesty's Government who are piloting the Measure through this House.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Sandys: I give the House my assurance that I will certainly pay very close attention to the points which have been raised in this debate. Some of them were raised earlier, but we could not deal fully with them during the passage of the Bill. Others were not necessarily new points but reflections of interest upon the wider aspects of the problem. As I say, I can assure hon. Members that I will study them carefully and, what is more. I will see whether anything can be done to meet any of them during the consideration of the Bill in another place. Those that cannot be met will, as far as practicable, be brought within the scope of the promised reviews.
Some Amendments of substance have been approved during various stages of the Bill, and some Amendments on procedure—I am not so sure that in many cases the Amendments on procedure are not more important than some of the Amendments of substance—have been approved. Perhaps the most important was that which has been referred to by more than one hon. Member, including the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who speaks with great knowledge and experience on these matters; it was the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that the valuation lists should be published on receipt by the rating authorities and should not be kept back until April, as had been earlier proposed.
I believe that this is a sound decision. In it we have preserved a principle on which we started —to abolish the draft valuation lists appeal procedure. I am not dealing with the question whether it is permanent or not; we shall have plenty of opportunities to review that between now and the next revaluation. But we wanted to avoid the risk of having the whole administrative machine choked and clogged with countless, needless, and premature appeals.
None the less, we are meeting what I believe was a widespread feeling not only in this House but also outside, for, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, if this information were available in the offices of local authorities and if it could be of any use to the ratepayers in the locality, they ought to be treated like adults and allowed to have access to it so that they might consider

1259
their position before the time came for making their appeals.
I listened with interest and some sympathy to the point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby when he referred to the danger that the offices of the local authority and of the Inland Revenue might be flooded out with applicants, inquiries and so forth when the time comes. That is a risk, of course. Perhaps it was not right for me to refer to the feelings or views of the Board of Inland Revenue, but I have always regarded it as an expert body sitting rather aloof from the ordinary administrative machine of the Civil Service. If the House will allow me, I will express my own views rather than theirs in that regard, but it was a valid point that the hon. Member made.
It would be a good thing if the local authorities would take such steps as they can to make clear to the ratepayers when the lists are published what their position is, what their rights of appeal are and that those appeals cannot be made until April and, in order not to put an undue strain upon the administrative machinery, that we would all be grateful to them if they would not make premature inquiries or try to make appeals before the time comes when those appeals can be considered.
I believe that if it is explained to them that they will have an opportunity to make their appeal and that the right time to do so will be when they have heard what the rate poundage is—in other words, what they have to pay—the probability is that if that is put across to them either in the form of a leaflet when they come to inspect the list or in some other way, the majority of people will behave in a sensible and responsible manner.
I wish to join with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in expressing my thanks to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way in which they have helped us over this Bill. We have had admirable co-operation and constructive suggestions from both sides of the House. I wish particularly to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Sec-
1260
retary, who has taken such a large part in the piloting of this Bill. I also think it right to express appreciation to the officals of the Inland Revenue who have been labouring for many months in the preparation of the detailed work behind this Measure and, of course, to the Parliamentary counsel who drafted it. As hon. Members can see, it is by no means an easy matter to draft a Measure of this kind.
The Bill has, indeed, been a combined effort throughout all its stages. We have faced together the problems it has raised, and have together worked out not an ideal but a workable and, on the whole, fair solution. We have together considerably improved the Bill and I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contribution, especially those with considerable years of experience of local authority matters.
The hon. Member for Widnes inquired what principle had guided me in deciding which Amendments to accept. Strange as it may seem to the hon. Member, I have tried as far as possible to be guided by the wishes of the House.
Mr. Spearman: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that among the points he will consider is that about hotels and boarding houses?
Mr. Sandys indicated assent.
Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
Bill (deemed to have been read a Second Time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR HALLAM (SELECT COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893–1952, the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.—[Mr. Studholme.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: We ought to have an explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown about this Motion. The Attorney-General ought to give us a clear statement of the law in this respect. Those of us who are largely ignorant of the procedure were not satisfied with the very laconic explanation given by the Attorney-General last week. It seems that the Attorney-General has tasted blood. Last week an hon. Member's conduct was referred to the Committee, and now another hon. Member's case is to be submitted to it; but the cases are by no means parallel. We should at least have some attempt to explain, for the benefit of other hon. Members, exactly why such a Motion as this is placed upon the Order Paper.
I understand that the action is necessary under Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707. Exactly what does this mean? Ought there not to be some explanation of that Section for the benefit of hon. Members who are not acquainted with the Statute?
I should like the House to examine the case because it is by no means similar to that of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). That is the case of an unsuspecting, innocent Scottish businessman who came to London and fell among lawyers. The result is that his constituency has been deprived of his services and his whole conduct in respect of the transactions of the Scottish Slate Industries, Limited, is to be investigated by the Committee.
The present case is entirely different. It is no use the Law Officers saying that it is a similar case and shoving it on to the Select Committee to get rid of it.
1262
According to the Motion. we are asked to consider:
"That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893–1952, the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
One can understand an innocent Scottish businessman not knowing the law. But here is a chartered accountant, presumably appointed by the Treasury, whose conduct has obviously been open to some kind of suspicion. I wish to know, where has the Attorney-General been? This is not only ignorance of the law. Here, apparently, is a chartered accountant, an expert on accounts, who has committed a breach of the law which has, apparently, received the support of the Attorney-General.
What has the Attorney-General been doing to earn his money for the last few years? Apparently, it is only because he suddenly realised that a Scottish businessman had committed a breach of the law that he proceeded to carry out further investigations. Evidently he decided to go through the Directory of Directors and got as far as "G," and now he has gone as far as "J"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait until he gets to 'H.'"] Yes, I am glad he missed "H."
Apparently, we are not to get our information on this point from the Law Officers of the Crown. We are to be indebted to the Press, and also to the Lord Privy Seal. He made a statement yesterday which I think should be considered by the House. He said:
"I have to inform the House that it has come to notice that the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) has for some years held an appointment from the Treasury as an Approved Auditor…"
Both the Treasury and the Law Officers of the Crown appear to be involved in this matter. It is a far more serious affair than that of the innocent Scottish businessman, and I wish to know what the Treasury has been doing. The more the Lord Privy Seal speaks about this matter, the more mysterious it becomes. He said:
"This appointment I am now advised may be an office of profit under the Crown and

1263
the hon. Member may consequently have been incapable of election to this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 966.]
I should like to know how this first came to light. How is it suddenly discovered that the hon. Member for Hallam has to be reported to this Committee? Is it the work of the C.I.D., or M.I.5—or has he confessed?
Apparently there is a background to this. Precedents were quoted referring to the "five Labour cases in 1945." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but I submit that it is bad law that because some Labour Members perhaps committed an offence back in 1945 the Attorney-General should now justify this conduct on the ground of something that happened ten years ago. We are tired of all these excuses, because we cannot blame the Labour Government for neglecting to draw the attention of the House to this case in the last few years.
Then another hon. Member for a Sheffield constituency said:
"I understand that some time ago this whole question of offices of profit under the Crown and the Act which covered it was being examined by the Government in order that the whole situation could be cleared up to meet special modern circumstances. Are the Government continuing that examination? If so, is there any prospect of this intolerable situation being brought to an end?"
Thereupon, the Lord Privy Seal said:
"The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This matter is very complicated and has been studied by both the present Government and previous Administrations. He may be surprised how soon a Bill may come along on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 966–7.]
What does that mean? We know how satisfactory are the answers of the Leader of the House to questions on business. If a Bill is necessary on this subject, then perhaps the best way to speed up the matter would be not to refer it to the Select Committee. If the House said that it would not appoint a Select Committee, that would encourage the Government to alter the law, which is apparently very complicated.
What is the position that the Government take up in these matters? So long as the Government are content to set up a Select Committee when an offence of this sort takes place and to wait for that Committee to come along with some recommendations, the whole question of the law
1264
will remain obscure. Hon. Members of this House had better look out when the letters "L, M, N, O, P" are reached, because then they will all be examined by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I suggest that hon. Members should take this opportunity of saying that this proposed procedure is not a satisfactory way of condoning this breach of the law, and that the Government should take some positive action.
In default of getting any explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown, we have to fall back on the Press. I am indebted to the "Glasgow Herald" for giving the background of the obscurity and the complication of this law. It says:
"The relevant Act which has apparently been broken is the Succession to the Throne Act of 1707 and is nearly 250 years old. Government influence has spread into so many spheres since then that no one can now advise an intending Member of Parliament with any certainty whether or not an appointment or a directorship which he owns will be regarded as an office of profit under the Crown. The whole situation is full of traps for the innocent and the unwary."
Apparently two hon. Members have fallen into the trap.
The interesting thing is that the lawyers are apparently exempt from these provisions. How is it that the lawyers have managed to contract out, because, according to the "Glasgow Herald" a barrister can take a Government brief for a handsome fee without endangering his membership of the House. He may even be appointed a recorder.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the hon. Member that a Select Committee has already been appointed by this House and that he cannot go over that ground again. He can only, if he wishes, argue against the Instruction to the Committee which is contained in this Motion.
Mr. Hughes: My point is that I am not satisfied that this case should be sent to the Select Committee until I have an explanation from a Law Officer of the Crown. Without that explanation we are surely entitled to oppose the case going to this Committee. That is the position which I take up, and I suggest that if the House said tonight that it was not going to send this case to the Committee, which was set up for a different purpose, then the Government would receive an intimation that they would have to hurry

1265
up with the necessary legislation so as to make the position clear for other Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker: On the Motion relating to this Instruction, the hon. Member must confine himself to the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings).
Mr. Hughes: I now come to the case of the hon. Member for Hallam. This is a rather serious business for him. It is strange that a Member of the Opposition seems to be the only one to look after the hon. Member's interests in this House.
According to my information, the hon. Member for Hallam has incurred a penalty of £500 a day for sitting and voting whilst disqualified. It is not a question of the hon. Member being elected to the present Parliament; he has been here for years and years. I do not want to see him being made liable to penalties amounting to thousands and thousands of pounds.
I suggest that the "Glasgow Herald" is quite right in saying that the time has come for the Government to explain exactly what the position is, and, if necessary, to alter the law. According to the "Glasgow Herald" every Member of Parliament in this position is at the mercy of the common informer, and in 1913 a claim of £46,500 was lodged. Imagine the hon. Member for Hallam receiving a bill for £46,500. That would startle any chartered accountant.
I submit that this is a matter of public interest, and I can suggest ways in which the law should be altered. The hon. Member for Hallam would not be in this position today if, for example, he had had to put down a list of his directorships upon his nomination or ballot paper. I have said enough, however, to show that we should have an explanation from the Attorney-General, who is our guide upon these questions. I submit that we ought not to put these Motions upon the Order Paper time after time without having a clear indication from a Law Officer of the exact legal position. and why the Motion is necessary.
10.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): This is a procedural rather than a legal matter at this stage. It is
1266
not a laughing matter, although the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) seems to take it rather lightly. The position in this case, as in the previous one, is that it emerged that the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) might have been at risk of having sat improperly in this House, and once that position arises the time-honoured practice of the House is to set up a Committee, whereby our colleagues investigate the whole matter and report back to us.
A Select Committee was established in order to deal with the case of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) and, as the Committee was sitting when this other case emerged, the common sense procedure was to ask that Committee, as soon as it finished with the case of the hon. Member for Pollok, to proceed to consider that of the hon. Member for Hallam—for the reason, if for no other, that it is a matter of great urgency to clear hon. Members from a possible charge of improperly sitting in the House.
As the House knows, the procedure of setting up a Committee is bound to take a certain amount of time. We have to select the names, and a Motion has to be put upon the Order Paper and passed. A Committee has been sitting to deal with a parallel issue, and for that reason a Motion has been placed upon the Order Paper that it shall be an Instruction for the Committee to consider this case as well. It will then be for the House to consider the evidence and the conclusion of the Select Committee, when it reports. I am sure that when hon. Members realise which of our colleagues have accepted the burden of serving on the Committee the House as a whole will be satisfied with the fairness and justice of any decision to which it may come.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. Ede: This is a matter which comes before the House from time to time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on what should happen at this stage. It is within my knowledge that the Government of which I was a member devoted some time to preparing a Measure to bring before the House to deal with the question of eligibility for service in the House.
The Act under which this case is brought before us dates from a time when

1267
the composition of the House and the relationship of Members to the Crown and the Executive was very different from what it is today. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are giving attention to the need for legislation to bring this matter up to date so that we are acting in the second half of the twentieth century on lines applicable to today rather than to the first few years of the eighteenth century. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the late Lord Hemingford, when a Member of this House, presided over a committee which went very carefully into this matter and made a report on which, unfortunately, up to the present, no action has been taken.
Have the Government that matter in mind, so that hon. Members who may be at risk quite unwittingly can feel—and all of us can feel—that we are not in jeopardy? On the basis of most of the Rulings that I have heard the less that one can make out of the appointment the more likely is the appointment to be held to be an office of profit under the Crown. The anomalies are so astounding that we should do something, for the sake of the reputation of every Member, to try to bring the matter under an Act which deals with the circumstances of today and not with the circumstances of Queen Anne, who has been dead for a long time.
Mr. Crookshank: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman—if I may speak again with the leave of the House—who was perhaps not here when I made the original statement, when a supplementary question was put to me, and which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has just quoted from HANSARD, is this. I said then that this matter was complicated and had been under the consideration of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. It has since been considered by the Government during the last Parliament, and a Bill is very well advanced. I do not think it will be very long before it sees the light of day. Its object will be to state in very clear language what is and what is not an office of profit. It is on that that the whole problem turns. There are certain offices which are obviously offices of profit and there are others
1268
which only modern administration has brought within the ambit of risk. A great number of these have no salary attached to them and there is no profit in them in the sense of one having money in the pocket as a result of the appointment. They are only technically appointments. The right hon. Gentleman can look forward to seeing that Bill fairly soon.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: Many of the questions which have been raised are discussed in the "Glasgow Herald" today. This newspaper says that there are 145 Scottish Acts which can lead to disqualification of a Member of this House. Some of us have formed habits of life which make it certain that we hold no office under the Crown, for I understand that there is a Scottish Act in force which provides that no one can sit in the House if he is testing whisky. I do not know whether that Act has been repealed but that was a Scottish Act, and the "Glasgow Herald" said that under it an hon. Member could be disqualified.
Mr. Speaker: The House is not discussing disqualification from membership of the House, but whether the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) should be referred to the Select Committee which has already been appointed. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to that issue.
Mr. Bence: I was encouraged by the reference of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the need for clearing up the old Acts. I read of another Act under which there was disqualification if one had gone to church on two occasions and had missed praying for the Royal family. I appreciate that we are dealing with the case of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir R. Jennings), but many of us, when we read of these things, are concerned about them. I hope that the Attorney-General will take into account the possible existence of other Acts which may affect many of us who, in our simple ways of living, may have done something which could lead to disqualification.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: When was the attention of the Leader of the House first drawn to the case under discussion?
Mr. Crookshank: That is all matter that will come before the Select Committee.
Resolved,
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Elections that they do also consider whether the Election of Sir Roland Jennings as a Member of this House for Sheffield, Hallam, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was an Approved Auditor for Great Britain for the purposes of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. 1893–1952,
1270
the Friendly Societies Acts. 1896–1948, and the Industrial Insurance Acts, 1923–1948, appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.