§ Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD SOUTHWARKMy Lord, may I say that I had intended to move an Amendment in regard to the rating of machinery, but in order to give more time for its consideration I have decided not to move it until the Report stage.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Rating authorities.
§ 1.—(1) The council of every county borough and the council of every urban and rural district shall be the rating authority for the borough or for the county district, and from and after the appointed day no authority or person other than the council shall have power to make or levy any rate within the borough or district.
§ (4) In the case of a rating area being a rural district the parish council of every parish or group of parishes, and the parish meeting of every parish not under a parish council, shall be entitled to appoint two persons, being local government electors, to act as members of the rating authority, or of ally committee appointed by that authority in pursuance of this section, so far as regards the exercise or performance in connection with property in that parish or group of parishes of any powers or duties of the rating authority under Part II of this Act, and tint persons so appointed shall, for that purpose, but not for any other purpose, be deemed to be members of the rating authority or committee as the case may be.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY) moved, in subsection (4) to leave out "rating area being a rural district" and insert "rural rating area." The noble Marquess said: Perhaps I might take this opportunity of saying to your Lordships that a very large number of Amendments to which I propose to ask the assent of the House are drafting Amendments and consequential Amendments, and with your Lordships' leave will just say "drafting" or "consequential" as the case may be. Then, if any noble Lord wishes me to explain any further, or is doubtful 1359 whether it is a purely drafting point, and asks me, I shall be delighted to do all I can to explain.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("rating area being a rural district") and insert ("rural rating area").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD PARMOORMay I say a word In reference to what the noble Marquess has just said? It has taken me quite a long time to go through the whole Bill and the Amendments on the Paper. The noble Marquess is quite right in saying that a considerable number of the Amendments standing in his name are purely formal and of a drafting nature. I think it would be a convenient plan to take them as shortly as possible.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis a drafting Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), after "electors," to insert "who shall be denominated overseers for the parish or group of parishes for which they act." The noble Lord said: This is not a drafting Amendment. It is one which I move in the interests of the continuity of an old name—the name of overseer. By this Bill the ordinary duties of overseers are done away with and so are the overseers, but the Government have thought fit, and quite rightly, to make provision for two representatives being added to a rural rating authority from the parish whose property is under consideration by the rating authority. As there are these two members from each parish to be added to this authority, I suggest that the old name of overseers should be given to them. It will enhance their status on the rating authority and as this name has been in English local history since 1601 I see no reason why it should not be continued now. Purely on the grounds of historical sentiment I move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, after ("electors") insert ("who shall he denominated overseers for the parish or group of parishes for which they act").—(Lord Jessel.)
§ LORD PARMOORThe overseers now are the parish council in rural parishes. There is no longer an overseer in the sense of a personality at all. One of the objects of this Bill was to get rid of the 1360 extremely local ideas that are associated with overseers. I hope the Bill will be maintained in its present form and that the Amendment will not be accepted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI gather that the noble Lord has an archaeological rather than a legislative interest in this Amendment and, although I have great sympathy with archæology in its proper place, I do not think it is In its proper place where it has a misleading effect. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. The object of the Bill is to replace the parish by a larger area. We wish, of course, to respect local knowledge and for that reason the Government propose to add two representatives of the parish whose property is being considered to the rating authority, but to put in the name of "overseers" would give people the impression that we were not in earnest in the larger and wider change which is proposed.
§ LORD JESSELAfter the speech of the noble Marquess I will not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Levy of, and provisions as to, general rate]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe first four Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("date") to ("in") in line 31, and insert ("of the first new valuation, the rating authority of each urban rating area")
§ Page 2, line 36, leave out ("rating area being a rural district") and insert ("rural rating area")
§ Page 3, line 10, leave out ("district") and insert ("rating area")
§ Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("date") to ("the") in line 13, and insert ("of the first new valuation").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given notice to leave out the words "not apply" and insert "cease to have effect" in proviso (b) of subsection (3). The noble Marquess said: The Government are not satisfied with the form of this Amendment. Therefore I do not propose to Move it now, but to put it right on Report.
1361§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe remaining Amendments to this clause are all drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 4, line 21, leave out ("a county borough or urban district") and insert ("an urban rating area").
§ Page 4, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("or Provisional Order")
§ Page 4, line 31, leave out from ("date") to end of line 33, and insert ("of the first new valuation").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Levy of, and provisions as to, special rate in rural district]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe two Amendments standing in my name to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 4, line 38, leave out ("rating area being a rural district") and insert ("rural rating area").
§ Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("date") to ("the") in line 27, and insert ("of the first new valuation").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Operation and incidence of rate.
§ (4) The amount charged by a rate in respect of any hereditament shall be due front the person who is in occupation of that hereditament during the period in respect of which the rate is made, and where any person is in occupation of a hereditament for part only of the period in respect of which the rate is made, he shall be charged with such part of the total amount charged by the rate in respect of that hereditament as bears the same proportion to the said total amount as the number of days during which that person is in occupation bears to the number of clays comprised in the period in respect of which the rate is made.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe first three Amendments on this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 5, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("rating area being a rural district") and insert ("rural rating area").
§ Page 5, line 42, leave out from ("date") to end of line 43, and insert ("of the first new valuation").
1362§ Page 6, line 6, after ("in") insert ("respect of").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:—
(4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the assessing of persons to told their liability in respect of a rate—
§ The noble Marquess said: I might almost have said that this is a drafting Amendment also, but it is rather long and perhaps your Lordships would like a word in respect of it. Your Lordships are aware that under the Bill a rate is to be for the whole period and not date from the moment when the rate is declared. This rate dates back for the whole period during which the rate runs. That is a change in the law and it is necessary to make provision, where there is a change of occupation during the period, that the burden should be properly distributed between the two 1363 occupiers. That is done in the Bill, but upon careful consideration we were of opinion that the drafting was not perfect and this new subsection which deals with exactly the same point is a redrafting of the subsection. There is no change of substance.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD PARMOORWe are only too anxious to help the noble Marquess in any question of improved drafting. I have studied this new drafting very carefully. It deals with a complicated subject and I agree that the new drafting is very much better than the original subsection. Therefore I think the noble Marquess is quite justified in moving the Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There is a verbal alteration which must he made in paragraph (a). The word "said" before the word "period" should be omitted, and after the word "period" should be inserted the words "in respect of which the rate is made." The paragraph will then read:—
(a) A person who is in occupation of the hereditament for part only of the period in respect of which the rate is made shall …I therefore move the Amendment with that verbal alteration in it.
§ LORD PARMOORI quite agree. I thought those words were already in the paragraph.
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (4) the following proviso:—
Provided that if a hereditament is unoccupied during the whole or any portion of the period in respect of which the rate is made, and no agreement in respect of the hereditament is in force for such period tinder subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act, the owner of the hereditament shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be in occupation thereof during the time it is so unoccupied, but shall be liable to pay to the rating authority one-half only of the amount which he would be liable to pay if he were in actual occupation of that hereditament for such time.
§
The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment in order to ensure that unoccupied property shall pay its fair share of the expenses incurred by local authorities. Many of those expenses continue during the period when property is unoccupied—services such as the protection afforded by the police, the protection afforded by the maintenance of a fire brigade, the maintenance of roads, of lighting and so on. This is not a new proposal. I find that as far back as 1898 the London County Council passed a resolution and offered evidence before the Royal Commission that was considering this subject, and I find that the Royal Commission, in a Majority Report, stated:—
We think that it would be fairer if some charges were made in respect of unoccupied properties, which undoubtedly receive some benefit from public expenditure.
Moreover, this is a principle that is being carried out and has been carried out for some years in Scotland, and I find that, taking the years 1915–6—this is the only figure that I have been able to obtain—the Cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee obtained a very large proportion of their rates from such property, which means, of course, a very large saving to the ratepayers who were being charged for property of which they were in occupation.
§ It is not only in Scotland that this principle has been accepted. Under an Act of 1848 the principle is in operation in the City of London to-day, while all the urban authorities outside London have certain limited powers in this matter already. They are not considerable, but they do show that the Amendment that I suggest is not a radical change in the law, but merely an extension of an existing law. In 1919 there were something under 20,000 empty houses in London, which involved the ratepayers of London in an average loss of 3˙46d., and this, of course, had to be made up by occupiers of property. We are told that it is unfortunate that the owners or lessors of large empty houses and of factories that have been abandoned for sonic financial reason or other should have to continue to pay rates on those properties, out of which they are no longer obtaining any benefit. But, on the same analogy, rent does not cease when a lessor ceases to occupy a house that 1365 he has leased and in the case of a mine (as any of your Lordships who has anything to do with royalties knows) when a mine ceases to be worked and as soon as royalties cease, the dead rent starts. It may be said that this is merely the result of an agreement. That is quite a different matter, and the agreement, in any case, only means that the occupier, when he took possession of the property, know that he was going to remain liable for his rent or his royalty, even if he ceased to occupy the property.
§ That is what will happen if you pass this Amendment, because the lessor will then realise when signing the lease that, if he breaks the lease or wishes to close a factory, he will have to continue to pay rates and he will know, as he already knows to-day, that, if the services for which he is being asked by this Amendment to continue paying were to cease, it would be almost impossible for him to think of ever again letting that property. Accordingly I ask your Lordships to pass this Amendment in order that the services that continue to be rendered when property is unoccupied should continue to be paid for.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MONK BRETTONI understood the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to refer to a resolution which had been passed by the London County Council in favour of this Amendment. That may have been so, but I venture to tell your Lordships that, in the present year of grace, the London County Council passed a resolution against it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI certainly do not complain of the noble Earl having submitted this Amendment to your Lordships' consideration. It does undoubtedly deal not only with a very important point, but with a very difficult one. There is a great deal to be said for the contention that the noble Earl has put forward that unoccupied houses ought to pay, do not say the full burden of rates, but part of that burden. But this Bill really does not deal with that aspect of the rating problem. The elaborate machinery that is contained in it, and that I ventured to the best of my ability to explain to your Lordships on the Second 1366 Reading, is really quite enough for one Bill to contain, and if we were to go into these very difficult questions of the incidence of rates, it would be entirely overburdened; nor, I am quite confident, could the thing be done quite so simply as the noble Earl suggests.
Let me deal for a moment, if I may, with the arguments is that the noble Earl has advanced for this important and serious suggestion, which I do not want to brush aside in any way. He goes, if I may say so, in the teeth of the whole theory of the rating law, as it now obtains in this country. Rateability is determined upon what an occupier would under normal circumstances pay. That is the foundation on which our rating system depends. The noble Earl suggested. I think, that he is not quite sure that it is the right system, but it is certainly the system that obtains at the present moment. The question whether it is worth while for a man to pay rent for an occupation is determined in the vast majority of cases by the fact that a place is unoccupied. Why is it unoccupied? You may put special cases, but, broadly, it is unoccupied because it does not pay anybody to occupy and pay a rent for it. So long as you accept the present basis of rating, that is the answer. It is not occupied because nobody can afford to pay rent for it. Therefore, as the rating depends upon the fact of the rent, the rating falls to the ground, at the same time, and that is the broad principle.
The noble Earl says: "Look at Scotland." it is not the principle altogether in Scotland. Scotland always had owners as well as occupiers rating. We have never had that system, and therefore the case of Scotland is not directly in point. The noble Lord also says: "Look at London." We have just heard a representative of the London County Council—the noble Lord, I think, is still on the London County Council—inform us that the Council have passed a resolution against this Amendment, varying a resolution which I understand they passed on the previous occasion. They have passed a resolution against this Amendment. Even if there is a slight, difference in the procedure in the City of London, really the case is not analogous to the general case, for hereditaments in the City of London are so valuable that it 1367 is impossible to contend that they are not worth a rental. As a matter of fact, even in the City of London, it is not the poor rate which is subject to this special treatment but only, I think, the general rate—that is about one-third of the whole amount. Therefore, even as far as the City of London is concerned, which is in a special position, it does not go anything like so far as the noble Earl would suggest we ought to go.
Lastly, may I point this out? I spoke just now of the complication which would be involved if this principle were accepted. Take our leasehold system. Who is the owner of an unoccupied dwelling upon whom the noble Earl would fix to pay the rate? Is it the immediate owner or the superior owner? He would have to decide, and it is a complicated question because the absence of occupation may not be the fault of the immediate owner but of the superior owner. It may be nobody's fault and in general it is nobody's fault, but even if it were the fault of the owner, it may be that of the superior owner, who insists upon his covenants in an unreasonable way and therefore prevents the letting. Surely the immediate owner ought not to have to hear the whole burden of the rate because of the act of the superior owner. Those are reasons which show how complicated the problem is. If the noble Lord has read the Bill as carefully as it has been my duty to do I am sure he will realise that the Bill is already sufficiently complicated. I hope that for these many reasons he will forgive me if I say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORIt is satisfactory that the noble Marquess appreciated the real importance of this Amendment. It is very important both as regards the money payment to the rates and as regards the question of principle. He has urged more than once that this Bill is only a Valuation Bill, and that therefore matters of this kind should be excluded from it. May I point out that that is hardly accurate? We have here not a question of ordinary valuation but of the machinery of rating. We have a difference between the rating of machinery, which is an exemption, and a difference also as regards the rating of buildings, which is again an exception. What I should say with regard to this 1368 Bill, and the unfortunate side of it, is that although it ought to be a Valuation Bill only, it has been extended to other matters, and other mattes which, so far as I know, give exemption from rating to people who are now liable to give a contribution. That is extremely pleasant to those who get the immunity—the agricultural interest and the owners of machinery—but that is only one side of the question, and I think it is important, if you are giving special exemption, that you should also consider whether, as a matter of principle, you ought not to obtain fresh sources of income. When I say "fresh sources of income," I mean, of course, for rating purposes.
I am bound to admit that I do not see the force of any of the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Marquess against the principle of this Amendment. The question between occupation and possession is one that has been discussed over and over again in principle. Surely it is quite clear, whether premises are occupied or not, that a very large amount of rating expenditure is for the benefit of the owner of premises as existing premises, probably in a populous area where such buildings have a special value. I do not see that there is any answer to that. Considerable advantage is derived from the rates by the owner. All rates are more or less onerous on the ratepayer, but I think, as the noble Earl who moved the Amendment showed clearly, that unoccupied premises to a very considerable extent to get the benefit of rate expenditure, and that is not a new matter. The noble Earl referred to the Scottish practice. I believe it is a very old practice in Scotland that a proportion of the rates should be placed directly on the owner—I am not sure that it is not half-and-half.
§ VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIEIn some cases, yes.
§ LORD PARMOORI remember that discussions took place at the time when we were making inquiry into Imperial and local taxation, and also I recollect that there was a very large body of feeling, in favour of the Scottish system. I forget what our recommendations were on this particular point, because we recommended so many matters. So as regards the City of London. There is 1369 nothing exceptional in the City of London whatever. The fact that property is worth more has to do with the amount of the rate, but not with the principle of rating. In a poorer district there is no reason why additional ratepaying should be placed on the poorer people, if this principle is right, any more than in the City of London where you have a richer rating area. It can be done there, and I admit I should have thought that the argument would have told the other way, end that in the poor districts, where you have a number of factories and so on which might be unoccupied for a time, it tells most harshly on the poor cottagers and poor householders, who hove additional expense thrown upon them owing to unoccupied premises. I hope that the noble Earl will press his Amendment to a Division. I admit, of course, that in this House it is difficult to think we may succeed, but the principle is so important, and goes so much to the root of the question of giving relief to ratepayers in poor districts, that I hope he will press his Amendment, which ought to be considered in a Bill of this kind and which ought to be accepted.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble Marquess, in replying to me, I think, might quite fairly be said to have made out a case not so much against, my proposal as a case for taking over these houses which are empty, and putting them to some use-
§ ful purpose. His argument might really be said to admit the truth and rightness of the principle that I put forward, and his disagreement with what I said seemed to be very much mare on matters of form and certain difficulties that would arise. I would therefore. Ask the noble Marquess whether he would not give us a definite undertaking to consider this before the Report stage, as otherwise we on this side of the House will have to press this matter to a Division.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI cannot, of course, restrain the noble Earl and his friends from asking your Lordships' definite opinion as to this Amendment, but I am afraid he would find that if he were successful he would throw a most surprising burden upon persons who are getting no rent, and yet might be called upon to pay rates. I do not think he has faced what that really means. I agree that, after very careful consideration, it might be possible to frame provisions in another Bill which might throw a certain burden on the owner. I do not say it would he right, but it would be worth consideration: but I am quite sure it could not properly be put into this Bill. If the noble Earl presses the Amendment I am afraid we shall have to resist him.
§ On Question, Whether the proposed words shall he there inserted?—
§ Their Lordships' divided:—Contents, 11: Not-Contents, 60.
1371| CONTENTS. | ||
| Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) | Haldane, V. | Morris, L. |
| Muir Mackenzie, L. | ||
| Arnold, L.[Teller.] | Parmoor, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Charnwood, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| De La Warr, E. [Teller.] | Marshall of Chipstead, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Cave, V.(L. Chancellor.) | Chaplin, V. | Darling, L. |
| Churchill, V. | Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | |
| Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Dynevor, L. |
| Hood, V. | Dunmore, L.(E. Dunmore.) | |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | FitzWalter, L. | |
| Sutherland, D. | Forester, L. | |
| Novar, V. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Peel, V. | Jessel, L. |
| Younger of Leckie, V. | Kilmaine, L. | |
| Birkenhead, E. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) | |
| Fortescue, E. | Atkinson, L. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Lucan, E.[Teller.] | Avebury, L. | Kylsant, L. |
| Malmesbury, M. | Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Lawrence of Kingsgate, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Carson, L. | Merthyr, L. |
| Plymouth, E. [Teller.] | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Spencer, E. | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Clwyd, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. | |
| Astor, V. | D'Abernon, L. | Ormonde, L.(M. Ormonde.) |
| Phillimore, L. | Roundway, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) | Saltoun, L. | Sumner, L. |
| Somers, L. | Trevethin, L. | |
| Raglan, L. | Somerleyton, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Wyfold, L. |
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Amendment of rates]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe first three Amendments on this clause are drafting Amendments.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 7, line 8, leave out ("by reason of") and insert ("(ii")
§ Page 7, lines 9 and leave out ("by reason of") and insert ("(iii)")
§ Page 7, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("hereditaments") and insert ("hereditament").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "person liable to be rated affected" and to insert "occupier of the hereditament, and if the owner is liable to pay the rates in respect of the hereditament also to the owner". The noble Marquess said: This is very little more than a drafting Amendment, but there are cases—
§ LORD PARMOORYes, it is merely drafting. We accept it, and the following Amendment, which is also drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 7, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("person liable to be rated affected") and insert ("occupier of the hereditament, and if the owner is liable to pay the rates in respect of the hereditament also to the owner").
§ Page 7, line 21, after ("him") insert ("or them").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ Demand notes for rates.
§
7.—(1) Information with respect to the following matters shall be included in the demand note on which the general rate is levied that is to say—
(a) the situation of the hereditament in respect of which the demand note is issued and such description thereof as may be prescribed;
1372
(g) the amount, if any, in the pound which is being levied to make good a deficiency in any trading account, or in any fend of which a separate account is required to be kept; and the amount, if any, by which the amount in the pound of the rate would have been increased if any contributions in aid of rates made from any such account or fund had not been made:
§
LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and insert:
(a) The description and situation of the hereditament in respect of which the demand note is issued and such further particulars thereof as may be prescribed.
§ The noble Lord said: Clause 7 tells us what should be included in the demand note on which the general rate is levied, and in paragraph (a) the only thing to guide the ratepayers as to what the note refers to is the situation of the hereditament. Then follows a rather vague statement: "and such description thereof as may be prescribed." My Amendment suggests that both the description and the situation of the hereditament should appear on the demand note, "and such further particulars thereof as may be prescribed." The idea is to assist the ratepayer, so that he may see at once to what the note refers. Some people will receive a sheaf of demand notes. It will be very inconvenient if no description is inserted therein, and only, say, a number is given. That will probably necessitate further correspondence to ascertain exactly what property is referred to. The original Bill said nothing about the description of the property; but in Committee in another place a new paragraph was inserted requiring a description and the situation of the property. On the Report stage the Government accepted an Amendment—I believe it was an Amendment by the County Councils' Association—omitting the word "description" but adding words giving the Minister power to prescribe any particulars. It is very desirable that we should go back to what was settled on the Committee stage in another place, as being far clearer to the ratepayer. I beg to move.
1373
§
Amendment Moved—
Page 8, lines 8 to 10, leave out paragraph (a), and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is true that the mere mention of the situation of the hereditament is not sufficient, and I agree with my noble friend that there ought to be some description of it. But I think he is not clear upon the Bill as it stands, because any one who listens to him would have come to the conclusion that no description was designed. If my noble friend will look at the clause, he will see that the words are:—
the situation of the hereditament in respect of which the demand note is issued, and such description thereof as may be prescribed:Of course it is intended that a sufficient description shall be prescribed that will identify the hereditament. What, my noble friend's Amendment really amounts to is that he does not trust the prescribing authority to do his work effectually.
§ LORD DYNEVORNot altogether.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think my noble friend is a little unduly suspicious. There is no intention whatever to cheat the unfortunate ratepayer. Be ought certainly to have a sufficient description for the purpose of accurately identifying the actual hereditament. I have not yet been able to settle whether any further words would make that clear, and if my noble friend would be good enough not to press his Amendment, I will see how far I can meet him between now and the Report stage. I think one or two small words are required, but I have not made up my mind how they should run.
§ LORD DYNEVORAfter what my noble friend has said, I shall not press my Amendment; but I should like to point out that both words were in the Bill in Committee in another place, and were altered on Report. That does not satisfy me that the description will be given in the future, and I think that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out paragraph (g) of subsection (1). The noble lord said: I see that
1374
eight different subjects are to be put on the demand note. Paragraph (g) includes:—
the amount, if any, in the pound which is being levied to make good a deficiency in any trading account, or in any fund of which a separate account is required to be kept; and the amount, if any, by which the amount in the pound of the rate would have been increased if any contributions in aid of rates made from any such account or fund had not been made;
§ The object of that paragraph, which was inserted in the Bill in another place and was not originally in the Bill, is to show whether profits or losses have been made from municipal trading.
§ I do not know that this has very much to do with the particulars which should be put upon a demand note; but the form in which it is stated will not give a true indication as to whether profits or losses have been made. It would be impossible to put a balance sheet upon a demand note, and without a balance sheet it is impossible to say for certain whether there really has been a profit or a loss. And if a balance sheet were put on it would not only take up a large amount of space on the demand note and add much to the cost of printing, but I think I may say without error that nine-tenths of the ratepayers would not understand it. It is perfectly easy to show either a loss or a profit, according to the way in which you make up your balance sheet. Supposing you have tramways, and during a certain year you do not put by anything for depreciation and do not mend the permanent way or paint the ears, you show a profit. If, on the other hand, you put a little bit too much towards depreciation or do a little extra painting or renewing, you make a loss. Therefore, unless some one who is more or less of an expert in these matters actually sees the balance sheet, and understands how the figues have been arrived at, it is impossible to say whether there has been a profit or a loss. Therefore, this paragraph will only mislead people.
§ I know that my noble friend Lord Jessel will agree with me that there has always been a dispute on the London County Council as to whether the Council's trams were run at a profit or a loss. Those people who favour tramways say: "It is true that in the way the accounts are kept there is a loss; but the accounts are not kept in the way they should be. If they 1375 were kept in a different way, and if certain things were not done which have been done, they would show a profit. "Therefore the only result of this would be that the ratepayer would not gain any accurate information, and the demand note would have an item added to it which would be of no value to anybody. I hope my noble friend will accept the Amendment, which does not in any way touch the principle of the Bill, but only serves to simplify matters. It would prevent the ratepayer being confused when he receives his demand note. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 22 to 29, leave out paragraph (g).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONI have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments which my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam has addressed to us. I have also great sympathy with the objects for which this subsection was inserted in the Bill. Undoubtedly if we could bring home in a great many cases the terrible failure of municipal trading we should be doing a very advantageous thing in securing economy and checking undue expense, but I cannot see, from a business point of view, how this can be carried out. I will not recapitulate the arguments of my noble friend. I served on the London County Council, and am well aware that the drawing up of this balance sheet to show a loss—a discreditable loss as some thought, or as some others thought a profit—was something that annually recurred.
That is not the only question. The real question is how far this is practicable. The clause says: "the amount, if any, in the pound which is being levied to make good a deficiency in any trading account." I wonder if my noble friend would tell us how that is going to be carried out if it were made law. At the beginning of a new year, early in January, we should receive an estimate of the expenditure for the then current half-year. On what period would it be based? The accounts for the year are not made up, and would not be made up by that time. As the accounts for 1926 could not be made up by next January, obviously the figure could only be a wide estimate, seeing that the trading accounts for 1925 would not 1376 yet have been submitted. Is the account here intended to be one for 1924? If so, I venture to suggest that the wording requires to be changed, because it is not an amount, which has been levied to make good the deficiency in any trading account, but to make good a prospective deficiency in any trading account. I do not wish to labour the point. The object seems to be admirable, but in my view is quite unattainable especially with the wording of the clause as it is.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is quite obvious why this appears in the Bill. In a shorter form it appeared in the original Bill. The earlier part of the paragraph, which says that any trading losses are to be communicated in the demand note to the ratepayer, was in the original Bill. Then there was a demand that in the interests of fairness there should also be included, where they had made a profit, a statement to that effect; that accounts for the second sentence in the paragraph. I do not deny that the result is rather unwieldly, but I confess I was a little surprised to find that my two noble friends, for whose judgment I have great regard, are against, the retention of this paragraph in the Bill.
For my part I have heard very often my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam denounce municipal trading, and it is a very natural deduction from that position that the ratepayers should be made aware of what their servants are doing in the matter of municipal trading. It is their money which is to be spent, and it does seem a little hard if they are not to be told what is the effect of the trading. Personally I am very much opposed to municipal trading, as my noble friend knows, and have done my best very often to resist it in your Lordships' House, but it does seem a very desirable object that those whose money is involved, who will be richer or poorer according as this municipal trading is properly carried out, should know, when they are asked for money, what the result of the trading may be. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Midleton admitted up to the hilt the desirability of this, but he submitted a very strong argument that it was not practicable.
I would ask your Lordships, at any rate so far as this stage of the Bill is con- 1377 cerned, to allow the matter to remain as it is. I confess that if two such strong Conservatives as my two noble friends, both of them opposed to municipal trading, are of opinion that this provision in the Bill is impracticable, that does have great weight with me. I should have expected to find them both on the other side. As they take the view they have expressed, I admit the matter is rather difficult. To find any one more conservative than Lord Banbury of Southam is almost impossible, and therefore what he has said does have great weight with me. If my two noble friends will allow the matter to stand over, I will reconsider the paragraph very carefully. I feel after the arguments, and especially the argument of Lord Midleton, that there is a difficulty in working what is suggested in the Bill.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI, of course, accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. I should like to add that I did not state that I was opposed to municipal trading because I thought ft was a well-known fact. If there is one thing I am opposed to it is municipal trading, and the older I grow the stronger grows my opposition to it. I am afraid that this proposal in the Bill, instead of showing to the ratepayer the results of municipal trading, will have quite the opposite effect, and that the ratepayers will be given a statement which is not really a true or correct statement, and that they will thereby be deceived.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONI am sure we all appreciate that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam need not take up the time of your Lordships by explaining the cardinal features of his political creed. We all know them. I fully accept the suggestion of my noble friend that he will consider this matter, and I would point out that if we are to have the words they should be "an estimated amount," because it cannot possibly be anything but an estimate that would be available.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Discount on general rate]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out from ("who") to ("and") in line 13, and insert ("is entitled to any of the allowances for which provision is made by section eleven of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9 [Provisions as to precepts]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAll the Amendments to this clause standing in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 10, line 4, after ("rate") insert ("or as an additional item of the poor rate")
§ Page 10, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("a rating area not being a rural district") and insert. ("an urban rating area")
§ Page 10, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("rating areas which are rural districts and rating areas which are not rural districts") and insert ("rural rating areas and urban rating areas")
§ Page 10, line 29, leave out ("a rating area not being a rural district") and insert ("an urban rating area")
§ Page 10, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("rating areas not being rural districts") and insert ("urban rating areas")
§ Page 11, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("a rating area not being a rural district") and insert ("an urban rating area")
§ Page 13, line 14, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 19, and insert ("allowances made under section eight or section eleven of this Act")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11:
§ Rating of, and collection of rates by, owners.
§ 11.—(1) The rating authority may by resolution direct that in the case of all hereditaments in their area (exclusive of hereditaments consisting of agricultural land) which belong to a class to be defined in the resolution by reference to rateable value, and also, if rent is paid by reference to the interval at which rent from time to time becomes payable or is collected, the owners thereof shall be rated instead of the occupiers:
§ Provided that the class shall not be SO defined as to include any hereditament the rent of which becomes payable or is collected at quarterly or any longer intervals, or the rateable value of which exceeds thirteen pounds, or, in the case of any area in which, at the passing of this Act, a higher limit of value is in force for the purposes of section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, that higher limit.
1379§ Where a rating authority give any such direction as aforesaid, the owners of any hereditaments in the area of that authority to which the direction applies shall, in the case of any rate made while the resolution is in force, be rated accordingly, and the rating authority shall make to any owner who being so rated pays the amount due by him in respect of the rate before the expiration of one-half of the period in respect of which the rate is made (or, if the rate is payable by instalments one-half of the period in respect of which the instalment is payable) or such later date or dates as may be specified in the resolution an allowance equal to ten per cent, of the amount payable.
§ (8) Every owner who is rated under this section instead of the occupier, or who enters into an agreement with the rating authority under this section, shall, as respects any right of appeal to quarter sessions against a rate and for the purposes of the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to objections, appeals and proposals, be treated as being the occupier of the hereditaments in respect of which he is rated or to which the agreement relates, as the case may be. Any owner who in consequence of such direction as aforesaid shall have paid any rate which, but for this section, would have been payable, as between the owner and the occupier by the occupier in pursuance of any contract made between such owner and occupier shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the occupier the amount so paid.
§ LORD DYNEVOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to substitute "eight pounds" for "thirteen pounds." The noble Lord said: This clause raises the question of compounding for rates which, of course, means that the owner pays the rates instead of the occupier. It is most desirable, I think, that as often as possible the occupier, who has the vote, should pay the rates, otherwise he ceases So take any interest in the expenditure of the local authority and little interest in local government. When an occupier sees the rates soaring up and he has to pay them himself he looks quite differently at the question. This clause says that the owner shall be rated instead of the occupier when the rateable value does not exceed £13. My Amendment suggests £8 instead of £13, and my reason for proposing £8 is that that is the present figure outside London and a few large cities. I do not want to increase the amount of compounding. I am quite aware that under the Bent Restrictions. Acts rents have been increased and houses 1380 of £8 may now be assessed at higher than that figure. But would it not be a very good thing if the occupier paid the rates?
§ I should like to point out that many new houses will be brought under this clause, even a house of £18 gross value, because the Second Schedule provides that houses and buildings without land, other than gardens, where the gross value exceeds £10, but does not exceed £20, shall have a deduction of 33⅓ per cent, of the gross value. That means one-third off, and in the case of an £18 house it means £6, reducing the rateable value to £12. Therefore an £18 house comes within the compounding clause. I should like to do away with compounding altogether, but I do not suggest it now because it would be a great alteration in the Bill. I do suggest, however, that we should keep the figure as at present and consider more the effect of compounding rather than of saving the local authority some trouble in collecting rates.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Dynevor.)
§ LORD PARMOORMay I say to the noble Lord that an Amendment of this nature is rather difficult to discuss as it is not on the Paper?
§ LORD DYNEVORIt is on the Paper.
§ LORD PARMOORIt was not on the Amendment Paper that I saw.
§ LORD DYNEVORI received my Amendment Paper on Saturday afternoon.
§ LORD PARMOORUnfortunately I did not know until I came here this afternoon that this Amendment was down and I apologise to the noble Lord. When considering the question of compounding the amount is a matter of great importance. I understand that the noble Lord desires to reduce the £13 to £8. I am not quite sure, because I have not looked into the question at all, whether £13 is the present limit in the Metropolis. I think it is.
§ LORD DYNEVORIt is £20 in London, and I think I am right in saying that it is £13 in Liverpool and £10 in Birmingham.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is £20 in London, £13 in Liverpool, £10 in Manchester and Birmingham, and £8 everywhere else.
§ LORD PARMOORI did not rise to discuss this question at the moment because I have not the figures before me. I would suggest that the matter might stand over until the Report stage. I admit I ought to have seen the Amendment, but I did not, and I have not had my attention called to this question.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI really think Lord Dynevor's feelings are contained in the last words of his speech. He does not like the system of compounding at all and therefore he would reduce it to a minimum. That is a very simple position and one with which many of us have a good deal of sympathy. But, unfortunately, in these days we really cannot afford it. There is an immense economy in compounding, and the noble Lord will agree with those of us who work in our own counties that we are groaning under the burden of the rates, and if you are going to do away with the system of compounding it means a heavier burden on the rates. It is true that compounding has the incidental effect of not bringing home to the ratepayer as much as we could wish the extent of the expenditure of the rating authority. That is true and therefore Parliament has prescribed that a distinction should be made between what is pure rent and what is rates, so that the occupier may know which is which. Perhaps it would be still more emphatic if they were charged by two different authorities—that is, the rent by landlords and the rates by the rating authority. But the loss in money would be so considerable that Lord Dynevor, if he were responsible for affairs, would not at this moment of great financial strain make any such suggestion. It is not because I do not value it, but because in the circumstances we cannot accept it.
I eliminate what I believe to be his fundamental argument, which is that there should be no compounding at all, and we come back therefore to the question of the amount. If you are to have compounding, is £8 the right figure or £13 as the Bill suggests? I think I can show very good reasons why the £8 ought to be increased. The noble Lord is aware 1382 that this class of property comes largely under the Rent Restrictions Acts and under those Acts an increase of 25 per cent, of the rent was allowed. If you add 25 per cent. to £8 that makes it £10. That, of course, disposes of the argument that £8 is the right figure. But we must go a little further than that because £10 will not bring the same number of houses under the purview of this clause as were brought formerly before the War by the £8 limit. The whole standard of rent has gone up, not in those restricted houses because they were controlled, but in other houses which have been built since the Rent Restrictions Acts were passed. Those Acts only apply to houses which existed before a certain day, and you must go rather further than £10. The Government have fixed upon £13 and in the absence of any serious argument against it I propose to adhere to that sum.
§ LORD DYNEVORThe noble Marquess has not replied to the point that houses of £18 are now being brought under thin clause. The deduction of 33⅓ per cent, brings a house of that gross value down to £12, and therefore you are really enlarging the scope very considerably. I hardly agree with the noble Marquess when he says that no local authority can afford to do it. Perhaps it would put more expenditure on the local authority at first in collecting all these rates, but I am sure that in the end it would be a great deal cheaper, because, if every small occupier bore the rates, I am quite certain that the rates would not be anything like so high as they are at present. But, after what the noble Marquess has said, I will not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to subsection (1):
; and
(b) if the rating authority are the owners of any such hereditaments as aforesaid the authority, in any case where a hereditament of a rateable value not exceeding that specified in the resolution is occupied by the owner thereof and the owner within the time fixed by the foregoing paragraph (b) pays the amount of the rate chargeable in respect of the said hereditament, shall make to the owner an allowance comparable
1383
to the amount, if any, passed on by the authority to the occupiers of hereditaments owned by them in respect of the allowance to which the authority are entitled under this subsection, and, unless the contrary is proved, an amount not less than five per cent, of the amount payable in respect of rates shall be deemed to have been so passed on by the authority.
§ The noble Marquess said: I referred to this Amendment when I spoke on the Second Reading. Its object is to place the owner-occupier more or less in the same position as the tenant. Under the system of compounding a good deal of the advantage which the owner gets is passed down to the occupier by the ordinary process of demand and supply. It was pointed out, however, in another place, that in that case the owner-occupier, or the occupier who is a tenant of the authority itself, would have no advantage, and that seemed very hard. This is rather an elaborate provision and I do not propose to describe it to your Lordships in detail unless I am required to do so. It can, of course, be argued that in the case of the owner-occupier the advantage to the rating authority is not the same as it is in the case of a number of occupiers under a considerable landlord. That is true, because, if the owner-occupiers each occupy a very small tenement, then the cost of collection falling upon the rating authority has not been compensated for as it would be in the case of a large property. But, at the same time, there is an apparent inequity in giving one man, who is a tenant, this advantage (for he gets part of the advantage) while his next-door neighbour, who may be an occupier of exactly the same standing and wealth, has no advantage at all, merely because of the accident that he is either a tenant of the rating authority or an owner himself. It is in order to attempt to meet that point that this Amendment is proposed.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD PARMOORI think the noble Marquess has really overlooked the distinction between the case of an occupying owner and an owner with tenants in respect of whom there is compounding in 1384 one lump sum for the payment of rates. He stated quite accurately, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, as regards the last Amendment, that the compounding is payment made for services rendered to the rating authority.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat is so.
§ LORD PARMOORExcept on that basis there is no reason whatever why compounding should be allowed at all Except for that, it means a diminution of the rating income which would otherwise be derived by a rating authority in a particular district. What is the occupying owner? He is not rated as owner at all, but as occupier, and he performs no services whatever which any occupier does not perform as regards the local authority. He has to pay the rate, and he is thus in the same position as any other occupier, and is not entitled to any remission that I can see under the principle of compounding.
As regards the Act of 1869, it contains a definition that the owner, who is entitled to claim certain compounding arrangements, is the person to whom the rent is payable, or who is entitled to claim the rent. There is no such position as regards the occupying owner, for you have the same person as owner and as occupier. In the same way, under Section 211 of the Act of 1875, which gives power to rate the owner in certain cases in place of the occupier, again there is no rule whatever as regards the occupying owner. It appears to me that the whole principle of compounding is displaced if you say that an occupying owner is entitled to this five per cent, deduction. Why? He does not perform a service, but merely makes a payment that every occupier is bound to make when the rate note is presented for payment. I could not follow the noble Marquess's argument at all.
So far as the other cases of compounding go, something may come from the landlord to the tenant, but in that case it shows that the compounding arrangement has not been a fair business arrangement, because it was never intended to help the occupier or the tenant at all. It is a payment for services rendered by the owner in the collection of rates in the circumstances mentioned. To bring 1385 in the occupying owner is to upset the whole principle. I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. We have heard several times that this is a Valuation Bill, but again and again it has turned out that it is a Valuation Bill only in this respect, that apparently any one who has asked for some remission of his rates has more or less obtained what he desired. That is the worst possible way of carrying through a Rating and Valuation Bill of this character. I cannot bring to mind any principle whatever which in circumstances such as these would allow any remission to be made in favour of the occupying owner. I am prepared to say that I think the occupying owner provides a very beneficial form of the occupation of property, but on every principle of rating, and so far as compounding is concerned, I think that this Amendment is a mistake.
LORD MONK BRETTONI cannot help feeling that this Amendment constitutes a very strong argument in favour of the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, that there should be no compounding at all. So far as I can understand the Amendment it is contrary to the principle of the clause, which is that 10 per cent, is allowed to cover (1), the owner's cost of collecting the rents, and (2), the risk that he runs in so doing, owing to possible non-payment by his tenant. It seems wrong, therefore, that a claim should be allowed in favour of the owner-occupier, for he does not incur the cost of collection and he does not run any risk. I may add that I am calling attention to this point because the Association of Municipal Corporations is rather anxious not to see this Amendment inserted. I may also say that, although the present London County Council is not interested in the matter, because the part of the Bill relating to London has been cut out, yet, being a far-seeing body, it is rather apprehensive of what may be put into a future Bill in regard to the occupying owner when a measure comes before Parliament, perhaps next Session, with regard to London.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, but, so far as I can understand this Amendment, I have much pleasure in agreeing with him on this occasion. 1386 I may be mistaken, but, so far as I understand the Amendment, it says that, where the owner occupies a house which, if he were not the owner, would come under the compounding scheme, then he is to receive abatement of his rates to the extent of 5 per cent. I do not know if that is right, but that is how I understand it. What was the reason for compounding? So far as I know, compounding was instituted because it was difficult for the rating authorities to obtain the rate from a large number of small occupiers. They would probably have to go before the justices, and an order would have to be made compelling the occupier to pay the rate. I very often have occupiers, who are not very well off, come before the bench of which I am a member because they have not paid their rates. A very large number of cases come before us almost every week. It was thought by the authorities that if the landlord, who was a richer man, paid up and then collected it from the tenant, there would be a saving to the authorities and it would enable them to get the money. That being so, there was a reason for the compounding, but in this case I see no reason for it at all. The authorities have to go to the owner and get the rate just the same as they go to any other owner, and in those circumstances why should one particular owner foe put in a better position than other owners?
§ THE EARL OF DUNMOREIt seems to me it is not so much the point of putting one owner in a better position than another, but of putting one occupier in a worse position than another occupier. That is the point that was raised in another place, and I know there was a strong feeling that the owner-occupier should receive the same allowance and the same percentage deduction as is passed oh by the municipality as the landlord to the tenant-occupier.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIs that so? As I understand it the landlord asks for a certain rent, and that rent includes the rates, and it is the landlord who gets the advantage for the work he has done.
§ LORD PARMOORCompounding, if I may explain in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, necessitates the relationship of landlord and tenant. The landlord lord can get the rates from the tenant, 1387 and he receives the allowance for the service. There is nothing else in compounding beyond that. The owner who is also the occupier is rated as an occupier like every other occupier in the district.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not quite agree that the effect of compounding is the simple thing which the noble Lord describes. I blame myself because I was not quite clear in my speech just now, and there has been misunderstanding. What is the actual operation of compounding? The effect, in the ordinary case of compounding, is that the owner undertakes the whole cost of the collection of the rates.
§ VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIEAnd the risk?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am obliged to my noble friend—and the risk; and it does not cost the owner, so far as the cost of collection is concerned, a halfpenny. He has to collect his rent, and if he collects the rates at the same time it does not throw any burden on the owner at all. He is able to do the thing for that reason more cheaply than the authority, and therefore, as a pure business transaction, in ordinary compounding it is well worth the while of the rating authority to make an allowance to the owner for the services which the owner renders to the rating authority in collecting the rates at the same time as he collects the rent. It does not cost the owner a halfpenny. That is the point.
What, in fact, happens? I have described the direct operation of the law of compounding, but what happens is that the owner, who has made a profit without burden to himself, is able to pass on part of that advantage to his tenant. Consequently he lets his cottages more cheaply than otherwise, because he pays less than he otherwise would. The general body of occupiers and owners pay less than they otherwise would have done. It is quite obvious that an owner can afford to let his cottages at a cheaper rent because the rates are lower by reason of compounding. That is what happens. The landlord passes on part of the benefit which he receives. That is where I think the noble Lord is in error. The fact is that the occupiers of houses under an owner who has the advantage of com- 1388 pounding sit at a rent a little less than they otherwise would have done. That is the case as presented to you in an ordinary case of compounding.
Then comes the case of the occupying owner. He may be occupying, and does continually occupy, a cottage of exactly the same size and value as those tenants who get this advantage under the compounding system, and he gets no advantage. The noble and learned Lord says he does not do the work for which the other landlord is paid. That may be true, but the fact remains that he does not get the advantage, and, as the law stands, if you make no provision for his case, there is positively a, penalty attached to being an occupying owner. The burden upon the occupying owner is rather heavier than if he occupies under a landlord. That is the result—quite unintentional, no doubt—of the law as it stands. Is it in the public interest to put an extra burden upon an occupying owner as compared with an occupier under a landlord? The Government are of opinion—I admit it is open to doubt—that it is not in the public interest. We are always anxious to encourage occupying owners. That is part of the policy of the Government and of the whole Party who sit on this side of the House. We always wish to help the occupying owner, and yet upon the working of the compounding system there will be a financial disadvantage in being an occupying owner.
The noble and learned Lord said: What an abominable want of principle, that you should pay a man although he does not render the service which is rendered by the person who does receive the advantage. I am not afraid of a little want of logic. I want to see these people, who are to all intents and purposes in precisely the same circumstances, placed on the same footing. It is in order to do that, and put that matter right, that this Amendment is inserted. It is true he is paid for a service that he does not render, but surely your Lordships are not going to allow such an argument as that to lead you to the conclusion that you must put a heavier rate in practice upon an occupying owner than you put upon an owner who is not an occupier. It is to meet this little practical difficulty in the working of the compounding law that the Government 1389 has put this Amendment on the Paper, and I hope the House will be willing to accept it.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONMay I ask one question? In the statement of the case as regards the owner-occupier is not his position different from that of an owner who is not the occupier in that he never has a bad debt, whereas the owner has got the onus of collecting rates as well as the rent, and has very often very large bad debts?
§ LORD MERRIVALEMay I call the noble Marquess's attention to the form of words of the Amendment, where it speaks of an "allowance comparable" to the amount passed on by the authority to the occupiers. I do not know whether all your Lordships understand the principle on which the allowance is proposed to be made, but it is not quite clear to me, and I am afraid that the words used here will not carry the desired object into effect. When you speak of an "allowance comparable," I would observe that you may compare a frog with an elephant, but it would not imply any approximation between the two.
§ LORD PARMOORIf the noble Marquess's view of compounding is right he has destroyed the whole principle. There ought to be no compounding of any kind if the doctrine which he is introducing is right. He says it is not in respect of services rendered by the landlord, but of advantages given to the tenant—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI did not say so. I said that the main system of compounding was for services rendered, but I say that if, in a special and comparatively infrequent case, this works hardly upon the occupying owner it ought to be set right by an Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORI think that the noble Marquess has even more destroyed it by the expression in "an infrequent case." But let us come back to principles—it is really very important. If the noble Marquess is right that the system of compounding gives an advantage to tenants, he introduces at once inequality in the basis of payment between particular tenants, or between tenants in the same area, which is opposed to every idea and principle upon which rating is based; and if compounding did 1390 operate in that way—I am bound to say that has not been my experience—the terms of the arrangement ought to be readjusted. There is no suggestion in compounding of producing a privileged class of tenant. It has nothing to do with that whatever. It is a proper payment to a landlord for services which he renders and for the risk which he undertakes. Let us take the position of an occupying owner. An occupying owner is rated as an occupier, like every other occupier in the district. Equality of rating demands, at any rate in the first instance, that the same assessment should be placed upon him as upon every other occupier of a like property. Why does he ask for a 5 per cent, reduction in his favour as against the other occupiers in the district? He has not got the shadow of a claim. He does no more than any other occupier in the district; that is to say, when the rate note is presented to him ho pays it. There is no burden of any kind on him, and the result of this would be that the occupier who happened also to be the owner would be placed in a position of preference. Rut I find fault with the noble Marquess's argument from the start. I say that compounding has nothing to do with the matter, and I sincerely hope that this principle will not be introduced into our rating law.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI should accept the noble Marquess's logic, but I cannot accept his premise. I do not think that the occupying owner makes any profit, and I do not think that he passes any profit to the occupying tenant. He ought not to do so, if the composition is properly measured. It is insurance. It is insurance because it is not merely saving the trouble of collecting, but it is an insurance against bad debts, which are extremely common in this small class of property. The tenants can flit by night, or they do not leave enough to pay the rent, and it is impossible to get it from them. The occupying owner gets a composition because he guarantees to the rating authority the full value of the rate, and he takes his chance of getting the rate from the tenant. I am quite certain that as an occupying owner I should not pass any advantage to the tenant, because I should think that I wanted the whole of the composition to balance my danger from bad debts.
§ THE EARL OF DUNMOREI should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he can clear up the point raised by Lord Merrivale—namely, whether the occupying owner is going to get the same percentage deductions under this Amendment as are passed on by the municipalities to their tenants. I confess that this word "comparable" does not appear to me to be quite clear. I am anxious to see that the occupying owner, as an occupier, is not put in a worse position than his neighbour who happens to be an occupier under the municipality.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI fee a little embarrassed by the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (2), after "subsection," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "in respect of any hereditament." The noble Marquees said: Under the clause as it stands provision is made that where an owner is treated under the voluntary system of compounding and receives the allowance which is there provided, he shall not also get the allowance under subsection (1), in regard to the compulsory compounding. That is provided in the clause; but as it stands the clause goes a little too far and might
1392§ Merrivale, because, to tell the honest truth, I was very much dissatisfied with the drafting of this Amendment myself. I quite agree that the drafting requires to be considered very carefully, and I will undertake to do that before the Report stage. Even if I had not been dissatisfied myself the fact that my noble and learned friend has found fault with it would be a sufficient reason to reconsider it. I hope the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend who has just spoken will take that assurance from me.
§ On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 17.
1391| CONTENTS. | ||
| Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Chaplin, V. | Kilmaine, L. |
| Churchill, V. | Knaresborough, L. | |
| Balfour, E. (L. President.) | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Lawrence of Kingsgate, L. |
| Hood, V. | Merrivale, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Novar, V. | Merthyr, L. |
| Peel, V. | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Oranmore and Browne, L. | ||
| Sutherland, D. | Avebury, L. | Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.) |
| Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Bledisloe, L. | |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Roundway, L. | |
| Birkenhead, E. | Saltoun, L. | |
| Denbigh, E. | Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | Somers, L. |
| Eldon, E. | Desborough, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Dynevor, L. | Sumner, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) | Teynham, L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Faringdon, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Plymouth, E. [Teller.] | Forester, L. | Wyfold, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Beauchamp, E. | Carson, L. | Lamington, L. |
| De La Warr, E. | Charnwood, L. | Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.] |
| Midleton, E. | Clwyd, L. | Parmoor, L. [Teller.] |
| Darling, L. | Phillimore, L. | |
| Arnold, L. | FitzWalter, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Banbury of Southam, L. | Jessel, L. | Stanmore, L. |
§ have the effect of preventing him not only getting the double payment in respect of one house but, because he was taking advantage of the voluntary system, of getting any allowance at all under the compulsory system, although the compulsory system might have applied to other parts of his property. It is very little more than a drafting Amendment and has the object of preventing that mistake. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, after ("subsection") insert ("in respect of any hereditament").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1393§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, leave out from the first ("be") to the end of line 38, and insert ("in substitution for any allowance to which he might otherwise have been entitled in respect of that hereditament under the preceding subsection").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe object of the next Amendment on the paper is merely to clear up a doubt. It is to see that when the owner is rated—he is rated under certain cases in the Bill—he should be treated fully as the occupier is treated.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 10, after ("owner ") insert {"is rated or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, leave out ("those") and insert ("the").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next two Amendments are practically drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 17, line 15, leave out ("and")
§ Page 17, line 16, after ("owners") insert ("and the insertion of the names of occupiers in the rates ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (8), to leave out all words after "Every owner who is rated under this section instead of the occupier, or who enters into an agreement with the rating authority under this section," and to insert:—
in respect of any hereditaments shall, without prejudice to the rights of the occupier of any of those hereditaments, be treated in relation to any right of appeal to quarter sessions against a rate and for the purpose of the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to objections, appeals and proposals as standing in the same position as the occupier.
(9) Any owner who under subsection (1) of this section pays any rate which as between
1394
the owner and the occupier the occupier is liable to pay, shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the occupier the amount so paid.
§ The noble Marquess said: This, I think, is very little more than a re-drafting Amendment. The point is that it really is to take care that where the owner has a right of appeal the occupier's right shall not be prejudiced. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, leave out from ("section") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe remaining Amendments to this clause are consequential.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 17, line 35, leave out from ("date") to ("and") in line 37, and insert ("of the first new valuation")
§ Page 17, line 44, leave out ("or Provisional Order").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
§ Clause 14:
§ Limitation of right to appeal to quarter sessions against rate.
§ 14. No appeal against a rate shall lie to quarter sessions in respect of any matter in respect of which relief might have been or might Be obtained under the provisions of Part II of this Act by means of an objection to the draft valuation list or to any alteration, insertion or correction made therein or by means of a proposal for the amendment of the current valuation list.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to insert at the beginning of the clause "Except by the leave of Quarter Sessions." The noble Lord said: Clause 14 says that no appeal against a rate shall lie if it has been possible to take the objection in the draft valuation list. Generally speaking, no doubt, that clause is right, but there may be circumstances, such as absence, or illness, or some other good cause, which have prevented the ratepayer taking his objection at the time the valuation was made, and, therefore, I desire, if the Court of Quarter Sessions consider that the ratepayer has a good reason for not having 1395 made his objection in time, that then the Court of Quarter Sessions shall be able to allow an appeal to be made to them. My Amendment does not say that an appeal shall be made, but leaves it entirely in the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions. It gives that Court the power of saying, if they think that owing to unforeseen circumstances or some other good cause the ratepayer has omitted to take action and is therefore injured, he shall be able, with their consent, to come before them. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 7, at beginning insert ("Except by the leave of Quarter Sessions.").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONI must point out that anything like the inequality of this Bill as between the ratepayer and the municipal authority I do not believe has ever been proposed in legislation before. Look at the position. The ratepayer may have been abroad, or anything may have happened to prevent his lodging his petition in time; yet even it that be so, he is debarred from any appeal. The municipal authorities, on the other hand, are allowed to go to Quarter Sessions, and in that case the ratepayer has to defend his position at great expense. Even after the valuation has been finally approved and put into force a county valuation committee, or any local authority, may start to question the valuation afresh, and carry the matter on appeal to Quarter Sessions. If that is fair for them, surely the ratepayer ought not to be deprived of any remedy. If through some oversight or illness, or absence abroad, he has been unable to look after his interest, he ought to be given a chance to go before Quarter Sessions. Either of the authorities that I have named, who are oppressing him, may not merely take their remedy, but even after the whole valuation has been settled they may, under Clause 37, start it all afresh. I think my noble friend has made a reasonable proposal, and that a ratepayer who has somehow or other missed his first chance of objecting to the valuation should be allowed to appeal to Quarter Sessions, if Quarter Sessions themselves feel that he has a right to do so. I hope my noble friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) will consider this.
§ LORD PARMOOR.I also hope that the noble Marquess will accept this proposal.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is a misunderstanding.
§ LORD PARMOORIf that is so I shall not press this matter, but as matters stand there can be no appeal, as I understand it, in cases where, through a misunderstanding, or through some one being away, or something of that kind, the ratepayer has not had the notice and does not know what is going on. It appears to me that in a matter of this kind, when the question actually comes before the Court, if the Court think they cannot do justice without giving leave in a particular case for the respondent to appear, the Court ought to have the power of giving that leave. We can trust the Court in a matter of this kind only to utilise that power on proper occasions.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf what my two noble friends behind me say and what the noble and learned Lord opposite says be accurate, there would be a great deal in their arguments, but I think they misread the Bill. If they look at the clause, it says "no appeal against a rate shall lie." It does not say that no appeal "against the valuation" shall lie. Clause 37, which my noble friends object to, cuts both ways, and they do not seem to have observed that. The ratepayer can appeal against the valuation at any time. He can go to the assessment committee and appeal against the valuation. My noble friends say: Supposing he was abroad at the time the rate was made. Well, when he comes back from abroad he can go to the assessment committee and say: "I appeal against this valuation," and, if he is successful, then it is retrospective. I hope my noble friends understand that. The change in the valuation list which would follow would affect the rate that he had been asked to pay, and so the object they want would be achieved.
If you take Clause 14 and Clause 37 together you will find that they work exactly as my noble friends wish—that is to say, the man who misses his original chance when the draft list is under consideration would always be able to go and appeal to alter the valuation list, and, thereupon, any alteration made would act retrospectively as if the original 1397 draft valuation list had been altered. Therefore, everything that my noble friends desire is accomplished. I hope my two noble friends will do the Government this justice, that they desire to do what is equitable in these matters. Their point has really been provided for.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONOf course, we know that the Government intend to do justice, but we also know that the wording of Acts of Parliament very often fails to carry out the intentions of those who are responsible for it. I do not know if my noble friend would mind explaining why, if Clause 37 acts as he suggests, it is necessary to say in Clause 14 that no appeal against the rate lies. I understand that he draws a distinction between the meaning of valuation and the rate which is levied. Is that a real distinction? If not, why was Clause 14 inserted at all?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYBecause of the later words in Clause 14. Supposing an illegal rate were asked from the ratepayer: he would then have a direct right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. That is preserved. If my noble friends will read the clause they will see that all that is prohibited is an appeal against the rate to Quarter Sessions in matters which may have been dealt with by Part II—that is, the valuation. If there was a question actually of informality, or if an illegal rate were sought to be imposed, then by the later words of Clause 14 the right of direct access to Quarter Sessions is still maintained.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if I can thoroughly understand what the Bill means. Clause 14 says that no appeal against a rate shall lie to Quarter Sessions in respect of any matter as to which relief might have been or might be obtained under the provisions of Part II of this Act by means of an objection to the draft valuation list. I am not a lawyer, but I should like to have the opinion of the Lord Chancellor as to what this clause really does. Supposing this clause is passed, and supposing that a valuation is made upon me of £150, and I have been ill, and during my illness have mislaid the notice that the valuation of £150 has been put upon my house, and supposing I go to Quarter Sessions and say: "Here is a rate of so much that has been levied on a valuation"—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYYou would have to go to the assessment committee.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMShall I have an opportunity of appealing to Quarter Sessions, or is it that under Clause 14 I ought to make my objection to the assessment committee?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)I have spent a good part of my time in hearing objections to valuations and rates and appeals to the House of Lords against them, and perhaps I may say a word about this matter. The only effect of this clause is that you must not appeal against the rate on the ground of improper valuation, but you must first go to the proper authority, the rating authority, and object to the valuation. It is a question merely of the valuation of your property. If the noble Lord is over-assessed he must go to the assessment committee:, as we call it, and say: "I am over-assessed, put me right." If the assessment committee say: "No," then my noble friend can appeal to Quarter Sessions under Clause 31. All that Clause 14 says is that you must not adopt the wrong procedure. If you object to your valuation, you must object to it in the proper way and you must not appeal against the rate until you have put your valuation right. We have just the same thing to-day. Under the Act of 1864, the Union Assessment Committee Act, Section 1, you must object to the valuation before the assessment committee, and if you do not do so you cannot appeal against the rate. The present Bill only keeps the present practice. If this clause remains my noble friend will have ample opportunity for appeals if he desires.
§ LORD PARMOORI entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor has just said, but it does not meet the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. It is quite true that if you want to object to the valuation you must go to the assessment committee, but what the noble Lord has pointed out is that owing to certain circumstances, accident or injury, it may be impossible to do so and then, if he goes to Quarter Sessions, is he to be prevented from appealing against the valuation? At the present time you cannot appeal unless you have gone before the assessment committee.
1399 The noble Lord has pointed out that this may act harshly in some cases; that is his case, and I agree with him. It may be that for some reason a man could not go before the valuation authority. He was not able to put his case before them. Is he then to be stopped altogether, or may be under the new code which we are now framing go to Quarter Sessions and ask, in the special circumstances, for leave to appeal, although he has not been before the valuation authority? I should have thought that it was in accordance with equity and justice that he should be allowed to do so. It would only happen in exceptional cases.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe present proposal only continues the present practice and the noble and learned Lord knows that perfectly well. Under this Bill he can, under Clause 37, get his valuation put right at any time.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMWhat is the real objection to the Amendment? As the noble and learned Lord opposite has pointed out, it would be very rarely acted upon, but it is evidently just to allow a man, who, by accident, has been unable to go before the assessment committee, to prove at Quarter Sessions that he has reasonable and good grounds for having failed to go before the assessment committee and for Quarter Sessions to hear his objection. I fail to see what objection there can be to it. If you can raise this question under Clause 37 why put in this clause? Unfortunately, I have never had the advantage of a training in the law, but I have seen during my experience in the House of Commons many clauses put into Bills which we were told were going to have such and such an effect. When they are in the Act they are found to have absolutely the contrary effect. Some learned Judge says it could not nave been put in without a meaning, and he immediately attaches his own meaning to it, and that meaning has been absolutely contrary to what we were told was the meaning of the clause when it was put in the Bill in the House, of Commons. The less you have in a Bill the better, and the less you have to enable lawyers to interpret in their particular way the better. Therefore, if this clause is going to be overridden by Clause 37, let us leave it out altogether.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREThe noble Lord does not realise that this is only an appeal against one particular half-yearly rate, and all that the clause says is that you shall not object to that half-yearly rate upon any ground of valuation because you ought for that purpose to use another procedure. This is only keeping the existing practice.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ LORD PARMOORMy noble friend Lord De La Warr had an Amendment to this clause dealing with the question of the exemption of underground sewers from rating, but unfortunately he has been called away. It may, however, be raised on Report stage.
§ Clause 16:
§ Assessment areas.
§ (8) Any scheme made under this section may be revoked or varied—
- (a) by a new scheme made and submitted to and approved by the Minister in accordance with the provisions (subject to any necessary modifications) of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section; or
- (b) by a new scheme made by the Minister after consultation with the councils and boards of guardians concerned.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy first Amendment to this clause is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 2, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("(5) and (6)").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (8) (b), after "Minister," to insert "on a representation made by any assessment committee or rating authority and." The noble Marquess said: This is a small point. It is to prevent a Minister making new schemes of his own motion. It is thought he should not do so unless he is moved thereto by the local authority.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 4, after ("Minister") insert ("on a representation made by any assessment committee or rating authority and ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1401§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next Amendment is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 13, leave out ("of") and insert ("with respect to").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Assessment committees]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, leave out ("Commit tee").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
§ Clause 20:
§ Effect of valuation list.
§ 20.—(1) For the purpose of every rate as defined by this Act, and for the purpose of determining the annual value of premises under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, or under the enactments relating to the qualification of a manager of a school or asylum district, or, save as hereinafter mentioned, of a juror, the valuation list as in force at the time when the rate is made or the value of the premises is to be determined, shall be conclusive evidence of the values of the several hereditaments included in the list.
§ Provided that for the purposes of determining the qualification of a special juror the rateable value of agricultural land shall be taken to be the net annual value as appearing in the list.
§ (2) Where for the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, it is necessary to make a separate valuation of any hereditament by reason of its not being separately valued in any valuation list, the value of that hereditament shall be ascertained in the same manner as if this Act had not passed
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment on this clause is really only a drafting one, but if any noble Lord wants an explanation I will give it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 43, leave out ("agricultural -land") and insert ("premises").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD PARMOOR moved to insert the following new subsection:—
(3) As from such time as may hereafter be determined by Parliament, and subject
1402
to such conditions as may be provided by Parliament, the gross value of any hereditament as appearing in the valuation list shall be taken and be conclusive evidence of the annual value of that hereditament for the purpose of the Income Tax.
§ The noble Lord said: This raises a very important question, that of one valuation for all purposes, whether for rating or Income Tax. I do not propose to go again over the ground that I covered on the Second Reading, but I may summarise the arguments in this way. A number of Royal Commissions and Committees, Departmental and otherwise, have unanimously recommended that there should be one valuation for all purposes. One of the Ministers in charge of this Bill in another place, Sir Kingsley Wood, stated that, with one exception, recommendations had come from all rating and local authorities in favour of the principle of one valuation and he added that from experience, particularly in London, it had been found that one valuation had operated successfully and to the advantage of everyone.
§ I want to make two special points that I did not make before, but which I think are points of great importance. In Scotland—I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, is present—the principle of one valuation prevails largely (I am not quite certain whether it is universal), and their system, which is an admirable one and which could be carried out if necessary under my Amendment, though I do not denote the exact system but refer only to the principle, is that what we should call the assessing authority in Scotland appoints the assessor to assist them. They are permitted to appoint as assessor the Revenue officer. I believe that this is largely done, and that the arrangement has operated admirably. When the assessor is so appointed there is one valuation for all purposes, whether of rating or of Income Tax. I hope that the noble Viscount will correct me, or perhaps say a few words if I am wrong, but the information that I have obtained is to the effect that the system of one valuation has operated admirably in Scotland and to the satisfaction of all.
§ Two rather curious objections were taken on the Second Reading, and I will say a word or two about them, though I do not want to re-argue the case. One of the objections was put forward by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. 1403 He said that we were very "touchy" about any interference with our local authorities. Surely that point has been misapprehended, because there is no interference whatever with local authorities. You have the same Committees, the same Commissions and the same authorities, but if they had the advantage, as they would have had under the Bill as it stood, of obtaining the assistance as assessor of the Revenue officer, that is, the surveyor of taxation, you could have had one valuation for all purposes. I cannot exaggerate the importance of this to the ratepayer and the payer of Income Tax. I should be sorry to say what I have lost—if I may tell my own woes—from the multiplicity of appeals, both to the Income Tax Commissioners—who, of course, are there to protect the public, and there would be the same appeal then as now—and to various rating authorities. It is true that the number of rating authorities is reduced, and to that extent there is an advantage.
§
More startling, perhaps, was the proposition made by Lord Jessel on the last occasion. This is really a point of very great importance indeed. The noble Lord said:—
There is a great difficulty in London, because the assessments are based upon the rents.
That, of course, is quite right and, prima facie, whether for rating purposes or for Income Tax purposes, assessments are based upon rents. In certain circumstances you have to make adjustments, but that is the prima facie assessment in both cases. The noble Lord went on to say:—
In some parts of London the rents are very heavy, and it is felt that if you value right up to the rents you are doing an injustice to the tenants …
What does that mean? Does it mean that in the richer parts of London you would adopt an assessment that is not the full assessment? Does it mean that you are seeking to give some advantage to the rich man—I must put it quite frankly—as against the poorer man?
§ LORD JESSELMay I explain that?
§ LORD PARMOORCertainly.
§ LORD JESSELOr would it be more convenient if I waited until the noble Lord had finished?
§ LORD PARMOORJust as the noble Lord likes. Perhaps I had better finish first. The statement as it stands is certainly not only inconsistent with the principle of rating—that is, the principle of equality—but also absolutely inconsistent with the rich man bearing his fair share of what is undoubtedly a very heavy burden. The noble Lord said in substance—and perhaps this is what he has in his mind—that the principle of rating is that of benefits received. If I may say so, the noble Lord has quite misunderstood—I hope I am not putting it at all harshly—the principle of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. What he says is that you ought not to have rates at all except those that are of local benefit. But, when you have said that, it does not mean that each tenement is to be rated in respect of differences of local benefit that it may receive. That would be impossible. It means that when you have once asserted the principle that rates are to be raised only for these purposes you are to have equality of assessment as between all hereditaments from which these rates are to be received. How can you have that if you are to accept a principle of the kind that he suggested? I will read his words again:—
In some parts of London the rents are very heavy, and it is felt that if you value right up to the rents you are doing an injustice to the tenant.What injustice? I say that you will be doing a gross injustice to other tenants unless you rate these tenants right up to their rents. You ought to do it, and no other principle is involved.What makes it more remarkable is that the noble Lord goes on to say that the Revenue officer got his full figure, but let the rating authorities put the rating assessment somewhat lower. Again, why? What is the principle of reducing what otherwise should be the right rating assessment in the richer districts where rents are heavy? As we know, we have in London rich and poor districts intersecting. It appears to me quite imcomprehensible that a principle of this kind should be put forward, and the more so when it seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of what the Royal Commission said. Whether that is so or not, I claim that every impartial inquiry has come to the same conclusion, and that, so far as appears from what was 1405 said in another place by Sir Kingsley Wood, every rating; authority is in favour of one valuation. So far as I have heard, the only argument against it came from the noble Marquess, and was to the effect that in local matters we were sensitive concerning interference from headquarters, though I do not think that this question arises on the point of one valuation, except through misunderstanding.
I have here the reference to what was said by Sir Kingsley Wood, and I think I ought to quote it in his own words because it is so important. He said:—
I think it fair to say that apart from the criticism of the hon. Member for Fulham, and perhaps the criticism of one other authority, there is not a single authority in the country which does not approve of the principle of one valuation for all purposes. We have, for instance, received the approval of the National Conference of Assessment Committees, the Association of Poor Law Unions, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils. Association and the National Federation of Property Owners.He goes on to say:The experience of London has justified the proposals which we now make.We heard the experience of London, though I admit it was some years ago, on the Royal Commission, and we came to the same conclusion. He then goes on to say:Such a variation—that is, not having one valuation—would go right against our main proposals.I do not think that it is necessary to emphasise the extreme importance to every ratepayer and Income Tax payer of having one valuation for all purposes.I admit that I have not heard so far—and I did not hear when the noble Lord answered my argument on this point before—any argument against it, and I feel myself that this variation—not having one valuation—does go against the whole basis of a true rating valuation reform, which this Bill is said to be. I therefore move the inclusion of the words contained in my Amendment, the effect of which would be to restore the Bill to its original form as introduced by the Government, and to give one valuation for all purposes.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end, insert the said new subsection (3).—(Lord Parmoor.)
§ LORD JESSELAS the noble and learned Lord has referred to me, and to the few remarks which I made the other day, may I be permitted to explain what I then said? The noble and learned Lord is always referring to the experience which he had when he sat on the Royal Commission of 1901, and when he talks about a single valuation I would point out that those quotations which he made from various authorities in London and elsewhere, and which the Under-Secretary quoted, were made before those authorities had seen this Bill. They did not know at the time that the Bill was going to apply to London, and when they did see that it was going to apply to London they changed their minds. May I explain what I said the other day? It is not a question of richer or poorer districts, or anything else. Supposing you have a row of houses or a street in London, which is similar to many other streets in London: surely noble Lords will agree with me that every one in those houses has a right to the same sort of services—to living under equal conditions—and should therefore only pay for equality of services received.
It happens, however, in London, and especially in cases where property is owned not by some ducal landlord but by the Crown, that there are tremendous variations in the rents. The tenants in occupation of those premises are getting no better services. There have been cases over and over again where the rent which the landlord gets and the gross rateable value are not the same, and the result of that is that the revenue is losing a great deal of money. On the other hand, if you rate right up to the rent, especially when the properties are similar, you would be doing great injustice to the occupiers. A case was brought to me the other day of property in London where the rent paid was £40,000 a year. The rateable value was assessed at £15,000 a year. That is a case where the revenue is losing the difference. For those reasons I think one can quite well support the idea of one valuation for rates and another for revenue. For those reasons we have changed our minds. We rather like the idea in London of keeping the Revenue officer there, because we think it will preserve equality between various districts, but we have made up our minds that, for the reason of the 1407 great inequality between rents and rateable values, it is necessary to enjoy this system of having two valuations instead of one.
§ VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIEAs he has asked me, I will willingly endorse what Lord Parmoor has said about the system in force in Scotland. We have, for the most part, in various districts, the Revenue officer as our assessment authority. He makes the valuation. In the counties the county council has a valuation committee, and the appeals come before that committee from any assessment the Revenue officer proposes to impose. The system works admirably. There is a single valuation both for rating and Income Tax, and during my experience for many years there has only been one appeal to the Appeal Court, which consists of three Judges of the Court of Session, appointed each year. In that case the assessment committee's judgment was upheld, and the Revenue officer was defeated. The system is not universal. I think in Glasgow and in Edinburgh they have assessors who are not Revenue officers, but they are men of great standing and ability, and I have never heard of much difficulty in the Revenue officers accepting their assessments as Income Tax assessments. In most of the counties, however, the assessing officer is the Revenue officer. The system works admirably. It is a great advantage to have a single valuation, and I think it is a great blot on this Bill that it does not appear in it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think, of course, there is a great deal to be said for having a single valuation. Indeed, it appeared in the Bill as originally introduced, but I am quite sure that your Lordships would be ill-advised to insert in the Bill this particular Amendment, which appears in the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite. It is not merely a matter of drafting. Observe how it proposes to deal with this question. It says:—
As from such time as may hereafter be determined by Parliament, and subject to such conditions as may be provided by Parliament"—
§ LORD PARMOORThey are the same words as were in the original Bill.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAs the words appear on the Paper it is perfectly 1408 clear that this Amendment can have no effect at all until another Act of Parliament is passed. It may be that the noble Lord is following the Bill as originally drafted, but however that may be it is perfectly clear we should be no nearer our object, and the object of the noble and learned Lord, if we put his Amendment in, because you would have to wait until Parliament had determined the time and provided the machinery. That will be, of course, an opportunity to deal with the whole subject. I am sure that as the clause stands it could not be inserted.
The noble and learned Lord says it is in the form in which it originally appeared in the Bill, but that is subject to an observation. There was a great deal more which appeared in the Bill which was consequential and ancillary to this provision. For example, there were Revenue officers—referred to by Lord Younger—who were attached to the rating authorities throughout the country. They have disappeared. They would all have to be put back. It would be absurd to enact that this valuation could be good for Revenue purposes, unless the Revenue authorities were represented in the valuation. The whole thing would have to be put back. It is a very much more extensive thing than the noble and learned Lord has led the House to believe. It is that very particular—the addition of the Revenue officers to the machinery of valuation in the locality—which proved the difficulty in another place, and, notwithstanding the example of Scotland, for which I have profound regard, I think it will be found a considerable difficulty in your Lordships' House, too. We have this very strong view in England, that we understand in our localities better how to do things than Whitehall does, and the local authorities in England are perpetually engaged in resisting the invasions of the central authority in their affairs.
§ VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIEThe valuation committee takes care in Scotland that the rights of the localities are not invaded.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI dare say that if we put in all the Scottish provisions we should have a better arrangement, but we have to take poor England as we find it, and in England we 1409 have a very strong feeling against the encroachments of the central authority. That impression was so pronounced amongst the representatives of the localities in another place that they were very unwilling to accept the intervention of the central authority in the valuation of their locality. And, therefore, all that part of the Bill disappeared. Personally I should be very reluctant to put it all back again in your Lordships' House. Do you not think that the sensible way to proceed is to enact this elaborate machinery now, and let it get into working order; let us see how the new rating authorities work, how the new assessment provisions work, how the valuation committees of the counties work, how the central valuation committees work? When the whole thing is in working order, then perhaps will be the time to say: "Now, let us apply that to the single valuation and allow the Revenue authorities to intervene." But do not let us try to do too much at once. Let us get our rating and valuation machinery in proper order, and then we can consider whether it is judicious or not to introduce the principle of the single valuation. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will reject the Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORIn answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may I point out that the principle on which you ought to proceed is this? You have to put certain charges upon the ratepayers, and then you have to assess your house or your hereditament on the same principle. It is absolutely inconsistent with that principle to make a deduction, under the conditions which he has suggested, from what should otherwise be the right rating valuation. The right principle was stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. But I want now to deal with the two particular matters to which the noble Marquess referred. He talked about an invasion of the localities' rights. What can be mean by language of that kind?
| CONTENTS. | ||
| De La Warr, E. [Teller.] | Younger of Leckie, V. | Muir Mackenzie, L. |
| Parmoor, L. | ||
| Novar, V. | Arnold, L. [Teller.] | Raglan, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Sutherland, D. |
| Balfour, E. (L. President.) | Denbigh, E. |
§ In arriving at a valuation, which you want to be as comprehensive as possible, you get the advantage of the aid of the Revenue officer—he is not the assessing authority, he is not on the assessment committee, he is not a Commissioner of Income Tax, nor has he anything whatever to do with the question of assessment—and the advantage of that assistance, as has been found in London, is enormous.
§
The other matter to which the noble Marquess has referred is met by my Amendment. It is exactly in the terms of the original Bill. Consider how complete my Amendment is:
As from such time as may hereafter be determined by Parliament"—
exactly what was done in the first instance: it was not proposed to put too much machinery in—
and subject to such conditions as may be provided by Parliament"—
that is quite right—
the gross value of any hereditament as appearing in the valuation list shall be taken and be conclusive evidence of the annual value of that hereditament for the purpose of the Income Tax.
Of course, it is gross value that we are dealing with. There has been a series of Income. Tax Acts, which make deductions from the gross value. We are not dealing with that. Nor are we dealing with the distinction between gross value and net rateable value. I should have thought that the words of my Amendment exactly suited the conditions. They are in accord with the provisions in the original Bill, and I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it would be unwise to overload the Bill if you can help it. I regard the matter as of so much importance that I shall ask your Lordships to divide upon it.
§ On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted?—
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 7; Not-Con tents, 44.
1411| Eldon, E. | Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Jessel, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Kilmaine, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Bledisloe, L. | Lamington, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Carson, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Plymouth, E. [Teller.] | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Stanhope, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Danesfort, L. | Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.) | |
| Chaplin, V. | Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | Phillimore, L. |
| FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Desborough, L. | Ponsonby, L (E. Bessborough.) |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Dynevor, L. | |
| Faringdon, L. | Somers, L. | |
| Peel, V. | FitzWalter, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | Wyfold, L. | |
| Avebury, L. | Harris, L. |
§ Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 agreed to.
§ Clause 22:
§ Ascertainment of rateable value.
§ 22.—(1) For the purposes of the first new-valuation list to be prepared under this Act and of any subsequent valuation list the rateable value of a hereditament shall be ascertained as follows:—
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert—
(d) if the amount of the net annual value and of the rateable value, in a case where those values are the same, or in any other ease the amount of the rateable value, includes a fraction of a pound, the amount of both those values or of the rateable value, as the case may be, shall be increased or reduced, as the case may be, to the nearest complete pound, or if the fraction is ten shillings the fraction shall be disregarded.
§ The noble Marquess said: This is mainly a drafting Amendment; that is to say, this particular paragraph appears now in the Bill as subsection (3), but it is misplaced there and I am asking your Lordships to move it back. That, of course, is merely drafting. But there is a slight change in it in order to avoid a duplication where the gross value is altered to the net value, and there is a rounding off of the figure. Then, when the net value is changed to the rateable value, it is again done and there is really no reason for the duplication of the rounding off. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, at end insert the said new paragraph (d)—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD PARMOORI regard this as really a drafting Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORBefore the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, moves his Amendment, might I ask the noble Marquess how far he proposes to go this evening?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAt this period of the Session I am going to try to get as much done as I can, and I hope that your Lordships will be content to sit, at any rate, until about eight o'clock. After that I will consult the House as to what they would like to be done.
§
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, to add to subsection (1):
Provided that the rateable value of any hereditament shall not be based upon the earnings made in trade or business or the profits which may be earned in, or in connection with the hereditament.
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment more for the sake of obtaining an opinion than for pressing it. There is a fear that under the Bill an attempt may be made to found the valuation of a hereditament not upon the annual value but upon the profits made in business. There are, I believe, certain utility companies which are assessed in that manner at the moment, and there is a fear that it may be done in other cases. Let us take a barrister—I do not know whether there are any present in your Lordships' House—who may be earning £40,000 a year and occupying a chamber valued at £150, is he to be assessed on his £40,000 or on the £150 a year? That, of course, is an extreme case; but I instance it as something that might possibly occur. Or take: a merchant in the City who may make £5,000 or £6,000 a year in an office for which he pays £500: is he to be assessed upon his £5,000 or £6,000 or upon the £500? So far as I can make out from the Bill, there is not much fear that this may occur, but there are a certain number of
1413
people who are frightened about it, and I promised to place this Amendment on the Paper in order to obtain an opinion from my noble friend in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is no intention whatever to alter the present basis of rating at all, and my noble friend may be perfectly reassured. He is aware, as he himself has said, that there are a certain number of hereditaments which are now rated upon earnings, and the effect of his Amendment would be to alter the law in that respect. We could not agree to it because we could not agree to alter the law; for example, in the matter of the utility companies of which he has spoken. Therefore, we must resist his Amendment. I do not think he need be under any misapprehension whatever. If he will look at Clause, 64 he will see that it expressly provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the basis on which hereditaments are valued. And in Clause 08 the definition of "gross value" reproduces the old definition with which we are all very familiar. I think I have sufficiently answered my noble friend.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIn those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe remaining Amendments which stand in my name to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 27, line 16, leave out from ("date") to the second ("any") in line 18, and insert ("of the first new valuation")
§ Page 27, line 32, leave out ("or Provisional Order")
§ Page 27, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
§ Page 27, line 41, leave out ("Parts III and IV") and insert ("Part III").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 23 [Assessment of certain buildings occupied in parts]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 28, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("or any portion of such a building")
§ Page 28, line 12, leave out ("portion") and insert ("any portion thereof").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 24 [Provisions as to valuation of hereditaments containing machinery and plant]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe Amendments to this clause are all of a drafting character.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 30, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("any proceedings before an assessment committee") and insert ("the proceedings")
§ Page 30, line 7, leave out ("Committee") and insert ("assessment committee or court, as the case may be")
§ Page 30, line 18, leave out ("number") and insert ("member").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
§ Clause 27:
§ Revision of draft valuation list by assessment committee.
§ 27.—(1) The assessment committee shall hold meetings for considering any objections made to the draft list in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, and on the consideration of any objection the objector, the rating authority, the county valuation committee, and the occupier of the hereditament to which the objection relates shall be entitled to appear and to be heard, and to examine any witness before the assessment committee and to call witnesses:
§
LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), before "objector," to insert "owner and the." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that notice of objection to a valuation shall be sent to both owner and occupier. It may be said that this is not desirable on the ground of expense, but I should like to draw the attention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to subsection (2) of Clause 59, in which it is said that
Any notice, order, or other document by this Act required or authorised to be served on the owner or occupier of any premises may be addressed by the description of the
1415
'owner' or 'occupier' of the premises (naming them), without further name or description.
I do not know whether the noble Marquess will agree to my Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 2, after the first ("the") insert ("owner and the").—(Lord Jessel.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment. This is merely a direction as to how the owner is to be addressed when we want to address the owner, or the occupier is to be addressed when we want to address the occupier. If it were to include the owner so that the owner is to receive every notice that the occupier does, that would add enormously to the complication and expense of the working of the Bill. I need not tell your Lordships how anxious the Government-are to avoid expense. So long as the Income Tax valuation remained in the Bill there was a reason for what my noble friend suggests, because the owner paid Income Tax, but when the Income Tax had once disappeared and it was only a matter of rates, there was no longer any reason why the owner should be included as well as the occupier, who is the person rated.
§ LORD JESSELIn those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 27 agreed to.
§ Clauses 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.
§ Clause 31:
§ Appeal to quarter sessions.
§ 31.—(1) Any person who appeared before the assessment committee on the consideration of an objection made before the committee under this Part of this Act may, if he is aggrieved by the decision of the committee on the objection, appeal against the decision, in manner provided by this Part of this Act, to the court of quarter sessions for the county or place where the hereditament to which the objection related is situate.
§ (2) Any person on whom a copy of a notice of an appeal to a court of quarter sessions under this Part of this Act is required to be served may, if he thinks fit, appear as respondent to the appeal:
§ Provided that in any case where there is more than one respondent to an appeal, no order shall be made against the appellant for the payment of the costs of more than one of the respondents, and if costs are ordered to be paid to the appellant, the 1416 court may apportion those costs among the several respondents in such manner as the court thinks just.
§
LORD JESSEL moved to insert, at the end of subsection (2), the following proviso:—
Provided further that where the appeal is instituted by the county valuation committee or any local authority and relates to a particular hereditament, the owner and the occupier of the hereditament shall have the right to be called as a witness by a party to the appeal to be selected by the court instead of becoming a party to the appeal if he or they so desire and give written notice to that effect to the Court within seven days after service of the notice of appeal.
§ The noble Lord said: I venture to think this is rather an important Amendment because it is designed to protect the ratepayer. At present, when his property is valued by the valuation committee, the ratepayer can, if he likes, appeal to the assessment committee, and after that to Quarter Sessions, if he is dissatisfied. That will be the ordinary procedure, but in this Bill, as your Lordships know, several new authorities are set up. There is the county valuation authority, the assessment authority and other authorities, and any one of those authorities can object to the assessment and put the ratepayer to the expense of an appeal. I think, in those circumstances, some protection should be afforded to the ratepayer, and I beg to move my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Jessel.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe Government have great sympathy with my noble friend in this Amendment, and they are quite prepared to accept it, but not quite in the form in which it appears upon the Paper. If my noble friend will allow it to read in this way, we shall accept it:—
(b) Where the appellant is the county valuation committee or a local authority, the occupier of the hereditament to which the appeal relates may at any time before the hearing of the appeal give notice to the court that he desires to be called as a witness in the case and if he gives such a notice shall, unless called as a witness by any party to the appeal, be called by the court as a witness and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of any party to the appeal.
§ LORD JESSELI shall be glad to accept that, and we are very grateful to the Leader of the House for meeting our views.
§ LORD DANESFORTDoes that form make it quite certain that the ratepayer shall not make himself liable to the consequences if the appeal is successful?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt enables the ratepayer to be heard without being a party to the appeal.
§ LORD JESSELYes.
§ Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 34, line 24, alter ("just") insert—
; and
(b) Where the appellant is the county valuation committee or a local authority, the occupier of the hereditament to which the appeal relates may at any time before the hearing of the appeal give notice to the court that he desires to be called as a witness in the case and if he gives such a notice shall, unless called as a witness by any party to the appeal, be called by the court as a witness and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of any party to the appeal."—(Lord Jessel.)
§ Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 32 [Procedure on appeals]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, after ("The") insert ("powers and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 33, 34 and 35 agreed to.
§ Clause 36:
§ Rate to be levied notwithstanding appeal.
§ 36.—(1) Any rate in respect of which the valuation list is conclusive shall be made and levied in accordance with the valuation list in force for the time being, and shall be collected and be recoverable, notwithstanding any appeal which may be pending with respect to that list:
§ Provided that where the appeal is against an assessment greater than the assessment of the same hereditament contained in the last previous valuation list, the amount of the rate so to be collected and recoverable shall 1418 not be greater than it would have been if the said last-mentioned assessment were still in force.
§ (2) Where in consequence of the decision on any appeal there is made in the valuation list an alteration which affects the amount of any rate levied in respect of any hereditament in accordance with the list, the difference, if too much has been paid, shall be repaid or allowed, or, if too little has been paid, shall be paid and may be recovered as if it were arrears of the rate.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out all words after "Provided that where," in the second paragraph of subsection (1), and insert:
in the case of any hereditament the value questioned by the appeal exceeds the value of that hereditament as last previously determined under this Part of this Act, the amount recoverable pending the decision of the appeal shall not, unless the hereditament has been substantially altered since its value was last previously determined, exceed the amount which would have been recoverable if its value had not been so increased.
§ The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment partly drafting and partly of substance. I propose to leave out certain words which are designed in the Bill to prevent a ratepayer from being rated on a higher assessment pending his appeal. His assessment is to remain in statu quo until the appeal is heard. That is in the Bill, and these words reproduce it subject to two conditions—namely, that the previous assessment must have been under the Bill and not under existing law—the previous assessment which is to have this privilege—and, secondly, that there has been no substantial alteration in the structure of the hereditament. Subject to those two conditions we want to maintain the provision which is already in the Bill. It seems to us that those two limitations are necessary. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 14, leave out from ("where") to end of line 19, and insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 39, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("consequence of the decision of any appeal") and insert ("pursuance of the last preceding section of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 37:
§ Amendment of current valuation list.
§ (7) The assessment committee shall hear and determine any proposal as if it were an objection to a draft list, and all the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the hearing and determining of such an objection shall apply accordingly.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe first Amendment standing in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 17, leave out ("or them").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to add to subsection (7):
Provided that although the person by whom the proposal is made may prove that as the result thereof the hereditament, or hereditaments, therein referred to would be correctly assessed, the same shall not be allowed if, having regard to the basis on which other hereditaments in the rating area are assessed in the valuation list then in force, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to create substantial inequality as between the hereditament or hereditaments to which the same relates and other hereditaments in the same rating area or in the same county.
§ The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to prevent municipal authorities, who at the present moment, at any rate in some cases, own a considerable amount of property, valuing their property at a low valuation and putting a higher valuation on the property of other people. I am not quite certain whether my Amendment is at present the law of the land. I believe it is. In any case I think it is necessary that we should have some protection, now that municipal authorities, who are to be the rating authorities, are themselves interested in property, that they shall not, while putting their own property on a low basis, make up for the loss on their own property by putting the property of other people on a high basis. I do not desire to take up your Lordships' time by explaining this matter. I think I have made my point quite clear.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think the noble Lord and his friends have not really recognised the full value of Clause 37. I tried to explain it to your Lordships earlier in the evening, perhaps very imperfectly. Clause 37 is a great protection to the ratepayer, because the ratepayer can at any moment come to the authority and say that he wants his valuation altered—not merely when the draft valuation list is being made, but at any time during the currency of the valuation. That is important in any circumstances, but your Lordships will realise how very important it is if you establish a quinquennial valuation, because for five years there would be no draft list and unless this clause were in full operation the ratepayer, who, perhaps by inadvertence or through illness, had omitted to object to the list, would have no remedy for five years. Under this clause he can always go to the assessment committee and say that he has been careless or has been misled and wants the valuation list revised. The noble Lord seems to be very nervous as to the effect of that and he wants it to be limited—
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. If the noble Marquess will look at the Amendment he will see that the words "would be correctly assessed" are used; and the point is this. Supposing I have a house which I let at £50 a year and the tenant pays the rates and taxes and keeps it in repair: £50, I suppose, would be a correct assessment. The local authority may have a similar house, let at the same rate, but they may assess it at £40 while my house has been assessed at £50. I want to be able to claim to have mine put at £40 also
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not think that would be the effect of the Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORYou can say that now, and much more clearly by this clause.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf that is the object of the noble Lord he does not require his Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORIn order to get equality in rating you can apply that 1421 people whom you think are inadequately rated shall have their rates raised to an equality.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI do not intend to become a member of the Labour Party, but apparently I am almost following the noble and learned Lord opposite. If what he states is correct I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe next two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 41, line 12, after ("and") insert ("subject to the express provisions of this section")
§ Page 41, line 34, after ("rate") insert ("and the provisions of subsection (2) of the last preceding section of this Act shall have effect accordingly")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 38:
§ Employment of valuers.
§ 38.—(1) Any rating authority, assessment committee, or county valuation committee, may, if they think fit, employ a competent person to give advice or assistance in connection with the valuation of any hereditaments in their area, and any person so employed shall have power, at all reasonable times and after giving due notice, to enter on, survey and value any hereditament in the area of the authority or committee which the authority or committee may direct him to survey and value.
§ LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), after "notice," to insert "and on production, if so required, of authorisation in writing in that behalf from the rating authority or committee authenticated by the signature of their clerk." The noble Lord said: This clause gives the right to a rating authority of entry to any house and three different authorities are allowed to employ a valuer for the purpose of valuation. The object of the Amendment is to require the valuer to show that he is, in fact, authorised to value the premises by some competent authority. It is only reasonable, in view of the many "cat" burglaries, that the ratepayer should be protected.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 21, after ("notice") insert ("and on production, if so required, of
1422
authorisation in writing in that behalf from the rating authority or committee authenticated by the signature of their clerk").—(Lord Jessel.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI accept this Amendment.
§ Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 39 agreed to.
§ Clause 40 [Powers of rating authorities to require returns]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendments to this clause are all drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 43, line 26, leave out ("or any one or more of them")
§ Page 43, line 27, after ("area") insert ("or on any one or more of them")
§ Page 43, lines 37, and 38, leave out ("at the time of the transmission of the draft list")
§ Page 43, line 42, after ("sent') insert ("by the assessment committee').—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 41 agreed to.
§ Clause 42:
§ Penalty for failure to make returns.
§ 42.—(1) If any person on whom notice has been served under any of the provisions of the two sections of this Act last preceding fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the notice, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a further penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the default continues after conviction.
§ (2) It any person wilfully makes or causes to be made a return under either of the two sections of this Act last preceding which is false in any material particular, he shall, without prejudice to any liability to be proceeded against under any other enactment, be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
§ LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "without prejudice to any liability to be proceeded against under any other enactment." The noble Lord said: It does not seem right that a man should be subject to two penalties. The history of this clause is that on Report stage in another place the words which I 1423 propose to leave out were inserted. It is objected that an offender liable to be convicted under this Bill might then be proceeded against in respect of the same offence under some other enactment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 28, leave out from ("shall") in line 28 to ("be") in line 29.—(Lord Jessel.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis clause really provides a small penalty for a relatively small offence. But there are some very serious offences indeed in connection with this matter, and if the noble Lord's Amendment was inserted we should lose the power of proceeding by way of indictment and invoking penalties which are appropriate to the crime of perjury. I do not think he would desire that. There is no desire to punish a man twice for the same offence.
§ LORD JESSELIf that is the case I withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 42 agreed to.
§ Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
§ Clause 45 [Inclusion in one proceeding of separate hereditaments]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment to this clause is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, leave out lines 32 to 34.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) Page
§ Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
§ Clause 48 [Transfer of existing officers]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have a number of drafting Amendments to this clause.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 46, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("Committee Act, 1862, or the Acts amending or incorporating that Act") and insert ("Acts, 1862 to 1880,")
§ Page 46, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("appointed under this Act")
§ Page 46, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("appointed under this Act")
§ Page 47, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("appointed under this Act")
1424§ Page 48, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("appointed under this Act ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
§ Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 49 [Compensation to existing officers]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 48, line 34, leave out ("appointed under this Act")
§ Page 49, line 3, leave out ("appointed under this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 50 agreed to.
§ Clause 51 [Superannuation of transferred officers]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have two drafting Amendments to this clause.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 49, line 20, leave out ("appointed under this Act")
§ Page 50, line 1, leave out ("appointed under this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 51, as amended, agreed to
§ Clause 52 agreed to.
§ Clause 53 [Expenses]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("except where otherwise expressly provided by this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 54 to 56 agreed to.
§ Clause 57:
§ Constitution of Central Valuation Committee for promoting uniformity in valuation.
§ 57.—(1) For the purpose of promoting uniformity in valuation there shall be constituted, in accordance with a scheme to be made by the Minister after consultation with local authorities and associations of local authorities, a Central Valuation Committee consisting of members of rating authorities, county valuation committees, and assessment 1425 committees, and of such other persons, if any, not being officers of the Department of Inland Revenue as may be provided by the scheme.
§ (5) Any scheme to be made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament, forthwith and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the scheme and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
§ LORD CARSON moved, in subsection (1), after "associations of local authorities," to insert "and any organisation representing assessment committees constituted under the Union Assessment Acts, 1862 to 1880." The noble Lord said: This only adds another body to the bodies provided for the purposes of consultation. I understand that the Government accepts this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 39, after ("authorities") insert ("and any organisation representing assessment committees constituted under the Union Assessment Acts, 1862 to 1880 ").—(Lord Carson.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment to this clause is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 29, after ("thereunder") insert ("or the making of a now scheme").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 58 [Power to make rules]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 42 (after ("laid") insert ("before it").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 59 [Service of notices, etc.]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAll my Amendments to this clause are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 54, line 31, after ("notice") insert ("demand note")
1426§ Page 54, line 36 after ("notice") insert ("demand note")
§ Page 55, line 1, after ("notice") insert ("demand note")
§ Page 55, line 3, leave out ("by an authority")
§ Page 55, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("by any authority or body")
§ Page 55, line 4, after ("authority") insert ("or body").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 60 to 63 agreed to.
§ Clause 64:
§ Savings.
§
(2) For the purpose of securing the continued operation, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, of any such privilege or exemption as aforesaid—
(c) the provisions of paragraph 1 and 4 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply for the purpose of schemes made under this subsection;
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved in paragraph (c), to leave out "1 and 41 of Part IV" and to insert "2, 4 and 7 of Part III" The noble Marquess said: There is a small point of substance in this Amendment, and that is the inclusion of paragraph 2. The effect is to make all these special schemes for preserving rating privileges provisional, pending the approval of Parliament. It really has relation to the Mersey Dock Board and practically nothing else. They have certain privileges which are preserved in the Schedule—that is to say, they are exempt from rating up to a certain point—and these are to be continued with the proviso that, if they are objected to, they will be provisional until they are confirmed by a Provisional Order following the ordinary practice of Parliament.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 9, leave out ("1 and 4 of Part IV") and insert ("2, 4 and 7 of Part III ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD CLWYDI rise only to express my thanks to the noble Marquess and to the Government for adopting the Amendment which I put down on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and certain others.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI beg the noble Lord's pardon. I ought to have acknowledged his kindness.
§ LORD CLWYDThis is a point to which I attach considerable importance, and I appreciate the way in which the Government have met it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) "as if such schemes were special schemes within the meaning of the said Part III." The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMANI ought to point out to your Lordships that we are in some difficulty, because Lord Salisbury moves these words in one form and Lord Clwyd had proposed to move them in another form. By accepting the form in which the noble Marquess puts them we shall prevent Lord Clwyd from moving his Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think Lord Clwyd will accept my words.
§ LORD CLWYDOf course I have a preference for my own words, but if the noble Marquess says that his words fulfil the purpose I will not move my Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am informed by the Government draftsman that Lord Clwyd's words are covered by the Government Amendment, which, therefore, I presume, comes to the same thing.
§ LORD CLWYDI accept that.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 12, after ("subsection") insert ("as if such schemes were special schemes within the meaning of the said Part III ").—The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy other Amendment to this clause is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("including any Act confirming a Provisional Order").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 65 [Assistance to new rating and assessment authorities]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment to this clause is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 59, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("Committee Act, 1802, or the Acts amending that Act") and insert ("Acts, 1862 to 1880").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 66 [Power to modify local Acts]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have two drafting Amendments to this clause.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 59, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("including any Act confirming a Provisional Order")
§ Page 60, line 2, after ("laid") insert ("before it").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 67 [Power to remove difficulties]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Amendment is drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 28, after ("laid") insert ("before it")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 68:
§ Definitions.
§
68.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
Gross value" means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be-expected, taking one year with another, to pay for a hereditament if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe rent-charge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent:
Clerk," in relation to any authority or body, includes any officer of the authority or body authorised by them
1429
to act on behalf of the clerk either generally or in relation to any particular matter:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy first Amendment is drafting.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 60, line 41, at end, insert:
("'Urban rating area' means a rating area being a county borough or an urban district;
'Rural rating area' means a rating area being a rural district;").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given Notice to move, in the definition of "gross value" in subsection (1), to leave out "taking one year with another to pay" and to insert "to pay from year to year." The noble Marquess said: Upon reflection I do not move this, because I am not quite satisfied with the words as printed on the Paper, and I should prefer, with your Lordships' permission, to bring up other words on Report.
§ LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, in the same definition, to leave out "taking one year with another." The noble Lord said: May I ask my noble friend to which Amendment he is referring?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am referring to the Amendment to omit the words "taking one year with another to pay." There has been a little difficulty about the form of words, but I do not want to interfere with my noble friend if he wishes to move his own Amendment in similar terms.
§ LORD DYNEVORIt is really the same point, but the two Amendments are not actually in the same wording I myself, when I read my noble friend's Amendment, preferred it to mine, and I am rather surprised now to hoar that he wishes to postpone it to Report stage. My reason for liking his Amendment better than my own is that it exactly follows the wording in Clause 22, and it will make it absolutely correspond with Clause 22, which describes the rateable value.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI will explain, if my noble friend will allow me. The difficulty is that the words from 1430 "year to year" are taken from the Act of 1836, and are the words which prevail in provincial rating now, but unfortunately they are not actually the words of the Act of 1836. It has been quite recently brought to my notice that there is a little variation from the original Act of 1836, and it is how a matter of inquiry whether we ought not to have the exact words of the Act of 1836. If we do, that will involve a consequential Amendment—if I may use an Irish expression—in Clause 22, which is a little earlier and therefore cannot be done upon this stage of the Bill. Therefore, with the consent of my noble friend, we would rather hold the matter over till Report. I believe we are in substantial agreement, but the only point is the exact form of words to be used in the Bill.
§ LORD DYNEVORI hope my noble friend will not put in the phrase "taking one year with another," because that does not say for how long the hypothetical tenant is to take the property—whether for a year certain, or from year to year for a period of years. It implies an average of years and, if so, the period is not laid down.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt has always been assumed that the two forms meant the same thing up to now, but there is a doubt about it, and while I would not like to pledge myself, my impression is that I entirely agree with my noble friend.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREI desire to move an Amendment, of which I have given notice, but which is only in manuscript. It is now agreed with the officer representing the Government, and I do not know whether he has communicated it to the noble Marquess. Instead of the words, in the definition of "clerk" on page 62, "on behalf of the clerk," I propose to substitute the words "in their behalf." There are occasions, in which the authority would want to act, in which it would be unfortunate that the officer acting should appear to be acting on behalf of the town clerk instead of the borough treasurer.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 36, leave out ("on behalf of the clerk") and insert ("in their behalf").—(Lord Phillimore.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI accept that Amendment.
§ Amendments moved—
§
Page 63, line 40, at end, insert:
("'Date of the first new valuation means in relation to any rating area or part of a rating area the date on which the first new valuation list made under Part II of this Act for that area or part comes into operation;")
§ Page 63, line 6, leave out ("Committee")
§ Page 63, line 7, leave out from ("1880") to ("shall") in line 9.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 69 [Repeals, construction of references, &c]:
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAll my Amendments to Clause 69 are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 63, line 40, leave out ("1869") and insert ("1896")
§ Page 64, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("Committee Act, 1862, or the Acts amending or incorporating that Act") and insert ("Acts, 1862 to 1880,")
§ Page 64, line 37, after the first ("list") insert ("or")
§ Page 64, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("or provisional list")
§ Page 64, line 38, leave out from ("Assessment") to end of line 39, and insert ("Acts, 1862 to 1880,")
§ Page 64, line 42, leave out ("and the amended valuation list")
§ Page 65, line 6, leave out from ("date") to ("the") in line 7, and insert ("of the new valuation")
§ Page 65, line 7, leave out ("constituted under this Act")
§ Page 65, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("Committee Act, 1862, or the Acts amending or incorporating that Act") and insert ("Acts, 1862 to 1880,").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 70 agreed to.
§ First Schedule agreed to.
§ Second Schedule [Ascertainment of rateable value]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 41, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Third Schedule agreed to.
1432§ Fourth Schedule: