HL Deb 16 December 1925 vol 62 cc1561-76

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2 [Levy of, and provisions as to, general rate]:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the first Amendments which stand in my name are purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 13 to 18, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("(4) A rating authority shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any general rate on account of the poverty of any person liable to the payment thereof").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Demand notes for rates.

7.—(1) Information with respect following matters shall be included demand note on which the general levied, that is to say—

  1. (a) the situation of the hereditament in respect of which the demand note is issued and such description thereof as may be prescribed;
  2. (g) 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 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "thereof," to insert "reasonably necessary for purposes of identification." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, upon the Committee stage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Dynevor pressed upon me the desirability of inserting words which make it possible for the ratepayer, from the demand note, to be quite clear that the particular hereditament is properly identified, and he moved words for that purpose. I was not able to accept his words, but I have had other words drafted which now appear on the Paper, and my noble friend Lord Dynevor, who was unable to stay until this Order was called on, has been good enough to inform me that he is satisfied with these words. I think he would have preferred his own, but he is content with these. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, after ("thereof") insert ("reasonably necessary for purposes of identification").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name, to leave out paragraph (g) of subsection (1).

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 27 to 34, leave out paragraph (g).—(Lout Raglan.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I have considered this Amendment, and the Government are, on the whole, willing to accept it.

On Question, Amendment 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:

Where a rating authority give any such direction as aforesaid— (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 pays the amount of the rate chargeable in respect of the said hereditament, shall make to the owner an allowance comparable 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 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (1) all words from the beginning down to and including "allowance comparable," and to insert: The rating authority, if they are the owners of any such hereditament as aforesaid, shall in the case of any hereditament which is of a rateable value not exceeding that specified in the resolution and which is occupied by the owner, make to the owner (subject to the amount of the rate chargeable in respect of the hereditament being paid by the owner within the time fixed by the foregoing paragraph) an allowance corresponding.

The noble Marquess said: I must ask your Lordships' attention for a moment upon this Amendment. This is the case of the allowance which it is proposed under the Bill as it now stands should be made to the occupying owner. When the Bill was in Committee I moved the provision which now appears in the Bill to that effect, but my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale and Lord Dunmore suggested to me that the drafting of the Amendment was very unsatisfactory. I was disposed to agree with them, consequently it has been completely re-drafted and stands on the Paper in its new form.

But there is a matter upon which I must make a very short explanation to your Lordships. When the Amendment was under discussion in Committee I argued the matter to the House upon the ground that the occupying owner ought to be treated in this respect with consideration in order that he should be put, more or less, upon the same footing as another occupier who held through an ordinary landlord, and your Lordships accepted the Amendment upon that argument. But to some extent I misled your Lordships, and it is for that reason I desire to make this explanation. The obscure Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper is Committee and was inserted in the Bill, and which I am now re-drafting, had limiting words, and those limiting words were that the consideration to The occupying owner was only to be in cases where the rating authority itself was the owner of tenements of this class. And the reason why that limitation was inserted in the Amendment, to which I ought to have called your Lordships' attention, was this, that it was only in those cases that the hardship is found in its most extreme form; for your Lordships will observe that what may happen is this.

The rating authority owns property of this class. Under the general law, but also under the Bill, it will have an allowance itself off its rates, just as any other owner would have, and it is the practice of many rating authorities—I think I may say of nearly all rating authorities, which own this class of property—to pass on a part of the advantage to their tenants. If, in those cases, the occupying owner received no consideration whatever, his position would be contrasted most unfavourably with that of his next-door neighbour who held as a tenant from the rating authority, because in that case the rating authority would pass on part of the allowance, and in the occupying owner's case, unless something were done for him, he would have no allowance, yet it would be by the very act of the rating authority itself that his neighbour was so much better treated than he himself. It was only relatively limited.

The Government, in another place, were anxious to meet the case of the occupying owner; consequently, the limiting words were inserted in the Amendment which I submitted in Committee, and they re-appear in the Amendment now before your Lordships. If you will look at the Amendment you will read: "The rating authority, if they are the owners of any such hereditament as aforesaid …" limiting the whole operation to that case. I am in your Lordships' hands. I induced the Committee to accept the Amendment which was wider as I argued it than it really is. I was most anxious to explain this to the House, for I should be sorry to have the reputation of deceiving your Lordships at any time. If your Lordships wish me to widen the Amendment to the form in which I argued it, although as a matter of fact it was not so inserted, I will do so. But of course I cannot pledge the House of Commons to accept our view in that case. If the House desires me to put it in this wider form so that it applies to all occupying owners, and not merely to the occupying owners who are in areas where the rating authority own property of this kind, then I will do so. Otherwise I move it in the form in which it stands on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 1, leave out from beginning of line to ("to") in line 10, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, this only proves how right I was in not following the noble Marquess when he proposed the Amendment in the Committee stage. As it stood the clause was too wide and it should only apply to a very limited number of cases—namely, those where the authority owns the houses itself. That is quite reasonable because they pass it on to the tenant. The Amendment is limited and I am sure that in these circumstances my friends are quite prepared to support the proposal.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL moved, after subsection (8), to insert the following new subsection:— (9) A demand for rent which includes a sum for rates under this section shall not be valid or enforceable at law unless the demand states in writing the portion of the total amount demanded which represents rates, but this subsection shall not apply to weekly lettings at inclusive rentals in any market established under or controlled by statute.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the failure of the Statement of Rates Act, 1919. That Act, which prescribes that the rate shall be specified, is more or less a dead letter. As many as 30 per cent. and perhaps 40 per cent. of tenants of this country pay rates and rent in one lump sum. It means that they do not know what they are paying for rates and what for rent, and this does not induce them to take much interest in local government administration. The penalty under the Act of 1919 is only 40s. and the result is that the Act has become a dead letter. I might mention that Sir Charles Yates, who was for many years a member of the House of Commons, passed the Act through as a private member—a matter of great credit to him. He took a great interest in this question. While I have put this Amendment down with only a faint hope that the Government will accede to it, I hope we shall have an assurance that at a later date the matter will be reconsidered.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Jessel.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord has rightly apprehended the course which the Government propose to pursue on this Amendment. We cannot accept it. It is not that we have no sympathy with its object, that the ratepayer should know exactly what he pays in rates and what in rent—that is a very valuable provision and it exists in law—but that it is most extremely difficult to work, and I will tell your Lordships why. It does not always follow that the rating authority in its statement tells the landlord the exact amount of rate for a particular hereditament. They may, and in some cases do, merely say that the total sum of rates due from the landlord is so much. And even if they go into particulars and distinguish between hereditaments, they would not do it for a week but would give the half-yearly sum which was due on the hereditament. Whichever of these two courses they pursue, the obligation will be thrown on the landlord to pass on the information to the tenant, and lie will have to go through a very elaborate mathematical sum in order to divide what is due for rates for each particular cottage which comes under this category. That is a difficult matter and it would throw a considerable burden on the owner. It is difficult for him to give. Yet with all these difficulties, which I assure my noble friend exist, he proposes a tremendous penalty. He proposes, if the thing is done wrongly—and it is a difficult mathematical calculation—that the demand for rent shall positively not be valid. I really think you cannot expect unfortunate landowners to incur such a tremendous penalty for a default which many of your Lordships might make in trying to carry out the law. For these reasons it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I think the discussion has been exceedingly valuable. It has elicited from the noble Marquess a statement that he has entire sympathy with the object of the Amendment, which is to insure that when rates are compounded the tenant shall know what he is paying for rent and what for rates. That is the object of the proposal. It is exceedingly desirable that the tenant should know what he is really paying for rates and so take some interest in local government and the persons responsible for local government. Not only i5 the noble Marquess in sympathy with this procedure; an Act of Parliament was passed in 1919 by a private member in which it is specially provided by Statute that this information shall be given to the tenant.

The noble Marquess says that owing to the existing state of the law and practice it is very difficult for the landlord to find out exactly how much is rent and how much rates. If that is so, may I appeal to the noble Marquess on the first opportunity that offers to amend the rating law in this small particular, so that the landlord may be informed what he is paying for rates in respect of each particular hereditament and may be able to carry out the Act of 1919 by passing that information on to the tenant? The noble Marquess says that under the present practice it is almost impossible for the landlord to do so. It may be, but I hope he will give us an assurance that, in order to carry out the intention of Parliament already expressed and his own desire to see that this Act is carried out, the law will be altered to enable the Act of 1919 to be carried into effect. The noble Marquess points out very clearly that if a landlord loses his rent altogether it would be a somewhat severe penalty for not giving information which he cannot give. That is a very pertinent observation, but it is quite obvious that the existing penalty of 40s. is quite inadequate to ensure the observance of the law and, therefore, when the law is altered I hope the noble Marquess will also consider imposing a heavier penalty for a breach of it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will only say that the matter shall be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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:— (b) if the hereditament is not such a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (a), there shall be estimated the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay from year to year for the hereditament if he undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe rent-charge, if any, and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses, if ally, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent, and the annual rent as so estimated shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be taken to be the net annual value of the hereditament:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay from year to year for the hereditament if he," and to insert "rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which deals with the well-known definition of "gross value" which has existed in our law for a great many years. I can state the point in two sentences. The definition which is used in the Metropolis is different from the definition which is used in the provinces. The phrase in London is "taking one year with another"; and the phrase in the provinces is "from year to year." Up to now it has always been assumed that the two things were exactly equivalent, but doubts have arisen as to whether that is absolutely the fact, and, as this Bill as it stands does not apply to London, it has been thought better to use what I may call the provincial form of the definition, "from year to year," rather than that which obtains in London. In order to be absolutely certain that there is no change in the law in this respect we have copied exactly the form which is found in the Act of 1836 which governs the administration of the law in the provinces to this day. That is the form which stands upon the Paper and which I shall also move as a consequential Amendment when we arrive at Clause 68.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 37, leave out from ("the") to ("undertook") in line 39, and insert ("rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Provisions as to valuation of hereditaments containing machinery and plant]:

LORD HARRIS had given notice to move, in subsection (5), after "modifications," to insert "including so far as he may think lit the omission of all or any part of the special equipment referred to in clause 4 of the said Third Schedule."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I ought to have explained that my noble friend Lord Harris consulted me on the Amendment which stands in his name. I explained the reason why the Government were unable to accept it and the noble Lord authorised me to say that he accordingly would not move.

LORD SOUTHWARK moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: (11) This section shall apply to London, and in order that effect may be given thereto, a provisional list shall on a demand made in writing at any time by any person or local authority who is aggrieved be made forthwith, whether not there has, been such an increase or reduction in value as is mentioned in section forty-seven of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1860. Any modification in a valuation under this subsection shall come into force as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight. In this subsection the expression London means the Administrative County of London.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to detain your Lordships at so late an hour but, as I shall explain, it is absolutely necessary for me to do so. The reforms contained in this Bill have been sought by industrialists for many years and I should like to say that in my opinion, with one exception, the Government are to be congratulated upon having produced and carried through this measure, as they doubtless will. While I am delighted, as I am sure are all those who have been opposed to the rating of machinery, that our country friends are to have the benefit of exemption from rating for their machinery, I deplore the fact that London is not dealt with at the same-time. I have no desire to keep the country back from these benefits, but this is a matter of the very greatest disappointment to London, and it is at the unanimous request of the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce, which, I think, is well-known to be a body of the greatest possible commercial value, that I bring forward the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper to-night. In order to save time I will not read the Amendment but will ask your Lordships to take it as read, and I have no doubt that it will appear in the documents of the House when they are produced.

I should explain that Clause 24 provides that process machinery—that is to say, machinery used in manufacture as distinct from that used mainly or exclusively in connection with lighting, heating, ventilation, power transmission, lifts and so forth—shall be exempt from rating. Another clause provides that the new valuations under the Bill shall become operative in 1928. Until the Report stage was reached in the House of Commons many of the provisions of the Bill applied to London as well as to the rest of the country, including the provisions regarding machinery. On the Report stage, to the surprise, I think, of nearly everybody, this reference to London was taken out, the Minister announcing that he would use his best endeavours to introduce at the earliest possible moment—he hoped in 1927 or 1923—a Bill to deal solely with rating and valuation in London. Manufacturers in London are therefore dependent upon proposed legislation which, owing to the uncertainties and exigencies of Parliamentary business, which all old Parliamentarians thoroughly understand, may not materialise for a number of years, while their competitors all over the country will definitely benefit by the exemption of machinery from 1928.

I wish your Lordships to understand that neither the London Chamber of Commerce nor anybody else desires to suggest that the Minister of Health does not mean to fulfil the promise that he made. We believe that he conscientiously and earnestly intends to do so, but I know, and the noble Marquess, as an old Parliamentarian like myself, knows something about Parliamentary promises in regard to legislation and in relation to individuals, and there has been much disappointment from time to time on account of unfulfilled Parliamentary promises, which have been conscientiously made with an earnest desire and intention of carrying them out. That is how we stand now. London is to wait until such time as this promised Bill is introduced into Parliament.

When London was taken out of the Bill it was done in such a hurry, I am told, that those interested had very great difficulty in finding the representative of the City of London and asking him to come down and represent them in the House and explain their case. Naturally they were not satisfied. I believe that the Minister of Health considers that he has satisfied somebody. He has been in negotiation with the London County Council, and I should like to know if the London County Council really represented to him that they would like to have this exemption of machinery from rating. They were very anxious to know upon what date the new Bill might be expected, and he replied by saying that it was not possible for him to make a definite promise as to when the Bill would be introduced. We know that that is a statement which every Minister has to make. Indeed, we heard Lord Cecil of Chelwood say that he would like to do something, but it does not follow that it will be possible for him to do it. My point is that my Amendment will in no other way interfere with London being outside the Bill, or interfere with any other part of the Bill, because the relief of machinery is quite distinct from any amendment of the rules or methods of assessment for rating generally.

I am making this point as shortly as possible, but it is a point that ought to be driven home—namely, that in the matter of the rating of machinery the users of machinery in London should be treated exactly as are users of machinery in the provinces. It may be quite right that the rules and methods of valuation and assessment generally in London should be framed to suit London, and that there should be a separate Bill brought in to deal with London. That was not thought when the Bill was introduced, and that will not and cannot be done before 1927 or 1928, if at all. Unless relief in the rating of machinery is treated apart from provisions for rating generally it would mean that London machinery users would not get relief for at least two years after the machinery users in other parts of the country have got it, if indeed it does not mean that they will not get it at all.

My Amendment in no way affects the principles of the Bill or the principle that in rating matters London has been, and should be, treated separately from the rest of the country. My Amendment merely asserts that the matter of financial relief given to machinery users should be given generally, and that London machinery users should be treated exactly as are all others in the country. Business men do not consider that there is any real difficulty in carrying out what I propose, and I cannot conceive that there is any difficulty in accepting this Amendment now and saving your Lordships the trouble of dealing with the same question again when bringing in a Bill dealing with London rates.

To sum up, I should like to say that London's grievances and disappointments in regard to this Bill are that the rest of the country will be exempted in 1928 from machinery rating, while London will live on only a promise. Further, there is no reason for this delay, because it can be so simply 'and speedily dealt with in this Bill. London sees no cause in any way for delay in dealing with a matter so simple, so as to give London the same privileges as will be bestowed upon the rest of the country, in the same Bill at the same time. I am sorry that this matter should come on at a time almost as inconvenient to your Lordships as it was for the House of Commons to deal with the surprise Motion to strike London out of the Bill. However, I hope that the noble Marquess may be impressed by the views of London which I have endeavoured to put, before him. There is time for repentence, if the Government have anything to repent, and perhaps they will rejoice that they are able to accept my Amendment. If they do, I am sure it will be highly appreciated by London and by the whole country.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 36, at end, insert the said new subsection (11).—(Lord Southwark.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, who has pleaded the cause which he has at heart so warmly, has forgotten perhaps that London already is subject to a quinquennial valuation, which we are going to establish for the rest of the country finder this Bill, and that the quinquennial valuation in London cannot take place again until 1931. Under the Amendment which is proposed his new rating of machinery, similar to that provided for the rest of the country, would come into force in 1928; that is to say, he would anticipate the quinquennial period by three years. Your Lordships will see in a moment that that involves a great difficulty, for there must be, if the noble Lord is to have his way, a special valuation in order to carry out what he has in view; and although that is one very considerable difficulty, the difficulty is more far-reaching than it seems. This revaluation must be carried out with the co-operation of the assessment authorities and of the Inland Revenue, because the House is also aware that in London, by existing legislation, there is only one valuation—the ideal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor—and Income Tax is levied upon the same valuation as the rates. There is no time to consult the assessment authorities or the officials of the Inland Revenue as to what difficulties there may be in the way of an interim valuation before the end of the quinquennial period. Therefore, if you pass this Amendment as it stands you pass it absolutely in the dark as to what may be the difficulty of carrying it into effect when you come to consult the various high authorities who would have to be considered. I must ask my noble friend, therefore, to be content with what I am sorry to say he entirely distrusts, a Ministerial promise. He says that he tried them very often and they always broke down.

LORD SOUTHWARK

Not always.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Very often broke down. He and I are very old hands at politics, and naturally have become rather sceptical, but one ought not only to consider the promise of the Minister, which I am quite certain was given in absolute good faith, but also the difficulties in which he would be placed if he did not carry out his promise. That is a very important consideration. I think that to have the whole of London tumbling about your ears, which would inevitably be the ease if he did not carry out his promise, would be enough to fortify the honourable feelings of any man, even though he was much less honourable than my right hon. friend the Minister of Health. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion my noble friend may be pleasantly disappointed, and that it may be found that by 1927 or 1928 the necessary legislation for London, which will deal not only with this one subject but with the whole rating question, will be brought before Parliament and passed into law. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SOUTHWARK

I am afraid it is too late in the day to get what we want in connection with this question, and therefore I accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 [Definitions]:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 1, leave out from ("the") to ("if") in line 4, and insert ("rent at which a hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year").—(The Marquis of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Eighth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Every Amendment which I have put down on the Eighth Schedule is drafting, and I move them all, except one on page 89, which appears to be found unnecessary.

Amendments moved—

Page 86, line 18, in column 3, after ("words") insert ("from")

Page 86, line 20, in column 3, leave out from beginning of line to ("thirty-one") in line 24, and insert ("sections twenty-eight, twenty-nine")

Page 87, line 16, in column 3, leave out from ("twenty") to ("in") in line 32.

Page 88, line 9, in column 3, leave out ("eleven, twelve")

Page 88,line 23, in column 3, leave out ("section thirty-eight") and insert ("sections thirty-eight, thirty-nine and forty")

Page 88, line 25, in column 3, leave out from ("three") to ("sixteen") in line 30, and insert ("to six, nine, eleven, thirteen, fourteen")

Page 88, line 34, in column 3, after ("justices") insert ("and section twenty") Page 89, line 30, in column 3, leave out ("Section three") and insert ("The whole Act")

Page 88, line 35, in column 3, leave out ("Section three") and insert ("The whole Act except sections one, two and six")

Page 88, line 38, in column 3, leave out from beginning of line to ("subsection") in line 40, and insert ("section one hundred and forty-four except subsections (1) and (2); section one hundred and forty-five")

Page 90, line 11, in column 3, leave out ("and")

Page 90, line 12, in column 3, after ("ninety-nine") insert ("section two hundred and thirty-eight")

Page 90, after line 14, insert—

("52 & 53 Vict.c.63. The Interpretation Act, 1889. Section five.")

Page 90, line 39, in column 3, after ("eighty-one") insert ("in rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule the "words 'the appointment of an overseer' and the words 'an assistant overseer or' ")

Page 91, after line 16, insert—

("13 & 14 Geo.5 c. 39. The Agricultural Rates Act, 1923. In subsection (2) of section six the words from 'and section nine' to the end of the subsection, and the substituted definition of rateable value in Part II of the Schedule.")

—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.