Commons Sitting of 30 June 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at Seven o'clock.
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL.
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the internal value of the £ sterling at the latest convenient date; and how this compares with similar dates in 1952, 1953 and 1954 taking the £ at 20s. in October, 1951.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): It is estimated that the internal purchasing power of the £ was about 18s. 5d. in May, 1955, as compared with 20s. in October, 1951, and that the corresponding figures for May, 1952, 1953 and 1954 were 19s. 7d., 19s. 2d. and 19s. 1d. respectively. This estimate is based on the consumer price index between 1951 and 1954, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the Economic Secretary not appreciate how important it is for peace in the industrial world that the £ should be worth more and buy more? What are the Government doing to see that the £ is brought nearer to its 1951 value?
    Sir E. Boyle: On that subject I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the very
    476
    full speech made on 16th June by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate on the Address.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Haleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship caused by the continued delay in repayment of post-war credits ten years after the cessation of hostilities; and whether he is prepared to introduce measures for more speedy repayment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): My right hon. Friend is well aware of this problem and will review it again at the appropriate time. The hon. Member's suggestion would, of course, require legislation.
    Mr. Hale: Can the Financial Secretary tell us what the appropriate time is likely to be and when it is likely to arrive? It is a matter of great public concern. Unless we watch the debates continuously, we never know whether we are in an economic crisis or not, because the Chancellor varies so much on this subject.
    Mr. Brooke: This is a Budget matter, but I think that it is a little early for me to use the phrase: "I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement."
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the treatment of postwar credits by all Chancellors of the Exchequer since the end of the war has been economically sound and morally indefensible?
    Mr. Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when he takes further steps to effect the speedier repayment of post-war credits, he will favourably consider the needs of those who, on account of illness, have had to retire from active work considerably earlier than the present repayment age.
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the earlier payment of post-war credits in the cases of people suffering serious illness, before they reach the age of 65 years.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The difficulties of repaying post-war credits earlier on special hardship grounds have often been explained to the House, but my right

    477
    hon. Friend will again consider these and other suggestions concerning post-war credits at the appropriate time.

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have an income of over £2,000 per annum after paying Income Tax and Surtax; their combined annual net income above that figure; and how much per person per week this amount represents when spread over the remaining 23,852,000 total working population.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is provisionally estimated that in 1955–56 about 155,000 people will have net incomes of £2,000 or more after deduction of Income Tax and Surtax, and that their aggregate net incomes in excess of £2,000 will be about £110 million. This amount, if spread over the remainder of the total working population, is equivalent to about ls. 9d. per head per week.
    Mr. Osborne: So that there is not a great deal more that can be done by redistribution of the national income to increase the standard of the people of the country. Does not that confirm the statement made by Sir Stafford Cripps when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brooke: On the basis of the assumption that my hon. Friend has asked me to make, it is clear that there is not much available if spread over the whole of the population.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Financial Secretary say how much of the £5,000 million of capital profits made in the last eighteen months would be available to each individual if it was equally spread?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a long way from the Question on the Paper.

    Taxation of Profits and Income (Royal Commission's Recommendations)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce separate legislation, apart from the usual Finance Bill procedure, to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income on administration and evasion, and other matters having no direct effect upon the charge made upon the taxpayer.
    Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has taken note of the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Houghton: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will act on it? Cannot he express a little more appreciation of a perfectly helpful suggestion?
    Mr. Brooke: My reply was not intended to be unsympathetic, but the Commission's Report was published only three weeks ago, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a little time to think.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission's Report)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on the pay and conditions of civil servants.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I understand that the Royal Commission, though it cannot yet name a definite date, is hoping to be able to present its Report in the autumn.

    Income Tax Assessments (Schedule A)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent higher gross annual values for rating purposes will result in higher gross assessments for Income Tax, Schedule A; and if he will make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The new rating valuation will not automatically result in a revision of assessments for Income Tax, Schedule A. No such revision could be made without fresh legislation. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income made certain recommendations in its final Report, but my right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of the matter.

    Profit-sharing Schemes (Inland Revenue Advice)
    Mr. G. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Inland Revenue is prepared to offer to firms which introduce profit-sharing schemes; and what conditions will be laid down for firms to qualify for such assistance.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Department is prepared to advise on the taxation consequences of the firm's proposals, and the

    479
    advice is available to any firm that wishes to bring in a scheme to help its workers.
    Mr. Darling: So the Government will, in fact, give approval to schemes, even in cases where the employers are not observing industrial agreements; and the Treasury does not intend to lay down any conditions or definitions whatever in respect of these schemes?
    Mr. Brooke: I am simply speaking of the assistance that the Inland Revenue will be prepared to give, on my right hon. Friend's instructions, to people who ask them about the taxation implications of their schemes.

    Employees (Shareholdings)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider amending the Finance Act so that bonus shares given to workpeople are free of Income Tax in the same way as they are to shareholders, and so encourage schemes to make workers into shareholders.
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation which will permit employees to buy shares in their employer's firm below the current market price without their being liable to a tax assessment for the difference between the market price and the purchase price.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It would, I think, be unfair to single out for preferential treatment benefits of this kind from other forms of incentive payment, such as cash bonuses. Indeed, such a concession might discourage other valuable profit-sharing, co-partnership or incentive schemes.
    Mr. Osborne: But is not my right hon. Friend aware that, if bonuses are given to employees, they have to pay Income Tax on them? If we are really to make our workers shareholders in our concerns, that hindrance ought to be taken away. Will my right hon. Friend try to do something about it?
    Mr. Brooke: I have pointed out in my answer the difficulty that my hon. Friend's suggestion would raise in distinguishing these from other forms of incentive payments.
    Mr. Holt: Is not there discrimination here against employees as compared with
    480
    shareholders? Is the Minister aware of a recent announcement of a new issue by Bowaters, in which the rights of profit on the new £1 stock are 12s. 6d.? Why cannot he give the same kind of concession if Bowaters wishes to let its employees buy some of this new issue?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Member is apt to have overlooked the fact that a bonus issue of shares to shareholders tends to affect the value of the existing shares which those people hold.

    Old Age (Financial Provision)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to ensure that there is opportunity for suitable financial provision for old age, he will consider the establishment of a national contributory superannuation scheme, on a voluntary basis, and the removal of any obstacles inherent in the operations of the Board of Inland Revenue to assist in the establishment of genuine employee share-holding schemes.
    Mr. H. Brooke: There is already in existence a wide range of facilities for people desiring to make provision for their old age, and I doubt the need to supplement them in the way suggested.
    In answer to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 23rd June.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind—if he does not even like the suggestion put forward—that many of us are expecting a comprehensive scheme from the Government to deal with provisions for old age, a debate on the Phillips Report, and some action to be taken to implement the pledge in the party manifesto about the fixed income groups? When can we expect a statement of policy? That is all I want.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government will give careful attention to any concrete proposal which the hon. Lady makes, but is not for me to arrange the business of the House.
    Mr. Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider favourably recommending or suggesting to the Prime Minister that the hon. Lady should be put on the Front Bench? She would certainly liven it up somewhat.

    Sterling-Dollar Exchange Rates
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what factors he attributes the recent weakness in the sterling-dollar exchange rate.
    Sir E. Boyle: Day-to-day fluctuations in the sterling-dollar exchange rates are bound to occur, and often cannot be readily explained. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to change the assessment of our position, or of the fundamental strength of our economy, which he gave to the House on 16th June. It must, however, be borne in mind that sentiment plays an important part in the movement of the sterling-dollar rates; and that recent strikes, especially the dock strike, with their effect upon our exports have adversely affected sterling in the exchange markets.
    Mr. Jenkins: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that something more than day-to-day fluctuation has been going on, and that everybody has been commenting on the weakness of the official rate—not the transferable rate. Does the hon. Member think that this could be attributed to some extent to rumours of early convertibility, perhaps to a rate below that of 2 dollars 80 cents to the £?
    Sir E. Boyle: Pinning down rumours is extremely difficult, but I will say that there have been certain rumours recently about the possibility of some kind of devaluation; and I can only say quite categorically that there is no such intention.
    Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that persistent rumours of this kind on the Continent lately have done damage to the £? Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer give an assurance that, as long as the gold reserve is as low as it is at present, no drastic step in the direction of convertibility will be taken?
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has, in this House, before now laid down certain pre-conditions with regard to convertibility, and, so far as the Government are concerned, those conditions still stand quite firmly.

    Dollar Earnings (Shipping Industry)
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the dollar earnings in May and the first three weeks of June, 1954, earned by the shipping industry;
    482
    and the comparable figures for the same periods in 1955.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret that the information is not available.

    Motor Vehicle Excise Duties (Revenue)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be secured from motor-car taxation in 1955.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The yield from motor vehicle Excise duties for 1955–56 was put at £80 million in the Budget Financial Statement of 19th April last. Of this total, about one half would relate to private motor cars as distinct from goods and passenger vehicles.
    Captain Pilkington: In view of this huge figure, will the Minister try to see whether he cannot get a far greater proportion allocated to road improvement?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government, in the last Parliament, made a very favourable statement about their future road intentions.

    British Companies' Shares (U.S. Purchases)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates has been the effect of recent United States purchases of shares in British companies upon our dollar balances; and to what extent these purchases have been made out of security sterling.
    Sir E. Boyle: In my view the effect on our dollar balances has been negligible. Virtually all of the purchases have been made with security sterling.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware of the very large volume of these purchases recently, especially in certain important chemical firms, and does he disregard as of no importance the possibility of transfer of ownership, on a large scale, of shares in the British chemical industry? Does he prefer that to the idea of the public ownership of British industry?
    Sir E. Boyle: The electors, at the last Election, certainly showed no enthusiasm for the public ownership of the British chemical industry.

    Music and Drama Schools (Students)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the grants in aid to schools of music and drama, what steps are taken to ensure that the flow of students does not exceed the number who may reasonably expect to obtain professional employment.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The flow of students through these institutions is a matter which is properly left to the governing bodies.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in relation to the spending of public money, that too many students flitting about at Covent Garden are a detriment to our musical prestige and a deterrent to those people who, with proper training assistance, could do well for our musical attainments in this country? Is not this a matter in which he should be interested, even if he does not feel like it?
    Mr. Brooke: That is as may be, but I am certain that it would be wrong for the Government, in making financial grants to these institutions which operate under Royal Charter, to seek to interfere with the way in which they carry on their work.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he resists any attempt to interfere with the work done at Covent Garden and ensure that the work there is fully supported?
    Mr. Brooke: The Question actually relates to schools of music and drama.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fish Prices (Costings Investigation)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the costings investigations into the price of fish.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): The necessary consultations with the fish trade organisations are now in hand and the Authority has assured me that it intends completing this investigation this year. I have asked the Authority to give it priority.
    Mr. Dodds: As this investigation started as long ago as 1952, will the Minister explain how it is that the Government have always been so quick off the mark to help the interests of large firms, and why they always trail their feet when asked to give a fair deal to consumers?
    Mr. Amory: The Authority has made several investigations in the last year or two. This investigation, which it intends to carry out by a new sampling technique, covers the activities of wholesaling, fishmongering and fish frying. It is a complicated business, and I quite understand that it is bound to take some time.

    Tuberculosis Eradication, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken in the County of Gloucester to secure tubercular-free areas among cattle.
    Mr. Amory: My Department is encouraging farmers to join the voluntary Attested Herds Scheme, and I hope very much that farmers in Gloucestershire will press on with voluntary attestation in readiness for inclusion in a tuberculosis eradication area in due course.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what proportion of our herds are now tubercle-free?
    Mr. Amory: I am tempted to chance my arm, but I would rather the hon. Gentleman put down a Question to me about that in case I should not be accurate. I am, however, much encouraged by the general progress.

    Pigs (Progeny Testing)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he can now report in the progeny-testing and food conversion rate recording of pigs.
    Mr. Amory: My Department and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are engaged in negotiations for the acquisition of sites for five progeny-testing stations for boars. I hope that the first station will be in operation in about a year's time.
    Mr. Price: In view of the very great importance of this matter for the purpose of lowering the cost of production of pork and bacon and of production of pork and bacon and of meeting Danish competition, will the Minister regard it as a matter of great urgency, and hurry it on?
    Mr. Amory: Yes I will, because I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the project.

    Compulsorily Acquired Farms (Tenants' Compensation)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation is payable under his regulations to a tenant farmer who has to vacate his farm upon his land being compulsorily acquired.
    Mr. Amory: If land subject to an annual tenancy is compulsorily acquired, and immediate possession is wanted, the tenant is compensated not under agricultural legislation but under the Lands Clauses Acts. He is compensated, broadly, for his unexpired interest in the land, tenant-right and any damage he suffers.
    Mr. Snow: In the matter of compensation, where a local authority is concerned, as it usually is in these cases, is it still a fact that there is no obligation on the part of the local authority to advise the tenant farmer, and that the advice may go only to the landlord?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that matter because I have no direct responsibility for compulsory purchase under that heading.
    Commander Agnew: Apart from the compensation now given, are there not many cases in which farmers suffer great loss through having to sell all their stock while they are looking for another holding? Will my right hon. Friend say whether some amendment could be introduced in favour of more compensation being given to cover that?
    Mr. Amory: I am sure that attention will be given to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but I have no Departmental responsibility in these matters.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in how many cases land is compulsorily purchased in the manner suggested in the Question, without the tenant having been given any notice at all that it was likely to take place?
    Mr. Amory: I am sorry, but I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the information for which he asks.

    Rabbits
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take, now that the rabbit population is the lowest in living memory, to prevent an increase again in its numbers and to prevent the introduction of rabbits from abroad.
    Mr. Amory: It is most important that the present favourable position should be fully exploited, and I feel sure that all concerned will co-operate to this end. County agricultural executive committees are actively engaged in organising concerted action against surviving rabbits, and extensive rabbit clearance areas are being designated under the Pests Act. The importation of non-indigenous rabbits is prohibited by the Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order, 1954.
    Mr. Price: Can the Minister say whether any rabbits have been imported in spite of the order?
    Mr. Amory: I have no information that indigenous rabbits have been imported, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say how many clearance areas have already been designated, and whether the importation of non-indigenous rabbits should not be the business of the Secretary of State for "Non-Indigenous" Affairs?
    Mr. Amory: I will, if I may, confine my answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. So far,
    twenty-four Orders have been made designating rabbit clearance areas in eighteen counties covering over 1 million acres. A further number of Orders now under consideration also cover a very substantial area.
    Mr. de Freitas: Are these imports of indigenous rabbits what are known as invisible imports?
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the increasing number of young wild rabbits that are appearing in the countryside; and what estimate he has formed of the present numbers and distribution.
    Mr. Amory: Small numbers of young wild rabbits are appearing here and there in the south of England and in Wales. There are more in the north, where myxomatosis has not yet run its full course.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister say whether, if he judges from what has happened in other countries, he expects the whole rabbit population to return in due course? Will he also tell us whether, should the rabbits return, he thinks they will be immune from myxomatosis or not?
    Mr. Amory: I think it is too soon for us to make any forecasts about immunity, but I should like to repeat what I said earlier, that we really must make every possible use of the present opportunity, take no chances, and do everything we possibly can to keep down the number of rabbits.
    Mr. Philips Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened in France since the outbreak began? Have the rabbits returned there?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the lesson from the Continent is that we must be very vigilant, prosecute our efforts with very great intensity, and take no chances.
    Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is an offence to import into a locality already freed from rabbits a strain of rabbits which is claimed to be immune to myxomatosis? Should it not be made, on both agricultural and humane grounds, a criminal offence to reinfest the countryside with this pest?
    Mr. Amory: I have certain powers which I intend to exercise against anyone who introduces rabbits into an area which has been cleared.

    Artificial Insemination Centres (Bulls)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit, with the necessary veterinary safeguards, the importation of naturally polled Hereford, Shorthorn and Ayrshire bulls from North America for use at artificial insemination centres.
    Mr. Amory: I will certainly consider on its merits any specific proposal of this kind that may be put to me.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any approaches have been made to him by either the Scottish or the English Milk Marketing Boards, whose members have asked for these facilities?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot answer the question specifically, but I will look into the matter and let my hon. Friend have a reply.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is really necessary to import Ayrshire bulls from North America?
    Mr. Amory: I hesitate to lay down the law about anything that concerns Scotland.

    County Committees (Pest Officers)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the total number of employees in pest departments of county agricultural executive committees on 1st January, 1954, and 1st May, 1955.
    Mr. Amory: The dates nearest to those mentioned in the Question on which precise returns were made were 1st April, 1954, and 1st April, 1955, when the totals were 753 and 674 respectively.
    Mr. Crouch: Is the reduction in the number of pest officers due to the fact that, owing to myxomatosis, there are not so many rabbits to be killed as there used to be?
    Mr. Amory: It is due to a number of causes. We are anxious to ensure that there is no avoidable overlapping or duplication of work, and have tried to keep the staff down to the minimum. However, the work is being done, and, I am very glad to say, it is in general on a self-supporting basis.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the final analysis the reduction in the number of pest officers will be good for the country? Is not the rat population far too large? Are we to take it from the Minister's reply that the Government have lost sight of the effects of the millions of rats which exist?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir; very much the reverse. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that for that reason it would be very false economy to cut down the staff. We have, however, endeavoured to make the very best use of the manpower available.
    Mr. Philips Price: Are there not also other serious pests which require attention—[interruption.]—I mean four-legged pests, and not human pests? I refer particularly to the grey squirrel.

    Heneage Committee's Report
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Government have yet reached any conclusions on the Report of the Heneage Committee; and when legislation is likely to be introduced to give effect to the recommendations.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I will make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Williams: I do not want to hurry the right hon. Gentleman because I know that it is only five years since this Committee reported, but has he any idea when, perhaps, the Government will have made up their minds?
    Mr. Amory: I know that the right hon. Gentleman realises what a very complicated and very controversial question this is, and I think that even he found it impossible to reach a snap decision on this matter.
    Mr. Williams: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the complexity of the problem, may I ask if he is aware that there are thousands of tenants in small cottage properties paying many shillings a week for drainage rates when they are deriving no benefit at all under the existing drainage law?
    Mr. Amory: I know, and I also know that there are many what one might call intermediate water courses in this country which are at present unprovided for.

    Farmers (Supervision)
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of farmers under supervision for the latest date for which figures are available, and the figures on a comparable date in 1952.
    Mr. Amory: On 31st May, 1955, 432 farmers were under supervision for failing to comply with the rules of good husbandry. The comparable figure for 1952 is 1,518.
    Mr. Williams: Does not the very large diminution imply that county executive committees are not carrying out Part II of the Act in the way that we hoped they would?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think that the number of cases under supervision is really a fair criterion of the effectiveness of the administration of Part II of the Agriculture Act. I think, perhaps, that in some cases the reduced numbers may be a welcome indication of the improvement in efficiency which has taken place.
    Mr. Williams: While we all hope that the inference in the right hon. Gentleman's reply is the correct one, is it not possible that the large diminution is due to loss of confidence among county executive committees, as well as among individual farmers?
    Mr. Amory: I am very much encouraged by the amount of evidence there is as to the improvements that are now the result of persuasion and technical advice without going to the length of supervision.

    Forestry Commission (Timber Sales)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Forestry Commission has arranged with the Powell Duffryn Company Limited, South Wales, that that company should act as the Commission's agent in buying timber which it will market as pit props for the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement upon the recent deal made.
    Mr. Amory: The Commission has not entered into any arrangement of this sort with the company.
    Mr. Watkins: I am very glad to have that reply, and I hope that the "Western Mail" will take note of it.
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his policy regarding the sale direct to the National Coal Board or other nationalised undertakings of timber from the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Amory: It is for the Commission to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the sale of its timber. Its normal policy is to sell standing timber to merchants. Prepared produce is sold to undertakings such as the National Coal Board either through merchants or direct.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the sales department of the Forestry Commission in South Wales will still continue to sell timber to the National Coal Board, and will not be acting through interested agents?
    Mr. Amory: I tried to indicate that it is really a matter for the Forestry Commission itself to decide its precise methods of sale, but, as regards its prepared produce, it sells it either through merchants or direct, whichever it finds convenient.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a suggestion in South Wales that a monopoly has been given to this company. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep his eye on this matter?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think that there is any question of a monopoly.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Notification of Vacancies Order
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Labour if the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952, can now be withdrawn.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): No, Sir. For the reasons given in the reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) on 15th March last, it is still considered inexpedient to revoke this Order.
    Mr. Harris: Do the advantages of this Order outweigh the vast amount of clerical work that must necessarily be imposed upon industry in carrying out the terms of the Order?
    Sir W. Monckton: In the opinion of the Government, they do at present.

    Private Bus Companies (Salaried Staffs)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take in view of the threatened dispute among salaried staffs of the private bus companies.
    Sir W. Monckton: The only dispute affecting the salaried staffs of private omnibus companies which has been reported to me is one affecting members of the National and Local Government Officers Association employed by the Rhondda Transport Co. Ltd. This is at present receiving consideration by my Department in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Order, 1951.
    Mr. Moyle: Is it not an extraordinary thing that private bus companies, not merely the Rhondda Transport Company, but others as well—the British Electric Traction Company and other big private passenger undertakings—refuse to do for the salaried staffs what has long since been done by the local government services and local authorities generally, and, indeed, by the British Transport Commission, which is to agree to meet the unions concerned with salaried staffs in order to negotiate rates of pay and conditions of service, and have refused to set up any negotiating machinery at all?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the difficulties there have been in setting up negotiating machinery in this matter, but, in fact, the matter has now come to me in the form of a dispute, and it will be dealt with through the appropriate method.

    Retired Regular Officers (Resettlement)
    Mr. R. Bellasked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of retired officers from Her Majesty's Forces who have sought resettlement in civil life through his Department since the end of the war.
    Sir W. Monckton: I regret that this information is not available. A quarterly count is, however, made of the number of Regular officers who are unemployed and in need of resettlement, and who retired from the Services within two years

    493
    before their current period of unemployment began. Since October, 1950, when these counts were first made, the number so registered has declined fairly steadily from 1,972 to 985 in April, 1955, when the latest count was taken.
    Mr. Bell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what proportion of these people have found resettlement through his Department? Will he see what he can do to improve still further the service rendered by his Department for these men, who re-enter the civilian labour market at an age when it is difficult for them to find employment?
    Sir W. Monckton: We constantly try to improve the facilities we can give for resettling these officers, and are very anxious to do so. I cannot give the proportion without notice.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Merchant Seamen (Call-up)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that information supplied by the Merchant Navy Establishment Administration to his Department on who are, and who are not, engaged on service with the Merchant Navy, to enable him to decide as to their call-up, has not invariably been accurate and whether he will now take steps to obtain this information directly through his own officers.
    Sir W. Monckton: The Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen informs me if a man is, or has ceased to be, a merchant seaman, and I have no reason to question the accuracy of his information.
    Mr. Lee: is the Minister aware that his statement last Thursday showed that he is dependent for his information in this matter on a body over which he has no control whatever? is he further aware that when an enormously important principle of this kind is at stake it is that body which determines whether the law can or cannot be invoked? In these circumstances, does he not consider it essential that he should either say that he agrees with what that body has done or should set up some sort of agency over which he can have complete control on this very important principle?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have no reason to suppose that the information which I have had in the past has been wrong, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of inaccuracies, such as his Question suggests, I should be glad to hear about them.
    Mr. Lee: In his reply last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it quite clear that people were being removed from this pool whereas we all know that they are still really employed within the industry. They were being removed because of an industrial dispute. That removal took place within a few hours of the dispute beginning. In these circumstances, is it not true to say that the information to the effect that these people have, in fact, left the industry is grossly inaccurate?
    Sir W. Monckton: The information upon which I acted was that these men had left the industry. They had, in fact, left their ship and had broken the articles under which they served.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not unusual for a Government Department to act so promptly?
    Sir W. Monckton: That has not been my experience in my Department.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Labour how many young Southampton merchant seamen have been called by his Department to National Service while they have been engaged in strike action.
    Sir W. Monckton: None, Sir.
    Dr. King: That reply will give local satisfaction, but is the Minister aware that the exemption of Merchant Navy men from military service is a tribute to the vital nature of the work of those men in peace and war and that, while we deplore unofficial strikes, we deplore even more the use of military service as a punishment of merchant seamen for engaging in these strikes?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am no party to using military service as a punishment of any sort or kind. Deferment for merchant seamen is given because it would be absurd to call up men from the Merchant Service who will be wanted in that Service if war takes place.

    Apprentices (Deferment)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour the provisions of his regulations with regard to the call-up of trade apprentices whose call-up has been deferred and who cease work in an industrial dispute.
    Sir W. Monckton: The deferment of craft and trade apprentices who are following a period of training generally recognised by agreement or custom is subject to the apprentices making satisfactory progress. No cases have arisen where deferment has been withdrawn because an apprentice has been dismissed, or an adverse report received on his progress, as a result of a trade dispute. Apprentices are, of course, eventually required to do their National Service.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we are conversant with the fact that they will ultimately be required to do it, but the point which now arises is that if engineering employers follow the same technique as that followed by the Merchant Navy pool, such boys will be deemed to have permanently left the industry? In those circumstances, may we take it that they will be called to the Colours?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not accept the assumption that they would be taken to have left the industry. I must wait until an instance arises before I try to determine it.

    Agricultural Workers (Call-up Suspension)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour the dates during which the call-up of agricultural workers for the Forces will be suspended in order to help with the harvest.
    Sir W. Monckton: After consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have arranged for the call-up of agricultural workers to be suspended for a period of fourteen weeks during this year's harvest time. The dates will vary according to the needs of different areas and I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The suspension will not, however, operate in the few cases where there are
    496
    special reasons why call-up should no longer be delayed.
    Following is the table:Area and Period

    Wales-11th July to 15th October.

    Southern Region—25th July to 29th October.

    London and South Eastern and South Western Regions—1St August to 5th November.

    Northern and North Western Regions—8th August to 12th November.

    Scotland, Midland, North Midland and East and West Ridings Regions—15th August to 19th November.

    Eastern Region—22nd August to 26th November.

    Extended Deferment (Categories)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Labour what categories of workers, students and others are granted indefinite deferment from National Service.
    Sir W. Monckton: Extended deferment from National Service is granted in the national interest to men employed in certain coal mining occupations, to merchant seamen, to sea-going fishermen who are members of the Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), to regular whole-time agricultural workers born before 1933, to a comparatively small number of highly-qualified scientists and engineers engaged on urgent work of high priority or on fundamental research, to a small number of shale oil underground workers, and to a small number of police cadets.
    Such men are protected from call-up only while satisfactorily engaged on the work in question, and if they leave it before reaching the age of 26 they become available for call-up.
    Mr. Hynd: Have the Government considered inviting people who have the privilege of indefinite deferment from call-up to contribute something towards national defence, perhaps by doing a little spare time Civil Defence training?
    Sir W. Monckton: They are encouraged to do what they can in the way of Civil Defence training, and so forth, but it has not been thought right, at present. to make it a compulsory matter.

    Discharged National Service Men (Medical Condition)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the steps taken by his Department to keep track of all National Service men discharged on medical grounds to ensure that they are recalled if there has been sufficient recovery from the original physical disability.
    Sir W. Monckton: No such steps are taken, as, in accordance with the policy laid down during the war years by the then Minister of Labour, it has not been the practice to recall for further service those National Service men who are discharged on medical grounds.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would it not be reasonable to consider recalling men whose condition, they having been discharged on medical grounds and having had a subsequent operation, has been found to have improved? Is the Minister aware that the impression created in my mind and in the minds of many people is that there has been preferential treatment of a certain person? The only way to remove these doubts is to have this man medically re-examined after the operation which he is to have and, if his condition is found to have sufficiently improved, to recall him.
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not think that it would be very wise just because of one case—even if the hon. Gentleman's assumptions were accepted—to alter a practice which has stood for fifteen years.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister the details of the Government's proposals for the reform of the other House mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I am not at present in a position to go beyond the reference to this subject in the Gracious Speech.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that any constitutional changes contemplated in regard to the rights of another place to exclude Peers who do not attend very regularly are matters of interest to Parliament as a whole? Will he see that this House is kept informed of the Government's intentions in that respect?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is anything to which I need take exception in what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

  EMIGRATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Rentonasked the Prime Minister to which Minister Questions about the Government's general policy with regard to emigration from the United Kingdom should be addressed.
  The Prime Minister: Questions relating to emigration from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth and Empire countries should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, or my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, as the case may be.
  As in the past, Her Majesty's Government continue to take a close interest in migration matters. A large proportion of the emigration from the United Kingdom is to the independent countries of the Commonwealth. Her Majesty's Government will always be ready to consider with Commonwealth Governments any particular proposals which may seem mutually desirable.
  Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that the Government regard this matter as vital for the further development of the Commonwealth? Will he take a personal interest in it?
  The Prime Minister: I think there is agreement in all parts of the House as to the importance of this question to the Commonwealth. Though there may be different shades of view, it has always been my view that migration within the Commonwealth family strengthens that family rather than weakens it.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister arrange for this country to join the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration in Geneva, to which Commonwealth Governments belong and to which they attach great importance?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a different question from the one which I have answered.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, concerning the severe medical disability of an aircraftman whose civilian residence is in Forest Gate; and what action he proposes to take in connection with this matter.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have also studied an account of this airman's medical history while in the Royal Air Force. His disability is one that has often been treated successfully, and I am satisfied that it is right to keep him in the Service until it is known whether he responds to the treatment he is now being given. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air said on 22nd June, he will review the case if the disability does not respond within a reasonable time.
  Mr. Lewis: The Prime Minister has admitted in that reply—as has the Under-Secretary of State for Air—that this man is not fit, and that he—the Prime Minister —hopes that by experimentation the man may eventually be made fit for service. Is he aware that this man has already undergone great pain and suffering because of these experiments, and that the experts and medical authorities admit that this is making his condition worse? Will the Prime Minister at least see that the man is discharged, because he is not fit —as the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Air have admitted?
  The Prime Minister: This is a medical matter, and I do not profess to be an expert upon the details, but I have gone into it and I understand that there have been previous cases of this kind in which the man concerned has been cured whilst carrying out his National Service. I am told that since April this man has been under training as an instrument mechanic, which is a trade in respect of which the Royal Air Force is short of men, and in which the man can use his civilian skill. I am also informed that since then he has not had any sick leave.
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that where a man is in need of medical treatment, even if it means an operation, that treatment and operation will be carried out while
  500
  the man remains in the forces, and that if his condition then improves he will not be discharged?
  The Prime Minister: One must treat those cases as one is advised on medical grounds by one's medical advisers. If in one case it is thought that continuance of service will result in a deterioration of the man's condition there is reason for his discharge. If, on the other hand, it is thought that he can be treated, as others have been treated, there is no case for discharge.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the fact that both the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Prime Minister have been misinformed, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. Member means is, "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply" he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  JUNIOR MINISTERS (SALARIES)
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that legislation to increase the salaries of junior Ministers has the general approval of the House; and when he intends to introduce such legislation.
  The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have the question of junior Ministers' salaries before them, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that some junior Ministers offered strenuous opposition to the recent small increase awarded to other hon. Members of the House? Will he see that they do not get the benefit of any increase?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is the kind of basis upon which the House would like to determine the question.
  Mr. Bellenger: I approve the reconsideration or revision of junior Ministers' salaries, but will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this is only one part of the whole working of the House of Commons? Will he, therefore, keep in close touch with the leaders of the Opposition, through the usual channels, in

  501
  order to consider other matters which may be relevant, at the same time as he introduces legislation for junior Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to be committed beyond what I have said, which really does not commit me at all.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what further progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to assist the Government of Northern Ireland to reduce unemployment.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, gave a general review of this subject on 5th May. Since that date consultations have been proceeding between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Northern Ireland on the setting up of the Advisory Development Council which my right hon. and gallant Friend foreshadowed. The appointment of the chairman of this Council will, I hope, be announced in the near future. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have made it clear that they will be ready to support this initiative in whatever way seems most appropriate, not excluding the provision of such supplementary finance as may be needed.
  Mr. Jay: Can the Prime Minister say whether, in addition to this new body, the Board of Trade will continue in future to give assistance to the Northern Ireland Government in attacking this serious problem, as it has done in the past?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A number of steps have been taken, of which I could give details if the hon. Gentleman would like to put on the Order Paper a Question for Written Answer on this matter.
  Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the difficulties in the Northern Ireland economic situation is the very high cost of both industrial and domestic coal? Will he draw the attention of the Leader of the House to our desire to have a debate on the Report of the National Coal Board in the near future?

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER FACILITIES (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Accommodation, &c., of the Palace of Westminster that a House of Commons Commission should be set up to take over the powers at present exercised by the Commission for regulating the offices of the House of Commons and other matters concerning the amenities of the Palace.
  The Prime Minister: The Government are grateful for the careful thought which the Select Committee has given to these matters. They have reached the conclusion that what appear to have been the main objectives of the Committee could be substantially achieved in a simpler and speedier manner than by special legislation. In addition to the measures described to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) on 24th March and in order to establish a channel through which hon. Members can make their views known on proposals for improving facilities and services available in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster, the Government suggest, as an experiment for this Session, that a Select Committee be set up with the following terms of reference:
  "To advise Mr. Speaker on matters concerning the facilities, including accommodation, available to Members in and about the Palace of Westminster."
  My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, will move a Motion for the setting up of the Select Committee, after consultation through the usual channels.
  Mr. Stokes: While this would appear superficially to be a step in the right direction—having had no warning of this I have had no time to study it—will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Committee was unanimous and emphatic that the Commission set up under the Act of 1812 was completely inadequate and consisted only of Ministers and Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not saying anything against the Chair—and no back bencher. The recommendation of the Committee was that the Commission had outstayed its usefulness, as it had nothing to do with the amenities of

  503
  the House but only with salaries and offices. The demands of public service today in the House is such that what is really wanted is a practical committee of back benchers to advise Mr. Speaker on what is required in order to provide hon. Members with the best possible service.
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the view expressed. I think that the proposal which I have just made will, in fact, go a long way to meet that. I have suggested an experimental period—this Session—during which we could see whether a Select Committee set up by consultation through the usual channels would not provide, without legislation, the answer we need.
  Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently a House of Commons advertisement for an assistant-librarian stated, "Men only"? This gave great offence to the Civil Service. I want to know whether, if we are to have this Select Committee, which I think is quite a good idea, we can make representations on this matter to it? We are supposed to be a House of Commons where equality reigns.
  The Prime Minister: I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend's last assertion.
  Mr. Stokes: May I add to what I have said that I should not like the Prime Minister to think that we are not grateful for what he has done. All I do is to view with some suspicion whether it goes far enough.
  The Prime Minister: "For this relief much thanks."

  CROWN LANDS ORGANISATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister to make a statement on the organisation of Crown Lands.
  The Prime Minister: I have received the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, which was appointed to inquire into the organisation of Crown Lands, and I have arranged for the Report to be published as a White Paper. Copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
  One of the Committee's main recommendations is that a Board of Trustees
  504
  should be set up to manage Crown Lands. Her Majesty's Government believe that this recommendation will command general support and we have decided to accept it. This reorganisation cannot be carried fully into effect without legislation, but we hope to take certain preliminary steps in advance of legislation. Meanwhile, we will examine the other recommendations in the Report, some of which will also require legislation. A Bill will be presented in due course.
  Mr. Hurd: Now that a decision has been reached, may we be told a little about the trustees? Will they be people with knowledge of the land, and will they be expected to meet regularly and exercise fairly close supervision over the administration of Crown Lands?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, I have arranged for the Report to be published. Perhaps my hon. Friend would study it before he puts further questions.
  Mr. T. Williams: Can the Prime Minister say whether the suggested Board of Trustees will be subject to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State?
  The Prime Minister: That is an important point, and unless and until the matter is changed by legislation the responsibility remains as now.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Postal Voting
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose the amendment of existing legislation so as to allow electors to vote when they are on holiday, and not only when they are away on business.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 16th June to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key).
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Home Secretary do nothing to increase the number of people who may vote in an Election although they may have been thousands of miles from their constituency during the whole of the Election? How can a

    505
    fair choice be made between the candidates, if those people are allowed to vote when they have heard and seen nothing of the campaign?
    Major Lloyd-George: The question was whether we would make it easier for those on holiday to vote, and the answer which I gave on 16th June was that it would be very difficult to stop short of the line which would enable virtually anyone to vote by post. That is a step which we could not possibly take without consultation with all parties.
    Mr. Renton: In considering this matter further, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not overlook the desires of those workers who may be absent on holidays with pay?

    Motor Racing (Public Roads)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what conditions motor racing is permitted on the public roads of this country; and what steps are taken to ensure the safety of the public.
    Major Lloyd-George: Motor racing is not permitted on the public roads of this country.

    Commonwealth and Empire Immigrants
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the present unsatisfactory position whereby it is not known in this country how many migrants arrive from other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire; and if he will set up a fact-finding investigation into this problem.
    Major Lloyd-George: As the law stands there is no power to require British subjects arriving in the United Kingdom to provide the information necessary for the compilation of complete statistics. There is, however, available reasonably full information about those categories of British subjects who arrive in substantial parties with the intention of remaining here, and this information is being collated to facilitate further study of the general question by the Departments concerned.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a good deal
    506
    of unnecessary prejudice is being caused against immigrants, especially coloured immigrants, by exaggerated statements as to the numbers involved, and should we not inform ourselves very fully as to what is the size of this problem?
    Major Lloyd-George: In so far as it can be obtained without taking powers which would be very extensive indeed, the information is available. That information is now being collated and, if necessary, I can give my hon. Friend an idea of what it is. He will appreciate that to get complete statistics would mean extending to every British subject, including residents in the United Kingdom, the power which is allowed today only in the case of foreigners.

  POLICE

    Cadets
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the police recruits in England and Wales in 1956 are expected to be cadets; and what proportion of these are expected to be under the age of 16 years.
    Major Lloyd-George: I regret that I cannot forecast the number of constables, the total number of cadets, or the number of cadets under the age of 16 who are likely to be enrolled in England and Wales in 1956. No cadets under the age of 16 are enrolled in the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that earlier this year he said that there would be a considerable number of these men enrolled, that they would be exempt from military service and isolated from civil life at the age of 15 or 16 years? Does not this run counter to the whole idea of the police being civilians in uniform? Will he look at the Committee's Report again?
    Major Lloyd-George: No, I do not think that is so. I have answered the Question which I was asked, about the police forces in England and Wales. The Metropolitan Police does not enrol cadets under 16 years of age. The provincial police are not taking much advantage of the deferment which is allowed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH JULY—Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 5TH JULY—Committee stage of the County Courts Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH JULY—Report and Third Reading of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
THURSDAY, 7TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, the International Finance Corporation Bill, and the European Coal and Steel Community Bill; and Consideration of the Motions to approve the draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) Amendment Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.
FRIDAY, 8TH JULY—Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, and Commit. tee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will make a statement on the Report of the Monopolies Commission?
Mr. Crookshank: I could not give a date for the statement.
Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we shall want to discuss this important instalment of setting the people free from private enterprise?
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman says that only after a very careful perusal of the Report. In every quarter of the House hon. Members will want a limited time to study the Report. I agree that in due time this Report will have to come before the House.
Dame Irene Ward: Would it not be a good idea to have a debate on rabbits?
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to
508
take the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee?
Mr. Crookshank: We had better get the Second Reading first.
Mr. Morrison: Will the Leader of the House take into account that this Bill affects every citizen, not only his personal interests but his personal liberties in many respects? Is it not the kind of Bill which, prima facie, ought to be taken on the Floor of the House? It is largely non-party. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the points I have raised?
Mr. Crookshank: I will take anything which the right hon. Gentleman says into consideration, but we had better wait until we have had the Second Reading.
Mr. Bellenger: Can the Leader of the House tell us what is the Government's policy on the question of taking certain Bills on the Floor of the House and others in Standing Committee? Now that the Government have, 1 suppose, an adequate majority, would he have consultations with the Opposition as to which Bills are to be taken on the Floor and which can be taken in Standing Committee?
Mr. Stokes: Rabbits upstairs.
Mr. Gower: Can the Leader of the House say whether there will be an opportunity sometime this year to debate the latest Report of the Council for Wales?
Mr. Crookshank: My hon. Friend knows that in every Session there are a number of opportunities for discussing Welsh affairs. I am not certain whether by "this year" he means this calendar year or this Session. Anyhow, during the Session opportunities will arise.
Mr. Ross: Has the Leader of the House any information about future meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, with special reference to the restoration of certain lost days mentioned by the Prime Minister yesterday? [Laughter.] We do not think this is a laughing matter.
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the last to bring a laughing matter before the House. If he is asking whether there is to be an opportunity, before the House rises, to discuss Scottish affairs—which is, I think,

509
the gist of his question—that is a matter which is now being considered through the usual channels.
Sir D. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend try to provide time for a debate on the accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, none of which has ever been debated in the House since the Board was formed, fifteen years ago?
Mr. Crookshank: It sounds quite a good reason for not starting now. I did say just now that conversations were going on about an opportunity for discussing Scottish affairs. Whether this topic would fall within them I could not say.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to give an opportunity for a debate on the latest Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission, in view of the contents of that Report, which reflect the wrecking transport policy of the Government?
Mr. Crookshank: Normally, three days have been allocated for discussing the nationalised industries. It is up to the Opposition to decide which, and in what order they care to discuss them.
Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week he expressed sympathy with the idea of an early debate on coal, in view of the present grave position? Can he say when it will be possible to have a debate on the coal industry or upon the Report of the Coal Board?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I cannot, for the reason which I have just given in reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
Mr. Bellenger: Can the Leader of the House give me an answer to the question I asked him just now, namely, what procedure the Government propose to follow in this Parliament regarding Bills to be taken on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee? Are the Government to be the sole arbiters of the Bills taken on the Floor, or do they intend to pay any attention to the representations of Her Majesty's Opposition?
Mr. Crookshank: I should have thought that the procedure was well known in all quarters of the House. If
510
the Bill in question is to be kept on the Floor of the House, a Motion is made to that effect, and then there is a decision of the House. Otherwise, the Bill goes to Standing Committee. I do not know that any change in the procedure is contemplated during the lifetime of this Government, any different from any other.
Mr. H. Morrison: Under that procedure nobody knows what is to happen until it happens. [Laughter.] It is quite true, and hon. Members who laugh are betraying their ignorance. Is it not the case that directly a Second Reading is carried, either the Government move that it is referred to a Committee of the whole House or the Bill automatically goes to a Standing Committee without debate? Could not the right hon. Gentleman agree to take into account the views of the Opposition and enter into consultation on this largely non-party Bill—not all of it is non-party—possibly with some of his own hon. Friends? The Bill affects the citizens' rights.
Mr. Crookshank: I would not like to lay down any general line about this matter. There may be cases where it would be right and proper to have conversations, but it is not so always. I was not Leader of the Opposition in the days of the Socialist Government, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman took either us or the Liberal Party into consultation about what was to happen to his Bills.
Sir D. Robertson: Having regard to the fact that over £200 million of public money has been spent by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and that many crofters and farmers believe that they are being denied electricity which is their right, will not my right hon. Friend give my earlier question to him further consideration, because of its importance and urgency, before the House rises?
Mr. Crooksehank: All these matters are, of course, very important. I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend for wanting to raise a matter which very much affects his and other constituencies in the North, but it is part of the general problem of how to debate Scottish matters in this House. I said that I was negotiating, through the usual channels, to see what could be done this summer.
Mr. Collick: Will the Leader of the House consider giving further time for a debate on industrial relations? In support of that, may I say that during last Thursday's debate, which was supposed to be about the locomotive men's strike, not a single Member on these benches who had intimate knowledge of the dispute, was called. In those circumstances, and having regard to the large number of speakers on this side who did not succeed in getting into the debate, is it not desirable that further time should be given?
Mr. Crookshank: Any comment I might make on what the hon. Member has said might be construed as a reflection on the Chair, which I should not like to make in any form, but I would say that I am not certain that it would be very timely to have a debate on that matter just at present. We had a very good debate last week, but these are delicate matters which are not improved by being debated too frequently in this House.

EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN (INVITATION TO GREECE AND TURKEY)
The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have this morning made the following communication to the Greek and Turkish Governments, through Her Majesty's Representatives:
"Her Majesty's Government have been giving further consideration to the strategic and other problems affecting alike the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. They consider that the association of the three countries in that area based on mutual confidence is essential to their common interests.
Her Majesty's Government accordingly invite the Greek and Turkish Governments to send representatives to confer with them in London at an early date on political and defence questions which affect the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus."
Her Majesty's Government very much hope that the Greek and Turkish Governments will accept this invitation. The House will note that the terms of the invitation are not restricted; and, in fact, it is our intention that there should be no fixed agenda, and that the discussions should range widely over all the questions involved. The discussions will be without prior commitment by any party.
Mr. Attlee: In view of the disturbed conditions in Cyprus at present, I am sure that the announcement of these meetings will be welcomed. May I ask whether "an early date" will mean what we call early, that is to say, in a matter of weeks? Sometimes an early date means a matter of months.
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the date, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—who, with the Minister of Defence and the Colonial Secretary will represent us in these discussions, if, as we hope, they take place—is going to Strasbourg early next week. There, provided the response is favourable, he will have discussions with his Greek and Turkish colleagues immediately, to make arrangements. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a Geneva date which cannot be moved. That is the only consideration we have to bear in mind.
Mr. C. Davies: I am sure that everyone will welcome this announcement and will congratulate the Government on taking this step. The position in Cyprus is one which is not only causing anxiety here and in the Middle East, but can be doing us no good at all anywhere. Assuming, as we all hope, that those invitations will be accepted, may I ask the Prime Minister whether consultation will take place at the same time with the people of Cyprus, so that they can be sure that their interests are considered?
The Prime Minister: We have had to consider how best to handle this very difficult question. We thought that it would be wise to begin with the international aspect which has, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, repercussions a good deal wider than the island of Cyprus itself. That is why I have chosen these terms in the invitation —to show that the discussions will be wide in scope and I am sure that we will be wise to hold them
Mr. Braine: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that, pending these negotiations all necessary steps will be taken to maintain law and order in the island?
The Prime Minister: Pending and during. That must be so, because that is a Government responsibility which has to be discharged; but we hope, naturally, that the effect of this invitation, if it is accepted, will be salutary in all senses of the word.
Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that no settlement of the problem can have any meaning at all unless it takes into consideration the wishes of the people of the island? Would he, therefore, give further consideration to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the Cypriots be associated, at the outset, with negotiations that vitally affect their own future?
The Prime Minister: We have considered that aspect of the problem, and I and the Government are convinced that this is a better method of approach at the present time.
Mr. S. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman has added to his original statement—which many of us thought was intended to refer mainly to the Cyprus situation—the wider question of peace in the Eastern Mediterranean, has he considered whether, either at this conference or on some other occasion, a similar step might be taken in regard to Egypt, Jordan and Israel?
The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member knows that there have been attempts to bring about discussions of an informal character in that respect, but that is a different question from the one with which we are dealing. Perhaps he will be good enough to give me notice.
Mr. Lee: Will the Prime Minister say that decisions already announced on defence matters affecting Cyprus are not now to be considered irrevocable?
The Prime Minister: It is perfectly open to the representatives of the Governments concerned to raise any points they wish. It is also a fact that nobody enters this conference giving any commitment in advance. I think, myself, that that is the only way in which it will be possible to make any progress.
Mrs. Jeger: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the question of the future sovereignty of Cyprus will not be barred from these discussions?
The Prime Minister: I think that what I have said in my statement is clear and that I would be unwise to depart from it. I would rather leave it there.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consult the chairman of the National Coal Board about the measures to be taken by Her Majesty's Government to help the Board to increase the manpower in the pits.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance on a point of order arising out of Question No. 76? This Question was transferred to the Minister of Fuel and Power. Naturally, the wording was unchanged, but the transfer changed the substance and sense of the Question. I did not mean to ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he would consult the chairman of the Board, as I am sure he has done so, but whether the Prime Minister would consult him in view of the present grave coal emergency. That was because I thought it was the duty of the Prime Minister to take up the matter, and because I know from personal experience that the measures required to secure more manpower in the pits far surpass the responsibilities of the Minister of Fuel and Power and require action by many Government Departments. What I am now asking, Mr. Speaker, is whether this transfer is in order when it changes in an important way the sense of the Question which I tabled?
Mr. Speaker: I have frequently stated that I have no authority at all over the transference of Questions. It is entirely a matter for the Ministers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman has brought his point to the notice of the House; there is nothing more I can do about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
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.]

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th June.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 7.—(OTHER RELIEFS FROM RATES.)
3.50 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out subsection (1).
The Chairman: I think it would be convenient if, at the same time, we dealt with the next two Amendments, in page 11, in line 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).
Mr. Mitchison: These Amendments relate to the important subject of invalid chairs. The Bill as it stands exempts from rates the structures that are put up to accommodate invalid chairs, provided that they either belong to the Minister of Health or have been supplied by him. It does not exempt any more than that. Therefore, it does not exempt an invalid chair which the sufferer may himself have provided, and, while it exempts these structures, it does not exempt another kind of invalid accommodation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) referred on the Second Reading, namely, the kind of hut that is necessarily used, for instance, by tuberculous people.
Our first doubt is whether these matters ought to be dealt with at all by exemption from rating, and it is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment which would simply strike out subsection (1). But if we are to assume that these matters will be dealt with to some extent by exemption from rating, then we are perfectly clear that this exemption is too limited. There is really no logical reason whatever for exempting the homes —if I may use the word—of invalid chairs that have had some connection with a Government Department, and not exempting the homes of invalid chairs that have not been so connected.
It appears to be a matter of inter-Departmental comity or something of that sort that the Clause does not do
516
what I am sure the Committee would like to be done, namely, that if the housing of one invalid chair is exempted, the housing of all of them should be exempted. After all, the ground for exemption is the simple one that these are necessary things for invalids, and the huts that they are kept in are necessary for that purpose. This applies to any kind of invalid chair, whoever supplies it and whoever owns it.
Similarly, it is obviously illogical to exempt the home or the hut of an invalid chair and not to exempt the hut of the invalid, in the sense that it is something that he requires and has to have, no doubt, upon medical advice, for the proper treatment of the illness from which he may be suffering. I am sure that tuberculosis is the case that occurs to all of us. There is not much more to be said on these Amendments, and, having regard to what was said when we rose on Tuesday last, that we would do our best to complete the proceedings on this Bill by about 10 o'clock, I shall say no more.
Captain Christopher Soames: On Tuesday, when we were discussing a previous Clause, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government referred to charitable houses and said that the only reason why church halls had been exempted was that they were attached to churches which were already exempted and that, therefore, something new had not been brought into the Bill by exempting church halls. That was his argument in support of the point that village halls and various other charitable buildings should not be exempted from rates.
This question of the housing of invalid chairs is surely something new. We are all, no doubt, in agreement with the principle of this subsection. Nevertheless, this Amendment proposes something new. Various other facilities are given to the users of these invalid chairs, such as cheaper petrol, the cost of which is borne by the Government. Here is a burden which is being imposed on the local authority by the Government who say that these structures must be exempted. If the Government decide that these structures which house invalid chairs should be exempted from rates, I wonder whether it is not the duty of the central Government rather than of the local authorities

517
to find the money. I should appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider that matter.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should like, briefly, to support the Amendments. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be deflected by the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) from at least seeing that the structures for disabled persons' vehicles which are provided by the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Pensions shall be exempted from rates. It is quite clear that the purpose of the Clause will be warmly supported on this side.
We are all agreed that the provision of invalid chairs, whether mechanically propelled or otherwise, has been a great asset to the recipients. It has been thought to be unfortunate and unfair that if a structure were so provided, the valuation of the disabled person's hereditament would be increased and that he would, as a result, be paying higher rates. Whatever is said, I hope that there will not be any departure from that first principle of this Clause, because this is something which will ease the burden of those whose load we should try at every stage to relieve, particularly when they are war disabled.
The purpose of this and the other Amendments is to extend that provision to those whose sheds or structures have not been provided by the Government, but have been provided by others. Some of the disabled have made praiseworthy efforts and have built their own huts. Others have been provided by voluntary organisations like the British Legion and other bodies which do this kind of useful work. It would be anomalous and unfair to suggest that those who have been helped by other voluntary bodies or those who have helped themselves should have to pay additional rates because of the voluntary effort made.
I would have thought that there was nothing in the point of cost made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford. The total loss in rates to the local authorities from exempting these structures would be almost negligible. We are not dealing with anything in the nature of water undertakings or great corporations. These are merely a few structures in the areas of most local authorities. The loss
518
in rates would be practically nothing to them, but it means a great deal to anyone living on a pension. Consequently, any question of the introduction of a new rating principle here need not be taken seriously.
4.0 p.m.
The second Amendment relates to structures used wholly or mainly for housing invalid chairs. We should guard against the possibility of the rating officer considering, if other articles were kept in the structure, that the exemption could not apply. It is well known that in sheds of this sort disabled people may keep their lawn mower, a few tools, or a sack of coke. It would be unfortunate if the rating officer took the view that the law had to be rigidly applied, which he might well consider it his duty to do, and the consequence would be that the exemption intended by the Government would not be granted.
As the financial value of the concession is so small in relation to local authorities but would mean so much to people who are already severely handicapped, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: The suggestion by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that this is a matter which should be measured only in terms of the amount of money which local authorities stand to lose is wrong. In the provision of assistance to disabled people we have got ourselves into a frightfully confused position. Differing types of people suffering from precisely the same affliction receive differing degrees of assistance from different sources for no logical reason and according to no logical pattern.
We have decided that the war disabled shall receive assistance in the form of the provision of self-propelled vehicles, and that they shall be further assisted by the provision by the State of garages or hutments for the vehicles. We have also decided that they, and they alone, shall be given assistance in the use of the vehicles by the provision of petrol or a petrol allowance.
It is merely a logical extension of that kind of provision to this small and specially selected group of people for the State to meet whatever additional rating cost is involved in having a garage or

519
hut. It is entirely wrong that to enable the owner to enjoy the use of the vehicle we should distort our rating pattern and write a special subsection into a Bill of this kind when the purpose which can more properly be served by another more regularly used means. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take the subsection out of the Bill but will, at the same time, use his considerable forensic skill to persuade his right hon. Friend at the Treasury to make the necessary provision through the proper medium.
Sir Frederick Messer: I cannot understand the logic of the speech by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson).
Mr. F. Blackburn: There was none.
Sir F. Messer: There was no suggestion of equity in it at all. Taking the Bill as it stands without the Amendments, we are, with our eyes open, committing an injustice. This can probably be explained better by illustration than by any other method.
A person may be about to receive a mechanically propelled chair or vehicle from the Ministry. He knows it is coming, and he prepares for it and builds a shelter. Having built the shelter, he may then be told that his neighbour, who is in exactly the same position apart from the fact that the Ministry will provide the shelter, will not have to pay rates. It is those who provide their own shelters who have to pay rates. Can anybody defend that?
I have another illustration from my constituency. A woman who had poliomyelitis and had calliper splints on both legs was provided with a mechanically propelled vehicle. It was found that it would not go through the front entrance. It was stored somewhere else temporarily. A sympathetic neighbour who had some spare ground said, "I will take charge of the vehicle for you. When you want it, arrangements can be made to bring it to you. I will build a shed for it."
If that arrangement is to continue, the neighbour will be called upon to pay rates, whereas someone who has a vehicle which can be placed in a shelter at his own property will not have to pay rates. It means that my constituent will have
520
to pay a rent because the kind friend will be charged rates. That cannot be justified.
A principle is involved in these matters. We ought to have regard to the effect upon the individual and not to whether the shelter is provided by the Ministry or not. It is unjust to say that one person suffering from poliomyelitis shall have a shelter free from rates while another is compelled to pay rates. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that this provision gives rise to an injustice which need not exist, and the remedy will not cost very much.
Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to support the Amendment very strongly. I was surprised to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson). He usually has a very sympathetic approach towards these matters. I do not know why he has changed. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has asked him to do so. Many times we have found him in sympathy with the arguments that we were advancing on behalf of unfortunate people. The arguments advanced today are on behalf of a class of people who will never enjoy life to the full as we understand it.
Mr. K. Thompson: That is a gross distortion of anything that I said and of the general tenor of my remarks, the whole of which were aimed at securing that all those who are in need should get assistance but should get it from the proper source.
Mr. Brown: I hope we shall see that that is done. However, I gleaned from the hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I listened with rapt attention because of his sympathetic approach in days gone by, that he was arguing that our proposal was altering a principle of rating.
Mr. Thompson: It does.
Mr. Brown: Whether it does or not, if the principle is wrong we ought to put it right.
Mr. Thompson: It is wrong.
Mr. Brown: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman.
In the mining industry we have many injured miners who have to have mechanically propelled chairs. Special buildings have to be erected

521
for the vehicles because ordinary houses are not suitable. Many of the men are paralysed from the waist downwards and cannot enjoy life as we understand it today. A decision was made some time ago to do something for such men, and recently three bungalows for them, at a cost of £15,000, have been built on land adjoining the Miners' Convalescent Home, at Blackpool. We did not trouble to ask for help from welfare funds, and we made no application to charitable sources. The money to build the bungalows for these unfortunate men came from surplus canteen funds.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to our plea and accept the Amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said, the amount that will be lost to the rates will be infinitesimal. Who would deny this help to such people? Surely we can go a little further to make the lives of men and women in these circumstances a little easier than would otherwise be the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): This is a subject which attracts general sympathy. Before I express it in any tangible form, I wish to say a word about each of these three Amendments. I think that their effect, certainly that of the first two, may be a little different from the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The effect of the first Amendment, contrary to existing practice, would be to stop the relief from rates which is already granted to any structure belonging to the Ministry of Health. That concession followed a statement which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made three years ago. In effect, this Clause legalises the concession then made.
Mr. Mitchison: I hope I made perfectly clear that what we intended was that the same relief should be given by other means. This was not a question of the end, but of the means.
Mr. Deedes: I took the point made by the hon. and learned Member.
The second Amendment would have a much wider effect. It would extend
522
relief from rates to any structure used wholly or mainly for
"accommodation of an invalid chair or any other vehicle…constructed or adapted for use by invalids or disabled persons."
The difficulty is that it would cover the ordinary garage attached to a house if that were used wholly or mainly for an invalid chair or even by a motor car with controls attached for a disabled person to drive. The difficulty is that the garage would be assessed for ordinary purposes while one of the effects would be that if it were used wholly or mainly to accommodate an invalid chair, the assessment of the property would have to be varied. Probably there would have to be more than one inspection.
The third Amendment would have two effects. The point I have made about the garage would apply as it would extend relief to structures constructed or adapted for use by invalids and disabled persons. I imagine that the intention is, as hon. Members have indicated, to cover any small structure used by one person—such as a garden hut used by a tuberculous person or a workshop used by a blind person. Normally, those structures have been disregarded by local authorities in the past. It is a good thing to see what has happened in the past.
There is a difficulty about the drafting of this Amendment. As it stands, it could include buildings of some value—for instance, a bungalow with a specially wide doorway for the entry and exit of an invalid carriage. We should like to have another look at the drafting of the Amendment. I think it would be meeting the generally expressed wish of the Committee if I said that we accept in principle the idea that this concession should be extended to the hut for the tuberculous person and similar structures. We shall try to produce something on those lines on the Report stage if the hon. and learned Member will accept the fact that, as worded, the Amendment might lead to difficulties.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I am very glad indeed to hear that from the Parliamentary Secretary. I wonder whether he can give us a little more information on the question of the hut used for an invalid chair unconnected with a Ministry. That appears to be in exactly the same category. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman

523
would take that into account when reconsidering the matter.
I am sure that in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said about invalid huts, he would be willing, if he can, to extend the chair concession to other chairs than Ministry chairs. If he can tell us that we shall welcome it very warmly, as to some extent we already welcome the statement he has made.
Mr. T. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to bring something forward on the Report stage, will he also take into consideration the dimensions of the structure? Recently, I had a case in which a garage was housing a mechanical chair and, because it was six inches longer than it ought to have been, rates had to be paid on it.
Mr. Deedes: I am sure that we want to avoid irritating anomalies of that sort, and I will try to do so. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I will certainly bear in mind what he has said, and have another look at the problem.
Mr. Mitchison: In the light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, after "1936" to insert:
"and no sewage works."
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered this Amendment with the five Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member, all in page 11.
Mr. Skeffington: On a point of order. Is it not proposed to call the Amendments to lines 9 and 11 in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet)?
The Temporary Chairman: Those Amendments have not been selected.
Mr. Ness Edwards: It is with some trepidation that I move this Amendment, which it is quite convenient to discuss with the Amendments you have indicated, Mr. Hynd. The purpose of the Amendment is to freeze the present
524
valuation of disposal works, outfall works and sewerage farms and, at the same time, to preserve for those authorities now getting substantial rate income from the disposal works in their areas the income they now get.
I have been out of local authority work for twenty years, and, in discussing this Amendment, I am re-entering a field which I used to know very well, but about which, today, I know comparatively little. Rating authorities in South Wales, in particular, are very much alarmed at the consequences of the proposal with which we are dealing. I know that we shall be divided in our views about the Amendment according to whether we represent losing authorities or gaining authorities.
There is another rough division, that the more inland the authority the more it will lose. Authorities on the seaboard and estuaries will gain, and gain substantially. In these Amendments we have sought neither to confer an advantage upon seaboard authorities nor to impose an undue hardship on inland authorities.
Before I deal with that side of it, let us look at subsection (3), with which we are dealing. It states:
"The last preceding subsection shall have effect in relation to any manhole, ventilating shaft, pumping station, pump or other accessory belonging to a sewer as it has effect in relation to the sewer."
I do not quite know what the Parliamentary Secretary will have to say in explaining this distinction between the various accessories of a sewer. Is the disposal works an accessory of a sewer? Is the sewerage farm an accessory, or is the sewer itself an accessory to the sewerage farm or disposal works? It appears from subsection (3) that a pumping station which is along the line of the sewer is excluded from rating but that a pumping station within the boundary of the disposal works would be rated.
The same thing applies to the sewage tanks. Tanks that are along the line of the sewer, apparently, will be excluded, but tanks inside the sewage disposal works will be included. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether the tank at the end of the sewer line before it goes into the sea is to be regarded as something that must be rated. Is it included or excluded for the purpose of

525
rates? What are the reasons for these seemingly artificial divisions into rateable and non-rateable categories? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say more about it.
As I have said, the rating authorities of Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire, especially those in the upper reaches of the valleys, are full of alarm at what they are hearing about the operation of the Bill. They have their contacts with the Inland Revenue valuers and they have been hearing about the proposed new valuations. It is said by the rating officer of Caerphilly that the rates on his authority's sewerage works will be doubled. That authority already pays over 30s. in the £ in rates. Taking a much more inland authority, I am told that in Hereford the effect of this new proposal is to increase the present 2d. rate for sewerage to 1s. 9d.
Those examples relate to works within an authority's own area. Let me now deal with authorities whose disposal works are in the area of a neighbouring authority. In doing so, the consequences of the Bill are revealed in a much more startling way. Take the case of Maesteg, which is in the upper reaches of one of the valleys of South Wales. Because of the topography, Maesteg cannot dispose of its sewage within its own area. It has to go down to the flat country and the lower reaches of the valley to locate its works, which, at the moment, are situated in the area of the Penybont Rural District Council.
Maesteg now pays £345 in rates, but has been told that under the new valuation it will pay £6,440. It now pays the equivalent of a 1d. rate for sewerage. The new method of valuation will cost a 1s. 8d. rate, and the Penybont Rural District Council, without any of the responsibilities of the Maesteg Urban District Council, will have relief in rates to the extent of 11d. Maesteg already pays 28s. 8d. in the £ and the new valuation upon its disposal works in the Penybont area will push up its rates to 30s. 4d. in the £. That is one of the consequences of the Bill and one of the consequences we want to avoid.
Let me take another example. The Merthyr, Aberdare, Mountain Ash and Gelligaer Urban District Councils have a joint scheme. Because of the new factories and houses, their scheme has to
526
be extended. Their disposal works are located in the Mountain Ash area; because of the terrain, there is no other suitable location. These authorities now have to plan for a new disposal works to treat all the sewage and they have drafted a plan involving a cost of £1 million. At present, their works are nominally rated at £100 and they pay rates on this basis.
What is to be the effect of the new method of valuation? Is it to be the figure of 4 per cent. of capital cost that the Inland Revenue is now taking as the new guide? The position will be that Merthyr must pay an additional 1s. 11d. in the £ in its sewerage rate. Aberdare will have to pay an extra 2s., Mountain Ash an extra 11d., and Gelligaer an increase of 3d. Each one of these authorities already has a rate poundage of over 30s. in the £. One can see what will be the financial consequences of bringing these works into the list for valuation.
Mountain Ash, of course, will be a benefiting authority. It will have an increased rateable value that will reduce its rate to 22s. 3d., while the rates of all the others will go up to between 32s. and 33s. The further inland we go, the worse the position will be.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what will be the effect on the Western Valley and Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage Boards, both of them having disposal works and having within the very near future to face a complete new sewerage system because of the tremendous amount of house and factory building that has taken place in South Wales? This is causing the greatest apprehension among local authorities in South Wales.
It may be said, and with some justice, that the method of valuing these disposal works in South Wales and in Wales generally has not been on the same basis as the methods elsewhere. It may be said that they have been under-assessed, and there may be truth in that. There may be a case for having an equitable assessment throughout the country, but if we are to have an equitable method of assessment, for goodness' sake do not let us bankrupt the authorities in the process and make it impossible for them to carry on.
I have had a long letter from the constituency represented by my hon. Friend

527
the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). It is from the Clerk of the Erith Corporation, who puts the contrary view. My hon. Friend will probably say—I do not complain—that we must put with all the stench and inconvenience and the loss of vast areas of rateable land in the constituency which he represents. But is not the disposal of London's sewage in a special category? If so, should not all the other disposal works on lonely parts of the coast, in areas where no social disturbance is caused, be levied in the same way as the disposal works around the Thames? Of course, I quite see the argument, but the Minister should reconsider the matter, and have regard to the consequences. To put an additional 2s. rate upon an authority with a rate of 32s. in the £ is simply to bankrupt that authority.
4.30 p.m.
In my Amendment in page 11, line 17, there is a proposal that compensation should be paid to any other local authority for any loss of rates because of such exemption as I am seeking, and the amount suggested is that which generally those authorities are now getting. That proposal is one safeguard to those authorities until the entire problem can be looked at again. It should be reconsidered, and special treatment ought to be given to those large-scale disposal works serving vast populations. They should be treated differently from the small, isolated disposal works, which exist all over the country.
Mr. Deedes: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has made a very persuasive case on behalf of the local authorities for which he has been speaking, and I wish I could feel able to go any way towards meeting him. He put his finger on the difficulty when he said that the alarm felt over the new assessments was due to the fact that those sewage disposal works have, in the past, been assessed rather differently from those elsewhere, and that, in consequence, reassessment by the Inland Revenue will produce a very different rate from what has been known under the previous system.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is one of the consequences of revaluation, and that it will
528
be felt by many others besides those who are responsible for sewage disposal works. Where there has been considerable underassessment there will be a considerable levelling up under the new scheme of things. We should place ourselves in some difficulty if we were to make an exception of hereditaments which will bear a very large increase because they have been under-assessed.
The effect of these Amendments is to exempt sewage disposal works and the accessories in the line of a sewer, the manholes, ventilating plants, and pumping stations. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the tanks at the ends of sewer lines, and whether they were included or whether they were excluded. Normally, they would not be rateable, although there are certain cases where they may be rateable. Although sewers and their accessories have legally been liable for rating in the past they have largely been disregarded by the rating authorities.
One reason for that may have been that they are exceedingly difficult to value. On the other hand, sewage disposal works have usually been rated. Moreover, their assessments have often been substantial, as has the income accruing from them. The work of valuing them presents no great difficulty. There is this difference between a sewer and a sewage disposal works, and that may have been the reason why this custom has grown up. The difference is that the one is easy to value, the other is not. The assessment of sewers would, I am advised, entail an enormous amount of work and a very small addition to rateable value. I would stress that we are only continuing a system which has prevailed in the past for sound practical reasons, and I cannot accept that there is the same justification for exempting sewage disposal works as there is for exempting sewers.
Let me say a word about that one of this group of Amendments which would seek to provide that sewerage authorities should pay compensation to any other local authorities losing rates because of the exemption of the sewage disposal works. There is an admission in that Amendment that the Amendment would cause a substantial change in the present position. That is implicit in that Amendment. Its effect, would be to freeze permanently rate payments in respect of sewage disposal to the amount payable

529
in the last year before revaluation. If they have been over-assessed or under-assessed in the past, that anomaly would be perpetuated, and new works would pay nothing at all. I think I am right in saying that they would not. Moreover, the sewerage authorities would be sheltered from any change in the level of value or any change in the rate poundage.
Mr. Ness Edwards: What we were suggesting was if the Bill were amended in the way we proposed to amend it, the Government would have to look at the problem anew and bring forward fresh legislation.
Mr. Deedes: I am dealing only with that Amendment.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I appreciate that.
Mr. Deedes: The Amendment to line 17 would necessarily perpetuate anomalies and introduce new ones. Therefore, I regret that we are unable to find justification for exempting sewage disposal works and cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved.
Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Cray-ford): While we in Erith sympathise very much with the case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has put forward, and hope that something can be done to meet it, we feel that we should oppose the proposals in these Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary has given certain reasons why they should be opposed, but we feel there is an even bigger reason, which is that they would mean for West Ham and Erith a very big loss.
My right hon. Friend's proposed Amendment in page 11, line 17, suggests the paying of compensation
"…to any other local authority for any loss of rate income arising from such exemption from rates of sewage works such compensation to be an annual amount equal to the amount payable for rates in respect of such works for the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, the financial year preceding the date on which the new valuation list comes into force…."
I believe that my right hon. Friend has not realised the exact position, for if he had he would not have been so happy about those words.
Erith, for eighty years, has been the place of the southern outfall for London, and its sewerage works and farm take
530
up a very large area. As my right hon. Friend said, in a built-up area they are a real nuisance. The nuisance has to be experienced to be understood. In hot weather, weather like this, the gases are a great nuisance to the people who live nearby. Indeed, the gases from the effluent turn light-coloured new paint into ghastly shades.
My right hon. Friend mentions a date in 1956. I would draw the attention (4 the Committee to the proposals for extending these works in the Erith district, which will involve an expenditure of several million pounds. The work is not to be completed until 1965. At present, by agreement, there is an annual rateable value of £32,500. It is hoped that these developments will take place in the next few years, and, in fact, the Erith Borough Council is planning its development on the additional money which it is likely to get in the normal way from the extensions which are to take place.
I must, therefore, oppose the recommendations that are made, and express the hope that the Minister will be able to evolve a system that will give some measure of justice to smaller local authorities.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Apparently, there is not a single voice in the Committee raised in support of this Amendment. It is no consolation for South Wales, which is to receive the rough edge of this Bill. Neither is it any consolation to South Wales that Erith will get a nice bit of jam. South Wales will have a very bad time as a result of this Bill. However, in view of the fact that I have received no support, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, after "1936" to insert:
"being a sewer not constructed above the level of or on the ground."
I ventured to draw attention to this matter during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, and, in reply, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into the matter but did not say that it would be very easy to find a solution for it. I trust that, having looked into the question of sewer derating, he

531
has succeeded in finding a solution. I shall await with interest what he has to say.
The point of the Amendment is this. Clause 7 (2) derates sewers, and that may be quite reasonable for underground sewers. Unfortunately, I submit, it is quite unreasonable in respect of the enormous, monstrous outfall over-ground sewers which run for miles, as part of the northern outfall sewer runs, through the whole breadth of my constituency, and also a number of adjoining divisions as well, such as Poplar, East Ham, and Barking, each of whose representatives will no doubt eloquently support this Amendment.
The northern outfall sewer is now the property of the London County Council, and it is a vital part of the system for the drainage of the Metropolitan area. About a dozen local authorities make use of it. As far as West Ham is concerned, I understand that sewage is taken to the Abbey Mills pumping station, and there lifted from a lower to a higher level for the purpose of being conveyed through the northern outfall sewer to the Barking outfall works. Then it is discharged into the Thames, we trust, after appropriate chemical processes have been applied to it to prevent the general pollution of the whole river.
The proposal in the Bill is to remove first the outfall sewer and then the pumping station from liability for rating—the proposal to Berate the pumping station is the subject of a later Amendment. So far as my constituency interest is concerned—and I confess that this is essentially a constituency matter, although it has wider implications as well—the out-fall sewer occupies about 31 acres of valuable land in West Ham. The rating of this land and the sewer and pumping station now brings in revenue to West Ham of £46,000 a year, which for West Ham is a lot of money. It is modest enough, goodness knows, when compared with the disadvantage of having to house this thing in my constituency, for this is no ordinary sewer.
It has monstrous, enormous proportions; indeed, I am not sure that it is not the biggest overground sewer in the
532
world. Of the area which it occupies it might indeed be said:
"Sanitas, sanitatum, omnia Sanitas"
which, being translated, means "Sanitation to crown all sanitations, all is sanitation." Through West Ham, it is 21 feet above the ground, it towers over adjoining houses, and it is, indeed, a most remarkable liability for West Ham to have to carry it.
It was the subject of judicial consideration in another place in 1893, in a case which was brought by that empire builder the London County Council for the exclusion of the sewer from rating. In dealing with the matter, the Lord Chancellor made certain observations which, I submit, are equally applicable today:
"So far, I have referred to the case of sewers under land the surface of which was occupied by other persons, and in ordinary course assessed to the poor-rate. But the particular case of the outfall sewer in West Ham is an exceptional one; that sewer is not constructed underground. Thirty-seven acres of land were purchased by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of the portion of the outfall sewer….The sewer is carried in an earthen and concrete embankment erected upon the land at an average height of twenty-one feet above the general surface of the land adjoining. The work thus constructed, therefore, differed from the mere creation of a sewer below the surface of land which continued afterwards, as before, liable to assessment, but was an adaptation, to the purposes of the board, of land already occupied and rated. I confess I see the utmost difficulty in distinguishing such an erection as this upon the surface of land from any other erection specially suitable for the purposes of a particular occupier, but which might render it of less value for occupation by other persons not requiring it for that special purpose."
That quotation is to be found in the Law Reports, 1893, Appeal Cases, in pages 599 and 600.
I call in aid those observations from the Lord Chancellor because exactly the same considerations apply today. If this Clause goes through as it now stands, West Ham will be deprived of this very substantial rateable value on these acres, the present rateable value of which is £36,170. Yet it will have to continue to house this thing. I do not suppose that there will be a rush from any other area to house this sewer. One cannot see any great clamour from nearby Woodford for the privilege of having this outfall sewer in that locality.
There is no proposal in the Bill to compensate West Ham for this loss either

533
by requiring the L.C.C. to compensate them or by offering an Exchequer contribution equivalent to the amount of the loss. In any event, my experience of Exchequer contributions is that they amount to about half the loss which is usually suffered. It seems to me to be rather hard to offer to a community which is already so impoverished a proposal which will mean a loss to the rates of 9d. in the £, and it is something which I must strenuously oppose.
It would be quite simple to make an exception in this case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in making his special case, conceded the distinction between usual sewers and the outfall sewers which are fed into the Thames, and I think it should be quite easy, and should be no great problem for those responsible for drafting the Bill, to make an exception in favour of the outfall sewer.
The proposal to clarify the law of rating by establishing this uniform rule of exempting all sewers from rates has a certain logical attractiveness. I readily concede that, but it is a logical attractiveness at the expense of an already hard-hit community. By reason of the carefully chosen words used in the definition proposed in the Amendment, the general pattern of the law of rating would not be embarrassed if the Amendment is accepted. Therefore, I hope that I shall carry the Parliamentary Secretary with me on this Amendment.
Mr. Deedes: The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) said that this gigantic sewer which we discussed on Second Reading had a long history. He was quite right in saying that it was the subject of a case in 1893—London County Council versus Erith and West Ham. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member correctly quoted the judgment given in that case, but I have to tell him that there was in this long story a second case in the year 1911, with which, no doubt, he is familiar.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Yes.
Mr. Deedes: It was the case of West Kent Main Sewerage Board v. Dartford Union. One of the conclusions from that case, which was heard in the House of Lords, was that the House was bound to put the rating of sewers on the logical
534
basis on which the law had been put in respect of other property. The judgment said:
"—the old and vicious principles"—
of exempting certain sewers from rate-ability—
"are unworkable and must in their practical application multiply anomalies and perpetuate injustice."
I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not mind my recalling the verdict in that case as well as in the case to which he referred.
Quite apart from the desire to put the rating of sewers on a uniform basis, for which there are obviously good grounds, there are other considerations which have to be borne in mind and which make it not difficult but I am afraid impossible to meet the object of the Amendment.
One other consideration at least is that, generally speaking, sewerage systems are designed so far as possible so that the sewage is carried by gravity to the outfall. In undulating country the most suitable line, therefore, is often to take it out of the ground.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to intervene a little late on the point, but I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision of the House of Lords in the 1911 case was that all sewers should be rateable. Now he is proposing in the Bill to do the exact opposite and to enact that no sewer should be rateable at all. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the 1911 decision, which I can now cite as a second case in support of my proposition.
Mr. Deedes: The verdict came down heavily in favour of uniformity and I have said in reply to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly that the rating of all sewers, even to meet the special requirements of the right hon. Gentleman, is not a practical proposition. The difficulty occurs where the sewer goes through undulating country and therefore, for engineering reasons, has to appear above ground. The local authority which feels that rates ought to be paid in respect of that part of the sewer which appears above the surface might be tempted to carry the line less in accordance with engineering principles than in accordance with the effect which it would have on the rates.

535
There is another possibility—that local authorities might be tempted to avoid other people's territories. Instead of making a natural line for the sewer they might endeavour to push it mainly through their own territory.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: A 21-foot high sewer?
Mr. Deedes: The effect of the Amendment might well be somewhat similar to the effect on domestic architecture of the window tax and might lead to a rather artificial situation.
I am sorry that we cannot meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. I appreciate his problem and I realise that the local authority concerned will suffer some financial loss as a result of the proposal in the Bill. At the same time, that local authority will not be alone in suffering some alterations which inevitably result from revaluation.
Sir Ian Horobin: Would my hon. Friend say something on one point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)? No one who does not know this structure can appreciate its extent. It is completely a case by itself and worthy of special treatment. Would my hon. Friend say something about the grossly unfair position which will arise as between the local authorities of West Ham, East Ham and Barking, which house this structure, and the London County Council which will be let off?
Cannot my hon. Friend say something about what he proposes to do to enable some kind of equity to be arrived at by way of compensation between the authorities concerned? I believe that if powers were taken, with the magnanimity and common sense of the London County Council, it might be possible to arrive at something corresponding to the present situation.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: I want to say how very disappointed I am at the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. The honour and glory of carrying the sewage of North London to the River Thames is shared to a considerable extent by Barking, the borough I have the honour to represent. Whereas, in other places, there is a road on the top of this enormous structure, the road ends in
536
Barking and, therefore, the structure is of no advantage to us whatever.
This structure is like an enormous Grim's dyke which we see in country districts, but in this case the Grim is not the devil but London County Council. I have seen the structure only from the outside, but I am told that it contains five tunnels which are as big as the tunnels which carry the tube trains in London. These tunnels run through the length of the structure and deliver the sewage to the sewerage works close to the River Thames.
The iniquity of the proposal in the Bill is well demonstrated in the Barking area because there we have a section of this northern outfall sewer with a rateable value of £4,750 and also part of the sewage disposal works of London County Council, rated at £4,500. Why, in the name of misfortune, should it be proposed to derate the one without the other? Barking is not a wealthy borough. It is already suffering very much from the de-rating of factory premises and if this proposal is added there will be another serious loss.
I rather regret that the Committee stage of this Bill is being taken today, because tomorrow the Minister is going to Barking to open a section of the sewage disposal works. When he is there he cannot fail to see that this sewer about which we have complained so much is an appalling erection. He will also learn that the northern outfall sewer is a much greater disadvantage to Barking than the sewerage works themselves. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have a serious talk with his right hon. Friend, particularly after he returns from Barking tomorrow.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: I want to intervene for only a few moments. I have no particular constituency interest in this horrible sewer, but for a number of years I was chairman of the London County Council committee which was responsible for managing it. I quite agree it is a monstrosity in the district through which it runs. It is big enough to run a lorry through without any trouble.
I am not speaking for the London County Council, of which I am not at the moment a member, but it seems to me that the County Council, which has been paying rates on this structure and so far

537
as I know has made no complaint about doing so, has not consulted any one of its friends in this place on the subject. It has made no complaint about the payment of rates on this sewer, and it seems to me, therefore, that it was a bit unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary so curtly turned down this Amendment.
To relieve the sewer of rates will make a very serious difference to the finances of local authorities through whose area it goes. It is true that the L.C.C. has done its best to beautify part of it. In fact, grass is growing over parts of it, but this not merely takes up a lot of land but is a bit of an eyesore. In war time it was a source of trouble, for in West Ham it was hit by a bomb and the place was flooded not with water but with the most filthy sewage one could see anywhere.
In the circumstances, when a building like this is erected above ground—it really is a building—it ought to be subject to rating. I want to plead again for the Minister to reconsider the matter. There has been no difficulty in the past few years in collecting the rates on the sewer, and there should not be any difficulty in future in claiming them if imposing rates on it is permitted.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Committee, after hearing the eloquent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), will be disappointed at the rather offhand way in which the Minister dealt with this question. It is true, of course, that he expressed sympathy, and it is equally true that he has admitted we have a case. But he failed to accede to the point put by my hon. and learned Friend simply because there was a later case in the House of Lords which, he said, prevented him from accepting the Amendment. We know of that case. It has been the stock argument by his Department for some time. The Town Clerk of West Ham and the West Ham Council know this answer, but that case cannot be used as a serious argument in reply to the points made by my hon. and learned Friend.
My hon. and learned Friend has attempted to deal with facts. The facts are that this particular sewer, if it can be called a sewer because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, it is really a monstrosity, covers a large area, and if it
538
cannot be rated the West Ham Council will lose over 30 acres of rateable land. Not only has the local population to put up with the stench that comes from sewers, but also with an eyesore.
I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) in pleading with the Parliamentary Secretary to hold this matter in abeyance until the Minister has had an opportunity of looking at it. He is going to Barking tomorrow, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to see the sewer. We are only asking the Parliamentary Secretary to postpone any decision on this Amendment until next week. Once he has seen it I am sure the Minister will agree that we have a case.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), I am very pleased to say, supported us. In West Ham, we all know of the great charitable work that he does there. He has added his words in support of the case we are putting forward, and he bases that support on the fact that he has actually seen this monstrosity. I would say to the Committee that if anyone saw this sewer he would agree that there is a case for this Amendment.
There is one final observation I wish to make. The House and various Government Departments have extended sympathy to us. Yes, we have had lots of sympathy, but we do not get any tangible help. During the war, West Ham lost one-third of its rateable hereditaments, and that number included every type of property. I am not now counting industrial derating which has deprived the rates of West Ham of considerable sums of money, but West Ham is in grave financial difficulties at the moment. It cannot get enough money to meet its normal expenses.
It is now suggested that it should lose £46,000 a year, or the equivalent of 9d. on the rates. All the Minister says is that he is sorry, and that we are only in the same position as some other local authorities. But West Ham is not. It cannot afford to lose £46,000, or a 9d. rate, and I do not see that there is any need. The L.C.C. has been paying this rate and as far as I know it has made no objection. It does not want any alteration. I assume it will be quite happy to continue paying in the same way as it has been doing in the past.

539
So I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary, even at this late hour, that he should look at this Amendment again and consider what can be done to meet the special need in this instance. He should also ask his right hon. Friend to visit the place when he goes to Barking tomorrow. If he does I am convinced that he will come back impressed with the case we have made, and on the Report stage, will accede to the request made by my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Dodds: I should like to support this Amendment so brilliantly moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). All that he has said applies equally to the southern outfall sewer, which is in my constituency at Erith. I am appalled at the statement of the Minister, that the Government could not accept this Amendment. He seemed to argue his case on the difficulties that could result from some other sewer that might be partly underground and partly over-ground, and if what he said is the whole of his case for trying to upset the argument in favour of the L.C.C. continuing to pay rates it is a poor defence.
I also would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at this, and when he agrees that, of course, this will mean a loss of rates not only to West Ham but to other local authorities, I would ask him to bear in mind that the more local authorities are deprived of rates which, in the normal course, they should have, the more it makes them dependent on Exchequer grants. That is a big point for Erith Borough Council.
Mr. James MacColl: I came into this debate knowing little about it and anxious to hear the arguments on what I realised was a difficult and technical problem. In so far as I have any interest in the matter at all, it is entirely the interest of somebody who pays rates in London and, therefore, would be inclined to be biased against any suggestion for increasing the rate burden on Londoners. On the other hand, it seems to me that the argument deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) is an overwhelming one, and I think that that feeling would be shared by most London citizens.
540
I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary let himself accept a brief which was so thin that it made no serious attempt to meet the point. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot talk about logic, because there is no logic left in valuation and he might as well accept it. The hon. Gentleman started the trouble by derating sewers because, he said, it is difficult to calculate what a hypothetical tenant would pay for the beneficial occupation of a sewer. I can understand that this would be rather difficult. It would be logical to say that no public authority should pay rates at all, or that no social service should pay rates, but we have not taken up either of those two positions. Therefore, it is absurd to take out of rating a structure which is comparable with other structures that have to pay rates and which are also in public ownership.
It is incorrect to argue that this might have the same effect as a window tax. The effect, if any, of putting this into rating would be to put a financial discouragement on sewerage authorities who want to take their sewers overground. That would be an admirable discouragement because, where gravity disposal interferes with the amenities of the neighbourhood, where it is contrary to all aspects of planning then the more it is discouraged the better. However, it cannot be right that there should be an encouragement to authorities to indulge in this obviously undesirable form of drainage, which is what the Government are really proposing.
As a citizen of London, I can only say that it would distress me doubly. I suppose, in a small way, I contribute to the discomfort of my hon. and learned Friend. I would not want to do that without paying for it, and I am sure that all other hon. Members of this Committee who might find themselves in the same position would want to feel that they were paying through their rates for the discomfort they were causing their neighbours. I am sure that this view would be as popular in London as outside, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will think again.
Mr. Mitchison: May I, too, make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this case? It is undoubtedly the father and mother of all sewers. It requires to be seen or smelled to be

541
believed, but it is not for a mere outsider to attempt to describe it any further. After all, it has two advantages. One is that it has been a fruitful subject of litigation which began a good deal earlier than anybody has so far stated. The other is that it is the only means of support of a number of deserving local authorities. Really, that requires special consideration.
The law about sewers has changed from time to time. Far be it from me to try to expound its history, but there was one period in the middle when, under Welsh influence in the matter of a local authority that began with the letters Istrad —and went on with a number of others which I would not attempt to pronounce in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell); I see that he has just moved away—a distinction was definitely drawn between underground sewers and sewers above the level of the ground.
What has been decided once, even if it is not the law any longer, has some logic about it. The real reason, I suggest, is what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has just put forward, that if we put the sewer underground with the Post Office cable and the electric light wire and a host of other hidden things which lie under the streets of London, we are not doing so much harm to the community as is done by erecting this kind of thing to straggle at a height of many feet many miles across London.
5.15 p.m.
Why not make a single specific exception? After all, London has in many matters, including rating, a law of its own. It is a remarkable place. Greater London contains a quarter of the population of this country and if it has all that inside it, then the London outfall will be, within its own tribe, equally remarkable. If we can have special legislation for such a notional object as the London County Council, then why not have it for this patent and obvious horror? It is noticeable that the Parliamentary Secretary did not mention anything about any objection by the London County Council to continuing to pay what it has paid in the past, and no one else has mentioned it. One highly distinguished member of the London County Council supported the continued rating of this sewer——
Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. and learned Friend correct that? Two noteworthy members of the London County Council spoke—the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) as well.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). I forgot that there were two, not one, but I did not say who. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman might at least consult the London County Council which, huge as it is, is often generous. He might say, "Look at what you are doing if this is put through" and, with their agreement—or, even taking his courage in his hands in this case, perhaps without it—he could make an exception here.
I make that appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary but, if he cannot see his way to respond to it, we on this side of the Committee feel that this is such an exceptional instance that if it cannot be provided for, though not necessarily in the terms of this Amendment, we shall have to divide the Committee as a protest against the confusion which will be introduced into the finances of the rating authorities concerned, and perhaps as some protest against the apparent encouragement to build smaller but similar horrors in other parts of the country instead of putting the sewers nicely and tidily under the ground, as we ought to have them if we possibly can.
Mr. Lewis: Surely the Minister will respond to this invitation.
Mr. Deedes: One hon. Gentleman said that my earlier reply was cursory to the point of being discourteous, and I rather join issue on that. I had hoped that my reply was at least courteous, even if it did not satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.
May I first deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), on the question of the financial arrangements between West Ham and the London County Council. It would be most unwise for me to make any observation about the possible financial arrangements that might be reached between the two authorities——
Mr. Elwyn Jones: That cannot arise.
Mr. Deedes: No, but my hon. Friend mentioned that point.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: If this Bill goes through no question of financial arrangement could arise because there would be no rates payable by the L.C.C.
Mr. Deedes: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I was answering the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, which was that, failing this, could there not be some financial arrangement between the two authorities.
Sir I. Horobin: If my hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt, what I put to him was that if he did not want to proceed by way of altering the rate, would he at least answer the point of his observation upon it as to the possibility of getting some result in another way.
Mr. Deedes: In answer to that, I was about to say that I think it would be most unwise and wrong for a Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that there should be any such arrangement between two authorities which, of course, are completely independent.
Mr. Lewis: But will the Parliamentary Secretary listen, because the hon. Member for Oldham, East never suggested any arrangement between two authorities? He asked whether there was any way which the Minister could suggest. My hon. and learned Friend has rightly said that the London County Council could not and would not then be liable for rates. That does not preclude the Minister from saying that he, through the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could make an official grant to the authorities concerned which could be reimbursed. Cannot the Minister answer that?
Mr. Deedes: That is outside the scope of the Bill. Any financial arrangement which might be reached is outside the scope of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
A number of things said by hon. Gentlemen opposite would seem to suggest that the case made out so carefully by the hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right and that everything which I have said was absolutely wrong. But this sewer has a long history. This is a point about which there has been a great deal of argument and a considerable amount of legal history has been made, as we observed earlier. It is not true to say that obviously——
Mr. Dodds: But is it not a fact that rates are now being obtained, and that, from what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, no rates will be obtained?
Mr. Deedes: To suggest that one or other of the arguments is obviously wrong and the other obviously right, cannot, through the legal history of this thing, be correct.
In response to the arguments which have been advanced, I would say this. Were this a unique situation, and in size this sewer may be unique, it would be very much easier to say, "Yes, we will have to look at it and see whether some special arrangement"——
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose——
Mr. Deedes: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish what I was about to say—"whether some special arrangement could be made in respect of this sewer, the like of which does not exist anywhere else, and in respect of which no one can point to anything comparable at all."
I do not think that is so. Several hon. Members have asked me to postpone a decision on this matter until my right hon. Friend has had a chance to see the sewer. My right hon. Friend has a rather heavy programme in Barking tomorrow, and I cannot commit him by accepting any suggestion of that sort. But, in response to the arguments which have been voiced, and 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. At least I will satisfy myself in that respect, but without undertaking to do anything about it. That is the point left in my mind as a result of the arguments which have been advanced, and I think that it should be decided.
I do not wish to imply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that my undertaking will lead to any profitable result. I simply give an undertaking that I will look at the point.
Mr. Lewis: Surely the Minister should have known that before he came into the Chamber. He came prepared to discuss this problem and I should have thought that he would have been properly briefed. My information is that there is no similar

545
sewer in the country. It is 21 feet high above the ground and stretches for many miles. Surely the Minister knows, or he can find out now, whether there are any other sewers similar to this one. Could not he tell us now? If he says that there are, then, of course, we need not wait to hear the result of his consideration. We say that both the northern and the southern outfalls of this sewer are the only ones of which we are aware which are 21 feet high and go like a big mountain for miles through a number of boroughs. We say that this sewer is the only one of its kind. Can the Minister tell us of any other?
Mr. Dodds: In giving this undertaking, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind that my hon. Friend was referring to the northern outfall. On the other side of the river is the southern outfall, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman was referring to both.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: In the Second Reading debate, nearly a fortnight ago, the
Minister said that he would look into it—
Mr. Ede: He should have dropped into it.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: He has had a fortnight to look into it, and the result has been completely unsatisfactory. I do not wish to be discourteous, but the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary contains no kind of assurance. We attach great importance to this matter. Surely there can be no precedent comparable with this outfall sewer. The Minister has not suggested that there is. I know of no phenomenon compared with it in the length and breadth of the country. Surely it could be excluded by reference to northern and southern outfall sewers by name. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Commitee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 203.

Division No. 10.]

AYES

[5.28 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Donnelly, D. L.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, s.)

Albu, A. H.

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

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Alien, Arthur (Bosworth)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Anderson, Frank

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

King, Dr. H. M.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lawson, G. M.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Balfour, A.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Lewis, Arthur

Benson, G.

Gibson, C. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Blackburn, F.

Greenwood, Anthony

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Blenkinsop, A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

McLeavy, F.

Boardman, H.

Grey, C. F.

Mahon, S.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Bowles, F. G.

Grimond, J.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Boyd, T. C.

Hale, Leslie

Mayhew, C. P.

Brockway, A. F.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mellish, R. J.

Broughton, Dr. A. O. D.

Hamilton, W. W.

Messer, Sir F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hastings, S.

Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hayman, F. H.

Moyle, A.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Healey, Denis

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

Oliver, G. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Oram, A. E.

Champion, A. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Orbach, M.

Chapman, W. O.

Holman, P.

Oswald, T.

Clunie, J.

Holmes, Horace

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Coldrick, W.

Holt, A. F.

Pargiter, G. A.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Houghton, Douglas

Parker, J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Parkin, B. T.

Cove, W. G.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Paton, J.

Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

Hubbard, T. F.

Pearson, A.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Peart, T. F.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hunter, A. E.

Popplewell, E.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Deer, G.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pnes, S.)

Proctor, W. T.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Reid, William

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Willey, Frederick

Ross, William

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Williams, Ronald (Wlgan)

Short, E. W.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Tomney, F.

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

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Skeffington, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Warbey, W. N.

Zilliacus, K.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Snow, J. W.

West, D. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sparks, J. A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Mr. James Johnson and

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mr. John Taylor.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Aitken, W. T.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Alport, C. J. M.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Green, A.

Marshall, Douglas

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maude, Angus

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Armstrong, C. W.

Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Mawby, R. L.

Ashton, H.

Gurden, Harold

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Atkins, H. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Balniel, Lord

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Neave, Airey

Barber, Anthony

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Barter, John

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Oakshott, H. D.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

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

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

Bishop, F. P.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Osborne, C.

Black, C. W.

Hay, John

Page, R. G.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Heath, Edward

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pott, H. P.

Brooman-White, R. c.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Powell, J. Enoch

Bryan, P.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Howard, John (Test)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Burden, F. F. A.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Ramsden, J. E.

Campbell, Sir David

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Redmayne, M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Channon, H.

Hurd, A. R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hyde, Montgomery

Ridsdale, J. E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Roper, Sir Harold

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Russell, R. S.

Crouch, R. F.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Cunningham, S. K.

Kaberry, D.

Sharpies, Maj. R. C.

Dance, J. C. G.

Keegan, D.

Shepherd, William

Davidson, Viscountess

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerr, H. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Deedes, W. F.

Kershaw, J. A.

Speir, R. M.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Kirk, P. M.

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lagden, G. W.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Lambton, Viscount

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Leavey, J. A.

Storey, S.

Duthie, W. S.

Leburn, W. G.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Teeling, W.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

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

Errington, Sir Eric

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Longden, Gilbert

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Fell, A.

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Vane, W. M. F.

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Foster, John

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vosper, D. F.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Freeth, D. K.

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Gammans, L. D.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Wall, Major Patrick

Godber, J. B.

Maddan, Martin

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Gower, H. R.

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

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

548

549

Webbe, Sir H.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Woollam, John Victor

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, at the end to insert:
(4) There shall not be included in the first new valuation list for any rating area, or in any subsequent list,—

(a) any land which is occupied by a river board or other drainage authority and forms part of a main river for the purposes of Part II of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, or of a watercourse maintained by the authority, or

(b) any structure or appliance maintained by a river board or other drainage authority, being a structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water in, into or out of a watercourse which forms part of a main river for the purposes of the said Part II or is maintained by the authority; and no such land, structure or appliance shall in the case of any rating area be liable to be rated, or to be included in any rate, for any rate period beginning on or after the date on which the first new valuation list for that area comes into force:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall confer any exemption in respect of any right of fishing or shooting which (apart from this subsection) constitutes a separate hereditament for rating purposes.
In this subsection "drainage authority" and "watercourse" have the same meanings as in the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
This Amendment would exempt from rating water courses and pumping stations which are occupied by river boards and other land drainage authorities. It applies very largely to the large area covered by the Fens. Most of these water courses are used for the drainage of such areas. There are hundreds of miles of these artificial drains and water courses in such areas and, connected with them, are a hundred or more pumping stations.
Although they are rateable as the law stands, the practice in the past has been to assess very few, and then only nominally. We have had no objection by local authorities or by ratepayers to excluding most of these properties from rating. To rate these properties at the full value, which would be inevitable if they were to be rated at all, would be to increase the rates payable by the drainage authorities, and those rates would be passed on to occupiers of property in the area and, in the long run, would be of very small advantage to anyone.
I should stress that the Amendment makes it clear that the exemption does
550
not extend to fishing or shooting rights. It is confined to the water courses and the machinery needed for them. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: For once, I shall have the good fortune of congratulating and thanking the Government for an Amendment. We have been discussing a most contentious matter, which obviously gave rise to great heat, but I assure my hon. Friend that this Amendment will be very widely welcomed indeed in the area which it is most intended to affect. We ought to realise that the whole principle of our rating system needs tidying up. My hon. Friend said that very few of these pumping stations were at present rated. My information is just to the contrary. Many of them, certainly in the Isle of Ely, are rated. It is rather ludicrous that one should rate the farmer from whose farm the water is drained by a board and then make the board pay rates to another rating authority. There is very little sense in that, and it is high time this change was made. I thank my hon. Friend very much.
Mr. Mitchison: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give me an assurance on one point, which was probably covered by what he said but which, I understand, has been troubling the water boards a little. It is whether the language about
"…structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water…"
really covers a pump.
That does not seem quite the best way of describing the pump. If, as I understand, the hon. Gentleman is anxious to include pumping stations and pumps, will he look at the matter and assure himself that this is clearly done and, if there is any doubt, remove it? Subject to that, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends all agree with me that we see no objection whatever and, indeed, considerable advantage in this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Skeffington: I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could look at the words "(outside London)" in line 9 and the words "(in London)" in line 11 of Clause 7. I have been asked by the London County Council to raise the matter, because in its view the words in brackets are superfluous and if the Clause remains in this form they may give rise to considerable doubt in future.
It seems clear that if the two classes of sewers referred to are defined by the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, then the words in brackets may be unnecessary. Some doubt and anxiety is felt because the London County Council, by virtue of its powers and obligations under the Public Health Act, 1936, does construct sewers outside its boundaries, usually to connect them with sewage disposal works. The fact that the sewers are outside the boundaries of London makes the County Council feel that in future they might be regarded as if they were classes of sewers to which the rating exemptions did not apply.
It might be considered that they do not come within the Public Health (London) Act, because they are constructed outside the county boundary. I do not want to take the time of the Committee. Perhaps between now and Report the Minister could consider whether the words in brackets to which I have referred might with safety be left out.
Mr. Deedes: The definitions in the two Acts are worded differently. I am advised that the practical difference, if there be any, appears to be very small indeed. Possible confusion might arise by applying the two definitions in London or in the Provinces where, in each place, only one has been recognised for a long number of years. I will have another look at the point, though I am advised that it is not of great consequence.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF RATES BY POLICE AUTHORITIES.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 1, to leave out "may" and insert:
552
"shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, power to."
With the next Amendment, this has the effect of making valid past payments by police authorities as contributions in aid of rates on hereditaments on which no rates are paid. The Committee will appreciate that police premises, like all property owned by Government Departments, are not rateable. However, in the past many police authorities thought it right to make contributions in aid of rates, and in some cases they have been given sanction to make these contributions under Section 228 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933. This prevents the district auditor from disallowing the payment, but it does not make it valid. The Clause gives an opportunity to make it valid.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 6, leave out "incurred under this subsection" and insert "so incurred."—[Mr. Deedes.]
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, to leave out subsection (2) and add:
(2) Where a contribution is made under this section in respect of a hereditament, for a year beginning on or after the date of the coming into force of the first new valuation list for the rating area in which the hereditament is situated, the value upon which that contribution is computed shall be entered in the valuation list as representing the rateable value of the hereditament; and the value so entered, or the amount of the contribution, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining totals or the proceeds of any rate for that rating area:
Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Contributions in aid of rates in respect of police properties in first year of new valuation list) to this Act in the case of any such contribution made for the year beginning with the date of the coming into force of the said first new valuation list.
(3) Nothing in the last preceding subsection shall he construed as requiring a gross value to he determined or entered in the valuation list in the case of a hereditament in respect of which a contribution is made under this section.
(4) In the application of this section to the metropolitan police district, any reference to the police authority shall be construed as a reference to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.
The Amendment is linked to the new Third Schedule. Its object is to get contributions made by the police authorities in aid of rates into the valuation lists.

553
The Clause as it stands provides that the values upon which the contributions by the police authorities are computed are to be treated as rateable values for the purpose of ascertaining the total of rateable values, but it makes no provision for entering the values on the valuation lists.
It was framed in that way because there were doubts whether it would be practicable to make such entries. These doubts have been resolved. It would be more satisfactory for all concerned to have the values of the police properties on the lists in common with the values of true Crown properties. That is what the Amendment and the new Schedule secure.
Mr. Mitchison: We are disposed to agree to the Amendment, but I should like to know whether, without any formal assessment of the police properties, the advice—indeed the opinion—of the valuation officers will be taken and followed in assessing, or whether there will be some purely discretionary basis differing from that which applies to other properties.
Mr. Deedes: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that in the assessment of Crown properties it is usual for the valuer to consult the local authorities before he arrives at the agreed figure. I am not sure whether that applies in this rather narrow category of police property. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I should like to confirm that. My impression is that the answer is "Yes," because it does not fall strictly within the category of Crown properties.
Mr. Mitchison: I urge the hon. Gentleman to consult the terms of two ancient Treasury Minutes upon which I had a discussion with the Financial Secretary recently. He will find that the broad principle of the matter is that contribution on not only public property but property of this kind should be made in the same way and to the same extent as the formal payment of rates on other property. It would be undesirable to depart from that on any fine distinction between police properties and public property, if I may use that term.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is a rather obscure reference to Scotland in the Clause. Scottish Members would like the reference to the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, explained.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I am very glad to have the opportunity to say a word for Scotland. This is not an obscure reference; this is a very important Clause. There is some money going, and Scotland wants to get her fair share of it.
The Clause applies to Scotland in so far as it provides for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any increase in the Exchequer equalisation grant or education grant attributable to the Bill. Paragraph (a) provides for adjustment of the equalisation grant as a result of the Bill, in both countries. So far as we are concerned, the reference to the Act of 1954 covers the Goschen formula—eleven-eightieths. Reference is made to Part II of the Act of 1948, because that provided the method of calculating the grant before the Goschen formula was used.
Adjustments will be required, therefore, partly arising from payments of rates on English police stations in the future and more especially as a result of the new method of valuing gas boards in England and Wales. The new arrangements for the payment of rates on gas undertakings are to be applied retrospectively as from 1st April, 1952. If, as a result, English local authorities become entitled to larger grants, payments already made for 1952–53 and subsequent years may have to be adjusted. It would follow that additional grants would have to be paid in Scotland also, because Scotland's equalisation grant is calculated on that paid in England and Wales.
The provisions relating to the effect of the gas board valuations on the equalisation grant are retrospective only, because for the future the new valuations would affect the grant automatically, without any special provision.

555
Paragraph (b) has no Scottish application. Paragraph (c) in its application to Scotland relates only to education grant. The total amount of education grant payable in England and Wales each year since 1952–53 may be altered as a result of the new rateable values placed on gas boards and, if so, the change will be reflected in the Scottish grant, because it amounts to eleven-eightieths of the English grant. I trust that that explains the situation and that hon. Members will therefore accept the Clause.
Mr. William Ross: It is very nice indeed to have this statement from the Minister that this is a very important reference to Scotland, but it makes it all the more mysterious why he was not here when he were discussing Clause 5, out of which most of these consequences arise because of the change in the rateable system with reference to gas boards. I hope that in future Members of the Scottish Office will take far greater interest in these important matters relating to Scotland.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(REPEAL OF SECTION 68 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.)
Section sixty-eight of the Local Government Act, 1929, is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Sparks.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Clause the new Clause "Decrease in relief from rates in respect of industrial and freight-transport hereditaments."
Mr. Sparks: This is a very short and concise new Clause, but, if carried, it will effect a very considerable change for the better in the financing of local authorities. It is important for us, first, to have some regard to the circumstances under which derating of industry was introduced in the Local Government Act, 1929. This was a major Measure affecting local government, and it brought about an
556
extensive reorganisation of local authority functions, but we are concerned with only one part of it—the major part—which refers to derating.
In the new Clause, I am concerned not with the derating of agriculture but with the derating of industry. The 1929 Act effected a major diversion of local sources of revenue away from local authorities, and its net result was to place a heavier burden on the ordinary ratepayers than had been placed upon them previously.
In order to give the Committee the setting in which this Act was passed, it would be better for me to give three short quotations, because they express in perhaps better words than mine the purpose of the Act and, as they are more authoritative, they will undoubtedly carry more weight. In the Budget debate of 1928, when the principles of the Local Government Act, 1929, were brought before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said this in defence of the principle of the derating of industry:
"We have, however, to face the fact that unemployment remains obstinately chronic around the dismal figure of 1,000,000, and that all those basic industries which used to be the glory of this island, which must always constitute an essential element in the life of every nation, and which are vital to our export trade—all those industries are at the present in serious eclipse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; Vol. 216, c. 844.]
Mr. Chamberlain, who was Minister of Health, and who had charge of the Bill when it was introduced into the House on 26th November, 1928, said this, in introducing the Bill:
"At a stroke, £24,000,000 a year is going to be lifted from the back of industry. It is safe to say that not less than three-quarters of that huge sum will go to those industries which are most depressed, which used to give the greatest employment, and which today are lying derelict and almost helpless."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1928; Vol. 223, c. 88.]
Lastly, Command Paper 3134 of June, 1928, in which the proposals of the Bill were outlined in detail, contain this opening paragraph:
"As a result of a careful review of the difficulties of productive industries the Government have, as local authorities are aware, come to the conclusion that the basis of rating of agricultural, industrial and transport properties needs to be revised, and they have adopted a plan which they believe will not only place the rating of these properties on a

557
more rational basis but will, more than any other political action which could be taken, contribute to the revival of agriculture and the basic industries. … Obviously, if local authorities are to suffer so serious a loss of rating power, some alternative source of revenue must be provided. …"
That is what was said in the House twenty-seven years ago when the principle of derating was conceived as an aid to industry in a time of great and serious depression, when unemployment was wholesale and when poverty was great.
That Bill and that principle failed completely in its purpose. We did not have to wait until 1955 to prove that. I have not the time to indicate as fully as I should like my justification for that statement, but in 1929, when derating was conceived, the number of registered unemployed stood at 1,466,000, whereas in five years' time it had risen to 2,470,000, although in 1938 it had fallen to 1,818,000. That does not take into consideration the millions of workers who were deprived of Unemployment Insurance benefit and who had to go to the Poor Law authorities to obtain relief.
6.0 p.m.
Another test as to whether the main purpose of derating was accomplished can be found in our export figures. In 1929, exports from this country amounted in round figures to £729 million, but in 1938 they fell to £470 million. That proves my first point, that the main purpose of industrial derating failed completely.
Now we have to proceed to the next point and have to ask ourselves what services the community supplies to industry and to what extent industry is dependent upon the community. In the first place, industry enjoys the protection of our police system and the service of fire fighting and fire prevention which are provided by the community. Roads have to be provided to give access to and from industrial undertakings, and they have to be maintained at heavy cost year by year. Streets giving access to and from industry have to be lit, and that cost has to be borne by the local authorities.
Technical education is essential for industrial development today, perhaps more than ever it was twenty-seven or twenty-eight years ago, and considerable sums of public money are now being spent upon it from which industry derives the advantage by way of skilled
558
workers, technicians and those who manage our industrial enterprises.
Again, the community provides a system of public health without which we should have epidemics and disease throughout the country, and that, in turn, would affect the attendance of workers in industry. Then we have the social service of housing without which there would be no workers available for employment in industry. Lastly, there is education without which, again, we should not have a labour force able to grapple with the serious problems with which industry is faced today.
Without all these activities and services which are provided and paid for by the community, it is very doubtful whether industry could exist. Therefore, we are entitled to ask what industry pays for these services, and when we make an inquiry into that question we get these astonishing results. In 1952–53, the total expenditure of local authorities amounted to £916 million, of which derated industry contributed only £11½ million.
If we narrow the issue a little and confine our comparison to rate-borne expenditure, that is, the expenditure incurred by local authorities on their general services which are a direct charge upon the rate, leaving out of account, of course, the equalisation grant and other Government grants and allowances, we find that in 1952–53 the rate-borne expenditure of local authorities amounted to £351 million towards which, again, derated industry only contributed £11½ million.
That being so, we are entitled to ask whether rates are a burden on industry or whether industry is a burden on rates. The figures which I have just given, and which can be proved and checked from authoritative sources, indicate quite clearly that industry is a burden upon rates. We also have to remember that the great problems in our towns and cities today of slum clearance, rehousing and redevelopment, all very costly services, arise directly from our industrial system.
Way back over the years when industry began to grow and develop, anything was considered good enough in which to house the workers who were required in industry. Even today, despite what has been done by way of housing, our towns

559
and cities contain festering sores, and immense sums of money are required to remedy that position and to provide decent housing standards for our people.
All this is a burden upon the rates and upon public funds, and industry's contribution to the cost of it is almost negligible. In fact, in 1951–52, industry's contribution to the rates was 3·5 per cent. of the total rateable value. Before leaving that point, I want to make a reference to the distressed areas, and particularly to the industrial ruins of the special areas, because they emphasise, perhaps more clearly than I have been able to do, the responsibility which industry creates upon the community. In his Report for the year ended 30th September, 1937, the Commissioner for the Special Areas said:
"I well remember the depressing effects that the great slag heaps and the ruins of dismal factories had upon me on my first visit … I am now asked to clear up, on behalf of the Government, these unsightly ruins of concerns that in former days no doubt paid their shareholders handsome dividends. I have visited areas of desolation still bearing traces of the earlier industrial activities belonging to industries still powerful and prosperous, business reasons alone having induced them to vacate the sites. The problem of restoration needs to be dealt with more systematically and on a comprehensive scale … A firm which deserts an old industrial site is frequently bankrupt and cannot itself clear the site before it leaves, but I trust that a repetition of such tragic relics may be avoided, either by a system of compulsory insurance or by putting responsibility for clearance on the industry as a whole."
That seems to be the picture as it was in 1937, and, although much has since been done to clear up these ruined industrial areas, a lot still remains to be done and the money has yet to be found with which to do it.
I now pass to the effects of industrial derating upon the finances of local authorities. There is no doubt whatever that the financial burden upon local authorities has been increasing very rapidly in recent years and has now reached a point where the future activities of local authorities are very seriously threatened.
I want to give the Committee some idea of the increasing burden which has fallen upon local authorities—much of it due to the derating proposals of the 1929 Act. In the year 1930–31, the average rate poundage levied by local authorities throughout the country was 11s. 8d. For the present
560
year, it is 22s. 11d. In other words, it has nearly doubled. The loss of rateable value to local authorities by industrial derating in 1930 was £21 million. Last year it was £39 million.
The rate-borne expenditure of local authorities—that is, that expenditure of local authorities which is directly chargeable to the ratepayer or to the rate—has risen from £148 million in 1931–32 to £351 million in 1952–53. That is an increase of 137 per cent. It will be realised that those figures are nearly three years old. I wish I could obtain the 1955–56 figures, because they would show that the increase in rate-borne expenditure is considerably higher than the figure which I have given.
Now let us consider the growth of local rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure. If we take 1938–39 as the basic level, by 1950–51 the expenditure upon grant-aided services had increased by 129 per cent. and upon non-grant-aided services by 96 per cent. Expenditure upon education went up by 162 per cent. Taking all the services together, the expenditure of local authorities for the year 1931–32 was £325 million and in 1952–53 it had risen to £916 million—an increase of 182 per cent.
Another important factor which we must take into consideration is the narrowing of the basis of local taxation. If we look again at Cmd. Paper No. 3134, which gave in detail the Government's case for the Local Government Act of 1929 and its derating provisions, we find this said:
"The most important effect of the derating proposals on the position of the local authority is clearly a narrowing of the basis of taxation available to that authority which necessarily involves a greater or less impairment of the capacity to meet considerable fluctuations in certain classes of expenditure inevitable from time to time."
6.15 p.m.
I should like to illustrate that point by again quoting one or two figures. I must resort to these figures in order to prove my case. In the year before industry was derated, it contributed 10·03 per cent. of the rateable value of local authorities. Immediately after derating that figure fell to 3·41 per cent. Freight transport hereditaments, which bore 4·25 per cent. of the rateable value, fell to 1·14 per cent. during the same period. The significant figures are those in relation to dwelling-houses and other hereditaments, including shops. The

561
year before derating took place they bore 82·12 per cent. of the local rateable value, and they rose to 94·21 per cent. after. These figures indicate the extent to which industry has been relieved of rates and the ordinary ratepayer, the householder and the shopkeeper have had their proportion of the rates increased.
In passing, I should like to mention the effect of industrial derating upon my own county and constituency. In 1929, the loss of rateable value to the County of Middlesex as a result of industrial derating was about £236,000, or 1·75 per cent. of the county's rateable value. Middlesex is a county which has developed industrially in the last twenty-five years, and the loss to my county is probably as great as to any other county. In 1955, that loss was £2,452,000, or 10½ per cent. of the rateable value of the county. The county lost £1,496,000 a year in rate income as a result of industrial derating.
In 1955, my constituency is losing £319,000 in rateable value, which is equivalent to 36 per cent. of the rateable value of the borough. The loss of rate income in Acton is about £347,000, which is equivalent to a rate of 3s. 2d. in the £. In other words, if industrial derating were repealed ratepayers in Acton would save a 3s. 2d. rate.
If we carry this investigation a little further we can obtain a better picture. In 1929, the actual losses of all local authorities as a result of industrial derating—and I am leaving out agricultural derating—was £20 million a year. I emphasise the fact that all new industrial development since 1929 was excluded from benefit through the Exchequer block grant. That grant was intended to recoup local authorities for the loss of rates as a result of industrial derating, but it was not a permanent compensation; it was a sum, included in the Exchequer block grant, which was to diminish year by year or in quinquennial periods, and was to be completely extinguished in fifteen years, although I believe that it continued for nineteen years before it was finally extinguished.
Today, there is no compensation payable to any local authority in the country for the losses it incurs as a result of industrial derating, because the old Exchequer block grant went in 1948, and in its place we had the Exchequer equalisation grant, which takes no
562
account whatever of losses to local authorities through industrial derating.
What would be the effect of the repeal of industrial derating? In 1951–52, the rates paid by the derated industries totalled approximately £10½ million. If derating were repealed, they would contribute £42 million, but offsetting that figure are other factors. The local authorities would not receive all the benefit of that increase, because as the result of the repeal of industrial derating there would be a reduction in the Exchequer equalisation grant, based on the figures of 1951–52, from £53·8 million to £46·6 million, a reduction of £7·2 million. That reduction in the Exchequer equalisation grant would not be due to the repeal of industrial derating as such, but to the fact that the national average of rateable value per head would rise and upon that the Exchequer equalisation grant is based.
The Exchequer equalisation grant is now based on the average rateable value per head throughout the country. Those local authorities below the average get the grant, and those above it get nothing. With the ending of industrial derating, the average would go up, and the amount to be distributed under the Exchequer equalisation grant would correspondingly fall by £7·2 million, and the education grant would be affected. On the basis of the 1951–52 figures, the education grant would drop by £5·4 million. That would mean that there would be a reduction of Government grant totalling £12·6 million. The net effect to the local authorities of all that would be that they would benefit, as the result of the repeal of industrial derating, by approximately £20 million a year. Industry would thereafter contribute 12·2 per cent. of the rate burden as against 3·5 per cent. now.
I want to wind up my case for the repeal of industrial derating in this way. First, the case for industrial derating no longer exists, if ever there was a case for it. In present circumstances, industry is enjoying a period of great prosperity. Local authorities at the present time receive no compensation whatever for their derating losses. Can industry afford to pay its full rate? Let us look at the position?
I have here some very interesting figures. I have, in the first place, the gross profits for companies operating in the United Kingdom in 1928–29—the year

563
of the Local Government Act, 1929—and in 1953. The gross profits of companies operating in the United Kingdom in 1928–29, in round figures, were £1,200 million. In 1953 the gross profits went up to £3,153 million, so if we take the 1928–29 figure as 100 the 1953 figure was 263.
Let us narrow the field. Let us take the gross profits of manufacturing, productive and mining industries, all of which enjoy derating. The figures which I have given would include a number of companies which do not enjoy derating, as well as those which do. The figures which I will now give narrow the field to those industries which receive the benefit of industrial derating. The gross profits of the manufacturing, productive and mining industries in 1928–29, in round figures, were £478 million. In 1952—and this figure is three years old—the profits were £1,465 million. Again, if we take 1928–29 as 100, the comparative figure for 1952 is 306. In other words, the profits of this group of industries which get the advantage of derating have gone up in the period from 1928–29 to 1952 by 206 per cent.
That is not the whole story. In 1953, the gross profits of all companies were £194 million higher than in 1952. I have not been able to sort out from that figure precisely how much can be allocated to the group the profits of which I have just given. I think it reasonable to state that about one half of it could be attributed to them. These are authentic figures. They can be vouched for, and are contained in official documents in this House. It can be seen clearly that whatever might have been the plight of industry in 1929, the conditions today bear no comparison whatever with the position then.
In 1953, the derated industries increased their profits by more than twice the amount of the rates which they would have paid if derating had been repealed. The right hon. Gentleman will probably tell us that if we repealed the derating of industry in this way, the Treasury would suffer. Let us look at the position. It is quite true that if industry in future pays 100 per cent. of its rates, as every other ratepayer has to do, except agriculture, it could claim an increased amount by way of allowance from tax.
564
It is estimated that the Treasury would lose about £18½ million. That is not all loss to the Treasury. It would save by reduced Government grants £12½ million, which narrows the difference to £6 million. It is by no means certain that the Treasury would lose even that, because the rate of industrial profit is increasing substantially. That would more than offset any small loss which the Treasury might suffer as a consequence.
Even if the Treasury has to suffer to some extent the Government must agree to do something soon about local government finance. The system is beginning to break down. The position is rapidly being reached at which local authorities will have to slow down their essential services for lack of the means to carry them on.
Industrial derating has failed in its purpose. Industry does not contribute a fair share of the rate burden, while domestic and shop hereditaments bear an unfair proportion of that burden. There is no new source of revenue open to local authorities to meet the growing expenditure made necessary by rising costs and extended services. In present circumstances, industry can well afford to pay its full share of the rate burden.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Frederic Harris: May I now move the proposed new Clause standing in my name and the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which seeks a decrease in the relief from rates in respect of industrial and freight-transport hereditaments.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member cannot move it now, because only one Clause may be moved at a time. He can discuss his proposed new Clause now, in the discussion on the new Clause which has already been moved.
Mr. Harris: It is a little unfortunate for me that this new Clause has been called before the Clause dealing with a reduction of rateable value of business hereditaments, which I have upon the Order Paper, and which I still hope will be called. I am trying to achieve a measure of relief for small traders, and the only way I can see of doing so now is by a measure of derating for them—unless we hold up all the new assess-

565
ments. In order to bring the whole of this matter on to a more fair basis I propose to confine derating to a smaller percentage—50 per cent. instead of the present 75 per cent.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made a very interesting speech, and gave many figures and much information which he had obviously gone to great trouble to obtain. This information will bear close examination by hon. Members who have an interest in local government. Nearly all of us must have some personal interest to disclose in this matter, if it is only to the extent that all ratepayers will be affected if the Government accept any adjustment in derating. There will then rise a difference in the rates that we shall pay on our houses and on any businesses with which we may be associated.
During the time in which I have been interested in local government, I have always felt that derating has become outmoded and outdated, particularly during the last few years. As the hon. Member for Acton said, the concession was originally granted about twenty-six years ago, when industry was in difficulties, and in a period of slump and unemployment. New forthcoming rating assessments may make derating more unfair, especially to the small ratepayers who have to bear much of the burden of them, because a relief of 75 per cent. of the new rate assessments will still be granted to industry. A proportionately much heavier burden even than now will thus fall upon small traders, shopkeepers and householders if industry continues to receive 75 per cent. easement on the higher assessments.
We can all fortunately claim that, industrially, this is a boom time. In these circumstances, it is increasingly difficult to justify derating for industry at all; but the abolition of the 75 per cent. easement immediately would be a tremendous change. That is why I am proposing gradually easing the situation by adjusting it 25 per cent. at a time, to which I believe nobody can object. It is also true, as the hon. Member for Acton said, that rates are charged against profits, and bring in that way a certain measure of taxation relief for companies. Shopkeepers and small traders, however, find it difficult to make a living. I do not see how any hon. Member can disagree with some reduction of this 75 per cent. ease-
566
ment to industry. It would mean a fairer share of the reassessment burden for everybody.
I should like to have produced detailed facts and information for the benefit of the Committee, but as such facts and figures have been produced by the hon. Member for Acton there is no point in my going over that ground again. The principle is the same. We should try to spread the rate burden in such a way that it is as fair as possible to all ratepayers, and if we cannot share it justly and equitably at the present time we may as well advance as far as we can in the right direction. After the proposed reassessments, the rates burden may become heavier, and in a further five years householders as well as traders and small shopkeepers will have an increased assessment burden to bear. How can we still permit industry to enjoy a full 75 per cent. derating?
Among my colleagues in the Committee and in business these may be unpopular things to say, but when industrialists face the fact that reassessment is taking place and that a very unfair share of this new burden will eventually fall on householders and small traders, I am sure they will agree to a measure of readjustment which will gradually lead us to the goal to which the hon. Member for Acton is moving. I do not think we should try to reach it absolutely at this moment and do away with derating altogether. I should, however, like to see that goal eventually achieved. Whilst I should like to see derating done away with in time, it would be ridiculous for me to make such a proposal at the moment, as I am forced, in fairness, to fall back upon a measure of derating for the small traders.
However, let us make derating operate as fairly as we can. I hope that the Minister will see his way to reducing the present 75 per cent. concession to industry to 50 per cent. Then we shall at least be going in the direction of justice which many hon. Members desire ultimately to reach.
Mr. Simon Mahon: This is the second time I have spoken in this Chamber, and the first time in Committee.
I wish to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) on the magnificent way in which he presented the case for our industrial towns. The tremendous amount of detail that

567
he has given to us today exemplifies to the greatest possible extent the need for the abolition of the 1929 Act. I have had the pleasure of hearing Government spokesmen on many occasions now, and from them one would assume that one only had to ask for an alleviation of our social and industrial difficulties and everything would be done to help us.
Coming, as I do, from the town of Bootle—and I shall say a lot about Bootle while I am here—may I ask what the Government intend to do for us now? The whole of our waterfront is taken up by the Mersey Docks and HarbourBoard. I have stated before in this House that that Board is derated to the extent of 71 per cent., and if Bootle had the advantage of the full rate it would benefit to the extent of 3s. 4d. in the £.
The burdens facing the industrial towns now are such that the financial implications can not be met much longer. It is harder to live in an industrial town, it is harder to be educated in an industrial town, and we have such a great burden of housing and slum clearance that eventually we shall have to slow down on these services. We look to the ending of derating as our only means of alleviation of our financial conditions. I can see no other way out. The Government should try to help us in this matter.
In Bootle we have the greatest ships in the world coming into port, bringing in the wealth of the nation and taking out our great exports. Has any hon. Member ever thought of the high cost of the fire brigade to a town of only 76,000 people? Bootle has the responsibility of keeping ships free from fire, and of fighting fires of great dimensions. We have had the country's biggest fires there. There may be a certain amount of cynicism among hon. Members about our position, but the cost of these services is getting out of all proportion. We are making a great social and industrial contribution and we are not getting a fair return for the effort which we make.
We put up with the smoke. The fact that we have the highest tuberculosis rate speaks for itself. We have a great number of bad houses, and we have the responsibility of getting rid of the town's slums. I want to know what the Government really mean to do. I did not intend to make a speech this afternoon
568
but I must ask whether the Government are in earnest about all this, as from time to time they suggest they are. If not by doing away with this anachronism of legislation, the 1929 Act, how do they intend to help towns like mine?
That Act never served its purpose. When our people were unemployed in their thousands we thought that the effect of the Act would be to attract industries to the depressed areas, but it never succeeded in its purpose. If one now suggested to hon. Members opposite that they were living in the past they would take the strongest possible objection, but I suggest that the time has come when the Government really must face their responsibilities. In Bootle we cannot for much longer meet the social calls of the people in the way we should, and have tried to, meet them.
At the same time, we see places such as Southport, Bournemouth and Brighton enjoying the benefits of the efforts made in the industrial towns, and having a much "cushier" ride than the people in such towns as mine. We make a tremendous contribution to the country, and our health suffers as a consequence of making that effort. I wish that the Government would face this situation more realistically. If they will not, will they please tell us how they intend to help the industrial local authorities?
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I feel a good deal of sympathy with the new Clauses which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) has put on the Paper, but for reasons different from those which he set forth. It may he hopeless at this stage to hope for logic in our local government finance, but I have always considered that the change introduced in 1929 by the partial derating of industry was a step in that direction. There is no logic, no case, for the plural rating which the full rating of industry represents.
Reference has been made to industry watching the burden placed upon shops and houses grow, but everyone engaged in industry lives somewhere and is himself a ratepayer as a resident. Industry, apart from those who work in it, is merely a form of activity.
Mr. Charles Pannell: A profitable form.
Mr. Bell: Whether or not it is a profitable form it is an activity of human beings who live somewhere and pay rates, and when we remember that more than half of the rates levied go to pay for education which industry, so defined, does not, of course, use—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of course it does not. It is no use hon. Members opposite denying it. Of course, without education the people who take part in industry would be less skilled and productive—that is obvious—but education is something enjoyed by human beings and not by such abstract legal personalities as limited companies.
Sir F. Messer: If a man has two houses he pays on both.
Mr. Bell: Exactly. That is the sort of difficulty to which I am going to refer. And more than half of the burden of rates represents expenditure on education.
There are other services of a social nature which are not appurtenant to industry but to living human beings, and I doubt very much whether 50 per cent. derating adequately represents that distinction. It would, however, at least make a valuable contribution towards it, because industry does not use only one or two services. It uses the refuse collection, police, streets and many other services. At the same time my hon. Friend's first proposed new Clause recognises that the same is equally true of other kinds of business premises, such as shops. Though may be not for quite the same reason, I entirely agree with him that a degree of derating should apply to those also. [Interruption.] The interjections of hon. Members opposite are too incoherent for me to understand.
Mr. Pannell: Did the hon. Member hear the most exhaustive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)?
Mr. Bell: No.
Mr. Pannell: Therefore, may I interpolate that a day or two ago the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) moved an Amendment and I expressed the hope that he would come in on the case for derating. From both sides of the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Acton has received considerable congratulation on a most exhaustive statement which should add to the education of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Bell: I thought the hon. Gentleman had some question to ask by way of clarification of my speech. He appears to be clarifying something that he said in one of his own speeches a few days ago, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who, I am sure, is well able to defend himself and will, no doubt, do so at the appropriate time.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bell: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), which. I understand, lasted for about 38 minutes. I have had the pleasure of listening to speeches by the hon. Member previously, one of which lasted longer than his speech today. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Knowing his reputation for consistency, I am prepared to believe that he said nothing today which was different from what he has said on previous occasions.
The proposal in one of my hon. Friend's new Clauses to extend this degree of derating to business premises has the same attraction of logicality as the original derating of industry, and I think that in the long run—perhaps not in an Amendment to this Bill, but when the whole structure of local authority finance and of local government is being reconsidered, as it is going to be—these matters ought to be carefully considered. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not close their minds to any suggestions of this kind.
We ought to have, in relation to local government finance, a policy which is logical and fair. We cannot avoid some anomalies in local government finance, but I think that we ought to approach the matter from the point of view, not simply of sharing the burden among those who can pay, but of trying to work it out on some basis of logicality. If that is so, a degree of derating can be justified for industry and business premises.
Moreover, I do not think that any substantial benefit would be enjoyed by anyone if industry were re-rated, because it would simply be added partly as a cost to industry, and partly as a charge to the Exchequer, and the result would be, first, that the cost of products consumed in this country would rise to that extent;

571
and, secondly, an increased part of the cost of local authorities services would be borne by the Exchequer, although they would be outside our control——
Mr. A. E. Hunter: Would not rates go down?
Mr. Bell: What I was saying was that an increased proportion of local authority expenditure would be borne by the national Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, rates would be to some extent diminished, and inasmuch as industrial rates would be an allowable expense against Income Tax on the part of industry, it would represent a charge on the Exchequer. There would be a shifting of the burden in part from the ratepayers to the Exchequer. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not agree, but, after all, we are in Committee, when the procedure allows hon. Members to speak when they want to and as often as they want to.
The third consequence would be very serious indeed; namely, that the competitive power of our industry in export markets would be impaired. If the rate burden on industry were to be increased by 75 per cent., only part of which would be allowable against taxation, we should injure the competitive power of our own industrial products in relation to foreign industry. At a time when we are witnessing a narrowing of the margin of price advantage which we enjoy over other countries, that factor should weigh very heavily with hon. Members.
I therefore ask the Committee not to support the new Clause but, at the same time, to bear in mind, when this general question arises in the future, that there is a logical case to be made for derating on its merits; and, secondly, that if re-rating were introduced it would not benefit the general body of the country and would harm our export prospects.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): We have listened with lessening interest to the ramblings of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), who invariably thinks out his speech as he goes along.
Mr. Bell: Surely it is very much better to think as one goes along than not to think as one goes along.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I accept that. I was wondering whether I should pay the hon. Member the graceful tribute of suggesting that he was thinking on his feet.
I had hoped that on this new Clause, as on previous Amendments which have been discussed, we would have found agreement on both sides of the Committee about the need for alteration, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Bucking-shire, South cannot be numbered among those who are anxious to encourage the Government to look at this problem afresh and try to secure a more equitable agreement than has been reached up to now.
I want to put very shortly the position as it stands in a constituency like mine, a heavy industrial area where, in addition to the problem of derating, we have the problem of the lack of any contribution from the Exchequer equalisation grant, which other areas have been to employ, to help to meet part of the loss of revenue. Therefore, this problem is felt more bitterly in an industrial area like mine than in some other parts of the country.
I want briefly to mention in detailed practical terms the problems that face us. We have in Newcastle a loss of about £270,000 a year due to derating, which amounts to something like the percentage, referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), about 10 per cent. of our rateable value. In an area like ours, where there is evidence in all parts of the town of the relics of past private enterprise, which has left to local authorities a very heavy burden of clearance and redevelopment before any new modern industry could take its place, it seems especially hard, at a time when industry is doing well, when there are very large profits indeed being made by industry in the area, that they should not be willing and able to bear this modest burden—for modest burden it is in relation to the size of profits being made by industry in the area—and so help to relieve the very real financial difficulties of the local authorities.
It has been said that to some extent this will be merely a transference of burdens. It is true that to some extent it would mean that a charge would be borne by the Exchequer instead of by the local authorities, but the general claim of the local authorities—one that

573
I thought had general acceptance on both sides of the Committee—is the need for more income under their own control. The argument that some part of this burden—and how much that would be is also arguable—would be borne by the Exchequer does not meet the point that local authorities should have under their own control the finances urgently needed for the essential work of development in their areas, the cost of which they have to bear and which has largely been put upon them by the action of private enterprise in years gone by.
Newcastle appears to be a typical example of a heavy industrial area where, in view of those with whom I have discussed the problem, industry would be quite capable of meeting the modestly increased charge which would fall upon it, and from much of which industry would get relief. I hold the view that the time has come not merely for a partial but for a complete repeal of the 1929 Act in its effect on industry. In that way we could help local authorities to gain a little independence in their financial activities—an independence which, I am sure, we all agree is desirable.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): We have had a most interesting little debate, The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been chided, agreeably, on the length of his speech, but I must say that of all his speeches to which I have listened—and I have listened to many by him—this presented a very comprehensive and well-balanced statement of the case for the re-rating of industry. I do not say that he puts all his points with absolutely judicial impartiality, but I think that anyone interested in the subject must have felt that it was a very fair and well-balanced statement which left very little for anybody else to say in support of the argument.
He made it clear that his new Clause would make a major change in our rating system. No one can deny that the re-rating of industry would represent a major alteration in the structure of our rating system. I think hon. Members will agree—even those who supported the new Clause—that the tail end of the Committee stage of a Bill which deals with quite different matters is not the proper occasion
574
on which to make a revolutionary and drastic change in the law.
Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity?
Mr. Sandys: I think that if I had made a proposal of this kind——
Mr. Blackburn: We should have welcomed it.
Mr. Sandys:—to be considered in Committee, perhaps a proposition making such a major change but one with which hon. Members opposite did not agree, I should have heard the objection that it was not fair to bring before the Committee such a major proposition when it had not been before the House on Second Reading, which is the right moment to discuss the purpose and policy underlying the Bill.
As I have explained on an earlier occasion, the scope of the Bill is fairly modest. It contains much detailed matter on which we have had lengthy debates, but it is essentially a Bill for tidying up a number of loose ends which have been left by previous legislation on the subject and for settling such matters as the rating of gas boards, charities and sewers. Generally, it seeks to simplify the procedure for introducing the revaluation due to take place next spring. I have made it clear all the way through that it was not the Government's intention to use the Bill to make any major changes in the basis of valuation between one class of property and another.
I take no exception to the fact that this point has been raised in this way. Indeed, we have had an interesting debate. Nevertheless, I am sure hon. Members will not expect a major change of this kind to be introduced during the Committee stage of a Bill which did not originally embrace such issues.
I do not think I need reply in detail to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), because he covered the same ground as that covered by the hon. Member for Acton. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) told us what a very fine place Bootle is. I have always heard that myself. One of my relatives represented Bootle in the House for more than twenty-five years, and I have always thought that it must be a very fine place.

575
The hon. Member for Acton referred to the history of the circumstances in which the derating of industry was introduced in 1929. The only fact which I would add to his review is that derating was introduced as a result of a full and comprehensive review of the whole of local government finances. This was one of the conclusions and outcomes of that review, which was undertaken by the Government at the time.
I believe that the various elements in local government finances are essentially inter-related, the one dependent upon the other, and that it is not a good thing to try to settle one element in isolation from the rest. Before deciding whether there is a sound case for the re-rating of industry, in whole or in part, it is therefore necessary to do what was done on a previous occasion—to consider the structure of local government revenue as a whole.
In the statement which I made to the House shortly before the dissolution, when I announced the progress which was being made in the discussions between local authority associations on the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, I said that the Government had decided to undertake a full review of local government finances as part of the problem of local government reorganisation. I can now tell the Committee that the Government Departments concerned have already begun that study of the problems which are involved. These inter-Departmental studies, as anybody who is familiar with the subject will realise, will inevitably take a number of months. After that, we shall have talks with the local authority associations and with representatives of the other interests concerned.
I can give the assurance that we shall push ahead with this review as fast as we can. At the same time, I must point out that it will not be possible to reach any firm conclusions until we are able to measure the full effects of the revaluation next year. It will not be possible to reach any final conclusions on these important issues until we know the outcome of the revaluation.
However, I can assure the Committee that the review which we are undertaking will be a most comprehensive review. All aspects of local government finance will come within its purview and will be examined, including, of course,
576
the question of the derating of industry. Pending the outcome of that review, I think it would be quite wrong for the Government to prejudge the issue. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not expect me—I am sure it does not—to express any opinion this afternoon on the arguments which have been advanced and will not wish to press this issue today.
Mr. Mitchison: It is quite extraordinary what inordinate cowardice the subject of local government finance induces in Ministers. Apparently there was a comprehensive review of local government finance in 1928 and the only result appears to have been the derating of industry as to three-quarters of its value.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And the block grant.
Mr. Mitchison: And the block grant. Since then it seems that constant review, urgent consideration and the rest have been proceeding quite interminably under one Government after another. It is not only hon. Members opposite who have hesitated to do anything definite whatever about local government finance.
It is the business of the Opposition to call the attention of the Government, by Amendments as far as it legitimately can, to what it thinks ought to have been put into this Bill. Without hesitation, I say that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee think that the rerating of industry to its full liability ought to have been put into this Bill and that is why we put forward this proposed new Clause. It is all very well to talk about this being discussed in Committee, but this matter was raised again and again on Second Reading. We went to the country on this particular proposition, and to say that it is a new and surprising development to find it here is really asking a bit much of us.
The remarkable thing about this discussion has been that, first, we have a reasoned, detailed, careful, weighty statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), which certainly called for any answer that could he given him. The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, praised it as a statement, but as to answering it said nothing whatever except that this was not the time to do it and that the matter was shortly to be reviewed. We have heard that before.

577
Meanwhile, what exactly is it we are asking about local government finance? I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if we have to consider re-allocation of functions among local government authorities we have also to consider re-allocation and general questions of finance, but we are asking that local authorities should be given a larger subject—not for assessment; that is already done—for rating than they have at present. There is no question of altering the valuation lists. The valuation lists will already provide for the assessment of industry. The simple proposition is that they should be allowed to collect the full assessable value instead of a quarter of the assessable value from industry. What local authority would object to that?
What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to assenting to it now? He tells us it is a matter of timing and a matter of the occasion, but after all, this Bill does not stand by itself. When introduced it was described as the end of a process that had been going on for seven years for a very considerable alteration of the whole basis of local government finance. Comparatively simple though some of the provisions of the Bill may be, it will come into operation roughly at the same time and consequent upon a very comprehensive re-assessment of property in the country. It may be said that it is not a large legislative change, but it is the end of a process and the end of the process is an enormous change in the basis and weight of the incidence of rates on individual ratepayers and classes of ratepayers.
7.15 p.m.
What is the objection to taking that moment to do this perfectly obvious bit of common justice? I say it is a bit of common justice; I am not in the least convinced by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), who told us that it would put up the costs of the products of industry at a highly critical time. I should have thought that if there were a time when industry could take its fair share of the burden it was now. If he is to tell us that at the moment industry is so badly off that it cannot pay the same share of rateable assessments as is paid at the moment by individual citizens, I would ask him to take that proposition away, think it over calmly, and reflect that if
578
he can believe that he can believe anything.
Mr. R. Bell: The hon. and learned Member, I am sure, will remember that I did not say industry could not pay it; I said that industry should not be asked to pay it.
Mr. Mitchison: That is a fascinating proposition. Industry is not to be excused on the grounds of indigence; it is to be excused on some other ground of high morality. What is the morality that entitles industry to pay only one-quarter of the share when everybody else in the country—commerce and, above all, the ordinary domestic ratepayer—is paying the full share? What is the morality of the distinction when this is an exemption which falls most heavily on the industrial areas—therefore, most heavily on the very places where the greater part of the population find the payment of rates the greatest burden—and which falls most heavily on those authorities which at this time and in these circumstances are finding it hardest to make ends meet and to discharge their proper functions and duties as local authorities?
That is the present position. To be told that there is some rule of convenience which excuses us from making this quite obvious change, to be told that there is some rule of natural justice which entitles industry, of all groups in the community, to this special benefit, simply makes us on these benches sit back and indulge in one great horse laugh at the whole Tory Party. Really, that kind of excuse cannot stand for a single moment. From the point of view of relations between local authorities and the Government surely at this moment when we have been listening to hon. Members opposite talking with a kind of crocodile air of solicitude for the local authorities—about the value of the work they do and the value of their independence—to find them now refusing to give local authorities the benefit of a certain amount of freedom by having some degree of revenue over which they can have control, I suspect that the real answer to all this lies not here at all but in relations between the Treasury and the rest of the Government.
The effect of this Measure if it were put through would be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton and others have

579
pointed out, to deprive the Treasury of a considerable part of revenue—these payments by industry would be admissible deductions for tax purposes—and to give it to the local authorities instead. By what right is the Treasury retaining money which was raised by the local authorities before 1928, money which is their obvious due and which was taken away from them only for the purpose of meeting a particular dire emergency at the time—and a fairly ineffective effort it was too? By what right is that being done at a time when local authorities are sore put to it to carry out their obligations?
Mr. R. Bell: What about the block grant?
Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I was nearly forgetting it. "What about the block grant?", he asks. Leave it where it is; increase it as you will. What possible answer is the block grant or the existence of the block grant to taking this particular step and allowing local authorities again to levy the full amount from industry?
Therefore, because we are not impressed by the argument that this is no occasion for doing it and because we are not impressed by the reluctance of the party opposite to do that, the justice of which none of them has denied, with the possible exception of the hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire, South, we propose to divide on this new Clause. I hope we shall not take too long about it, having regard to the agreement that was come to the other night.
Mr. W. T. Proctor: I should be lacking in my duty to my constituents if I did not protest against the action of the Minister in the announcement he has made, which will be received with dismay. When the Bill came before the House we were faced with three propositions. A certain proportion of property would be revalued at 1955 values and some at 1939 values and the industrial section valued at 1955 values was to receive a rebate of 75 per cent. In making his statement, the Minister has in effect repudiated his pledge to the country that he would deal with this situation as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation could be properly assessed. He has had plenty of evidence in the House of Commons of the effect of this revaluation, and this was the moment he could have chosen to redeem his pledge; but, by taking the action he has done, he has repudiated his pledge and refused to deal with the obvious injustices of this revaluation.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 188.

Division No. 11]

AYES

[7.22 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Deer, G.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Albu, A. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Janner, B.

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Donnelly, D. L.

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

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

Jeger, George (Goole)

Anderson, Frank

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Bacon, Miss Allce

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, 8.W.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Benson, G.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Blackburn, F.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Blenkinsop, A.

Gibson, C. W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Boardman, H.

Greenwood, Anthony

King, Dr. H. M.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Grey, C. F.

Lawson, G. M.

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Bowles, F. G.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Boyd, T. C.

Hale, Leslie

MacColl, J. E.

Brookway, A. F.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hamilton, W. W.

McLeavy, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hastings, S.

Marion, S.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hayman, F. H.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Healey, Denis

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

Mellish, R. J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Messer, Sir F.

Chapman, W. D.

Hobson, C. R.

Mitchison, G. R.

Clunie, J.

Holman, P.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Houghton, Douglas

Moyle, A.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh & Finsbury)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Oliver, G. H.

Cove, W. G.

Hubbard, T. F.

Oram, A. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oswald, T.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hunter, A. E.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Parker, J.

Parkin, B. T.

Skeffington, A. M.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Paton, J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

West, D. G.

Pearson, A.

Snow, J. W.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Peart, T. F.

Sparks, J. A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Popplewell, E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Wilkins, W. A.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Willey, Frederick

Proctor, W. T.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Reid, William

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Ross, William

Viant, S. P.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wade, D. W.

Zilliacus, K.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Warbey, W. N.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Molson, A. H. E.

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

Grimond, J.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Alport, C. J. M.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Neave, Airey

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nicolson, N. (B'n-m'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Armstrong, C. W.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Atkins, H. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Oakshott, H. D.

Balniel, Lord

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

Barber, Anthony

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

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

Barter, John

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Osborne, C.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Page, R. G.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Heath, Edward

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Holt, A. F.

Pott, H. P.

Bishop, F. P.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Powell, J. Enoch

Black, C. W.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Body, R. F.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Boyle, Sir Edward

Howard, John (Test)

Redmayne, M.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Bryan, P.

Hurd, A. R.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Campbell, Sir David

Hyde, Montgomery

Roper, Sir Harold

Cary, Sir Robert

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Channon, H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Shepherd, William

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Keegan, D.

Speir, R. M.

Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

Crouch, R. F.

Kerr, H. W.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Kershaw, J. A.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Cunningham, S. K.

Kirk, P. M.

Storey, S.

Currie, G. B. H.

Lagden, G. W.

Studholme, H. G.

Dance, J. C. G.

Leather, E. H. C.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Davidson, Viscountess

Leavey, J. A.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Leburn, W. G.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Deedes, W. F.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

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

Digby, S. Wingfield

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Duthie, W. S.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Vosper, D. F.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Longden, Gilbert

Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lenone)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Wall, Major Patrick

Errington, Sir Eric

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Fell, A.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Finlay, Graeme

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Foster, John

Maddan, Martin

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

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

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Freeth, D. K.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Gammans, L. D.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Godber, J. B.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Woollam, John Victor

Cower, H. R.

Marples, A. E.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Mathew, R.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Maude, Angus

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Mawby, R. L.

Mr. Wakefield and

Green, A.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Clause.—(REDUCTION OF RATEABLE VALUE OF BUSINESS HEREDITAMENTS.)
(1) The rateable value of a business hereditament within the meaning of this Act shall, for the purposes of a new valuation list be ascertained as follows:—

(a) in the case of such a hereditament shown in the new valuation list as wholly used for business purposes and with a net annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds the rateable value of the hereditament shall subject as hereinafter provided be taken to be one-half of the net annual value thereof;

(b) in the case of a hereditament shown in the valuation list as being occupied and used partly for business purposes and with a net annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds, the rateable value of the hereditament shall subject as hereinafter provided be taken to be an amount equal to one-half of the net annual value shown in the list as apportioned to the occupation and user of the hereditament for business purposes together with the whole of the net annual value as shown as apportioned to the occupation and user of the hereditament for any other purpose.

(2) In this Act the expression "business hereditament" means a hereditament (not being a dwellinghouse or an industrial hereditament within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928) occupied and used primarily for the following purposes or for any combination of such purposes, namely—

(a) the purposes of a retail shop.

(b) the purposes of distributive wholesale business,

(c) the purposes of storage,

and the expression "business purposes" shall be construed accordingly. The expression "retail shop" includes any premises of a similar character where retail trade or business (including repair work) is carried on.
(3) Where two or more properties within the same curtilage or contiguous to one another are in the same occupation and though treated as two or more hereditaments for the purposes of rating and valuation by reason of being situate in different parishes or of having been valued at different times or for any other reason are used as parts of a single business hereditament then for the purposes of determining whether the several hereditaments are business hereditaments they shall be treated as if they formed parts of a single hereditament comprising all such hereditaments.—[Mr. F. Harris.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. F. Harris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
All of us know that rating assessments, unhappily, are often unfair; unfair as between one property and another, and often unfair as between one district and another. I am sure every hon. Member on either side of the Committee wishes
584
there were a general basis of fairness for rating assessments throughout the country, and yet no such general equitability exists. I want to endeavour to ensure that the new assessments, when they are published, shall be as fair and equitable as possible.
I explained on Second Reading that many small traders and shopkeepers would not, in my opinion, be able to stand the financial burden of an increase in their cash rates. In the circumstances, I myself should have liked to have seen the small traders put on the same basis as has been granted to the occupiers of dwelling-houses, namely, the basis of the 1939 values. I say only that basis because with the new assessments the houses are to be assessed on the 1939 values. Given the opportunity, I should like to have had all assessments on present day values, but as the houses are to be assessed on the 1939 values, then I wish to see the shops and small traders put on approximately the same basis.
It is, I think, conceded by every hon. Member that the small traders and shopkeepers give an excellent service to the public, and I want to do everything I can to preserve their existence. I am sure that everyone here wants to do so. My right hon. Friend has very kindly given an assurance of reconsideration if, when the new assessments appear, there should be any special unfairness arising from them. I am sure he, too, would not wish to cause any unnecessary worry for the small traders. Therefore, I commend to him in this new Clause some action to save the small shopkeepers that worry. I fully expect some hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend, too, will find some flaws in my new Clause, but I hope that its principle will commend itself to the Committee, for I have endeavoured here to put forward a proposition which will be fair and also easily operable.
I fully understand that if the traders and shopkeepers were put on the same basis as the occupiers of dwelling-houses, namely, the basis of the 1939 values, that might mean a hold-up; it might mean that the whole of these reassessments would be held up for possibly another year. I do not suppose that any of us would wish that to happen. Therefore, I have endeavoured to evolve a sound alternative. I understand that it is administratively possible and would not be

585
be a burden on the clerks who would have to operate the proposal. I also understand that it would not cause any marked delay.
It is very difficult for any of us to know what these new assessments will involve when they are published, but I guess that house assessments based on the 1939 values may be increased by some 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. My belief is that the assessments of the small shopkeepers may be increased by as much as 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. My guess is that that certainly will be so in Croydon, in which I am closely interested. My proposal, therefore, is that retail shops and distributive wholesale business premises of a net annual value not exceeding £100 should be derated by 50 per cent. By taking the net annual value of not more than £100, I think I shall bring in all, or nearly all, of the small shopkeepers' or traders' premises.
I have not specified offices in the new Clause. I am aware of the complication of trying to bring in offices. It is difficult to separate them. Moreover, many offices are owned by big concerns which let them at varying rents, and the effect of rates are not always involved.
I have taken the proportion of 50 per per cent, because I was proposing, by my other new Clause which has been already discussed, that derating should be brought down from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. I was trying thereby to introduce some measure of fairness between industry on the one hand and the small traders on the other.
I mention a net annual value of not more than £100, but I do not wish to be thought absolutely committed to that figure. My right hon. Friend may think that for some reason or another that is the wrong figure. Of course, I know full well that whatever figure one may propose it will not bring in all small trader properties, that there will be borderline cases, and because I suggest a figure of £100 that may seem very hard on someone whose figure is £101. However, difficult as it is to find a solution to this problem, I am hoping that the proposal I am making is one which will bring us nearer to fairness in dealing with this problem than we are reaching at this time. There may be small shopkeepers who will have higher increases of assessment than the occupiers of houses based on
586
the 1939 values, but, anyhow, my proposal would certainly be a step in the right direction of equity.
The proposition in the new Clause is a perfectly practical one. It will be easy for the officials concerned to operate. Furthermore, it would not cause any hold-up in the operation of the new assessments. If necessary, of course, further adjustments could be made, especially in five years' time, when the new valuations are disclosed, and when, we hope, a fairer, more equitable basis is found for all these assessments.
I do not myself favour derating, as I endeavoured to explain earlier, but I could not see any other way in which I could put forward this proposition in the present circumstances. I am very anxious to secure an easement for small traders and shopkeepers when the time comes, and this would appear to be the only fair way in which I could endeavour to obtain that result, without complicating the new assessments that are to come into being.
In regard to my proposals in these two new Clauses whereby I wish to cut down the 75 per cent. derating of factories to 50 per cent., and a grant of 50 per cent. derating for small traders, from what I gathered from the information I have endeavoured to obtain it would not result in a net loss to the local authority. I say this because, on the one hand, factory premises would be paying more, and, on the other hand, the small traders and shopkeepers would be getting a measure of easement and paying less.
I think we must clearly understand that the results of the new valuations, when they are disclosed, will be that, if industry continues to get 75 per cent. derating, and if dwelling houses are to be held back for the moment—although I agree only for five years—to the 1939 values, then possibly it will mean that houses will have a 25 per cent. increase in the new assessments when they are disclosed and that practically the whole of the additional burden of this readjustment of assessments may well fall upon the small traders and shopkeepers, and I cannot see any alternative to this.
It is only fair that we in this Committee should wake up and try to do something about this. It is a matter upon which I have felt very strongly for a long time, and upon which for many years I have

587
endeavoured to warn the small traders and shopkeepers in my own constituency of what was likely to happen when the new assessments were published. I feel that, in fairness to such small traders, we must endeavour to put forward a concrete proposal, which the Minister can then decide is acceptable or not, or it may be that he may care to give some further assurance, if he can see his way clear to do so, on what will happen when these new assessments are published.
Mr. Ede: I have been following the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) with very great interest, but I should like to ask him this question. If his assumption is correct that these small tradespeople are likely to have their assessments increased by between 200 and 300 per cent., can he say how many shops in Croydon would be exempt when a re-assessment has taken place under the provisions of his new Clause? How many shops in Croydon of the kind he has in mind have a net annual value of less than £50 or £33?
Mr. Harris: I can only speak from my own inquiries. I cannot give the exact number, but I believe approximately 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of shopkeepers and small traders would get an easement under this proposal, and it definitely would meet the major part of the problem. If the figure that I am suggesting is not the right one, I am only trying to show a way in which the assessments could be adjusted at the present time.
If my proposal is accepted, obviously, the situation when the new assessments are published would not to be so unfair. The whole position could be put on a more equitable basis when the next valuation is taken in five years' time, but I still feel that we must act now, before these unjust and unfair re-assessments come into being. That is why I have endeavoured to put forward this new Clause, hoping that the Minister may be able to give some answer which will mean that the position of small traders and shopkeepers will not be nearly so serious as would appear likely at the present time.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) has explained the purpose of his proposed new Clause. It is perhaps
588
a little strange that we were debating a moment ago the question of re-rating and now we are debating the question of de-rating.
My hon. Friend has explained the reasons which have prompted him to put forward this new Clause, and I think all of us, as I certainly have done on more than one occasion, have expressed sympathy in the anxieties which are felt by shopkeepers, tradesmen and occupiers of commercial premises by reason of the fact that the basis for the valuation, as fixed by the Act of 1948, placed them on a current value basis, while leaving houses on a prewar basis, and, of course, leaving industry derated.
I do not think I should hark back to an earlier debate, but I do not think sufficient justice has been done to the fact that the policy legislation which governs all these things is the 1948 Act. The time when that Bill was before the House was the time to make some of these major changes, not now in a purely machinery Measure. Be that as it may, I recognise that there is understandable anxiety among sections of the community whose valuations are made on a basis which, on the face of it, is likely to produce larger assessments than is the case with those other sections of the community whose assessments are based on a valuation taken at an earlier date, when the value of money was higher.
I have already explained to the Committee the difficulty of taking any action, either such as is proposed in this new Clause or in other ways, to deal with this situation at this moment. As my hon. Friend has said, we just do not know what are to be the precise effects of this revaluation. There has not been a valuation of this kind for twenty years. We all know that, in the case of industry and commercial businesses, all sorts of different properties have been valued in very different ways, according to very different standards, in different parts of the country, by reason of the fact that the valuation authorities, instead of being, as now, the Inland Revenue, were all the different rating authorities.
Some valuation authorities, particularly in areas where there was a slump or unemployment, valued industry in such a sympathetic way that the valuation really had no relation to the real value of the premises concerned. Although we know

589
that all these factors exist, we do not know to what extent they exist in each case. They are bound to produce changes, some of them quite surprising changes, and they will, of course, vary in their incidence from area to area.
It would be a great mistake to try to tinker with the set-up when we are still in ignorance of what we are trying to put right and of the extent to which it needs to be put right. I gave an assurance to the House some months ago, in which I undertook that the Government would review the position as soon as the effects of the revaluation could be fully measured, and I said that if we found that the rate burden had been shifted in such a way as to cause serious injustice, we would, of course, take steps to rectify it.
During the Second Reading debate, I corrected a misapprehension which I believed existed, that no change could be made for another five years and that we had to wait for the quinquennial revaluation before anything could be done. I made it quite clear that there was no reason why, if serious injustice was shown to be done, any changes that were necessary and desirable could not be introduced as soon as the decision was reached on what needed to be done. There was no need to wait for a further revaluation.
Broadly, that is the position today, and I do not think I can usefully add to what I have already said. I should, however, like to remove another misapprehension. It has been said on a number of occasions that we really know exactly what the position will be and that we are just being awkward in not coming forward with some proposal to put things right. It has been suggested that later in the year, when the revaluation lists are completed, it will be possible then at least to know whether any injustice has been done. I must make it clear, however, that it is not until the rate is fixed that we can really tell what will be the effect of the revaluation.
It is not enough to compare, as has been suggested, the total global new assessments and to see how the proportion of burden has been changed between different classes of property. In county districts, for instance, sometimes as much as two-thirds of the rate burden arises directly or indirectly from county expen-
590
diture. Until that has been sorted out, and also the question of the equalisation grant, which comes into the picture, and various other factors, and until each individual ratepayer knows exactly what he will have to pay, we shall not be in a position to arrive at a decision. That does not mean that we shall not start studying this problem as soon as we can reasonably do so with such information as becomes available to us.
Mr. F. Harris: After hearing what my right hon. Friend has said, and hoping that my fears will not be confirmed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(RATING OF UNOCCUPIED HEREDITAMENTS.)
(1) In any rating area an unoccupied hereditament shall be liable to he rated, and shall be included in any rate, for any rate period beginning on or after the date on which the first new valuation list for that area comes into force.
(2) The owner of an unoccupied hereditament shall be liable to pay rates in respect of that hereditament and the law as regards valuation and rating shall apply to that owner in relation to that hereditament as it applies to the occupier in relation to an occupied hereditament.
(3) In this section "owner" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1925.—[Mr. Gibson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Gibson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is an attempt to look forward a little. The subject matter of the Clause represents a problem which, before the war, used to be of very serious moment to rating authorities. As a member of an assessment committee many years ago in my own borough, I found that we always had to make an allowance for a percentage of unoccupied property on which we received no rates. The war and the aftermath of war, resulting in a shortage of housing property, to some extent got rid of the problem of empty property on which no rates were paid, but now the problem is reappearing fairly rapidly.
I know that in my constituency and in other boroughs in London many houses are deliberately held empty, or part-empty where they have been converted into two or three flats, in order to push up the price which the landlord hopes

591
to obtain, with the knowledge that when the property is empty it does not cost him anything, because during that time he pays no rates. That seems a gross injustice to most of the ratepayers and the greater part of the community who have to go on paying rates.
The average wage earner cannot avoid paying rates, month after month and year after year, but owners of property can and do avoid paying rates as soon as a house becomes empty, and they are able to keep it empty in order to push up the price. It has always seemed to me a little peculiar that the Tory Party, which says that it believes in competition, should have been so very anxious to ease the burden of competition on property owners. Not the slightest effort has ever been made to take steps to prevent empty houses being held empty so that the price or the rent which the landlord could obtain could be pushed up.
In moving the new Clause, I submit that rates or part of the rates—say 50 per cent.—should be paid on all empty properties. I believe that that would have the effect of stimulating competition in the letting of houses and, what is equally important, stimulating competition in reducing rents and in enabling people who are so badly in need of accommodation obtain it at a more reasonable rent than they do at the present time.
When I hear of young married couples who are compelled to pay £3 a week for one room in my borough, I say that anybody who does not do all he can to push on with any step that can be taken to increase the total pool of housing accommodation is not being a good public servant. Many people who live in the area which I represent are, unfortunately, in the position I have described. A man or woman who keeps a house or a flat empty merely to obtain a high rent when it is eventually let is an enemy of the public. We should do something to remedy that situation. The small and mild measure which we suggest is that such people should be compelled to pay some rate on the property whilst it is empty.
After all, the public services go on and we have to go on paying for them. The roads have to be repaired and kept clean, public lighting has to continue, and sanitary inspectors have to be employed to see that houses are kept in a reasonable
592
state of repair. The owner who keeps a house empty ought to be "punished" by making him pay a certain proportion of the rates while the house is empty. I believe that that would prevent there being a large number of empty houses which are becoming a feature in the country at present. It would help in getting those houses filled quickly in the large cities, and particularly in London, where there is such a great need.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to be a little more sympathetic to this new Clause than he was to the new Clause which was moved a short time ago by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). If he is, I shall be very surprised, because never in my forty years' experience of local government have I yet found the Tory Party, locally or nationally, prepared to agree that there was any justice in making owners of properties who kept those properties empty pay a proportion of the rates while they were empty. I think that it is fair and just to do so. I am sure that as time passes empty houses will become a greater burden on the finances of local authorities, and I hope that it will be possible in this Parliament to have something done to relieve that situation.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. MacColl: I should very much like to support the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). I have a confession to make. I am a more moderate-minded man in many ways than is my hon. Friend, and I am bound to say that I do not think that the new Clause in the form in which it is drafted, whereby it is proposed to put 100 per cent. rates on every property is a practical proposition. I do not know what my hon. Friend's attitude would be, but my own feeling is—and I hope the Minister is prepared to indicate that he will introduce a comparable Clause at a later stage of the Bill—that it would be quite reasonable that there should be a reduction in the proportion of the rates paid by the owners of empty hereditaments.
Mr. Gibson: I did, in fact, say that I would be prepared to accept 50 per cent.
Mr. MacColl: I am very glad to find that my hon. Friend and I are one on that point, and as I am sure the Minister is going to make an offer to us, we shall

593
be in a position to meet him on that point.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could reasonably get away with the argument which he used when we were discussing a previous proposed new Clause, that it was wrong to introduce some foundamentally new principles in the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, and that if he were to do it we should rebuke him. Surely the point is that the Bill is his Bill, and he puts into it what he wants to put into it.
We can only get things into a Bill by moving Amendments and new Clauses during the Committee and Report stages, and our whole argument is that the weakness of this Bill is that it deals with the whole subject in a piecemeal manner. That, after all, was at the root of our troubles over the rating of water undertakings. The difficulty there arose because these other changes in the collection of rates were included in the Bill. It is because of the discrimination that has taken place against certain types of undertaking that the trouble has been caused.
This particular proposal for the rating of empty property has a very respectable history. It was originally recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in 1899, which is fifty-six years ago, when the Rating and Valuation Bill of 1925 was introduced, and an Amendment was moved in the Committee upstairs to include the rating of empty property. That was moved by a Labour Member, Mr. John Scurr, but it was moved with the support and, I think at the request of, the London County Council. In 1925 the London County Council was, of course, a Tory body, and it is interesting to note that a Tory county council as long ago as 1925 was pressing for the introduction of this reform.
Then, in 1936, a Bill for London only, the London Rating Unoccupied Hereditaments Bill—to give it its somewhat unexciting title—was introduced as a Private Member's Bill and was debated on the Floor of the House. I remember that quite well because I was at the time a hot blooded, young recruit to local government in London and, I remember, too, the interest about it in my own council, which was the most hidebound and reactionary Conservative council in the London area. Three times the finance committee refused to agree to
594
opposition to the Bill by the council, and three times the vested interests in the full council referred the matter back to the finance committee.
I think that is a wonderful illustration of this issue, and it shows that the people who have the job of administering finances in local government pressed most for this improvement, while the people who opposed it were the people who opposed the Bill in the Committee upstairs in 1925—the vested interests and the property owners and others who were not primarily concerned with a fair and equitable distribution of local taxation but were concerned to safeguard their own interests. Surely the time has come now when we ought to get away from that point of view. A good deal has happened in the last twenty years, and the time has come when we ought to introduce this reform which in the City of London was originally introduced some time in the seventeenth century.
There are two practical reasons for it, based upon the workings of local government and there is a political argument or an argument of general principle—both of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend—which ought to carry very great weight. The first argument is that empty property is getting local government services for nothing. When a fire brigade goes along to an empty house which is burning—and an empty house is more likely to burn than an occupied house; in the case of most fire policies the householder has to give an undertaking that he will not leave the house unoccupied for longer than a certain period which shows the risk of fire in empty property—the captain does not say, "We will not put out your fire because you are not paying rates and because you have contracted out of your responsibilities."
The fire service is provided for all property, and the same is equally true of the police. The risk of breaking and entering is greater in the case of empty property than in the case of occupied property, and the burden and responsibility is therefore all the greater on the police. But no policeman walking on the beat or getting a 999 call that a man is on the roof of an empty house will say, "That is all right, the owner has not paid his rates and, therefore, it is a free for all." The police, at the

595
expense of the rest of the community, have to deal with the situation.
Then there is the case of a landlord who is trying to let a house. If he finds the streets are in a very dirty condition, that the refuse has not been collected off the streets, that the cesspools are smelling, and that the roads are not made up, he knows that all this will reduce the value of the house which he is trying to let, and he will be the first person to write an indignant letter to his Member of Parliament complaining that he cannot let his house because of the condition of the road, the uncollected refuse, and so on. These are all a charge upon the people who are occupying property.
Those are some of the considerations from the narrowest financial point of view in favour of making the owners of empty property make some contribution to the rates. Those are the arguments which have weighed with those people who have looked at this problem and who have favoured something in the nature of the payment of rates on property which is vacant.
It may be said that there is not now the amount of empty property that there was in 1935 or 1936. But now, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, there is more empty property than there was. I know that in my own borough the percentage of "empties" in the last financial year noticeably increased from the low point which it had reached. I should have thought that that was a very good argument for introducing some such plan as this.
The change could be introduced without any great effect immediately, so that it could be woven into the system of local taxation. A lot of people believe that this is a very good moment to make this change, because if we wait until there is a terrific number of "empties" then we will be told, "Property owners are hard hit as it is without making them pay rates on empty houses. They budgeted on the supposition that they were not going to have to pay." Therefore, I suggest, that this is the psychological moment to implement this proposal.
The other point is an argument on more general principles as to why I think that at the moment this is the most desirable
596
thing to do. This point was also made by my hon. Friend. Not only in London but all over the country—I am sure that any hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency is aware of this—one of the biggest social problems we have is that some landlords are holding property off the market and refusing to let it in order that they can force up the sale price. They are anxious, wherever possible, to get rid of the tenants and to sell the property with vacant possession, sometimes at an absurd and economically ridiculous value.
I noticed this problem particularly when going round my constituency during the last Election. In areas crammed with hundreds and hundreds of people who are on the waiting list, waiting to be rehoused at the expense of the borough, houses are empty and they are being deliberately held empty in order to increase their selling value. That means a bigger charge on local authorities.
Mr. Powell: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how the selling value of a house is increased by leaving it empty for a year?
Mr. MacColl: If the hon. Gentleman cares to go through the history of how great fortunes have been made in business in this country and elsewhere, he will find that when a person has something which other people want, and can hold it back until the pressure of need is great, they will give him anything in order to get it. I seem to remember also that there are convincing illustrations in the Old Testament of how that is done. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to be more modern, I advise him to look at the Old Testament.
Mr. Powell: I should like an explanation based on the conditions of 1955, with an output of 350,000 houses a year.
Mr. MacColl: The answer is that the output of 350,000 houses is being absorbed by the large waiting lists in my constituency and in those of many other hon. Members. Or at least one hopes they will be absorbed, if one takes the Government proposals at their face value, by the somewhat miserable undertaking to rehouse 200,000 people by slum clearance. That is where the new houses must go.
Mr. C. Pannell: They are also taken up by people from places like Acton, where the space is completely built up and there are no other places on which to build within the borough. In such places the device of holding a house empty is common practice.
Mr. Powell: And what is the effect of it?
Mr. Skeffington: My hon. Friend is also aware, of course, that many of these new houses are being built for sale.
Mr. Powell: But these empty houses are for sale.
Mr. MacColl: I am happy that I have been able to be the means of so much political and social education of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I hope he will profit from it. One need not go too far into that point.
Everybody who is aware of the conditions in which the working classes of this country are living at the moment will agree that this is one of the biggest social problems of an industrial constituency. The proposal is a matter of making the owners pay a rate for the services which they are enjoying. They would be annoyed if some of the people on the waiting list were to go into those houses as squatters. Who stops them going in? The police, for whom the rest of the population have to pay while the landlord goes rate free.
Therefore, on both those counts—on the purely practical ground of local government finance as well as on the broader ground of social justice—there is a strong case for introducing this proposal, not in the remote future but now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this practice, which started fifty-five years ago, has now acquired a new and pressing urgency which calls for immediate action, and I hope that he will be able to meet us on the matter.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said so clearly and with such considerable force by my two hon. Friends. This is an important problem in most constituencies practically throughout the country. Empty
598
houses can be found in very many streets in Leicester, and everybody knows the reason why they are kept empty. At the same time our waiting list for houses in Leicester is very large, as it is in most parts of the country.
It is not good enough to say that so many houses are being built. What is important is that people are not being housed at the rate which is necessary and they are gravely concerned about getting proper housing accommodation. What has been overlooked in the past, and what I hope will not be overlooked this evening, is that many houses are falling into the hands of landlords in consequence of certain lacunae that exist in the present Rent Acts.
We have endeavoured from time to time on this side of the Committee to have these remedied, but the fact is that today, for example, landlords obtain possession by turning people out who have been living for many years in dwelling-houses with a relative—and that relative, a father or a mother, having died possibly within a few days after the death of the original tenant. What happens then? The house is put up for sale and it may be kept empty until the landlord obtains the highest price possible. It is a simple proposition, it is being done every day, and I am sure the Minister knows it. The purpose of keeping the house empty is so that the owner may be able to bargain for as long as possible to obtain the highest price. He keeps it empty in spite of the crying need for housing accommodation. That happens in Leicester and elsewhere.
In addition, the policy of requisitioning empty houses has been practically abandoned, so there is yet another opportunity for an owner to keep his house empty until he can obtain the highest price. This is not a case affecting 100 or 1,000 houses but thousands and thousands, and so the Minister should take these matters into consideration.
What would the landlord have to lose even if the 100 per cent. rate were asked for? I think that my hon. Friends are more than reasonable in suggesting that the figure should be below 100 per cent. Yet even if the 100 per cent. were asked for, it would merely mean that for the period during which the landlord is bargaining for a higher price for his house, he would be paying for those services that

599
have been so well described by my hon. Friends.
And why should he not? Is it because he cannot find purchasers for his house? The fact is that he can easily sell his house. Plenty of people would be prepared to buy it, and so he does not need to keep it empty. The only object of doing so is the one I have mentioned—to get the highest price. That being the case, the Minister should realise that this proposal is a reasonable way of dealing with individuals who are not prepared to pay due regard to the needs of the community and who want to extract from those needs the highest they can get. Taking into consideration what has been said by my hon. Friend, and also my few remarks, I hope the Minister will say that there is a special call now for this provision in order to enable people to have as much accommodation available as possible to meet their needs.
Mr. Sandys: Particularly in a period when there are long waiting lists for houses—although the number of acute cases of hardship is not so great as it was—it is distressing, worrying and irritating for people to see houses remaining empty which they feel should be occupied. The argument has been advanced that there are houses which were let in the past which, when they become vacant, are now left vacant until the owner can obtain what he considers to be a good price for them.
I do not think that the only problem is to ensure that the owner sells as quickly as possible, even though he may have to accept a lower price. One would like to see a larger number of these houses remain available for letting. Undoubtedly, many of them are no longer available to be let. The concern of the owner is to find someone to buy his house. As hon. Members are aware, there are a number of factors which contribute to that situation, but I do not propose to go into them now. The most desirable thing would be to ensure that these houses, which are essentially houses for letting, should remain so. There is a great demand for such houses, and it is worrying to see so many of them being sold instead of being let.
Having said that, I think that the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) will
600
recognise that he is proposing a major change in the principles of the English rating system, which has always been based on the taxation of the occupier and not the owner of property. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that, as drafted, the Clause would raise a number of difficulties. I think that it would, although I shall not go into them now. In addition to drafting difficulties, there are serious practical and technical problems. But that is not the ground on which I propose to base my reply to the hon. Member for Clapham.
The main argument of the hon. Member was that had an owner to pay rates on empty property he would be induced to let it more quickly and more cheaply. I am not so sure about that. We are here discussing the play of economic forces. The hon. Member for Clapham argued that if a landlord found that he had to pay rates on empty property, it would pay him to sell for a substantially lower price in order not to have the property on his hands and have to continue paying rates.
Mr. Janner: But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these houses are sometimes empty for six, nine or twelve months or more? That would not be an advantage to the landlord, if rates had to be paid on the property.
Mr. Sandys: We can all form our own opinion about that. I am doubtful if it would make much difference. The rates levied on this type of property are not usually very substantial, whereas the prices which may be obtained would make it an advantage for landlords to wait in order to get a larger price. That would outweigh the fact that they might have to pay rates on their property for a quarter, or for two quarters. I am now voicing my assessment of the practical consideration which might weigh with an owner, and I submit to the hon. Member that were his proposal adopted, it would not make any substantial difference to the number of empty properties which would remain empty.
This situation which the hon. Gentleman deplores will, to a great extent, disappear as soon as the housing shortage is overcome. But the adoption of a proposal of this kind would undoubtedly discourage house building. People would not wish to build new houses if, in addi-

601
tion to the cost of building a house, there was the danger of having to pay rates while they were looking for some one to buy it.
If I understood the debate correctly, there were two separate arguments made by hon. Members who supported the Motion. One was the purely practical case argued by the hon. Member for Clapham, to which I have already replied. The other was put by the hon. Member for Widnes who, while supporting the hon. Member for Clapham, also said that he thought owners of these properties ought to make a contribution towards the cost of public services—police, fire brigade, and so on—which were available to him, even though his property might be unoccupied. Once we adopt that principle, it takes us a very long way. It would be a complete departure from the historical basis of the English rating system.
8.30 p.m.
If owners ought to pay rates for police protection and fire services when their property is empty, why should they not pay rates for those same services, when their property is occupied? The situation that we would get to is: it is very important to an owner, although he has a weekly tenant in the house, that the house should not be burnt down and that damage should not be done. A proportion of the rates ought to be paid by the owner, therefore, at all times and the whole of the rates ought to be paid by him when the house is empty.
We should get very quickly to the introduction of what are called "owners' rates." That is what Scotland has. The whole system of owners' rates, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who has just come in knows, has just been looked into very carefully by a high-powered Committee—the Sorn Committee. I will read a few sentences of what it said about owners' rates.
"Many of our witnesses endorsed the Committee's conclusion that the incidence of owners' rates was an important factor in the striking contrast between the number of houses built by private enterprise to let in Scotland and England and Wales in the years before the war, and we have received a strong consensus of evidence that the liability to owners' rates and the impossibility of predicting how they may rise is still one of the factors hindering the building of houses to let and one cause of the increasing disrepair of many houses."
602
The Committee went on to say:
"The evidence thus briefly summarised has left us in no doubt that owners' rates are now an unnecessary and harmful complication in the Scottish system of rating, which disguises the finances of owners and occupiers of all classes of property and of rating authorities alike and impedes the provision of housing and the growth of industry."
This is hardly the moment to introduce in England a system which has been condemned, and which will very soon be abandoned in Scotland.
Mr. Mitchison: It does not seem that the Scottish system of owners' rates has very much to do with the point that we are considering. I understand that on occupied houses in Scotland owners' rates and also occupiers' rates are paid. We are not suggesting that. To avoid the payment of rates in Scotland, one takes the roof of the house off. Nothing else serves the purpose. The practice of taking roofs off is spreading through the Highlands. I do not know what is done with the roofs afterwards, but there it is.
We are considering a very much smaller matter than that—whether or not rates ought to be charged on unoccupied houses. Every hon. Member would agree at once that that would in any circumstances be only a small proportion of the property on which rates are charged. The Minister's defence was the highly Conservative one that rates have always been based on occupation. That is perfectly true. The original rating Statute was intended to make the poor work, and one of the first purposes for which rates were imposed on occupiers of property was for providing the work material. It all goes back a long way, but so it has remained.
It has led to such absurd consequences as that which we see in connection with sewers today. Sewers have been rated in the past because sewers are regarded as occupied, for rating purposes. The London County Council is, in this connection, occupying the 21-foot-high monstrosity that we heard about in West Ham and East Ham. Occupation has gone far beyond the original meaning of the word, and has been applied to conditions very remote from those of the days of Elizabeth. While I have the greatest respect for the traditional aspect of the Conservative Party, I think it is going a little far if they cannot find any better defence than that this has always been the practice.

603
It is a comparatively small point, and I will state it the other way round. Is there any real reason why unoccupied houses should not pay rates? It seems to me that real property—houses and so on—does in fact make a contribution, as such, towards the expenses of local authorities. It makes it from the purse of the occupier—if I may use a rather Irish way of putting it—though even that is not without exception. Curiously enough, the owners of advertising hoardings are liable, as such. I do not know who occupies an advertising hoarding but, by Statute, the owners pay.
Is there any real reason why the owners of these unoccupied houses should not pay rates? In spite of what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, it is perfectly obvious that the great reason for many houses being unoccupied is that the landlords are waiting to get the best price and think, rightly or wrongly—and we are not concerned with that—that they will get the best price by waiting. All of us who have any practical experience know perfectly well that in any town there will be found a number of houses unoccupied because the landlord will not make any other use of them as he wants to sell with vacant possession at the best price.
Mr. Powell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had to buy a house in a town would he rather there were a hundred unoccupied houses for sale in that town, or none?
Mr. Mitehison: I am afraid that I cannot appreciate the relevance of the question. The point is that landlords do, in practice, and we all know perfectly well—perhaps they do not do so in Wol-verhampton; it may be a very curious town, but everywhere else—as indeed the right hon. Gentleman has just confirmed —that a certain number of landlords deliberately keep houses unoccupied because they want to sell them and think that they will get the best price that way.
To put it quite mildly, that is a pity. That being so, is there any reason why those houses should be exempt from rates? One point put was, "Well, of course, if you charge them rates you will discourage people from building houses." I think that the right hon. Gentleman put it that way, but that really is rather remote. A man puts up a very considerable sum of money to pay for the building of a house, knowing that he will have to wait a little time to sell or let it, as the case may be. I should have thought a very much more serious consideration on the question of leaving the building empty would be that he was not getting any interest or return on his expenditure during that period. On the question of rating or no rating, I should have said that that sort of liability is not likely to make very much difference.
Similarly, from the point of view of the local authorities, I should not for one moment say that the local authority was going to make a mint of fresh money out of this proposal. My view is simply that I see no real reason why rates should not be paid on these unoccupied houses. I am not a bit convinced by the argument that rating has always been based on occupation, because occupation has become such a highly artificial thing. I do see good social reasons for discouraging—mildly, but discouraging—the practice of landlords keeping a house unoccupied in order to get the highest possible price for vacant possession.
Therefore, by a combination of what seems to me to be reasonable justice and what I regard as social expediency—without exaggerating the importance of it—I think that the proposed new Clause is right, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept it. That is our general view on this side of the Committee, and we propose to give expression to it.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 175.

Division No. 12.]

AYES

[8.39 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. O.

Albu, A. H.

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Boardman, H.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Anderson, Frank

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Awbery, S. S.

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

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Bacon, Mist Alice

Boyd, T. C.

Chapman, W. D.

Baird, J.

Brockway, A. F.

Clunie, J.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Reid, William

Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Janner, B.

Robens, Rt. Hon, A.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Cove, W. G.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Ross, William

Craddook, George {Bradford, S.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Short, E. W.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Deer, C.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Skeffington, A. M.

Donnelly, D. L.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

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

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Snow, J. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

King, Dr. H. M.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lawson, G. M.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

MacColl, J. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Gibson, C. W.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Greenwood, Anthony

McLeavy, F.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Grey, C. F.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Viant, S. P.

Hale, Leslie

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, W. N.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Messer, Sir F.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hamilton, W. W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hastings, S.

Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewls'm,S.)

West, D, G.

Hayman, F. H.

Moyle, A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Healey, Denis

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Oram, A. E.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Orbaeh, M.

Willey, Frederick

Holman, P.

Oswald, T.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Holmes, Horace

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Houghton, Douglas

Parker, J.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Parkin, B. T.

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

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Paton, J.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hubbard, T. F.

Peart, T. F.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Popplewell, E.

Zilliacus, K.

Hunter, A. E.

Proctor, W. T.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. T. Price.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P, C.

Duthie, W. S.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Aitken, W. T.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Alport, C. J. M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Keegan, D.

Amory, Rt. Hn.Heathcoat(Tiverton)

Errington, Sir Eric

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W, J,

Fell, A.

Kerr, H. W.

Armstrong, C. W.

Finlay, Graeme

Kirk, P. M.

Atkins, H. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lagden, G. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Freeth, D. K.

Leavey, J. A.

Balniel, Lord

Gammans, L. D.

Leburn, W. G.

Barber, Anthony

Cower, H. R.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Barter, John

Graham, Sir Fergus

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Green, A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Greaham Cooke, R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Biggs-Davison, J. A,

Grimond, J.

Longden, Gilbert

Bishop, F. P.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Black, C. W.

Gurden, Harold

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Body, R. F.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Hare, Hon. J. H.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Madden, Martin

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eyre)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Bryan, P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Marples, A. E.

Campbell, Sir David

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Marshall, Douglas

Cary, sir Robert

Heath, Edward

Mathew, R.

Channon, H.

Hills, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Maude, Angus

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Mawby, R. L.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Horobin, Sir Ian

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nabarro, G. D. N,

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Howard, John (Test)

Neave, Airey

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th.E. & Chr'ch)

Crouch, R. F.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Cunningham, S. K.

Hughes-Young, M. H, C.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hurd, A. R.

Oakshott, H. D.

Dance, J. C. G.

Hyde, Montgomery

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Osborne, C.

Deedes, W. F.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Page, R. G.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Vosper, D. F.

Pott, H. P.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Speir, R. M.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Raikes, Sir Victor

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich W.)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Redmayne, M.

Storey, S.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Studholme, H. G.

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

Ridsdale, J. E.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington).

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Rippon, A, G. F.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Teeling, W.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Woollam, John Victor

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Godber.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause.—INCREASE OF CONTROLLED RENT IN CONSEQUENCE OF REVALUATION.)
(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies (in this section referred to as "the dwelling-house"), where, at any time within the year beginning with the date of the coming into force of a new valuation list for the rating area in which the dwelling-house is situated, an increase in the rent payable in respect of the dwelling-house would, apart from this section and from the provisions of subsection (8) of section one of this Act, be permitted by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section two of the said Act of 1920 (which provides for increases of rent in respect of increases in the amounts payable by the landlord for rates).
In the following provisions of this section "relevant notice of increase" means a notice, served in conformity with subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1920, of the intention of the landlord to bring into effect such an increase in rent as is mentioned in this subsection, and "relevant rent", in relation to such a notice, means rent which (apart from this section and from subsection (8) of section one of this Act) would include an amount recoverable by the landlord by virtue of that notice.
(2) A relevant notice of increase, which is served before the end of the year mentioned in the preceding subsection, shall not have effect unless it is accompanied by a statement containing such information as may be prescribed with regard to the rights of the tenant in consequence of the following provisions of this section.
(3) If. where the landlord serves a relevant notice of increase, a proposal (in this section referred to as "the proposal") is made (whether before or after the service of that notice) in such circumstances that the provisions of subsection (8) of section one of this Act have effect in relation to the dwelling-house or to a hereditament of which the dwelling-house forms part, the tenant, at any time before the proposal is settled, may serve on the landlord a notice (in this section referred to as a "suspense notice") requiring the increase of rent to be suspended.
(4) Where a suspense notice is served, then, as respects any rent accruing due within the period beginning with the service of the notice of increase, and ending with the date on which,
608
after the proposal is settled, the next demand for rates in respect of the dwelling-house is made (in this section referred to as "the period of suspense"), the said Act of 1920 shall have effect, subject to the two next following subsections, as if no relevant notice of increase had been served:
Provided that any rent actually paid before the service of a suspense notice shall not be recoverable by virtue of this subsection.
(5) Where a suspense notice has been served,—

(a) if the result of the proposal, when it is settled, is that no alteration is made in the valuation list in respect of the valuation to which the proposal related, the landlord may serve on any person, from whom any relevant rent accrued due within the period of suspense, a notice specifying the unpaid balance of any such rent which would have been recoverable from him if the suspense notice had not been served;

(b) if the result of the proposal is that an alteration is made in the valuation list, but the alteration is such that there is still an increase in the amount payable by the landlord in respect of rates, the landlord may serve on any such person a notice specifying the unpaid balance of any such rent which would have been recoverable from him if—

(i) the suspense notice had not been served, and

(ii) the increase of rent specified in the relevant notice of increase had been such lesser increase as would have been permissible if the valuation list, as from the time when it came into force, had had effect as modified by the alteration.

(6) Any sum specified in a notice under the last preceding subsection shall be recoverable by the landlord from the person on whom the notice is served, and, if that person is the tenant of the dwelling-house, shall be recoverable as if it were arrears of rent:
Provided that a sum recoverable by virtue of this subsection shall not be treated as arrears of rent for the purposes of any proceedings for the recovery of possession of the dwelling-house.
(7) If, where the landlord has served a relevant notice of increase, the tenant does not serve a suspense notice, but the result of the proposal, when it is settled, is that an alteration is made in the valuation list so as to

609
reduce the valuation to which the proposal related, any person who paid any relevant rent accruing due before the proposal was settled—

(a) shall be entitled to recover from the landlord so much of that rent as would not have been recoverable by the landlord if the relevant notice of increase had specified such lesser increase (if any) as would have been permissible if the valuation list, as from the time when it came into force, had had effect as modified by the alteration, or

(b) in a case where, in those circumstances, no such increase would have been permissible, shall be entitled to recover from the landlord so much of that rent as would not have been recoverable by the landlord if the relevant notice of increase had not been served.

(8) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section. a relevant notice of increase (whenever served) shall have effect, and any relevant rent shall be recoverable, as if subsection (8) of section one of this Act had not been enacted.
(9) The provisions of this section shall have effect, with the necessary modifications in relation to a notice served under subsection (4) of section seven of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1938 (which relates to notices served on prospective tenants) as if it were a notice served under subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1920.
(10) The power of the Minister to make regulations under section fourteen of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, shall include power to make regulations—

(a) for prescribing the information to be contained in such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section;

(b) for prescribing the form of any notice to be served in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.

(11) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "dwelling house", "landlord" and "tenant" have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1920;

(b) subsection (9) of section one of this Act shall apply as it applies for the purposes of subsection (8) of that section;

(c) any reference to a demand for rates in respect of the dwelling-house includes a reference to a demand for rates in respect of a hereditament of which the dwelling-house forms part;

(d) rent shall be treated as accruing due on the day on which it is payable in accordance with the terms of the relevant contract of tenancy, or of the relevant statutory tenancy (within the meaning of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954), as the case may he.—[Mr. Powell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
610
I feel that I owe the Committee an apology for the length and complexity of this Clause. Nevertheless, its object is simple and, I think, entirely necessary. It is to remove a conflict between the Bill as it stands and the Rent Restrictions Acts, which conflict, if it were allowed to remain, would result in injustice to a large number of tenants or, in other circumstances, to a large number of landlords. I will attempt to explain briefly how that conflict arises.
Under the Rent Restrictions Acts, where the landlord of rent restricted property collects the rates with the rent, he can increase the combined sum to meet an increase in rates demanded from him; but he can only do so if he has first duly served a notice of increase, and in any case he can only collect the extra rates back to a date six weeks before the service of the notice of increase. The second relevant point is that, once a notice of increase of this kind has been served, even if the rates are subsequently reduced, even if the assessment is revised and the landlord's liability is reduced, he can still go on getting a higher sum from the tenant in accordance with the notice of increase until he receives the next rate demand.
With those two peculiarities of the Rent Restrictions Acts in mind, I call the attention of the Committee to the effect of Clause 1 (8). Incidentally, that subsection replaces Section 51 of the 1948 Act which, for this purpose, has never yet come into effect. Under the subsection, if a proposal is made to reduce a valuation in the new valuation list, then, until the proposal is determined one way or the other, only rates based on the old assessment are payable in respect of that property. The Committee will see that a conflict can thus arise between that very desirable provision in Clause 1 (8) and the Rent Restrictions Acts.
Suppose that an increased assessment for a rent restricted house appears in the new valuation list. A rate demand based on the valuation list is served on the landlord, who in turn serves a notice of increase on the tenant. Perhaps two months later a proposal is made to reduce that valuation. Ipso facto only the lower level of rates thereby becomes payable until the proposal is determined, and, if the proposal is successful, the higher rates will never be payable at all.

611
Nevertheless, for the first six months—if that be the period which the initial rate demand covers—the tenant will be obliged to pay rates based on the higher valuation and cannot recover that extra sum from the landlord even though the proposal succeeds and the valuation is reduced. Clearly, we would be imposing an injustice on the tenant by enabling the landlord under the Rent Restrictions Acts to obtain an extra sum in lieu of rates which, in the event, were not demanded from him by the rating authority. That is a result which I am sure no hon. Member would wish to follow.
Now I take the alternative case. Suppose that in the first week or two after the coming into force of the new valuation list the proposal is made to reduce an increased valuation of a rent restricted house. The landlord, we will suppose, has not yet served the notice of increase. Presumably he cannot now do so since he is not liable by virtue of Clause 1 (8) for the increased rates until the proposal is determined. It may be six, twelve or eighteen months before the proposal is eventually determined. If that proposal fails, the landlord will be liable for rates at the higher level right the way back to the coming into force of the new valuation list. But he cannot obtain those higher rates from the tenant because the relevant notice of increase can be retrospective for only six weeks. A landlord, therefore, who failed in a proposal, or the owner of a house in respect of which a proposal for reduction of the valuation eventually failed, might lose considerably by virtue of the fact that he had not been able to serve the notice of increase. And so in either case, whether the notice of increase precedes the proposal or vice versa, either the tenant or the landlord is liable to be unfairly treated by this conflict between Clause 1 (8) of the Bill and the Rent Restrictions Acts.
It is to remove those two possible sources of injustice that the new Clause is designed, and it seeks to do it by giving the tenant what is virtually an option. As soon as the tenant learns that a proposal in respect of the house which he occupies has been made, he can take one of two courses. He can either serve a suspense notice under subsection (4) of the new Clause, in which case from that time until the determination of the proposal he goes on paying his old rent and his old rates,
612
or else he can let the matter run and pay at the new higher level.
In either event, both the tenant and the landlord will be protected against loss and injustice. If the tenant serves a suspense notice and the proposal succeeds, no adjustment is necessary. If he serves a suspense notice and the proposal fails the landlord can obtain from him the extra rent equal to the extra rates for which the landlord will thereby have become liable.
Under the alternative procedure, the tenant need do nothing but wait until the proposal is determined; but if the proposal should succeed the tenant is enabled by this subsection to recover from the landlord the whole amount extra which he has paid in rates, which as a result of the proposal succeeding is no longer a liability of the landlord.
I should make clear one further point in regard to the new Clause. It may be asked why this double procedure is provided. Why not automatically have a notice of suspense in every case so that the tenant would only have to pay the higher sum if and when the proposal was determined and failed? That would not be satisfactory, for it would mean that many tenants, perhaps in very poor circumstances, might be led in this way to accumulate a considerable debt extending over months, if not years, with which they might suddenly be confronted when the proposal had been determined and when the next rate demand was served upon the landlord.
It is surely much better that we should allow this option, so that a tenant in poor circumstances may take what would normally be the wiser course of paying the higher sum and then have the advantage of a nest egg if the proposal succeeds. However, the Clause offers the alternative to the tenant to decide in his own discretion and according to his circumstances. Whichever alternative he employs, by adding the new Clause to the Bill we shall have removed a conflict between the Bill and the Rent Restrictions Act and prevented a cause of injustice arising both to tenants and to landlords.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Deedes: I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Since I cannot emulate the clarity with which he

613
has given his exposition of it, I really think that the less the Parliamentary Secretary says about it the better. There is, however, one point I want to stress, though it may be apparent to hon. Members already. It is this. This arrangement is of mutual benefit to the landlord and the tenant. It is a wise precaution against what, over a period, may be an adverse effect of a contingency we are endeavouring to safeguard against. This arrangement is not one in favour of the one or the other, but will serve both in equity, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be able to accept it.
Mr. Janner: I quite agree that the explanation given of the new Clause by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was clear, and I think the Clause contains a fairly reasonable proposal, but the Rent Acts are extremely complicated already, and I am wondering whether the Government could see their way to devising an easier formula than that in the new Clause for bringing about what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West desires. Perhaps I did not understand the terminology of the new Clause properly, but when I read it I could not understand it, and I did not understand it until I heard the hon. Member explain it. If it could be put in another and simpler form of words—and I see no reason why it should not be—I hope the Government will see that it is so put.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO WATER RATES IN CONNECTION WITH NEW VALUATION LISTS.)
(1) Where a period for which (apart from this section) water rates to which this section applies would be charged by statutory water undertakers is a period of twelve months beginning on or after the first day of January and before the end of the month of June in a calender year which includes the date of the coming into force of new valuation lists, the undertakers may, if they so determine, charge those rates by making a water rate for each of two successive periods (in this section referred to as "the first special period" and "the second special period" respectively).
(2) This section applies to any water rates calculated by reference to values as shown in valuation lists
(3) Where statutory water undertakers exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) of this section—

(a) the first special period shall be a period beginning with the date of commencement of the period of twelve months referred to in that subsection, and ending not later than the end of the month of September next following that date, and, subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph, shall be a period of three, six or nine months, as the undertakers may determine, and

(b) the second special period shall be the balance of the said period of twelve months.

(4) For the purposes of a water rate made for the first special period, where that period begins on or after the date on which the new valuation lists come into force, those lists shall be treated as not having come into force, and the valuation lists in force immediately before that date shall be treated as continuing in force until the end of that period.
(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any statutory provisions which apply to water rates to which this section applies, and would (apart from this section) have had effect in relation to such water rates charged for the period mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, shall have the like effect in relation to water rates made in accordance with this section.
(6) Where by any such statutory provisions the maximum or minimum amount of a water rate, or of the rate poundage for the purpose of calculating a water rate, is prescribed (otherwise than in such terms as to be reducible proportionately when applied to a period of less than twelve months) that maximum or minimum amount shall, for the purposes of a water rate made for the first or second special period, be treated as reduced in proportion to the difference between the duration of the special period in question and a full period of twelve months.
{7) Where in accordance with any such statutory provisions water rates are payable by half-yearly instalments, and either the first special period or the second special period is a period of three months or of nine months, the undertakers may require the water rate for that period—

(a) if the period is a period of three months, to be paid by a single payment, or

(b) if the period is a period of nine months, to be paid either by three quarterly instalments or by one half-yearly and one quarterly instalment, as the undertakers may determine.

(8) In this section "statutory water undertakers" has the same meaning as in the Water Act, 1945, and "statutory provisions" means provisions contained in an enactment (including a local enactment) or contained in an instrument having effect by virtue of an enactment.
In this subsection "local enactment" means a local or private Act of Parliament or an order confirmed by Parliament or brought into operation in accordance with special parliamentary procedure.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The length and complexity of statutory provisions are relative matters, and in normal circumstances my new Clause. with its eight subsections, would probably appear to present a rather discouraging aspect, but compared with the new Clause which we have just added to the Bill, the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), this is a gratifyingly, or at any rate a relatively, short and simple Clause.
It makes provision for water rates in connection with new valuation lists. Water rates, as the Committee knows, are normally based on rateable values. The effect of the new Clause is, by subsection (2), confined to that category of cases. In many cases—I think probably most cases—the water rate has to be made for the full year, but water rate years of different water undertakings begin on varying dates. In those circumstances the coming revaluation will present two difficulties.
The first difficulty is where the water rate begins in the first quarter of the year, between January and March. Under the existing law those water rates will have to be based on the old rateable values until 1957; that is to say, of course, long after the new valuation list is in operation. The other difficulty present, so to speak, the converse case, that is to say, where the water rate begins in the second quarter of the year, April to June. There the water rates must in law be based on the new rateable values, but in practice the water undertakers may not have time to adjust their rates and issue their demands in accordance with the rateable values.
That being so, the new Clause provides, by subsections (1) and (3), that water undertakers be empowered to divide their year into two special periods, of which the first can be 3, 6 or 9 months. provided only that it ends not later than 30th September, and the second is, of course, the balance of the twelve-month period.
By the new Clause, the old values are to apply to the first period and the new ones to the second. This flexibility will ease the difficulties of water undertakers in this matter and enable water rates to
616
be brought into convenient and appropriate relationship with the new rateable values.
Mr. Deedes: I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Mr. Walker-Smith). It is a fair arrangement, and there is only one point to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee, as it involves the finances of the water undertakers.
I should like to remind the Committee that all these undertakings are responsible statutory bodies, and that there is no reason to suppose that, after revaluation, they will seek to obtain a greater income from consumers than they need. Indeed. they are subject to special provisions of the Water Act, whereby, on application by local consumers, my right hon. Friend can, if necessary, make orders to alter the rates and charges which may be levied.
I think the Committee will agree that that is a safeguard against anything conceivably going wrong with the arrangement provided by this new Clause, and, in these circumstances, I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the new Clause.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RATING OF HEREDITAMENT OF UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, AND SCHOOLS.)
Where for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of any hereditament occupied by any university, college, or school which is not established for profit it is necessary to ascertain the cost of the construction of a building or a substituted building, such cost shall be ascertained by reference to the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction to be determined in such manner as the Minister may by order approve.—[Sir P. Spens.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Although this Clause has the merit of being very much shorter than either of the last two, I must take a little longer in explaining the background to it and the grounds on which it is put forward. I have not the slightest doubt that all hon. Members present in the Chamber know

617
exactly the bases on which schools and colleges are assessed. I have to confess that I did not know them until about the middle of last week. They are assessed on one of two bases. The first one is on the per capita basis by reference to the number of scholars or pupils in the colleges or schools, and my new Clause has nothing whatever to do with that basis of assessment.
The other is a much more technical basis, which I must take a little time in explaining. It is called the contractor's basis, and has reference to a system of assessment which came into being in 1906 and has obtained ever since. That system of assessment is very artificial. The cubic capacity of the residential premises, lecture premises, and so forth, is taken, and an estimate is made of what it would cost to build at the appropriate date a modern skeleton building giving the same space and the same accommodation at the cost appropriate at that date. The original date of cost taken was 1906, but in 1926, following the passing of the 1925 Act, there was a reassessment. The 1906 assessment was based on 9d. per cube, but in 1926 the 9d. per cube was raised to 10d. per cube.
It is believed that the chief valuer is bound to adopt that system for reassessing the great number of colleges and schools in this country which have not been on the per capita basis, and, quite rightly, exercising his functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, it may well be that he will find it necessary to apply 1955 costs. If so, the assessments of these schools and colleges will go up from the basis of 10d. per cube to somewhere between 5s. and 6s. per cube, a prospect which means that the additional assessment of these schools and colleges will be far greater than those of any other hereditaments being re-assessed.
In the cases of universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, and in a number of towns where the school is the main or the largest assessable hereditament, it will shift the burden of the rates entirely from other assessable hereditaments on to the premises of the schools and colleges. In these circumstances, great apprehension is felt, quite rightly, by those who are responsible for these places.
When I moved an Amendment on this subject on Tuesday, it was assumed that
618
my object was to decrease the proportion of burden which is at present borne by these schools and colleges. There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in our minds. The whole object of the proposed new Clause is to try to protect the schools and colleges which are assessed on this contractor's basis from having imposed upon them a far greater proportion of assessability than other assessable hereditaments in the same area. All universities, and I am sure all schools, do not want in any way to escape their proper proportion of rates. At the same time, unless something is done, it is quite obvious that if they are assessed on this contractor's basis at 1955 prices they will be assessed at figures which will be out of all proportion to those which apply to other hereditaments.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that we know that ordinary residential premises are assessed on a basis of 1938–39 costs, it is suggested that these schools and colleges, which are after all mainly residential places where pupils, masters and lecturers live, should be assessed on the same basis. That, of course, will increase very substantially their present assessment, from something like 10d. a cube to something like 1s. 6d. a cube. It will bring them up very substantially in their assessment, but at any rate it will make it proportionate to what is likely to be the additional assessment of other residential premises.
We put forward the new Clause to bring to the attention of the Minister the difficulty in which these schools and colleges will find themselves unless something is done to protect them. I do not expect for a moment that my right hon. Friend will accept my proposal without a great deal of consideration, but this is a real question which must be tackled in respect of these schools and colleges throughout the country which are assessed on the present basis. I hope that some method of assessment can be arranged which will be reasonably fair to them.
Mr. Sandys: I said when we discussed Clause 6 that I hoped that we would try to find a way of dealing with the problems raised by these various charitable, educational and philanthropic and other organisations other than by introducing a separate Clause or subsection to deal with each class in a slightly different way,

619
because I thought that that would result in creating even more anomalies than exist already.
I undertook to try to find a fresh formula which, in the light of the debate, would meet satisfactorily the main problem, which is to ensure that all these organisations are not prejudiced as a result of a change in the basis of valuation. There is quite a genuine and understandable anxiety that they may suffer as a result of re-examination of the whole position by each local authority which will be necessary as a result of the transfer of the responsibility of the local rating authority to the Board of Inland Revenue. I am already on to something which may be not unsatisfactory, and I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will be good enough to withdraw his Clause, as he has rather indicated he was prepared to do, and perhaps reserve his judgment until he sees the proposal I hope to be in a position to move during the Report stage.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: On this side of the Committee we were somewhat critical of this Clause for reasons which I need not go into now, and we shall wait and see what comes from the right hon. Gentleman's deliberations.
Mr. Ede: This problem of the rating of schools has difficulties that are not merely confined to those for whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) speaks. There have been, and it has been publicly stated, negotiations between the principal valuation officer and the associations representing local education authorities and the London County Council. As a result of those negotiations, I understood that a mutually satisfactory arrangement has been reached on the question of the county schools for which they are responsible and for which they have to pay very heavy rates indeed. I hope that if arrangements proposed in respect of the schools for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks do anything that make the previous negotiations unwise or by comparison unjust, they also will receive further consideration.
Sir P. Spens: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
620
South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. I know that this is a very big and very difficult problem, and I only hope my right hon. Friend will be able to find a solution which will be regarded by all as satisfactory. I am quite certain every school wants to pay its fair share of the rates. I am equally sure that none of us wants to impose on them a greater proportion of the rates than they are in a position to discharge. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(ADOPTIVE RATING OF SITE VALUES.)
(1) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Adoptive rating of site values) to this Act a rating authority or, as regards the County of London, the London County Council may adopt or abandon that Schedule.
(2) If and so long as that Schedule has been adopted and not abandoned by a rating authority or by the London County Council, the provisions of that Schedule shall have effect in the area of that rating authority or, as the case may be, in the County of London.
(3) All expenses of and consequent upon the adoption or abandonment of that Schedule (including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, all additional expenses of valuation) shall be paid by the rating authority or, as the case may be, by the London County Council adopting or abandoning the Schedule. —[Mr. Stokes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. R. R. Stokes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, and also desirable, to consider with this new Clause the proposed new Schedule dealing with the same subject in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stokes: That will be a very great help. Perhaps by way of explanation to the Committee I might say that the new Schedule is really a mixture of the L.C.C. Bill of 1938, copies of which are now practically non-existent and which are almost as valuable as first editions of "The Pilgrim's Progress," and Mr. MacLaren's Bill of 1937. Substantially, it says what we tried to carry out in the Act of 1931, and which we shall no doubt carry into law when we on this side of the Committee are once again the Government.

621
The object of the new Clause is to provide additional or alternative sources of revenue for local authorities. Everybody knows what a jam the local authorities have got into over their finances, and everybody knows they are getting more and more dependent on central Government funds, which in the opinion of many of us, is undesirable. It is increasing year by year until almost 50 per cent. of the expenditure of local government is met from central Government funds. In 1953 a sum of £411 million was supplied from the central Government against £436 million collected by way of local rates.
I propose to make the case for the rating of site values. As a matter of fact, it is admirably set out in a pamphlet to which the Minister referred on 17th June. He described that as a pale pink piece of paper. If it is as pale pink as that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept the new Clause? If he examines what is involved and what lies behind the whole concept, he will find that this is a radical piece of legislation which, I am afraid, it is unlikely that a Tory Government would accept.
Karl Marx, in the fourth volume of his great work "Das Kapital," in page 849, suddenly stumbled across the great truth that
"The expropriation of the masses of the people from the land forms the basis of the capitalist method of production."
If the right hon. Gentleman can call that pale pink, I shall be much interested to know what he calls bright red. What we are seeking to do in this proposed new Clause is to remove the land monopoly. It is the first step towards so doing. Frankly, I do not expect that the Government will accept this new Clause. A Government based on land monopoly will hardly dream of doing anything so radical, but it is as well that we should have that fact on the record, and that is one reason why the new Clause has been put down.
One of the villainous things this Government have done since they have been in office has been, without making any compensatory action in exchange, to remove the development charge from the Town and Country Planning Act. Some of us thought that was not an effectual way of dealing with the improved value but at least the development charge recovered for the people some of the com-
622
mercially created land values. In the event, the development charge made land more expensive for the user without stopping the landlord from scooping the pool. What the landlord said to everybody was, "You jolly well pay the development charge. If you will not do that, I shall not sell and you will not be able to have the land." And so that method broke down.
I am reinforced in my belief that it is unlikely that the Government will accept this new Clause by the statement made by Mr. Baldwin in June, 1931[Laughter.]—this is important because the Measure was on the Statute Book at the time when the taxation and rating of site values had been introduced in the Finance Act, 1931, in Labour's Budget. What Mr. Baldwin said in the debate in June of that year, in support of what no doubt will be the action which the Minister will take tonight, was:
"I can say one thing about it"—
he meant this Act—
"if we get back to power the tax will never see daylight."
Well, it did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Obviously, the Government will not let it do so tonight—unless I can talk sufficiently long for all the Tories to go home and all the cohorts of Labour to come back.
The point I want to make at the outset is how the rating of site values would be applied, because that is so often misconceived. So many people believe that a rate on site values means a level rate on every acre of land. It does not mean anything of the kind. It means that there will be a rate on every piece of land regardless of size, and whether used or unused, according to the real value which attaches to it at the moment of valuation and it will be valued as if it had nothing on it at the date of the valuation but as if every area in the immediate neighbourhood was in that state of development at the date of valuation.
I want to say also at the outset that this tax which the Clause envisages is a just tax, because it is levied on the values which are created by the community as a whole and not on the efforts of the individuals as such. Again and again, one gets from supposedly intelligent people objections to introducing this Measure. I have had something to do with this subject in the last thirty years.

623
In the course of a few minutes, because I do not propose to speak for long, I wish to recite some of the objections. The first is argued by the extremely ignorant, that what the new Clause proposes is too difficult to do. That is nonsense, because it has been widely done in Denmark, Australia, some provinces in Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. There have been cases where it has been what I would call improperly introduced, but nowhere where it has been thoroughly introduced has it ever been dropped. Surely, that is a great argument in support of my contention that the Minister should at least consider the Clause before entirely rejecting it.
Secondly, it is objected to because it is argued that land value is difficult to arrive at. That also is absolute nonsense, because actually the only thing which it is really easy to arrive at is the value of land. It is when one starts arguing about the value of the building improvement on it that one gets into quite a considerable jam, and has to bring in valuers, architects, surveyors, and goodness knows what, in order to arrive at the real value of the improvements.
I do not wish to take up time discussing the details. All that is needed is a separate column in the valuation roll showing the value of the land separately from the improvements; and anyone who says that it cannot be done has not the remotest idea of what he is talking about.
Mr. Cyril Osborne Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth) rose——
Mr. Stokes: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would get up, and I am glad he has done so.
Mr. Osborne: If it is so easy and so necessary, why did not the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do it when they were in power?
Mr. Stokes: I thought that that would be said. I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely why. We were so busily engaged in undoing what had been done by the villainous Tories in the years before that we had not time to get on with the job. Now, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, here we are today debating this Motion. It is mentioned in the great circular in connection with local government finance sent round by the Labour Party at the time of the General Election, and
624
all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman and his friends are "for it" when they get out—which I hope to goodness they do in a very short time.
The third thing which is very often referred to is that if we had a rate on site values, it would be passed on in the form of higher rents, that all the landlords would do would be to put up the rents. I shall not take up time in arguing this aspect. It is all contained in the pamphlet which was referred to by the Minister as being "pale pink." There the arguments are set forth admirably. All economists of any repute agree that it is virtually impossible to do so, and I will quote a simple example.
We pass taxes, in the form of import duties and the rest of it, on to goods, because all goods carry the tax. But if, for example, there was a shoe shop in a main street and another shoe shop in a side street—where the land values were entirely different—and both shops sold the same quality shoes, it would be impossible to pass the higher land value of the main street into the selling price of the shoes because, if one did so, everyone would "bunk" around the corner to buy shoes from the shop in the side street.
Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose——
Mr. Stokes: Here is another hon. Gentleman who does not understand.
Mr. Nabarro: If everyone "bunked" around the corner and bought shoes from the shop in the side street, in a very short time the shop in the side street would become the shop in the main street.
Mr. Stokes: It could not, because the other chap is there already. One can apply that to Bond Street; it is perfectly simple.
It is quite impossible to pass this rate on site values on in higher rents. Virtually every economist of note agrees with that. I know there are some "half-cock" economists who do not accept it, but all economists of repute agree that it is impossible to pass a rate on site values into the price of goods. It has to be paid by the landlord or the person who enjoys the site value. In fact, as is said in this eminent pamphlet to which I have referred,
"The land value rate or tax is like a handicap in a race. It levels up the different advantages and just as one runner cannot shift his

625
handicap onto another so the landowner cannot shift his land value rate onto the tenant or consumer."
That is an economically accepted fact.
9.30 p.m.
On the fourth and last objection, I quote an example. It is asked, "Is it worth while?" All I can say is that a Bill relating to the L.C.C. in 1938 was framed on a 1936 estimate of annual valuation taken by the L.C.C. It was on the basis that the annual value of the land controlled by the L.C.C. was £32 million and that a 2s. rate would give a total rate of £3·2 million. That was in the Bill introduced in 1938 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who then represented Hackney, North. He has shifted around a bit. It was turned down because Mr. Speaker of the day did not consider it was a Bill which should be introduced by a private Member. Of course, the Government of the day were totally opposed to doing anything of the kind.
If passed into law, the proposed new Clause would do four main things. It would help to take the speculative value out of land. That is quite certain to anybody who has taken the trouble to study the matter. Secondly, it would bring more land into proper use. At the present time, provided that a man does not do anything with his land, he pays no rates or taxes. Thirdly, it would prevent a too-early encroachment by urban developers on good agricultural land, and it would force all the land in urban areas into proper use and ensure that it was used before developers went further afield on to cheaper land and thus interfered with the agricultural production which is so important at the present time.
Fourthly, it would remove one of the main impediments to development. Anybody who has had anything to do with local government knows that one of the great difficulties is the cost of land when a local authority wants to develop it. One of the craziest things at present is that the more we develop the more difficult we make it to develop any further. When land is developed in one area, the price of land all around it goes up, so that when we take the next step we have to pay more.
If we rated site values, we could collect the increased value in the form of a rate
626
in the immediate area of the last piece of land developed. We would collect the improved value, and the money would enable us to go on to the next development. We should virtually create a fund from which the next step would be facilitated.
The present system of rating is absolutely crazy. If, as the owner of valuable land in the middle of a town, I do nothing with it I make no contribution to the rates, however valuable the land. I could own the site of the Bank of England and graze a goat on it. I should be rated for agricultural land and pay nothing, although the site of the Bank of England is probably worth £10 million and the annual value is probably worth £500,000, on which a 2s. rate would produce £50,000. If we rated site values, we should say to the owner of the site of the Bank of England, "Go on, graze your goat on it, but pay us £50,000 for the privilege of doing so." He would soon do something more important than graze a goat.
Under the present rating system, houses which are in ill repair are relieved of their rates: the more they fall down, the better. The only criminal is the man who improves his property, for then his rates go up. Surely, that is Bedlam.
I am reminded of the parable given in the House of Commons some years ago by Mr. MacLaren, who was then hon. Member for Burslem. The parable was of a rating assessor walking into a provincial town and running into the man who owns the land outside it and who does very little with that land. He says "How are you getting on?" The man replies "I am doing very little with this land. I am just grazing a few cows. In time business will come west, land prices will rise and I will make a scoop." And the rating assessor says "You are the man who makes England great. We will relieve you of 75 per cent. of your rates."
Then he goes into one of the industrial areas and asks the managing director of a big concern "How are things?" The managing director replies "Magnificent. We have built a new canteen, we have built a new shop, and put in more machinery." The rating assessor says "Great—well done—we will put another £500 a year on your rates." The fact that the concern was quite wrongly

627
derated to the extent of 75 per cent. does not affect the argument [Laughter.] It does not because, of course, the 1929 Act should be withdrawn—but we have had that argument already today.
The assessor then goes to a residential area and finds someone who has improved his house by adding a couple of bedrooms, and a bathroom with all the latest American plumbing, and the rest—and what does the rating assessor say? "Fine, indeed—but another five quid for your trouble." Then he goes down to the slums, where everything is in a glorious state of dilapidation. He runs into the factor representing the owner of some of these disgraceful buildings in my constituency, and asks "Well, Mr. Smith, how are things today?" He is told, "Much worse than they were last year. The drains are blocked up, the windows are bust and the roofs are leaking." The answer of the rating assessor, under our rating system, is "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Come down to the town hall and we will write down your rates by 50 per cent."
Is it any wonder that the whole system of rating has gone completely cock-eyed? By this new Clause we seek to start to put it right and to restore to the people the 'things that they themselves have created and to get away from the landlords and the monopoly which they hold. I once had an interesting correspondence with Sir Oliver Lodge on this subject—God rest his soul. He has gone to a better world, but he was a very intelligent chap. At the end of the correspondence, he wrote to me saying, "You know, I had not realised it until you put it to me, but in this great, free country of ours there is no place where a man can stand up free and unfettered, because of land monopoly." Except, of course, on the Queen's highway—and if he stands there long enough he will be moved on for causing an obstruction.
What I have done tonight is to move this new Clause, not with any sincere belief that the Government are intelligent enough to accept it—the Minister did not understand it and called my pamphlet pale pink—but in order to get it on the record that, having been shown the light, the Government sin against it; and that will help to throw them out at the next General Election.
Mr. Sandys: In view of the lateness of the hour, perhaps hon. Members will not mind if I intervene at this stage.
We have all heard of people who find an Income Tax advantage in having a farm, but it is perhaps one beyond the odds to graze a goat at the Bank of England—but I think that we have all enjoyed the breezy, forthright, humorous way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has presented his Clause. I think that I have shown myself to be very open minded and receptive to the ideas put forward today from various quarters in the Committee for major changes in the law, and provided that I am satisfied that this is really an improvement, I can assure hon. Members that I shall be equally open minded and receptive, particularly in view of the delightful way in which the right hon. Gentleman put what he described as a radical proposal.
Frankly, I do not feel that it is an improvement. It is certainly not a new idea. It is one that has been gone over and examined and inquired into by countless Royal Commissions and other commissions and committees of various kinds set up by various Governments of different political complexious. The most recent was the Erskine Simes Committee on which the right hon. Member for Ipswich himself sat until he had to resign when he became Minister of Works. All these inquiries have had the same result. They have all produced reports, with a majority report and a minority report. I have looked at the figures, and almost always the majority has been two-thirds and the minority one-third. The two-thirds majority has invariably come down against the proposal to rate site values.
Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? I take it that he really has read both the majority and the minority reports? Assuming that he has done so, may I ask whether he would not admit that in substance the majority report of the Erskine Simes Committee completely falls to the ground by the removal of the development charge?
Mr. Sandys: I know that is a point.
Mr. Stokes: A big point.
Mr. Sandys: I will deal with the point in a moment. They came to the con-

629
clusion that the rating of site values was neither practicable nor desirable.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that at that time they had necessarily to look at the matter in the context of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which contained the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. But since then there has been a further examination of this problem in relation to Scotland, though the problem in Scotland is no different from the problem in England so far as the question of the rating of site values is concerned.
The Sorn Committee came to the conclusion that
"Another alternative to the present system of valuation and rating which has been suggested as a possibility on previous occasions is the taxation of site value."
Mr. Stokes: What is the date of this Report?
Mr. Sandys: Last autumn. The Report goes on to say:
"This was comprehensively examined by the Committee on the Rating of Site Values, of which one of our number was a member, whose report was published in 1952. This Committee"—
that is, the Erskine Simes Committee—
"concluded that the meeting of any part of local expenditure by an additional rate on site values is neither practicable nor desirable …"
and they go on to say:
"… and we have not received any evidence which leads us to dissent from that view."
Mr. Ross: The Minister should not be allowed to get away with that. They did not ask for any evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the terms of reference, he will see that they were not considering new ways of raising finance at all.
Mr. Sandys: It is a very authoritative report. They went into the whole question of rating, and they say that they considered this alternative proposal. Whether it was in their terms of reference or not, I am merely remarking—and I think it is a matter of interest to the Committee —that a body who sat and reported upon these and related questions thought it worthwhile to say in their report—whether it is in their terms of reference I do not know, and it is irrelevant to the issue—that they saw no reason to express any contrary opinion about this issue.
Mr. Ross: Read the terms of reference.
Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not interested in this, that is all right; but some other hon. Members in the Committee may think it has some relevance and is of interest for the simple reason that this authoritative Committee considered the matter after the repeal of the provisions of the 1947 Act.
Mr. Ross: I am interested in it. The only difference between myself and hon. Members opposite, who claim to be interested in the point, is that this is a Scottish Committee, I have read its Report and hon. Members opposite have not. Nor has the Minister. He has read only an extract. He should read the terms of reference.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Sandys: I do not want to pursue the matter.
Mr. C. R. Hobson Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley) rose——
Mr. Sandys: I think what I said was quite relevant to the issue—certainly as relevant as the goat and the Bank of England.
The right hon. Member for Ipswich also quoted Karl Marx, which was of some interest and no doubt as relevant to the subject as the Sorn Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's pale pink pamphlet was of interest, for he is not always regarded as being on the extreme left of the party.
Mr. Stokes: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that I consider the Left wing of the Labour Party entirely reactionary.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Hopkin Morris): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not go too far afield.
Mr. Sandys: In order to restore the balance, I will remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman also referred to what Mr. Baldwin said in 1931, but we will not go into that. The right hon. Gentleman is very good at summing up a situation. He said he was quite sure that I would not accept his proposal, and I should certainly not like to disappoint him.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. He took from the Sorn Committee's Report something entirely out of context, and it was evident that he had not read the Report. This is not good enough when we are discussing such an important matter as this new Clause. The best thing the Minister could do would be seriously to consider circulating my right. hon. Friend's pamphlet as a White Paper. At least he would then be able to understand what is meant by the taxation of site values.
The last time the House discussed the question of the rating of site values, in 1937, it was on a Motion very similar to the new Clause and was in the context of new road development. I want to bring the argument back to the present position. What we are finding today is that land is being deliberately left vacant and undeveloped. Bombed sites are deliberately being left undeveloped. This is done in order that the price of the land will increase. This increase in value will be due entirely to the work of the community and to the services provided by various public bodies and municipalities. The landlord will have done nothing whatever to contribute to the increased value.
Many quotations could be made, but I will give one only—the price which Gorringes had to pay for land at Victoria. In 1902 they paid for that site a ground rent of £350. In 1952 the figure had risen to £50,000. Who had created that wealth? It was the firm. The absence of rating of site values not only penalises the community, but also people desirous of developing their undertaking and their business.
This new Clause is purely permissive. It has been the express desire of London County Council on more than one occasion to have this power. Tonight the Minister has not given a single reason why this should not be adopted. I challenge anyone on either side of the Committee to answer this question. Can anyone say that every time a development takes place, whether for roads, new schools, or housing, immediately the price of the land does not go up and in itself is an incubus on taxation? The Minister has not given an alternative and has given no reason for rejecting the
632
Clause. The only way in which such a position can be avoided is by taxing the value of the land.
It is absolute bunkum to say that this is impracticable and cannot be carried out. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has pointed out, it is done in Denmark and various parts of the Commonwealth. It is a practical proposition and, what is more important, large public works have been carried out in New Zealand and Australia, where it has been a practice, at a much lower cost to the community than would be the case in Britain. The classic example is Sydney Harbour Bridge.
It is not good enough to say, as the Minister has said tonight, from his brief and a quotation from a Report, that the taxation of site values is a load of nonsense and moonshine when the contrary is the truth. Let there be no dubiety about that. I hope this matter will be pressed to a Division. Whatever the result may be, this will not be the last time we shall hear about taxing and rating of site values between now and the next General Election. The absence of any taxation of site values is putting a premium on the under-development of this country.
Whatever the views of the Minister may be tonight, he has seriously to consider his position and to understand what is meant by the rating and taxation of land values. When he has done that, I am convinced he is a man of sufficient fair-mindedness and integrity of character for his reason and mental ability to make him regret the speech he made to the Committee tonight and make him an ardent supporter of the taxation of site values.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: I must confess that I was amazed at the line taken by the Minister in his reply. It really is not good enough to treat a Motion like this—an attempt to find a solution to the most difficult problem in local government today—in the way in which the Minister treated it. I think it disgraceful.
Quite naturally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), as one would expect, talked of the general principles of the rating of site values. Anyone who has taken the trouble to

633
study this problem knows that it is automatically acceptable. If there were time, I could quote in favour of this policy economists who are the heaven-sent professors of the Tory Party. Adam Smith, who found the excuses for Victorian capitalism, wrote in favour of the taxation of land values which, he said, could not be passed on; the landowner always had to pay it. John Stuart Mill did the same. If necessary, I could quote others.
It is not sufficient of an answer to a proposition of this kind for the Minister to say that there has been a lot of inquiries in this country and that everyone has turned down the proposition. In fact, that is not true. The taxation and rating of land values was introduced by the late Lloyd George, many years ago.
Mr. Ede: Where is his son?
Mr. Gibson: It went ahead until a Tory Government came in and scrapped the lot. The late Philip Snowden introduced it in a Budget in the House. Again, it was going ahead until a Tory Government came in and scrapped it.
It is not sufficient to say that there have been inquiries and they have always been turned down. With the kind of inquiry that some of them have been, there is bound to be an adverse report because of the tremendous pull of the vested interests of land. That is one vested interest which has always been able to protect itself every time that Parliament has made some sort of move towards curbing its monopoly. The land people have always done it, and they did it recently in the abolition of the principle of public ownership of land development by the abolition of development charges in the Town and Country Planning Act. That was something which, I admit, I did not oppose, because I never thought that the plan embraced by that Act would produce the goods, and it did not. That does not mean that one is not strongly in favour of communally created land values belonging to the people who create them and not to private landlords.
It is suggested—the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested it—that the proposal is quite impracticable, but other countries have used this method for the raising of taxation and local rates for many years. It is significant that any of the towns in the Commonwealth, in
634
America and in Europe—for example, Denmark—which have used this method of supplementing their local rate income have never gone back on the proposition once they have put it into operation.
Let me quote the words of a prominent man in Denmark, who, writing in a document which is sent to all of us by the Danish Embassy, said a few months ago:
"In Denmark today we collect through land-value taxation, half of the capital value of the land and since 1948 a parliamentary commission has worked with the problem—how to collect the whole unearned value of the whole kingdom for the whole people."
That is what we are after. The same man made another striking statement when he said that Denmark had collected land values for the benefit of the people since the days of King Canute. Whether they have done, I do not know. The point is that they are applying this principle with success and. as a result, are taking taxation and rating off properties and off enterprise.
The object of the Clause is to help the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to know that over 400 local authorities in this country have passed resolutions in favour of the rating of site values. The more that this method is understood, the more people are coming round to recognise that it can be done.
Most of the opposition, when it gets away from the plainly self-interest aspect, is on the grounds that this is all right as a theory and the values which are created are created by the community, but that it is not practicable. The answer is to go to some of the places in our own Commonwealth. I could quote a number but will give just one. In New South Wales £A7 million is collected each year from the rating and taxation of site values alone.
The City of Copenhagen collects its income from the rating of site values in Copenhagen. Here is evidence that it is practicable to do that. I have a copy of the land map of Copenhagen, and it shows every site in the city separately valued by expert valuers. Copenhagen has been doing that for 50 years.
10.0 p.m.
In New York, which one can regard as the home of violent capitalism, they are doing the same thing. Every five or six years in New York a land map is

635
produced setting out the value of every piece of land in that city. I say that what little Denmark can do, what America can do, and what many of the big cities in the Commonwealth can do this country can and ought to do, and would do but for the power of the vested interests which have always and so far successfully resisted this proposition.
Unless some new source of revenue is found for our local authorities, local government will collapse. I wonder whether all hon. Members know what has been the increase in the cost of local government since the end of the war. I have not all the figures, but I have them for the years from 1948 to 1954. Any hon. Member can see them. They appear in the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure. In 1948 the total expenditure of our local authorities was £711 million. In 1954 it was £1,103 million, a very substantial increase. Of that £1,103 million, £460 million was raised from the local rates, an increase from £317 million in 1948. There was a substantial increase in the amount of the central Government's grants, which increased from £279 million in 1948 to £432 million in 1954.
The greater the amount of central Government grant becomes to local government services the more will local government be hamstrung, and the less it will have of freedom, and the less will be the chance our local authorities will have of advancing on imaginative and forward looking plans. We want to reduce the amount of central aid to local government. If we can find a new source of revenue for our local authorities we ought to.
In spite of what the Minister says, I say that all the evidence shows to an unbiased mind that it is possible to give our local authorities a chance of raising a great deal of money in addition to that which they already raise, a chance of raising more money from a new source, and that source is the taxation of the values of land which at the moment contributes nothing whatever to the cost of local government services, although the money which our local authorities spend on their services increases land values in all our great towns.
The Minister is to be reprobated for taking the line he did. I do not know whether he thought that we did not mean
636
this seriously. We do mean that unless something of this kind is done to provide our local authorities with a substantial increase in income local government will break down. It will break down because it is becoming more and more difficult for the ratepayers to stand the burden of this expenditure. I say we can lighten that burden in the way that it is done in New South Wales.
If we could raise a comparable amount of money we could take tax off our buildings. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious to encourage building enterprise and the development of great industries would, I should have thought, have been prepared to support a proposition which, wherever it has been tried, has produced a situation in which taxation have been removed from enterprise and from building and put upon the land, so that it is borne by the landowner, who at present does not pay, and who never has paid, anything towards the cost of local government.
The Minister does not seem to believe that. At any rate, he did not take the trouble to answer that argument, and I suggest—[Interruption.] We can stay here all night if the hon. Gentleman likes it. I am very sorry that some hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that it is now past the hour when they expected to be going. I was hoping to get away before this myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then sit down."] We cannot be held responsible for wasting time on irrelevant Amendments. We have kept our discussions short on all our Amendments, and we have now reached one of the most vital and important proposals affecting this country, in particular local government.
We are entitled to expound it properly and to ask the Minister that he should give it much greater and—I was going to say courteous attention—although I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not being courteous—but to give it more thought and more real respect for the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend in introducing the new Clause.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to have only one point cleared up. The Minister referred to a constituent of mine. I have the honour to represent Lord Sorn in the House. Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland leaves the Chamber, I have a question which I should like

637
to have cleared up. I think the Minister quite unintentionally has given a wrong impression of the Sorn Committee, and I should like the Solicitor-General for Scotland to clear up this matter. Will he tell the Committee whether Lord Sorn's Committee had a definite remit to consider and report on the taxation of site values?
Mr. Sandys: It has been suggested that I inappropriately quoted the Sorn Committee's Report, and it was suggested that the examination of the question of the rating of site values was outside the terms of reference of the Committee. These are the terms of reference:
"To review the present system of valuation and rating "—
that covers everything—
"(other than the derating of agricultural industrial and freight transport lands and heritages) in Scotland;"
Their first recommendation is:
"Neither a local income tax, the taxation of site values nor a local poll tax is practicable."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hughes: That is not the point. The reflection on Lord Sorn remains. I am quite sure that Lord Sorn would never have agreed to a recommendation in the Report without considering any evidence, and I should like to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether the Sorn Committee took any evidence at all on the question of site values.
Mr. Stokes Mr. Stokes rose——
The Deputy-Chairman: The proceedings of that Committee have nothing to do with the proposal in the new Clause.
Mr. Hughes: My difficulty is this. I want to know how to vote on this Question.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must make up his mind on issues that are relevant to the new Clause.
Mr. Hughes: Are we not entitled to an answer? Sitting over there is the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who should know everything about the Sorn Report, and, before casting my vote, I should like to have guidance from the legal representative of Scotland.
The Deputy-Chairman: The proceedings before the Committee cannot be relevant to this Clause.
Mr. Stokes: The disinclination of the Solicitor-General for Scotland to answer is only in parallel with the inability of the Minister to answer my arguments. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, I must say that we are disappointed and disgusted with his performance tonight. He has not really attempted to deal with the arguments seriously. Having presumably read this great and effective pamphlet, which he described as "pale pink," he has not offered a single argument but has merely indulged in a lot of irrelevancies, and, without any doubt whatever, when we come to a Division my hon. and right hon. Friends and I will support this new Clause.
Mr. Jack Jones: Will the Minister offer some guidance to hon. Members, and particularly to an Englishman? I have been in the House for only ten years. Would he indicate which occupant of the Government Front Bench is the Solicitor-General for Scotland?
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 168.

Division No. 13.]

AYES

[10.10 p.m.

Albu, A. H.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Awbery, S. S.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Fletcher, Eric

Baird, J.

Chapman, W. D.

Gibson, C. W.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Greenwood, Anthony

Blackburn, F.

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Grey, C. F.

Blenkinsop, A.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Boardman, H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hale, Leslie

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

Deer, G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Boyd, T. C.

Dodds, N. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Brockway, A. F.

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

Hayman, F. H.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Healey, Denis

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

Herbisen, Miss M.

Hobson, C. R.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Holman, P.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Houghton, Douglas

Mellish, R. J.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Mitchison, G. R.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewls'm,s.)

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C)

Hubbard, T. F.

Moyle, A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Hughes, Entry (S. Ayrshire)

Noel-Baker, Franols (Swindon)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Hunter, A. E.

Oram, A. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Orbach, M.

Viant, S. P.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Oswald, T.

Warbey, W. N.

Janner, B.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

Parker, J.

West, D. G.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Parkin, B. T.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Peart, T. F.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Willey, Frederick.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reid, William

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw).

King, Dr. H. M.

Ross, William

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Lawson, G. M.

Short, E. W.

Wills, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

MacColl, J. E.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Skeffington, A. M.

Zilliacus, K.

McLeavy, F.

Snow, J. W.

Marion, S.

Sparks, J. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Maude, Angus

Aitken, W. T.

Green, A,

Mawby, R. L.

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

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. c

Amory, Ht. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grimond, J.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Armstrong, C. W.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Atkins, H. E.

Gurden, Harold

Neave, Airey

Baldwin, A. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nioolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Balniel, Lord

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Barber, Anthony

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Barter, John

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Oakshott, H. D.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

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

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Osborne, C.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, R. G.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Heath, Edward

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bishop, F. P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Black, C. W.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pott, H. P.

Body, R. F.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Powell, J. Enoch

Boothby, Sir Robert

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Howard, John (Test)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Redmayne, M.

Bryan, P.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Remnant, Hon. P.

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

Hurd, A. R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Campbell, Sir David

Hyde, Montgomery

Ridsdale, J. E.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Channon, H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Roper, Sir Harold

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Keegan, D.

Shepherd, William

Crouch, R. F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

Cunningham, S. K.

Kerr, H. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Currie, C. B. H.

Kirk, P. M.

Speir, R. M.

Dance, J. C. G.

Lagden, G. W.

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Leavey, J. A.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Deedes, W. F.

Leburn, W. G.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Storey, S.

Duthie, W. S.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Studholme, H. G.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Longden, Gilbert

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Errington, Sir Eric

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Teeling, W.

Fell, A.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Finlay, Graeme

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

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

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Foster, John

Maddan, Martin

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Freeth, D. K.

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

Vane,W. M. F.

Gammans, L. D.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Godber, J. B.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Vosper, D. F.

Gower, H. R.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marples, A. E.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Mathew, R.

Wall, Major Patrick

640

641

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Woollam, John Victor

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Mr. Legh and Mr. Wakefield.

Question put and agreed to.

First Schedule.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION FORTY-ONE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948.)
Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 26 to 30.
This is consequential upon the new subsection (2) added to Clause 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Mitchison: I want to say only one word, and not in an argumentative way. Doubts have been expressed about the length of the time provided in this Schedule for the valuation officers. I understand that it is only intended to be as it is expressed to be, a maximum time, and that it is hoped and expected that it will not normally be required.
Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to see assent from the Front Bench opposite.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule.—(New PROVISIONS FOR RATING GAS BOARDS.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, to leave out paragraph 6.
This is designed to meet the fact that 210½ cubic feet of gas, which has generally been taken to be equal to one therm, has been found to be not a generally applicable standard as there are several undertakings to which it would not apply. This Amendment removes any complication that might arise.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Blackburn: I want to make a final protest about this formula, which is working unjustly with regard to some of the gas undertakings and is likely to work unjustly for still more undertakings in the near future. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) moved an Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted in principle,
642
concerning a gas undertaking which was spread over two local authorities because the works were in one and the storage in the other.
The Amendment which I moved, and which the Parliamentary Secretary rejected, was exactly the same in principle. The only difference was that there was a distance between the storage place and the manufacturing place. I ask the Minister to look again at that Amendment to see if it could not be brought within the spirit of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South.

Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO GAS BOARDS.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 23, line 13, to leave out from "period" to the end of line 18.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee if we consider the Amendment in page 23, line 27, and the one in page 23, line 32, with this Amendment, as the three go together and have this object. They ensure that paragraph (4, c) applies to the calculation of payments by the London County Council to the Metropolitan boroughs under the London equalisation scheme as it applies to calculations of the Exchequer equalisation grant. It brings London into line with the Exchequer equalisation grants. The Amendments are designed to correct a drafting defect.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 27, leave out "any" and insert:
"the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant or other."
In line 30, leave out from "area" to "as" in line 31.
In line 32, at end add:
5. The last preceding paragraph shall apply in relation to payments under section ten of the Act of 1948 (which relates to payments by the London County Council to metropolitan boroughs) as that paragraph applies in relation to Exchequer Equalisation Grants.—[Mr. Deedes.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS.)
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, in page 26, line 7, at the end to insert:

Section 65

…

After the word "lists)" there shall be inserted the words "and subsection (3A) of that section (which relates to certain contributions made by the Crown in respect of such property)."

Perhaps we could take this Amendment together with the next Amendment, which is linked with it.
The Amendment is made necessary because of the arrangements which the Treasury valuer will have to undertake to determine the value of Crown properties in tone with the new lists. Crown property is exempt from rates but the Exchequer makes a contribution in lieu, as we discussed earlier this afternoon. Then the value is discussed between the Treasury valuer and the rating authority.
In the interim, while discussions are going on—they cannot be concluded before 1st April. 1956—the Exchequer will pay contributions in 1956–57 based on the new rate poundages and the values existing in 1955–56. The value of this contribution will subsequently be revised for that year as well as 1957–58 and subsequent years. The rating authority will finally receive a contribution based on both the new values and the new rate poundages. The main adjustments in contributions will take place retrospectively in 1957–58.
This is a precautionary measure. It is to cover a situation which may arise where the Treasury valuer has been unable to complete the work by April, 1957. It is a precaution which we think desirable.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 12, at beginning insert:
In section sixty-four, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), after the word "and" there shall be inserted the words "(subject to the next following subsection)"; and after subsection (3) the following subsection shall be inserted:—
"(3A) Where such a contribution is made for the financial year beginning with the date of the coming into force of a new valuation
644
list made under Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948, for the rating area in which the hereditament is situated (in this subsection referred to as 'the first year of the new list'),—

(a) if the contribution is subsequently revised before the end of the financial year next following the first year of the new list, the amount to be taken into account for the purpose of ascertaining the proceeds of any rate for the first year of the new list shall be the amount of the contribution as revised, notwithstanding that the revision is made after the end of the last-mentioned year;

(b) if, in the case of a contribution in respect of a hereditament which was occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes at the time when the new valuation list came into force, the contribution as originally made, or as subsequently revised as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is computed on a value which differs from the value shown in the list when it came into force, then, subject to the two following paragraphs, the value on which the contribution is so computed shall, for the purpose of ascertaining totals, be deemed to have been shown in the list, as representing the rateable value of the hereditament, as from the time when the list came into force, instead of the value actually shown in the list at that time;

(c) if, in a case falling within the last preceding paragraph, the difference between the values mentioned in that paragraph is wholly attributable to a structural alteration or other event which has taken place since the time when the new list came into force, that paragraph shall not apply;

(d) if, by reason of one or more structural alterations or other events which have taken place since the new list came into force, the contribution as originally made, or as subsequently revised, is computed on two or more different values, then—

(i) any of those values which is referable to a period subsequent to such an alteration or event shall be disregarded for the purpose of ascertaining totals for the first year of the new list, and

(ii) the value referable to the period before the alteration or event (or the earliest of them, if more than one) shall for that purpose be deemed to have been shown in the new list, as representing the rateable value of the hereditament, as from the time when the list came into force, instead of the value actually shown in the list at that time:

Provided that nothing in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection shall affect the ascertainment of totals for any year subsequent to the first year of the new list."—[Mr. Deedes.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.

New Schedule.—(CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF RATES IN RESPECT OF POLICE PROPERTIES IN FIRST YEAR OF NEW VALUATION LIST.)
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect where—

(a) a contribution is made under section eight of this Act in respect of a hereditament which was occupied for the purposes of a police force on the date of the coming into force of the first new valuation list for the rating area in which the hereditament is situated, and

(b) the contribution is for the year beginning with that date (in this Schedule referred to as "the first year of the new list").

2. Subject to the next following paragraph, the value entered in the valuation list in pursuance of subsection (2) of section eight of this Act shall, for the purpose of ascertaining totals, be deemed to have been shown in the list as from the time when the list came into force.
3. If, by reason of one or more structural alterations or other events which have taken place since the new valuation list came into force, the contribution is computed on two or more different values, then—

(a) any of those values which is referable to a period subsequent to such an alteration or event shall be disregarded for the purpose of ascertaining totals for the first year of the new list, and

(b) the value referable to the period before the alteration or event, or the earliest of them, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been shown in the new list, as representing the rateable value of the hereditament, as from the time when the list came into force.

4. Nothing in this Schedule shall affect the ascertainment of totals for any year subsequent to the first year of the new list.—[Mr. Deedes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
This new Schedule is consequential on the arrangements we discussed earlier today on the revaluation of police properties.
Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 19].

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR POLLOK (SELECT COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the Election of Mr. John Clarke George as a Member of this House for Glasgow, Pollok, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was a director of Scottish Slate Industries Limited appointed by the Minister of Works.—[The Attorney-General.]
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope we shall have an explanation of this Motion from the Attorney-General before we proceed with the election of a Select Committee. We should not agree to pass this Motion without putting further questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and receiving answers.
This is a case presumably relating to a constituency in Scotland, of which I understand one of the Law Officers is the Lord Advocate. Here is an important issue affecting election law in Scotland, yet the Lord Advocate is not here. We have an English Law Officer calling for the appointment of a Select Committee without giving the slightest word of explanation. This is another injustice to Scotland which should be resented in all quarters of the House.
We are all interested in elections and election procedure. [Interruption.] Ulster Members had better be careful. Some of the Ulstermen may be directors of companies. This is the case of a Scottish Member who was a director of some company. I am interested in the case because I want to protect the interests of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). I should like to know from the Attorney-General what exactly is to be the procedure of the proposed Select Committee? Judging by the terms of the Motion, there is evidently a charge made against the hon. Member for Pollok. Presumably the Attorney-General is speaking for the Crown. If so, is he going before the Select Committee in his capacity as Attorney-General, to prosecute the hon. Member for Pollak, and is the hon. Member for Pollok entitled to legal representation? Will he be represented by the Lord Advocate? We should have some enlightenment.
Why is the Select Committee to be set up? There must have been some laxity on the part of the Law Officers of the

647
Crown, either the Scottish or the English ones. This is the third week of the new Parliament. The Leader of the House was by no means candid in his explanations yesterday, because in reply to questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition he said that the hon. Member for Pollok was not taking part in the proceedings of this House. The OFFICIAL REPORT says:
"is not taking any part …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 4021
In "The Times" the Leader of the House is reported to have said:
"He has not taken any part."
I do not know whether "The Times" is right or the OFFICIAL REPORT, but we should certainly have some explanation from the Attorney-General.
Did the Law Officers of the Crown know that the hon. Member was liable to disqualification when he voted in the Division following the debate on the Address? I want to know why this innocent Member for Pollok was not warned by somebody about the penalties he was incurring in voting when, presumably, there was some doubt as to whether he was disqualified from being a Member.
I understand that heavy penalties, amounting to hundreds of pounds, may have been incurred by the hon. Member because the Law Officers were too slow to take up the case. Exactly when did the Attorney-General discover that the hon. Member had possibly broken the law?
In addition, I am interested in the hon. Member's constituents. Presumably this position was discovered after the hon. Member had voted in the debate on the Address. He might have spoken in that debate, and I do not know what penalty he would have incurred then. It is, I submit, the business of the Law Officers to warn any unsuspecting hon. Member that, by being associated with one company or another, he is liable to be disqualified from membership of the House.
What is happening in the Scottish Grand Committee? The hon. Member for Pollok is presumably a member of it, and during this time his constituents, the electors of Pollok, the small shopkeepers, the chemists, the butchers, the grocers and all others interested in the
648
Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, have no one to put their case for them because of the inefficiency of the Ministers.
Do the Ministers read carefully over the different directorships of hon. Members to see whether they have committed any offence? How did the Attorney-General suddenly discover the connection of the hon. Member for Pollok with the Scottish slate industry? It did not come as an inspiration; it must have been a matter of research. How much research was conducted into the directorships of the hon. Member for Pollok before it was decided to set up the Select Committee?
It is not good enough for the Attorney-General simply to ask the House to set up a Select Committee which might result in the hon. Member for Pollok being deprived of the privilege of representing his constituents in the House. Will the Attorney-General prosecute in the Committee or will he defend?
Surely someone must have been responsible in the counsels of the Scottish Unionist Party, because apparently the hon. Member for Pollok was a director of this company even when he fought a contest in South Ayrshire several years ago. They cannot complain that it is ignorance. They allowed this unsuspecting businessman from Scotland—this innocent, inexperienced businessman from Scotland—to walk into all this trouble and ultimately to find that a Select Committee is to inquire into his conduct.
10.40 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The procedure of moving for the appointment of a Select Committee in circumstances such as these follows precedents of the past. In relation to the Coatbridge and Springburn Elections and the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections of 1945, similar Motions were moved, and moved, I believe, by the then Attorney-General.
It is obviously right where doubts exist as to the position that inquiry should be made. It is obviously undesirable that before the Select Committee has performed the usual task that it does perform on these matters I should make any further reference than that made by the Lord Privy Seal when he spoke yesterday in relation to this matter. He then said in

649
answer to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition.
"He is not taking any part at all. As soon as this came to light he was informed of the risk he might be running. He has written to resign the directorship in question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June 1955; Vol. 543, c. 402.]
Mr. Ross: Who informed him?
The Attorney-General: I think it would be desirable not to debate this matter until we have received the report of the Select Committee. Presumably there would be an occasion for a debate then. I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that in moving this Motion one is following precedents of the time of the Socialist Government, precedents which no doubt the hon. Member then supported.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to press the Attorney-General on this question. I am not asking him to prejudge the findings of the Select Committee, but he has made the assertion that the hon. Member for Pollok was informed by someone on a certain date. Surely we could be told about that?
Resolved,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the Election of Mr. John Clarke George as a Member of this House for Glasgow, Pollok, is invalid on the ground that at the time of his election he was a director of Scottish Slate Industries Limited appointed by the Minister of Works:
Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Bellenger, Major Sir Roger Conant, Mr. Elliot, Sir Robert Grimston, Mr. Hoy, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. John Taylor, and Mr. Charles Williams:
Power to send for persons, papers and records and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
Three to be the Quorum.—[The Attorney-General.]

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL] [Lords]
So much of the Lords Message [29th June] as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that the Police (Scotland) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

WOMEN'S ROYAL ARMY CORPS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]
10.43 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: On Tuesday I addressed to the Secretary of State for War three exploratory Questions concerning the well-being of girls recruited to the Women's Royal Army Corps. The Minister's reply was at once unusual, unexpected and upsetting.
The first Question dealt with the number of girls recruited to that service whilst they were still under the age of 21 years, and the Minister replied that of 472 girls recruited under the age of 20 years in the last four months of 1953 no fewer than 62 had to be or were discharged before completing their service. That is a very high figure; it is 13 per cent. of the personnel recruited. The figure for 1954 was little short of alarming. Out of 1,564 recruited that year under the age of 20 no fewer than 395 were discharged before completing their service. That was 25 per cent. of the total intake of girls under 20 years of age. Those are figures which the Minister will want to explain.
As the Minister will know, I have not sought the facility of an Adjournment debate before having had an answer to those Questions; but when the Questions were answered it became of imperative interest to the Minister and the Department to examine just what those figures mean; for, presumably, when young girls are enlisted to the Army precautions are taken to ensure that they are recruits who are likely to stay the course.
On any ground we care to choose, it is clear that there is a social problem here. Let us, for example, take the mundane ground of arithmetic; the cost of the training and upkeep of these 395 girls could not have been less than £100,000, so that on the mere basis of

651
arithmetic the Minister has something for which to answer. But I am not interested in the arithmetician's point of view; I am interested with human considerations. I am concerned with the rights of parents when their daughters are persuaded to join the Army.
The Minister's reply to me on Tuesday reads in HANSARD in an even worse light than when I heard him give it. His answer, when I asked if he did not
"think that he is taking a lot upon himself by denying a mother the right to know where her daughter is when she is under the age of 21?"
was that it was
"not quite as simple as that."
The Minister went on:
"The hon. Member must appreciate that there are girls who join up to get away from a bad home. If we make a statutory undertaking that in all cases we must put the parents in touch with the girl we may be acting against the interests of the individual concerned.
What we do is to use our common sense."
He added:
"Where we find that there are good parents and their influence is good,"
and here I might say that it sounds as though that is unusual—
"we do not stand in the way of the girls getting in touch with them."
I should think not. Why, we should be in a police State if it was accepted that we tried to stop children from getting in touch with their parents!
The Minister then said:
"If she says she has a bad home and joined the W.R.A.C. because she does not want to see her parents, we do not step in and put her in touch with her parents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 185.]
Sir, the girl might well have left a good home, and yet be the very girl who needs the love and care and discretion of her mother. Yet the Minister says that such a girl would be "protected" from her parents by his Department.
I am quite confident that the War Office would not claim that any but a small minority of the girls in the W.R.A.C. are there because they are fleeing from a bad home. It would be a very tiny minority who would never want to see their parents again; indeed, we are a decadent nation if a majority of girls are there to flee from parents. The parent who is anxious to know where her daughter is and how she is
652
faring is not the bad parent, but the good parent; and it is the good parent who is refused when inquiring about the girl's well-being.
In my submission, mothers and fathers do not lose their rights over their daughters who are under the age of 21 because those daughters have joined the Army. We are not a civilised community if we think the Government have the right to refuse to a mother or father knowledge about their children if they have gone wrong or landed into trouble.
Unfortunately, a girl of 18 does not need the sanction of her parents to join the Army. The common law, I understand, does apply to girls in this case. If they are under 18 they require the sanction of their parents. Our children do not leave school until they are 15. A girl may join the Army only three years after she has left school and when she is entering a new and critical phase of her life. Joining the Army, she is drawn from the influence and restraints of her home and her chapel and of the little community from which she may have sprung, and is drawn into the exciting world of uniforms and the Army.
It is when she is only 18, that the War Office says, an adult's permission is not necessary. "We will take her over," says the War Office. If girls leave home in a fit of pique or temper they can go to the Army, and the Army will then refuse to tell their parents where they are—unless, indeed, these young people themselves give permission for their parents to be told.
The trouble is that the War Office regards these young girls of 18 as adult soldiers. The policy of the War Office is that although a girl is under 21 she is, once she joins the W.R.A.C., a member of an adult organisation or an adult corps, and that all soldiers, except members of boys' units, are old enough to be responsible for the handling of their own personal affairs. It follows from that, from the War Office point of view, that it must allow these girls under 21 to tell their relatives in their own way if they are in any sort of trouble. It also believes that it would be an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the individual if, without the girl's permission, it gave news of that sort, even to parents.
The Under-Secretary of State will know —we all know—that, being human, some

653
of these girls will get into difficulties. It would be remarkable if these youngsters were the only youngsters in Britain not to get into trouble of some sort. That is the very time when a girl needs her mother on her father or both parents and the advantage of their influence. I say that rescue work becomes necessary if the State denies to parents the right they ought to have—to know as of right where their young people are.
It might be all right were the War Office to regard these girls of 18 as having the maturity of older people if, indeed, they were mature, but it applies to these young girls under 20 the same policy it applies to "old sweats," the people who have been in the Army for years. Let the hon. Gentleman talk to parents and he will soon hear what they feel about this question.
The military machine always finds it hard to adapt itself to human considerations. Its rules are made, and then everyone who comes within the control of the Army is rigidly bound by them. We cannot apply that attitude to our young girls in this fashion. The stability of our national life rests on the strength of our family ties, and not even the juggernaut of the War Office can crush out the respect for the family tie which is inherent in this nation. The responsibility of the parents cannot be removed by the State. For the girls aged under 20 in the Army there must be rules entirely different from those applied to grown men.
It would be better if the Army had no girls serving in it at all. I do not know what it wants to recruit them for. What are the girls doing that men cannot do? Why cannot the age of recruitment be 21? It would be much wiser for the Army not to recruit girls until they are 21, for when it takes these girls it takes on a tremendous responsibility at the same time. When I asked the Secretary of State what was done for the welfare of the girls he replied that they had television and games to play to fill up their time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Music while you work.") If it were not such an important question—and it is an important social question and problem—that would have been laughable.
I want to know what welfare services the Minister has. How does he keep in regular contact with the parents? If these girls were in college or secondary school,
654
as many girls over the age of 18 are, regular touch would be maintained with their parents. There is parents' day, when they can visit the school, if they can afford the fare. The Ministry should keep in close touch with the parents, advising them of the developments in the girl's general work, in her personality, and in her relationships with other people.
Whatever happens in the rest of the military machine, we must have confidence that the War Office is not seeking to deal with these girls as it would deal with the older, Regular members of the Forces. I have tried not to damage anyone or the Corps itself, but I believe that the House owes it to itself and to the country to give serious consideration to this problem.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I should like to add one or two words to what has been said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). I heard the Answer to his Question earlier in the week. Since then, one of my constituents, when visiting the House, raised this very matter and expressed misgivings about it.
I recognise that the ruling given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the view of the War Office are inspired by the very best of intentions, but it may be that the Department is assuming a delicate task in this matter, particularly when trying to assess whether a girl who says that her parents are bad parents is possibly misleading. While I recognise the validity of part of the Answer given earlier this week, I feel that there is a case for re-examining this matter.
10.59 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who raised this question, for giving me notice in advance of the points that he was going to raise, and I will do my best to answer them as fully as possible in the time that remains to me.
Before starting to do so, I should like to say that I do think the hon. Member is taking an unnecessarily poor view of the military machine. I know he has some doubts about the advisability of having a military machine at all, but he is taking an unjustifiably poor view of its alleged inhumanity, and he is quite wrong in suggesting that it is a juggernaut which

655
rides rough-shod over all human considerations.
The point which he raises concerns the rights of parents. That is something which we recognise, and which is recognised by the Women's Royal Army Corps, as something of paramount importance. There is no question whatever of our trying to prevent girls from keeping in touch with their families. On the contrary, we make every effort to induce them to do so. We make every effort to induce parents to take an interest in their children, as we do in the case of the men's units. We have parents' days, when parents are able to see for themselves what their girls are doing and how they are getting on.
We also make every effort to encourage girls to write home regularly and to encourage parents to answer their letters. Having said that about the rights of parents, I think I must point out that girls, in common with all men and women serving in the Armed Forces, have rights of their own. The hon. Member spoke of girls being persuaded to enlist in the army. As he will be aware, the Women's Royal Army Corps is a voluntary corps, and all the girls in it have volunteered of their own accord and on their own responsibility, although girls between 17½ and 18 years of age can enlist only with the consent of their parents. These girls are performing highly responsible jobs in many cases, and it would be an insult to assume that they possess no sense of responsibility. They are members of an adult Corps, and we treat them as such.
I realise that this is not entirely an easy question. It is one to which we have given very careful consideration indeed, particularly as to whether we should discriminate between men and women, and whether we should differentiate between girls under 21 and over 21 years of age. We have come to the conclusion, after careful thought, that, assuming they are members of an adult Corps, performing highly responsible jobs, it would be an infringement of the rights of the individual for us to report their movements, shortcomings, misfortunes, their progress or lack of progress, to anyone against their will.
We feel that there is a definite question of principle involved, and because of that
656
we have adopted our present policy, and we shall adhere to it. We fully recognise the rights of the parent, just as the hon. Member does, and we do everything we can to induce girls to keep in touch with them. When a parent writes to a girl, or writes to us to ask to be put in touch with a girl, we arrange for the letters to be forwarded to the girl, as we do in the case of a soldier. If we see that the girl is reluctant to answer a letter she is sent for, interviewed, and urged to get in touch with her parents. What we do not feel able to do, when she has refused to do that, is to put her in touch with her parents against her will.
It is not a question of our putting any difficulties in the way; on the contrary, we do everything in our power to smooth away any difficulties which may exist. One has to remember that it is not simply a question of girls and their parents, but of older men and women and other relations whom they may or may not want to be put into touch with suddenly and unexpectedly. If once we were to break this principle we would be opening the floodgates to what undoubtedly would be a lot of infringements of the rights of the individual.
The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of raising the recruiting age to 21, and from the point of view of the girls being older and more responsible when they are 21 than they are when they are 18, I suppose there might be something to be said for it. But the fact remains that the age of 21 is really too late to start a career. The girl will do much better in a Service like this if she starts fairly young, within two or three years of leaving school. All our experience shows that by the time she is 21 she should be really settled in her career.
After all, as the hon. Member knows, men are called up at 18, and with the present attitude towards discrimination between the sexes we feel that it is right that girls should, where possible, begin at 18 but we are prepared to take volunteers up to the age of 33—any age between 17½ and 33. To limit our recruits to those over 21 would inevitably have an adverse effect on recruiting. It means that we should miss a lot of very good girls, and it would also have an unfortunate effect on manpower.
Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham. Lady-wood): I wonder what proportion of

657
these girls who are discharged before they complete their service are, in fact, taken too young.
Mr. Maclean: I will deal with that in its proper place.
The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of a sort of outside, superimposed moral welfare service, and suggested we should strengthen that aspect. The primary duty of the officers and N.C.O.s in the Women's Royal Army Corps is to look after the welfare and well-being of the women serving under their command, and all our experience shows that they do it extremely well, that they make it their business to know the girls they command and to be individually accessible and available for help and advice whenever it is needed.
Then the hon. Member suggested that we recruited a lot of girls of bad character ——
Mr. G. Thomas: No.
Mr. Maclean: —who exercised influences that might not be good.
Mr. Thomas: No; that they came from bad homes.
Mr. Maclean: I should like to say this in case it is suggested there is a low moral stand in the Women's Royal Army Corps that that is certainly not the fact. Obviously, there are a few black sheep in any organisation of this size, but we make every effort to ensure that the girls recruited are of a high character, and we ask for references, which we verify with great care.
Mr. Thomas: The Minister must not misrepresent me, and I am sure he would not wish to. I did not for one moment suggest that bad characters were going into the Army. I suggested that the girls were recruited with a view to seeing they would be women who would reach the full course.
Mr. Maclean: We certainly do. I am coming to the question of premature discharges in one moment.
In addition to the care which officers, N.C.O.s, chaplains, and in some cases chaplains' assistants, take, there are wide educational and recreational facilities
658
which are first-class. I should like the hon. Member to take the opportunity of inspecting them. Every effort is made to provide interesting and useful occupations for the girls' spare time. We do not, however, feel that we can impose undue restrictions upon all girls because of a possible minority who may abuse their spare time.
When we get girls who look like going wrong, we take certain restrictive measures against them. In general, we let them feel that their spare time is their own, and that it is up to them to make good use of it. We do everything we can to help them to make good use of it.
Regarding premature discharges, it would be useful, and would give a fairer picture, if I were to give the number of all the girls, of all ages, prematurely discharged during the first six months of this year. The number is 872. At first sight it seems a large number; but well over half of them, 464, were discharged on account of what is the greatest cause of wastage in the Women's Royal Army Corps, namely, marriage. I do not think it will do any harm to recruiting when I say that.
Then, 20 were released for compassionate reasons; and 67 because their services were no longer required, which means, roughly speaking, that they were misfits for one reason or another. There were 83 discharged by purchase, which again might be for compassionate family reasons. The rest were discharged on grounds of health. I think that these figures show that the total was not such an alarming figure.
The recruiting figures for the Women's Royal Army Corps are on the whole satisfactory. The cases where girls go wrong—and I know that the hon. Member has a specific case in mind—are, I am glad to say, a great exception. To show what a minority they are, since 1953——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.