Lords Sitting of 10 March 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

LORD CLYDESMUIR.
The Right Honourable Sir David John Colville, G.C.I.E., having been created Baron Clydesmuir, of Braidwood in the County of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES had given Notice to move, That Standing Order 101 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of a Petition of the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, this is a Motion to dispense with Standing Order 101 in regard to the Salford Corporation Bill. It has the object of allowing a late Petition to be referred to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill. The Petition relates to Clause 58, and following the instruction agreed to by the House yesterday with reference to this clause, I think your Lordships would wish that a Petition concerned with the merits of the clause should be referred to the Select Committee although it has been deposited at a date later than allowed by the Standing Order. Accordingly I beg to move that Standing Order 101 be dispensed with in respect of this Petition.
Moved, That Standing Order 101 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of a Petition of the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene.—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly; leave given to present the said Petition.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIERS' OBLIGATIONS.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
616
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, the reasons for making the Electricity Supply [Relaxation of Obligations] Order, 1948, No. 223, and for what length of time the Order is to remain in force, and whether His Majesty's Government are aware that this Order may cause grave hardship to the consumer.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the reasons for making this Order were as follows. Under Sections 27 and 28 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, electricity supply undertakers were placed under an obligation to connect and supply any would-be consumer whose premises are situated not more than fifty yards from a distributing main. During the war, because of shortages of labour and materials and the requirements of war industries, the undertakers were exhorted to concentrate their development and new connections on the most essential premises. At that time it was comparatively easy for the undertakers to comply with this request, because there was no great demand among people as a whole for new connections or increased amenities.
After the war, however, while the shortages remained just as acute, many new demands began to be made and, although the undertakers tried to follow the list of priorities given them, they had no statutory right to refuse many of these new demands. It therefore became clear that their statutory obligations were an embarrassment to them in their attempts to give supplies where they were most needed in the national interest. Accordingly, an Order was made relieving them of their statutory obligations, and simultaneously the Electricity Commissioners have issued a letter containing an up-to-date priority list which undertakers are now free to follow. There is no ground for fearing that any hardship to consumers is involved. The Order enables the electricity supply industry to concentrate upon meeting the most essential needs of the community, and various types of hard case are included in the Commissioners' letter as cases which may be dealt with.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is the only common sense and reasonable way of dealing with this problem.
LORD WOLVERTON: In thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask

617
whether he can tell me how long it is proposed to maintain the Order in force? It takes away the only statutory protection that the consumer has, and it might lead to abuse. The right of any would-be consumer to be connected, provided his premises were within fifty yards of an existing main, was particularly given by Parliament in 1899 and is being denied now. I would like to know for how long it is proposed to extend this Order. We all appreciate that there are difficulties at the present time, but perhaps the noble Lord can give an answer to the question I have addressed to him.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that it is really quite impossible to tell how long the present emergency is going to last. Naturally, the Government and the Electricity Commissioners are only too anxious to get back to a situation in which they will, in fact, be able to connect up any consumer who wishes to have a connection made; but, as the noble Lord realises, the position at the present moment makes it quite impossible. Indeed, this Order was made because prosecutions were already being brought against the electricity suppliers and, of course, they had no answer to those prosecutions under the Act as it stands. The mere fact that to have connected would have been a danger is still no answer and, so long as there remains a danger in this way, my right honourable friend obviously cannot give any sort of undertaking. But the noble Lord can rest assured that, as soon as the situation warrants it, the Order will be discontinued.

IMMIGRATION INTO PALESTINE.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Calverley, I beg to ask the question standing in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the number of ships carrying illegal immigrants to Palestine since January, 1946; who were the nationals who chartered the vessels; how many immigrants were carried in the ships, and the source from which they came; further, how many Jews have been settled in Palestine during the
618
past two years, and how many Jews are at present in Cyprus.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, fifty-two ships have attempted to land illegal immigrants in Palestine since January, 1946. Nearly all of them, it is understood, were chartered and organised on behalf of the illegal immigration section of Haganah. In all, they carried approximately 63,500 illegal immigrants, some of whom had come from displaced persons' camps in Germany, Austria and Italy, and others from the Jewish populations of Central and Eastern Europe. Throughout the period referred to, Jewish immigration has continued at the rate of 1,500 per month. The number of Jews held in Cyprus on March 3, was 27,076.

AVIATION APPROACH AIDS.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether orders have been issued modifying the use of the G.C.A. system; what is the nature of the orders and the reason for them.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, when the first British civil G.C.A. (Ground Controlled Approach) equipment was installed at London Airport on July 1, 1947, the aim was to give it a period of trial before attempting to define with any degree of precision its future rôle in the air traffic control scheme. It was to be regarded as an emergency landing aid and a monitoring equipment, rather than as I standard runway approach aid—of which three types were already available at London Airport—S.C.S. (Signal Corps System) 51, S.B.A. (Standard Beam Approach) and B.A.B.S. (Beam Approach Beacon System). S.C.S. 51 is the forerunner of the future I.C.A.O. approved runway approach system, known as I.L.S. (Instrument Landing System). The efficiency of the G.C.A. crew, and the growing predilection of numbers of operators for the use of G.C.A. in preference to other approach aids, led to a greater use of G.C.A. than had at first been anticipated. A tendency

619
to place a degree of reliance upon this aid beyond its capacity was becoming apparent.
Meanwhile, a careful technical assessment of the accuracy of G.C.A. controlled runway approaches was proceeding. This involved detailed analysis of large numbers of approaches, and therefore required time. The conclusion was reached that technical considerations make it unwise to rely on G.C.A. approaches when weather conditions are such that a visual approach and landing cannot be made from a position of 800 yards from the touch-down point at a height of 150 feet. An order to this effect was issued to divisional and airport authorities on March 3, and to operators on March 4. A notice to airmen amplifying these instructions was issued on March 9. Where installed G.C.A. is of course always available to aircraft in an emergency.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his answer, may I say that I, no doubt like many others of your Lordships, am an occasional passenger in civil aircraft, and therefore no one could be keener than I on questions of safety. But does not this decision seem rather a panicky one? It arises, I imagine, out of the latest disaster at London Airport. I would like to ask whether it is not a fact that over a thousand landings have taken place with the use of the G.C.A. system without accident or incident? Presumably there will be an inquiry into the last disaster. Would it not be as well to await the result of that inquiry before issuing an order which may rather seriously cramp the use of the system?
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I share with the noble Earl great confidence in the G.C.A. system. Until recently, the weather conditions since it was brought into use at London Airport last summer had been such that there had not been much experience with it in really foggy conditions. The circumstances in which the Sabena accident occurred at the beginning of the month, brought home the desirability of issuing an immediate order regarding G.C.A., rather than awaiting the issue of a notice to airmen which was in course of preparation. As to the noble Earl's further point, regarding possible undue restriction of the use of the system,
620
he may be interested to know that generally the weather minima laid down for G.C.A. by the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the United States are more restrictive than those which we have established.
EARL HOWE: Can the noble Lord say whether the inquiry which is taking place into the Sabena accident in any way connects up that accident with the use of the G.C.A. system?
LORD NATHAN: It would be premature for me to say anything about that, pending the issue of the report on the inquiry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord say whether this is the first time that any weather minima have been laid down by his Ministry in respect of commercial aircraft?
LORD NATHAN: Yes, that is so. The noble Earl will bear in mind, however, that this aid has been used only experimentally, in the first instance, for civil aircraft at London Airport and for a relatively short period. It has been used for only a few months and until recently we have not had any experience of using it in really foggy weather.

HISTORY OF SECOND WORLD WAR.
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the views of the Government of the United States of America should be sought on the question whether arrangements should be made for the compilation of a joint Anglo-American history of the Second World War. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be that your Lordships will not consider the matter which I am about to raise of sufficient moment to warrant your attention at this time when the world situation is fraught with so many difficulties, and when everyone in Government service is so fully occupied. I hope and think, however, that I can persuade your Lordships that this question is of such vast long-term importance that it warrants your sympathetic consideration. Further, the amount of work devolving on Government executives if this Motion is adopted will be negligible.
Before I move it I would like to read it to your Lordships:

621
"That in the opinion of this House, the views of the Government of the United States of America should be sought on the question whether arrangements should be made for the compilation of a joint Anglo-American history of the Second World War."
I would like to explain briefly, and without wearying your Lordships, what originally made me decide to put forward this idea. I make bold to say that the 1914–1918 war, which was so disastrous to the world, may prove to have been the beginning of a correct understanding between America and England. Relations between the two nations at the start of that war grew slowly. The background was bad. The bad old histories of the War of Independence were on the shelves of every school and library in both countries, and patriotic young men who joined the Forces, both in America and this country, had read those histories. Then, when the Americans and the British met in the field, some of the old sharp edges became rounded off, and sometimes even obliterated. It was the start of a change of relations. I sometimes like to think that the coming of air power helped towards the improvement of relations between the Americans and ourselves.
It was my privilege to be appointed Commander-in-Chief of what was called in those days the Inter-Allied Independent Air Force, in which American squadrons worked with ours. In those days, as some of your Lordships will know, there was a great deal of controversy as to whether the Air Force should be formed. There was just as much controversy in America as there was in England. It was my privilege to work with a very great American, General Mitchell, who commanded the American Air Force. We saw much of each other and of our respective staffs and our pilots, and it may be that this controversy in both our countries brought us, and all Americans into such close touch with each other—indeed, not only close touch but really friendly relations. We all had the same common ideal. In the same way, the armies and navies were brought into close touch with each other through the common ideal of defeating the German menace. And so it happened, when I first went to America—now a good many years ago—that I found many of my 1914–18 friends. We renewed our friendship and talked over many things, including the
622
necessity of bringing and keeping together our two great nations, and of wiping out all the old bitterness that existed as a legacy from the War of Independence. From these meetings in America was born the feeling that something must be done to make permanent the good will between the two nations.
During the 1939–45 war, by the kindness of the Americans and the Government of this country, I was again allowed to visit freely all my friends in the American Army; and air units in England and all over the world. I went to as many American units as to our own, and I found there the same good will. I met airmen of all ranks, from senior and junior officers to the rank and file; and I saw the relations between our two Services growing closer and closer. I went to America in 1944, and when I happened to be grounded in bad weather at a place called Lake Charles, a little town in the South, I had nothing better to do for two days than to pick up a book which had just been published. It was Lend Lease, by Stettinius. It had a dull title, but I soon found that it contained a thrilling account of what the British Empire and the American nation had done together in providing munitions of war not in competition but together. They had worked together to make a success of producing war material for the two nations. The book was written, I believe, with the aid of records provided by the authorities on both sides, and when I read it I realised that it was no mere account of war-time statistics; it was history. And, most important of all, it showed to present readers and to posterity what a great achievement had crowned our joint efforts.
This, I thought, was the answer to the question which had been at the back 01: my mind for so long—how to supplant the distorted histories of the War of Independence, which had done so much damage to the relationship between our two countries. At different times it has been suggested that the histories of that period should be rewritten, I am one of those who do not believe that an old history of 200 years ago can ever be rewritten. The only chance of readjusting the balance is when some event of still greater importance occurs. The Second World War, in which England and America fought side by side in the closest

623
collaboration, was such an event. It saved the world and this country. I felt, as I read Lend Lease, and I feel still, that if a-joint history of the War, embracing all aspects—political, geographical, military, economic and industrial—could be written, it would bring home to every man and woman, boy and girl, what the two countries did together. It would be found on the shelves of everybody who had a library and of every school, college and university, available for all to see.
I suggested to one or two American friends that a joint history should be written by two historians, an American and an Englishman, men of great reputation, showing what America and the British Commonwealth did in all phases of the 1939–1945 War. My friends seemed to think well of it. Then, at the end of 1946, I wrote my first letter to the Press putting forward this suggestion. I was gratified and surprised at the favourable response it brought forth. A history like this would be interesting to-day; but in fifty or a hundred years' time, if it were well prepared and well written, as we should want it to be, it would be not only interesting but of the utmost value. During all the years when petty little frictions grew up, people would take down this joint war history from the shelves and would read what our two nations had done together; and they would realise that with united efforts difficulties can be smoothed away and great effects achieved.
In March, 1947, on the Motion for the adjournment in another place, Mr. Keeling put the case for opening negotiations with the United States for a joint history of British-American co-operation during the war. It is reported in Hansard of March 24 (columns 1,000 onwards). Mr. Chuter Ede, in his reply for the Government, said:
"I hope that some joint book may be published without undue delay. The exact time when this should be done is a matter that must become one for joint arrangements between the two countries whose achievements it is proposed to recall and record."
He went on to say:
"As soon as an opportunity occurs, we shall be very pleased to co-operate with any distinguished historian whom the American Government may feel able to appoint to do this work, or ask to do this work, in an endeavour to see that this joint effort shall be suitably recorded, so that not only our generation, but
624
succeeding generations shall understand the magnitude of this achievement in diplomacy, in the furnishing of munitions, and in the successful conduct of operations by sea, land and air."
I went to America in 1947. I spoke, not publicly but at private dinners and lunches, to hundreds of my old friends on this subject. I talked to Service men, including senior Service men, to politicians, statesmen, to people in New York and Los Angeles, to journalists, commentators and others, in the West, in the East and in the North; and I was amazed and pleased at the amount of interest taken by everybody. I also saw some of the senior members of the American universities, and many others, and I felt that there was no man who showed more that he had at heart the good feeling between us than General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander in the invasion of Africa and Europe. No man worked harder than he did to bring together the efforts of the two nations. I mentioned it and he was enthusiastic. I am certain that he would give every support. I mentioned it wherever I went, and since returning I have had numerous letters on the idea from people of all stations of life in America. If I showed the letters that I have had, your Lordships would see how interested the people are. Several thought that it would have a greater effect on our relations than any other project which they could conceive.
In my opinion there are four essential features which must be incorporated, both in the book itself and in the methods of producing it. The public must be prepared to accept the final product as authoritative and unbiased. To achieve this, both the American and British Governments must show public approval of the project and must make it clear in the preface of the book that they have allowed the writers access to the necessary documents connected with the war. In my opinion, the Government must not take part in appointing the writers, since this would savour of bias. I suggest that in our two countries two representative committees, consisting of men of high distinction (such as the heads of some of the universities in both countries), presided over by a chairman, who must be a man of great national distinction, should be appointed to choose the two historians and the assistant historians, and also to keep a fatherly eye on the whole project.

625
Secondly, the final product must be a readable story, and not a textbook for colleges. Equally it must not be platitudinous. It must contain all the facts concerning what each country achieved, and how it did it, but these facts should not be written in such a way as to emphasise the comparison between both countries, but should show merely how each result was achieved by both countries. The facts must be there, and they must be used in a way to show the joint ends and the joint results.
The two historians must be determined to work together and must be assisted by adequate staffs. In this respect, liaison must take place not only between the principals, but all the way down the line. If it were possible, I would like the two Governments to grant the money free to cover the costs. This may be in the neighbourhood of £200,000 each. For political or economic reasons, that may not be practicable, and in that case I would like the Governments to advance the money in the belief that over the years a great deal of it would come back from the sales of the book. That is the suggestion I make.
If I am not wearying your Lordships, may I detain you for a few minutes longer in countering some of the objections which are likely to be raised against starting on this work at the present time? It may be that we are short of historians. The Home Secretary, while expressing the British Government's approval of the scheme, said that the professional historians in both countries are already engaged on the official histories of their country's war effort, and the material they have cannot at present be taken away from them. But there is, surely, one useful step which the Government can take now. Surely, a direction could be given that the historians who are going to work on this project, and who are now working on the departmental and governmental histories, should have power to mark any documents or records which have a bearing on Anglo-American cooperation, so that they are readily accessible when the writing of the joint history begins.
If we are going to wait until the national histories are finished before proceeding with the joint history, I hope we shall not have to wait so long as we have had to wait for the Army Official Histories of the 1914–18 war. As your Lordships
626
know, the final volumes—I think there are to be three of them—have still to be published, thirty years afterwards. If it takes another thirty years to produce the record of the 1939–45 war, the production of a joint history after that will be quite useless. Remember, memories are very short, and if only the many individual histories that are now being written, or have been written, exist, before two generations have lived it will be forgotten what our two countries accomplished together, and a bond of great feeling will be lost.
Of course, there are difficulties, but these are not difficulties which should concern the Governments at all. They will be problems for the chief historian on either side, aided by the two committees which I have suggested. I believe there are many historians in each country who would come forward and consider it a wonderful chance and almost a duty to help in this great work of bringing together for all time the two nations. I feel that the two committees I have indicated would soon find good historians. As I say, it is not the duty of the Governments to find them. I like to think that all the American and British soldiers, sailors and airmen of the 1914–18 war, and the 1939–45 war, who fought together, besides winning the war, really-helped towards making the friendship between the two countries unbreakable. I would have liked to see this project supported by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party, and also the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who was our Ambassador in Washington for so long. They are all men who have Anglo-American friendship at heart, and who could put this scheme into much more worthy language than I can hope to do.
To my mind, the matter is urgent. The national histories are now in course of preparation on both sides of the Atlantic and it would be almost unnatural if some slight bias did not creep in here and there, which might do untold harm in the future. If it were possible for the joint history to be started early, and finished in as short a time as possible having regard to the high standard required, it would obviate the spread of false impressions. Nevertheless, in the

627
light of present-day conditions I appreciate that it may be that we must limit our activities to matters affecting our immediate future, in which case perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to assure me only that the project has the Government's sympathy and approval in principle, and that it will be proceeded with at the earliest possible date contingent upon the economic situation. Meanwhile, I should have thought it possible to appoint a committee of the heads of universities, so that they could be turning over in their minds the best prospective appointment to the position of Chief Historian. I am sure that whatever action we are prepared to take in this matter, America will be prepared to make a parallel move. I believe that if this matter is taken up now by all Parties, we shall have sown a seed that will bring forth fruit for many hundred years to come. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the views of the Government of the United States of America should be sought on the question whether arrangements should be made for the compilation of a Joint Anglo-American history of the Second World War.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
3.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, though I think we should all agree that the subject of this debate has already been most fully and movingly covered by the speech to which we have just listened, I should like, if I may, briefly but most wholeheartedly to support what has been so well said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. The noble Viscount, if he will allow me to say so in his presence, enjoys to a rare degree not only the affection but also the respect of the members of this House, to whatever Party they belong. I think one of the main reasons for that is that he has a wide, imaginative outlook, and the points on which he concentrates on the occasions when he addresses your Lordships are always big ones, untainted by any considerations of a Party or sectional character. The question which the noble Viscount has raised to-day is, in that respect, extremely characteristic of him.
He has looked, as always, far into the future, and he has recognised, what perhaps we do not all of us recognise—
628
namely, the danger which might be caused to Anglo-American relations (on which, after all, the future peace of the world so largely depends) by biased accounts of the events of the late war, either from the angle of the British Commonwealth or from that of the United States. He has seen clearly, as we should see clearly, that the time to avert that danger is not in the future, but now, when the memories of those events are still fresh in the minds of those who took part in them. I know—and the noble Viscount referred to it this afternoon—that there is a view, fairly widely held, that it is essential first to get the official histories of the war written, both here and in the United States, so that the material may be available for the future joint history. That is an understandable point of view. However, I do not altogether share it. For one thing, as I think has already been said, a detailed history of all the military, naval and air campaigns in every theatre of war during the last six years will take years to complete.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, told your Lordships just now that the official British history of the 1914–18 war is not yet completed. This means that the writers of the joint Anglo-American history of this war may not be able to get down to work for another thirty or forty years, by which time nearly all those who took the main part in the events, and upon whose personal experiences they will have to draw, will be dead; and the spirit which animated them in a moment of great international elevation may have been almost forgotten. That is not necessarily true of a short narrative history; that is a different proposition. Indeed, I have been told this afternoon that a narrative account of that kind, showing the contribution of Canada in the late war, has already been produced by the Canadian Government. That shows how rapidly such a history may be completed, once it is undertaken.
Perhaps I may make one further point to your Lordships. I believe that it might well be argued that to attempt this task by bringing out the official histories first, would be to put the cart before the horse, since the British and American official histories will inevitably be written to give special emphasis to the British or American contribution, according to which country produces the history. If those histories appear first, the later task

629
of striking a true balance as between the parts played by the British Commonwealth and the United States may well be seriously increased. Surely there is a great deal to be said for beginning by painting the whole picture in a joint history, filling in the details later in the official history.
I gather from what he has said that the intention of the noble and gallant Viscount—who is, after all, the author of this scheme—is not to make the joint history a governmental production, but to form two working parties of eminent authorities in the British Commonwealth and in the United States, and to entrust them with the task of choosing the historians to write the book. That seems to me, and I am sure to your Lordships, an eminently sensible way of proceeding. No doubt there will be—there always are—considerable practical difficulties to be surmounted. As the noble Viscount explained, considerable expenditure will be involved, and I should have thought it would be well worth while, if such a thing were possible, for the Government to defray either the whole or a very great part of that expenditure. Surely they might expect to get back a large part of the cost from the sales of this extremely authoritative book; it would not be a great speculation. In any case, I would have thought, as a believer in Anglo-American relations, that if there were any outstanding expenditure it would be well justified by the good will which would be earned by two Powers, whose close relationship is so necessary, not only now but in the future.
No doubt there is also the problem of getting the right men to write such a history and of making available to them, as the noble Viscount said, the necessary information. One would hope that there would not be too much red tape about that. It is evidently vital, too, to ensure that the history, when written, should not be too technical, should not be merely a military textbook but should be suitable for reading by the ordinary man. Indeed its readability—if I may use such a word—would be the most essential part of it. These are all problems of machinery; and problems of machinery are made to be surmounted. I believe that this is a great project in every sense of the word, and its effects for good might be incalculable. From what I have been told—and I think the noble Viscount said this this afternoon
630
—I gather that this proposition already has influential support in the United States, and I very much hope that when the Lord Chancellor replies for the Government he will be able to give it a cordial blessing.
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we are all well aware that the news which appears in the Press is not invariably meticulously accurate, yet it is the case that news quickly hardens into history. Unless the records are carefully revised and corrected there is always danger that posterity may be misled by the incorrect reports of events by contemporaries. Even when the formal histories come to be written, there is sometimes—indeed, probably always—some danger of a bias, however unconscious that bias may be. There is a tendency to exalt the achievement and the successes of one's own side and to lessen the importance of the mistakes, whether political or military, of one's own country. It has been shrewdly said that the further we are from our bad deeds the smaller they appear, and the further we are from our good deeds the larger they appear. There is always the risk of that happening when history of events in which our own country is concerned is being written. If a combined history, such as that proposed by the noble and gallant Viscount, were to be written and these events were to be seen through two eyes and not only through one eye we should have a stereoscopic view, an Anglo-American view; and probably it: would more resemble reality than any history written from only a single standpoint.
Last night, at the Mansion House, there was a great dinner held in support of the objects of the English Speaking Union, and among the speakers was the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax. He said—and I think his audience approved the declaration—that, surveying the present state and fortunes of mankind, there is nothing of deeper importance than the maintenance of the effective unity in thought and action of the English-speaking peoples, including not only the Dominions, but this country and especially the United States. I would add to that view a further suggestion. In recent history there has been no event so momentous as the ending of American isolationism and the participation of the United States in the affairs of the whole world, including Europe. American

631
isolationism having ended, they participated closely with the British, in the campaigns on land, on sea, and in the air. That participation surely should require some joint history of those events; the joint campaigns should be followed by a joint record.
As to the practical feasibility of the machinery which the noble and gallant Viscount suggested, I can form no opinion. It seems prima facie to be a good plan. There may be hidden difficulties which might appear if it were put into operation, but we have all been accustomed to find that when the noble Viscount initiates some plan—and he has initiated many during the last thirty years—in the end it is found that he has been right, that his scheme has a good aim and has been devised with care and with practical wisdom. So, prima facie, one would be prepared to accept the noble Viscount's view, he having taken great pains with its elaboration and consulted a great many people in the United States, and to support it as being feasible. Of course this is not a plan which we here would wish to press upon the Americans. If it is to come about it must be through their willing co-operation from the beginning; otherwise we may find ourselves in the invidious position of a suitor, who, not having ascertained adequately beforehand how the land lies, receives a rebuff, comes away discomfited and has to return the ring to the jeweller, or lay it aside for use on some future occasion. I trust that before anything is done, soundings will be taken most carefully in the United States. In the Motion before us to-day the noble and gallant Viscount asks for no more than that the Government should seek the views of our friends in America on this project, and I trust that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to go at least as far as that—and, I hope, somewhat further.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, I think the idea put before the House today by the noble and gallant Viscount will meet with general approval. I do not consider it necessary to add to what has already been said about the desirability of that idea, but I should like to say a few words about the practical side and the urgency of it. If it is to be of any value at all, a joint history of the war
632
as conducted from both sides of the Atlantic must be available at an early date, before too many books of an irresponsible or a too patriotic character have been published. If we proceed on the lines of the 1914–18 War we have a long way to go: reference has been made to the time that has been taken—thirty years—over the history of that war; and the book is not yet completed. I believe that no fewer than fifty volumes have already been published. Another three or four volumes have yet to appear, and the principal historian is already approaching his eighty-sixth birthday. In regard to the Boer War we were content with five respectably large volumes, and they were completed in six years. If we go back to the 1914 parallel, we shall all be in some other pleasant or unpleasant place long before the work is finished; and the historians, to use an Irishism, will probably all have died on their way. I believe, however, that the present Government have a better plan in mind. I am told that they intend to limit the number of volumes to ten, one of which will be ready this year. Six of the volumes will be devoted to the Army, two to the Navy and—the noble and gallant Viscount in front of me will be interested to know—two to the Air Force. It is proposed that the time to be taken shall be six to seven years.
I would suggest that a joint history is of such international importance that it would be well, and I think practicable, to put aside, for the time being, these departmental histories and push on with the greater idea. It may be that it will be awkward—all these literary jobs are awkward—but I am quite sure that, either by dovetailing the work or by some other means, it is practicable and can be done. I have some knowledge of a book which is being prepared at the present time. The noble Marquess said that we do not want so much an "historical" history as a practical and readable book. The book to which I refer is being written by a gentleman whose name is well known to your Lordships, whose time is limited, and who is occasionally preoccupied with the nefarious deeds of the Party opposite. He has set out to write the work, which will run to perhaps 1,250,000 words. It is only two-and-a-half years since the war ended, but in that time he has managed to perform half his task. Two volumes will probably appear in twelve months

633
from now and the others will follow on in what I suppose he would call "respecable sequence." I suggest that, with a knowledge of what one man can do, we ought to look rather askance at any idea that a work of this sort could not be performed within a reasonable and practicable time.
The noble and gallant Viscount, in introducing the Motion, suggested that the Government were very busy. Probably some of us think they are far too busy. But, be that as it may, this is not a Government matter; it is not a matter for civil servants, but for historians. I de-cline to believe that it is not possible to procure sufficient historians to carry out this work. It is a matter to which the Americans will have to give their approval and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us to-day that His Majesty's Government will make an early request to the American authorities for their agreement.
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at the opening of his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, apologised for raising a matter which he said might not seem of sufficient importance in view of all the difficulties and dangers impending. There was surely no need for any such statement. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said, we all have a profound regard for the noble and gallant Viscount and we know that when he moves a Motion it is because he feels the matter to be important in the public interest; and it is manifestly in the public interest that we should carry through this great idea which the noble Viscount has put forward today. I have been asked to express sympathy and support on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I readily do so; and I am very ready to accept on behalf of His Majesty's Government the Motion which has been moved by the noble and gallant Viscount.
We share, and I should imagine that all thinking men must share, his belief that the memory of their common exertions and achievements in the Second World War will remain an enduring inspiration and a firm basis for future friendship between the people of this country and the people of the United States; and we must surely all of us agree
634
that that friendship and co-operation are fundamental to the well-being of the world. The noble and gallant Viscount has himself called attention to the fact that the Government have already declared their sympathy with the project of a joint history of the War and their readiness to collaborate in due course with any distinguished historian who may be nominated on the American side in connection with this work. I can assure the noble and gallant Viscount that it is our intention to consult fully with the United States Government in (his matter. Indeed, I may tell him, in case he does not already know it, that his proposals have already been brought to the attention of that Government. It has been agreed that at the appropriate time consultations shall take place as to the best method of giving effect to these proposals.
Of course, there are difficulties, and I will discuss those difficulties. As the noble and gallant Viscount lightly said, the difficulties are there only to be surmounted. I should be lacking in candour if I did not say that, in the provisional view of both the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government, it would be premature to attempt to make a start with the writing of a joint history for some time to come. The noble Viscount said—and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, stressed the point too—that beyond everything else this history must be a readable book Of course, the adjective "readable" is a relative term and I should be sorry to say that all official histories are not readable. They are not read by everybody, of course; they are certainty not in everybody's library. The; noble Viscount has made it plain that he does not contemplate a, book of that nature, but something much more like Professor Crutwell's book on the First World War than the Official History of the First World War, in its sixty-odd volumes when it comes to be completed. However, at the same time it must be an authoritative work, as the noble Viscount rightly said, and it must be unbiased.
I am not an historian, but I can readily understand that it is probably difficult to combine the two qualities of readability and authoritativeness. Only yesterday I was speaking to one of the Parliamentary Counsel who assist us in giving answers to questions. I said: "I wish you would make your answers so much shorter."

635
He said: "It takes so much longer to think out a shorter answer." I should imagine that, in order to write a readable and a short history, one must know what to select and what to leave out—a task calling for the highest skill and competence. Of course, to achieve that end there must be thorough preliminary research into a vast mass of documentary material. As has been said, we are progressing in preliminary research for the purposes of our two national official histories, and the first step there is the collection of material. Although much has been done in that direction, a great deal remains to be done. I think that to attempt to embark on a joint history at this stage would result either in duplication of effort on preliminary research or in the production of an inadequate and inexact historical work which would destroy all the good effects which we hope to introduce into this joint history.
However, that is not to say that it is necessary that one should finish an official history before one starts on the joint history, but I think it is necessary to collect a great deal of the material before one starts on that joint history. As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said, and as I understand, the history of the Second World War is going to be written on a different basis from the history of the First World War. The instructions given to the historian were for a broad survey on an inter-Service basis or from an inter-Service point of view, or words to that effect. That should not take anything like the length of time that was occupied upon the still uncompleted history of the First World War. However, it will certainly take some time: The Government have formed no view on this question at all; it is obviously a matter for the historian. I do not say that we shall not be able to do anything until this history is finished, but while the material is being collected and worked upon, and although we are going to consult with the American Government, our provisional view is that the present is not the appropriate time.
However, I should like to say this with regard to the national histories and the co-operation needed there, because it is rather consoling. I think it is probable that Anglo-American co-operation will not be lost sight of in the national official histories, either in our own or in that
636
of the United States. There is close contact between the American official historians and the British official historians, both in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions. At a recent meeting of military historians in Washington, it was proposed that, subject to the agreement of the Government concerned, draft histories should be exchanged before publication, so that each should have an opportunity of making its point of view known to the other. I think that that is something which your Lordships ought to know. I discussed this matter only this morning with the distinguished historian who is undertaking the supervision of our official history.
That, then, is the position. I accept this Motion readily and without hesitation. We will consult with the Government of the United States about this matter. We feel that if we can produce an authoritative and, at the same time, a readable book, which will stress the wonderful co-operation which we had with the United States in the Second World War, it will be of the greatest value to the continuance of good relations between our two countries. Therefore, we will consult with the United States Government as to the method, means and timing for undertaking this important work.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I wish first of all to thank the noble Lords who supported this Motion. It will have a great effect on those in America who are equally keen on this matter. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for accepting this Motion in his reply. I have little to say, except that I would stress the importance of the word "official." I hope that when this history is written, even though it is supported by the Government in every way, it will not be a history requiring the approval of the Government. The first step is to set up a committee who will select the historians to write the histories. And the histories must be such as to be regarded as authoritative. That is quite different, if I may say so, from being "official." I want to stress that point in particular—the histories will not be looked upon as biased, or as a compromise, if we have two great historians who are keen to undertake the work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
3.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE VISCOUNT MERSEY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Meaning of "standard rateable value."
(2) In this section, the expression "the weighted population" in relation to a county or county borough means the population thereof plus the number of children under fifteen years of age therein and, in the case of a county the population whereof divided by the road-mileage thereof is less than seventy, plus also one-third of the additional population needed in order that the population thereof divided by the road-haulage thereof should be seventy.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) to delete "seventy," where that figure is first mentioned, and to insert "one hundred." The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, under subsection (2) of this clause, the count districts which now have a weighting factor for sparsity of population are only those which have a population per mile of less than seventy. I am seeking to increase that seventy to one hundred. Under earlier legislation, the figure was 200, and in the last Local Government Act it was 300. Under the present clause of this Bill, as explained in the statement made by the Minister of Health in another place in February, there are few counties in England which will come in under this—I think the number is three in England and seven in Wales. But when one finds that such counties as Lincolnshire and Cumberland receive no weightage whatever for their large amount of road mileage in proportion to the number of their ratepayers then one begins to wonder why this figure has been put so low as 70.
I seek a very small Amendment, namely, to put it up to one hundred, which will bring in Cumberland, Norfolk (which is now seventy-one), and all three parts of Lincolnshire. None of those districts can be regarded as heavily populated,
638
and all would normally be expected by the ordinary simple man to qualify for this additional grant, in view of the proportion of road mileage to their population. I would also like to know—the explanation was never given in another place—for what reasons the figure of seventy was selected. Somebody must have done the calculation, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how the calculation was made, and why such counties as I have mentioned have been excluded. There may be some justification for the number of seventy, but without any such explanation, I am of the opinion that at present it is far too low. For those reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("seventy") and insert ("one hundred").—(Lord Llewellin)
LORD HENDERSON: I hope that I may be able to give reasons why the noble Lord should not press this Amendment. It is quite true that numerically high weightings for sparsity of population were given under the Acts of 1929 and 1937. The formula for weighted population under those Acts was of a different character and was used in a different way from that now proposed. The heavy weighting for sparsity in counties was needed then because of the correspondingly heavy weighting for unemployment which was required in many of the county boroughs. I suggest that the question is not whether the population of a local authority is as much weighted for sparsity now as it was under the old system, but whether, under the new arrangement, central aid is to be distributed more in accordance with need. Under the formula in the present Bill, counties whose resources, in terms of rateable value per head of the weighted population, are substantially below the average receive high rates of grant. The thinly populated counties have, in general, low rateable values per head of weighted population, and the scheme for crediting rateable values, even without a sparsity weighting, is sufficient to meet the needs of all but the most sparsely populated areas. Sparsity weighting is given to those counties which have a population per mile of less than seventy because it is at about this level—and this is the point about which the noble Lord particularly asked me—that the degree of weighting provided automatically

639
by low rateable value per head becomes insufficient to ensure an adequate "credited" rateable value.
The noble Lord referred to two or three places which he said had no Sparsity allowance. One of them was Cumberland, whose gain under the new arrangement will be equal to a 4s. 4d. rate. In regard to Lincolnshire, as to parts of Holland, it will be 10s. 1d., as to parts of Kesteven 5s. 1d., and as to parts of Lindsey, 7s. 8d. The last county that the noble Lord mentioned was Norfolk, and there the gain is 11s. 3d. In the light of the explanation and the information which I have supplied perhaps the noble Lord may be induced to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Does the noble Lord mean that the additional figures are what counties will receive in the transitional period? Or was he looking more permanently ahead? And, when he was giving them, had he deducted what those counties would have received by way of block grants under the rating law at present in force?
LORD HENDERSON: The figures I have given are the differences between what the counties will receive, or the effect of what they will receive under the new grants system and what they would have received under the old grants system. They are to that extent better off.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Can the noble Lord say whether the grants for travelling expenses of children will be paid—I understand that it is a 50 per cent. grant from the central Exchequer—out of this grant, or will a separate grant be given in respect of education?
LORD HENDERSON: Speaking from memory, I think it is paid under the separate grant for education.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is to say, 50 per cent. will be paid from the local authority which, naturally enough, will come in under the rateable value, credited or not credited, under this Act?
LORD HENDERSON: Yes. If the noble Lord will look at the formula for finding the proper fraction he will find that it is reached by taking the appropriate expenditure. Therefore any expenditure incurred by the local
640
authority will be in the total expenditure, and will contribute to the relevant fraction.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We have a large number of Amendments on the marshalled list, and I have quite a number later, on all of which I hope the noble Lord will be able to meet us. As I always believe in starting the day's proceedings by holding out the olive branch, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Exchequer Transitional Grants for first five years.
5.—(1) The Minister shall estimate in relation to each county and county borough in England and Wales the sums specified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, being, in every case, sums estimated for the year 1947–48.
(2) The Minister shall first estimate—

(a) the aggregate of all Exchequer Grants payable under the Local Government Acts, 1929 to 1946, to the council of the county or county borough or, in the case of a county, to any other local authority in the county, less any contributions payable by the council of the county or county borough under section three of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1937, section sixteen of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, or section three of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1946;

(4) If for any county or county borough the total of the sums estimated by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section exceeds the total of the sums so estimated under subsection (3) thereof, there shall be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of the county or county borough grants for the year 1948–49 and each of the four following years.
4.0 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out the second "or" and insert "and". The noble Lord said: This is a verbal or drafting matter. The word which I want to leave out seems to me to be clearly alternative, so that in the case of a county anyone making an estimate must either include the aggregate of the Exchequer grants payable to the council of the county or the amounts of those grants payable to the other local authorities in that county.

641
I do not see that, as worded, it can include both. I understand that the Government desire both to be included and I should have thought that the word "and" would have been more correct and clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page, line, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I gather that this is a drafting Amendment intended to remove an alleged ambiguity. Unfortunately it does so only by introducing another: there is no grant payable to a county council and a county district council. I think that there is no difference between the noble Lord and myself as to what is intended. I believe that we both aim at the same thing. Parliamentary counsel, however, advise that the word "or" is to be preferred, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will be satisfied to accept the advice of the Parliamentary draftsman.
LORD ADDINGTON: If that is so, I am of course prepared to withdraw my Amendment. Probably the difference arises as between the words "payable" and "paid." So far as I am aware, grants were paid to two different authorities; they were not both paid to the county council. If "payable" in the first instance includes grams that local authorities had direct from the Ministry, I think that that view is no doubt correct. As the noble Lord has looked into the point I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (4) "equal to the amount of the said excess." The noble Earl said: This Amendment affects the transitional payments under Clause 5. There are two payments under this Bill—one an equalisation payment and the other a transitional payment. The effect of the equalisation payments is largely that of producing something similar in outline to a cross-section of the Alps. In order in some way to modify this, provision is made for transitional payments. I would like to know the reason why transitional payments take the form they do. Quite frankly, the explanation which has been offered up to the present time appears to me to be totally inadequate. These payments have been described as shock absorbers. I do not know who is giving
642
and who is receiving the shock. The term "tempering the wind to the shorn lamb" has also been used in this connection. I do not know for certain who the shorn lamb is supposed to be, but I presume it is the local authorities. They are certainly- being shorn of quite a number of things. They are being shorn of places which are being de-rated, they are being shorn of public utilities on which, in some cases, they were obtaining profits, and in all cases were getting some Income Tax relief. They are being shorn of hospitals into which they have put a large amount of local rates. Only the debt standing over is being paid for.
Why is this particular grant being reduced year by year? Is it suggested that it has some relation to the cost of living? Is it suggested that it is due to the fact that the burdens of local authorities are likely to become less? Or is it just related to nothing at all? If I may say so with respect, we are tying ourselves to a formula which is simply related to expenditure in the years 1947–1948. It has no relation to whether the equalisation grant is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. It is merely taking a shaving off in certain specific places in an otherwise extremely undulating landscape. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any justification for this procedure. I suggest that it would have been better to decide what sum could have been paid to ease the process of bringing in the new Act, and to have spent it equally over the period it is intended to cover. I think it is right and proper that we should be told why this provision has taken the form which it has taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at end insert ("equal to the amount of the said excess").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD HENDERSON: Perhaps I should say at once that the Exchequer transitional grants provided for in Clause 5 will be payable to those counties and county boroughs in which the withdrawal of the existing block grants, the payment in lieu of existing education grants of grants under new regulations, the transfer of hospital and domiciliary Poor Law services to the central Government and the payment of Exchequer equalisation grants would, if these changes had had effect throughout the whole of 1947–48, have resulted in a loss, or in a gain equivalent

643
to a rate of less than sixpence. The Exchequer transitional grants payable for the year 1948–49 are the amounts needed to provide a minimum gain in each county and county borough of a rate of sixpence, and represent a concession to the local authorities to ensure to each county and county borough an initial gain.
The noble Earl asked me whether the diminishing process was due to one of a variety of reasons which he cited. It is not related to any of those things at all. What it is related to is an act of generosity, to which a limit must be put. The problem of need is the vital one, and this will be taken care of by the equalisation grant. The transitional grant is, as I say, an act of generosity on the part of the Government, and it is designed to ease the transition from the old system to the new system. All major local authorities, as I have said, will gain an equivalent of a sixpenny rate. It has been arranged that the sixpenny rate shall be reduced year by year until it reaches vanishing point. I am not going to use any of the descriptive phrases which the noble Earl has employed. I had intended to refer to a "cushion" but, to prove my point, I should have had to say it was an "air cushion." If I used such an expression I should land myself in the same difficulty as attaches to other phrases which have been used in this connection. The fact is that it is really in the nature of a gift to the local authorities from the Government to help them to adjust themselves in the transitional period to the change in the system. It is, I understand, in accordance with the usual practice and I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: AS I understand the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, he says that this grant of a sixpenny rate, to be decreased each year by one-fifth for a period of five years, is an act of generosity on the part of the Government, and can, in point of fact, be taken to mean that the Government have given a gift. But you do not give gifts to people unless you have some ulterior or perhaps immoral motive. I am anxious to find out from the noble Lord why the Government should be so generous as to give a gift to every local authority of a rate equal to 6d. in the £. The noble Lord told
644
us during the Second Reading debate that authorities were being relieved of expenditure amounting, I think, to nearly £60,000,000 sterling a year. If they are being relieved of that, where is the need to give them something else in lieu thereof?
I believe the real reason is that the Government know the Bill to be grossly unfair to many local authorities, and are endeavouring, if I may use the word, to "bribe" local authorities, to lull them into some false sense of security in believing that the rates, which are bound to rise after 1949, will not be quite so bad as they would otherwise appear to be if this grant were not given. To return to the noble Lord's original point, I would remark that Governments, and especially the Treasury, are not generous. What is the real reason for this sudden act of generosity?
LORD HENDERSON: I have been surprised that a good gift horse should be looked in the mouth in this way. I assure your Lordships that there is nothing sinister about this arrangement. It is a perfectly straightforward one and is, I understand, according to the usual practice. The noble Lord referred to what is being suffered by local authorities under the change of system, but he forgot to mention that local authorities not only save their expenditure on central services, but also lose the old block grant system; and it is in order to ease the change-over during the transitional period of five years that this grant has been arranged. If there is anything wrong in providing a cushion, it has also been wrong in the past. If the Governments to which the noble Lord belonged found it wise or desirable to ease the change-over, I must confess I see nothing wrong in this Government taking the same course.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I much prefer that the noble Lord should describe it as a cushion rather than as an act of generosity. It will be given only to people who lose money, and I think the right word probably is "cushion," but it is a cushion which gets a little less comfortable each year you sit on it. At the end of the first year, four-fifths is left, and it decreases by a fifth each year until in the end it disappears altogether. To say it is an act of generosity must have horrified anybody from the Treasury

645
who may be listening, because that Department has never been known to perform an act of generosity in its life. It is obviously not an act of generosity. Most of us have a good idea of what will take place under this Bill. Rates will go up. If they all went up at one fell swoop, the local authorities would say, "Good gracious, this is because of the Bill that the Socialist Government brought in!" Now they will say, "The rate went up only a little bit." The next year it will go up a little more, and the year after that there will be another small increase, but by the end of the fifth year, when the grant ceases, the hope of the Government is that the local authorities will have forgotten that the higher rates arose from this Bill.
It really is more accurate to call the grant a cushion. I think it is being given only because the new formula invented by the Government will press so hardly on some authorities that the Government are frightened that, unless they provide this cushion, there will be a real outcry from the local authorities. I must say it would be a more honest way to equalise the amount you are going to give annually, even though you are going to show the effect of this measure, instead of tapering it off in the way the Government have done. There is a lot of substance in my noble friend's Amendment. It has the great advantage, if you look at this as an act of generosity, of allowing the Government's act of generosity to continue. The effect of the Amendment is to prevent the grant being watered down year after year, and we are holding out the wonderful idea to the noble Lord and to the Treasury officials somewhere in the background that that generosity might continue.
LORD ADDINGTON: May I say a word in support of the noble Lord who has just spoken? It is the case that many local authorities are being very hardly hit by these changes of grant, because the Government are taking away all the grants formerly paid as a proportion of their whole expenditure, so that the expenditure left after the changes effected by this Bill is going to be greater. In respect of those rates they will get no grant at all from the Government. Apart from the changes resulting from the Bill, a great deal of other expenditure will continue to rise and rates are already going up far beyond what is contemplated in
646
the White Paper. It is only an act of justice that local authorities should be better off to the extent of 6d. in the £ owing to the Government's generosity in this matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am bound to say that I did not expect the noble Lord to give much of an answer, because, of course, there is no answer. He whom. I may describe as a modern Rupert of debate, the Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan), says that there is no argument at all over the transitional grant. I feel it is rather a pity. The noble Lord called it a cushion. I would call it mere eye-wash. But I am not going to press my point and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to II agreed to.
Clause 12 [Continuation of third fixed grant period for certain purposes]:
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment is purely drafting. The word "enactment" is used throughout the subsection, except in this one place, and it ought to be used here too. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, leave oat ("provision") and insert ("enactment").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Meaning of "standard rateable value."
19.—(1) The standard rateable value for a county or large burgh for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act is the amount which bears to the weighted population of that county or large burgh for the year in question the same proportion as the sum which is to be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) of Section three, of this Act as the rateable value for England and Wales for that year increased by twenty-five per cent. bears to the aggregate of the weighted populations of all the counties and county boroughs in England and Wales for that year within the meaning of the said Section three.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The Secretary of State may by order vary the percentage specified in subsection (1) of this section as he may think fit.

647
(3) An order under the last preceding subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Secretary of State.
(4) Before any order is made under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and the order shall not be made until approved by resolution of each House."
The noble Earl said: In the course of the Second Reading I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to make proposals about Clause 19, and I am going to do so, because the noble Lord is aware that the Secretary of State gave a pledge that he would examine any hardship which might arise under the effects of Clause 19 with a view to putting it right. The first question I want to ask the noble Lord is this. As the Bill stands at present, how can he take any action to put it right, in the event of it being proved to his satisfaction that the arrangement between Part I and Part II is unsatisfactory? I would like the noble Lord to answer that, because I do not see any means by which that can be put right.
This Amendment allows the Secretary of State to adjust in some way the percentage between Part I and Part II; that is to say, it allows the percentage of 25 per cent. to be decreased if it is thought right to do so. I have given some examples why that should be done. I do not propose to repeat many of them, but there are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, gave me some interesting points in the course of his remarks. The whole of Clause 19 is based on a formula which was adopted in 1919. The basis of its continuance to-day is a formula which has been used on a number of different occasions; that is one argument which could be advanced. But the words which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, used are particularly appropriate, because he referred to another formula, and said that that formula was different in character and used in a different way. That is precisely what I am saying. The formula which is being used here was used in an entirely different way on a former occasion, and is of a different character.
I want to bring on point to the attention of the noble Lord, and it is this. When the formula was drawn up in 1919 it probably contained two elements—reflecting the difference between the methods of rating in England and Scot
648
land.It contained, first, the statutory deductions reducing gross annual value to rateable annual value; it contained, secondly, owners' rates—on which rates are necessarily levied in Scotland. The noble Lord is probably aware that since 1919 owners' rates have risen, on average, from 4s. 4d. to 6s. 11d. in the £. I suggest that as a mathematical formula, the difference between those two figures, which is of the order of 60 per cent. may be taken as a proper degree by which the 25 per cent. can be increased. There is at the present time quite a large measure of discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has spoken of the problem as "need." I would ask the noble Lord whether he can justify this. Clydebank is probably one of the places which, more than any other, has suffered in the last thirty years. There is probably no place where it can be said that such need exists to-day, and has existed over the last thirty years. Can the noble Lord explain why it is that the grant to Pembroke is 200 per cent. more than that to Clydebank—unless it is that there is something basically wrong with the mathematics which adjust the relationship between these two parts? I ask the noble Lord that, because I think it is of considerable importance.
I would further emphasise that there are certain areas of this country to-day which are designated as development areas—areas which the Government are particularly anxious to see redeveloped. One of those development areas is the Clyde, and a large percentage of the population—more than half—is excluded from any form of benefit under the Local Government Bill. These are merely aspects of the same problem. I submit to the noble Lord that there is a case here which requires answering, and which has not been answered. I have given facts which justify a percentage of 50 per cent.; I have given facts which justify a percentage of 60 per cent., and an even greater percentage. But not one word has been said from the Government Front Bench which would justify the percentage of 25 per cent. stated in the Bill. The only justification is a formula drawn from 1919, which quite clearly does not apply to-day in the form it did then. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I rather thought, when I invited the noble Earl to make some suggestions to improve Scottish rating, that I was letting myself in for some trouble. Knowing the noble Earl as I do, I might have known that he would promptly accept my invitation. He has done so, and his effort is very creditable. At the same time, although it is generally admitted throughout Scotland that the rating system in Scotland is in a dreadful state, and no one has a kind word to say for it, I am a little at a loss to know why nobody has done anything about it for the past twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. I suggested in my Second Reading speech that the reason for that was that nobody knew what to do. In his Second Reading speech the noble Earl mentioned some figures, and he referred again to-day to anomalies which arise. But if you go into this matter closely you will find that figures can be produced to prove almost anything in the rating system in Scotland. You compare two, and you get one result; you compare another two, and you have an entirely different result. It reminds me of the old soldier who used to stand outside Waterloo station with a card on his chest which read "Kind friends have pity on me. I am an old soldier—battles six, children five, wounds four, total fifteen."
If there were time, I could give figures which would tend towards a rather different conclusion from that arrived at by the noble Earl. The question of whether the addition of 25 per cent. provided for in the Bill is adequate was fully discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, and was also raised during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. As I then indicated, it has recently been the subject of consultation with the associations of local authorities in Scotland, who have agreed for the present not to press their view that the figure should be higher. The figure of 25 per cent. specified in the Bill is based on precedents of long standing. It is admittedly a conventional figure, and it is not claimed that its use gives an average identical with that which would result if Scottish property were valued and rated under the English system, and a Great Britain average were then struck. That would be the logical course. But no one can say what would be the rateable values in Scotland if the English system of rating
650
and valuation were in force. The Government feel that if further inquiry into the matter is required (and I feel that further inquiry is necessary) it should be deferred until the new English system of valuation is in operation. Such an inquiry is possible, and if necessary will be carried out under Clause 30 of the Bill, in consultation with the local authorities. The results of the inquiry must be laid before Parliament; and if these justify an amendment of the present financial provisions of the Bill, it will be for the Government of the day to submit amending legislation to Parliament.
My final point in answer to the noble Earl—and he knows this well—is that such an alteration as he suggests would either increase or decrease the charge on the Exchequer; and such an alteration in the Exchequer's liability under the Bill could hardly be made by ministerial Order. I do not think the noble Earl would wish to do that, having regard to the attitude which his Party take up over the Government's power under a ministerial Order to do drastic things. I do not hope to convince the noble Earl, but in the light of the importance of the last point I hope that he may see fit not to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I started by asking the noble Lord one question, and he has not answered that question at all. I asked how the Secretary of State could fulfil the pledge that he has given. The noble Lord referred to Clause 30. That clause does not come into play until 1952; that is specifically laid down. This means that a pledge given in 1948 cannot satisfactorily be fulfilled until 1952. Am I to understand that that is so, because if that is correct I think it is highly unsatisfactory?
LORD MORRISON: What I endeavoured to convey to the noble Earl was that, in my judgment and in the opinion of the Government, further inquiry, likely to achieve reasonable results, cannot very well be held until the new English system of valuation is in operation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: So the Government are quite content to continue for four years with an entirely unjust system until they get something cleared up in another country. Is that right?
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Earl's Party were quite content to let it continue for twenty-eight years. It is a case of the pot and the kettle. May I say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an earlier inquiry? The Bill, as I understand it, says that there must be an inquiry in 1952, but the Bill does not say that the inquiry may not be held earlier.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the Bill says there must be an inquiry. It says that an investigation may be made if it is considered desirable. I must press this point. The noble Lord said that he had not time to give us figures. It is very strange that there is no time here to give any figures. There was no opportunity in the Scottish Grand Committee to give any figures. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that there are no figures which the noble Lord can give, and that this has been entered into without any figures to justify the proposition. As the noble Lord knows, the local authorities have accepted this proposition, and it has caused great disappointment that a more satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached. May I put one point to the noble Lord? He said: "Figures can prove anything." That may be so, but under this arrangement, after the passing of this Bill the local rates in Glasgow—agreeing the 25 per cent. allowance—will be higher than they were in Birmingham before the hospitals were taken over, before the Poor Law was taken over and before anything happened. Am I to suppose that the municipal enterprise in Birmingham was so slow, so sluggish and so indifferent that the ratepayers did not wish to spend any money on developments? Am I to suppose that Glasgow is spending so much more than Birmingham? That is hardly likely. There is a case for the noble Lord to answer, and I feel that he should make at least some presentation of the figures which he says he can bring forward. Admittedly I have drafted this Amendment very widely, and with great flexibility, but I see no particular difficulty in accepting this or some other Amendment which would enable improvement to take place. Is the noble Lord able to answer those questions?
LORD MORRISON: I can endeavour to. This is developing into an argument,
652
and it is the sort of thing I like. Either the noble Lord or myself is mistaken. My information is that the local authorities in Scotland, through their association, have agreed not to press the point. With regard to my failure to supply any figures, for reasons which I attempted humorously to give, I always try to avoid figures, because my long experience in another place has made me sceptical of people who always build up their case on figures. I suggest to the noble Earl that all that can be done is to apply some rough test to ascertain whether or not the conventional figure of 25 per cent. is broadly equitable. The present English average per head of weighted population is 6.094. The actual Scottish average is 6.585, which is 8 per cent. higher. The 25 per cent., therefore, gives a Scottish figure substantially better than the actual Scottish average, which is the only figure definitely ascertainable. Further, the average rate levied in Scotland in 1946–47 was 13s. 7d., and the average rate in England for the same year was 15s. 5d. The Scottish average rate in that year, therefore, was 88 per cent. of the English. If Scottish valuations were 25 per cent. above the English, the average rate might be expected to be about 80 per cent. of the English rate. If the Scottish valuations were more than 25 per cent. above the English, the average rate might be expected to be lower than 80 per cent. of the English rate. The figure of 25 per cent., therefore, does not suggest any over-all unfairness to Scotland. As the noble Earl has already said, and as I admit, if one compares a place in Scotland and a place in England one may find these disparities; but so far as the figure of 25 per cent. is concerned, it does not suggest any over-all unfairness to Scotland. I hope that these figures may be of assistance to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am disappointed that the noble Lord is not able to answer more satisfactorily. The figures I have before me make it quite clear that if a comparison is made between England (without London) and Scotland, the rates levied per head of the population are heavier in Scotland than in the rest of England and Wales. In the circumstances, I will not press the point. I am sorry the noble Lord has not been able to meet this

653
difficulty, and I am sorry that the pledge of the Secretary of State will go unfulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 19 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Payments to small burghs and landward areas]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("county council"), and insert ("council of the county").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Continuation of third fixed grant period for certain purposes]:
LORD MORRISON: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 32, leave out ("provision"), and insert ("enactment").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 30:
Investigation into working of provisions as to amount of payments to local authorities under Part II.
30.—(1) In the year 1952–53, or such later year not later than 1955–56 as the Secretary of State may determine, and every fifth subsequent year, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, cause investigations to be made into the working of this Part of this Act (due regard being had, amongst other things, to the sums falling to be paid to local authorities under Part V of this Act).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that if having regard to any representations made to him by any local authority or association or associations of local authorities the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is expedient that an investigation should be made into the working of this Part of this Act prior to the year 1952–53 the Secretary of State shall cause such earlier investigation to be made and the provisions of this section shall apply with respect thereto."
654
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this Amendment in lieu of the absence of direct possibility of investigation before the year 1952, the point to which I made reference earlier.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: My information is that this Amendment is unnecessary and, as I said a moment ago with respect to a previous Amendment, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this review taking place earlier than the date mentioned in the Bill. If, however, the noble Earl thinks there is any doubt as to whether or not this is absolutely necessary, I am quite willing to look at it again between now and the Report stage, on the understanding that if it is found necessary to put it in the Bill it applies to Scotland and not to England and Wales.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Why not?
LORD MORRISON: Because England and Wales can fight their own battles!
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On the understanding that the noble Lord will look at this matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Supplemental provisions as to Part II]:
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 30, at end insert:
"(4) In this Part of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression 'county' means a county inclusive of any small burgh situate therein; and the expressions 'county' and 'county council' mean in relation to counties combined for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one hundred and eighteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, the combined county and the joint county council."—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Draft Lists.
35.—(i) Where a new valuation list is to be made for a rating area, the valuation officer shall—

(a) prepare a draft valuation list;

(b) when the draft is completed, transmit a copy thereof to the rating authority;

(c) forthwith publish in the prescribed manner notice that the draft has been completed;

(d) where there is included in the draft as completed some hereditament not previously assessed, send, within the seven days following that of the completion of the draft, to the occupier of that hereditament a notice of the gross, net annual and rateable values of the hereditament inserted in the draft list.

VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "a copy thereof." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a small point but one which will be of some consequence to the convenience of the agricultural population, who are not an unimportant section of our people to-day. The clause provides for the display of the valuation list at the rating offices, and that display is to take place during office hours. It may be argued that in a big area it is reasonable to ask people to go perhaps half-a-mile to look at the list in the rating office; but when, as happens in scattered rural areas, ratepayers live anything up to fifteen miles away from the rating offices it is a hardship for such people and particularly for wage earners, to have to go and inspect these lists during office hours.
The suggestion I am making is simply that a rural district council should have the right to ask for two copies of the list, or even more, instead of one. These could be supplied and sent at their discretion to the clerk of the parish council, or displayed in a Church, or post office, as is done, I think, with voters' lists. I am aware that the valuation list is a considerable-sized document, but the valuations will not take place very often. The ordinary citizen is continually being called upon to fill in elaborate forms, some in duplicate or triplicate, and there would seem to be a certain poetic justice in asking that the process should be reversed for once, and that the bureaucratic machine should occasionally have to do something rather troublesome in order to suit the convenience of the citizen. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("a copy thereof").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD HENDERSON: I fully appreciate the point which the noble Viscount has in mind, but the effect of his Amendment would be to require valuation officers to send as many copies of the draft list to a rating authority as the rating authority require, instead of having to send only one copy. That would be an unreasonable burden on the valuation officer. It may well be that if the rating authority want two or three copies the valuation officer will be able to supply them by arrangement, and I am sure that steps would be taken to ensure that that is done. I suggest, however, that it would be unreasonable to make it obligatory upon the valuation officer to produce perhaps a large number of copies of a complicated document such as this. I think my reply goes some way to meet what the noble Viscount has in mind, and in those circumstances I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that we are inclined to look at these matters too much from the point of view of the convenience of the central Department. What we need to do is sometimes to consider the convenience of the ratepayer, up and down the country. Here is a provision that there shall be only one copy of the draft valuation list sent from the central office. Does that mean that there will be only one copy in a rating area? It is not easy nowadays to get about the country; even those who used to be able to go in their car to see the lists and find out what their assessment was have lost their basic ration of petrol and cannot use the car for that purpose. I think something more ought to be done than the noble Lord has just suggested.
LORD HENDERSON: What I said was that there would be no difficulty and that the necessary steps would be taken. I venture to suggest that it is not necessary to make it obligatory. It is a question of administration, and one can be sure that in the regulations or by whatever method is necessary, such steps will be taken as will indicate that the Minister appreciates the importance of the point made both by the noble Viscount, and by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. There is no desire to ignore the convenience of ratepayers. Indeed, the convenience of ratepayers will be consulted so far as is possible. But it

657
is not necessary, I suggest, to impose by Statute upon the valuation officer the obligation to provide as many copies of the draft list as may be required. The Statute calls upon the valuation officer to provide a draft list, and surely the matter could be left between the valuation officer and the rating authority, with the benevolent support of the Ministry of Health.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord says that it is provided in the Bill that there shall be one copy: that there is something in the Statute already—one copy. We are saying that one copy is not enough and the noble Lord agrees with us that in a large number of cases one copy may not be enough. The Amendment put down by my noble friend asks for as many copies as may be required by the local authority. That, of course, may be going a little too far, because it may put into the hands of a somewhat cantankerous local authority the power to demand 100 copies, or something of that sort. Nobody wants that. But there must be a middle way. We might say, for instance:
"Such a reasonable number of copies as are necessary for proper exhibition in the area of a rating authority."
If the noble Lord can meet us on another Amendment which will be considered later on, this Amendment can perhaps be left. The Amendment which is to be moved later is to the effect that every ratepayer who has his assessment altered should be given notice of the alteration. The noble Lord nods his head. I want this matter considered from the point of view of the convenience of the subject. At present you are saying that a ratepayer must, if necessary, go miles to see this list—and he has only twenty-one days in which to appeal. There will be a queue for inspecting the new rating lists. It is monstrous that in these days, with this central power and authority, everything must be done for the convenience of officials and nothing for the convenience of the subject. That is what we are suffering from all the time with these measures.
I do not know what line the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will wish to take, but I should have thought that on this Amendment we should see whether we are to have some concession on this point; it is an important one to the ordinary man. It may not sound so important to officials in Whitehall, but it is an
658
important practical point in the provinces. We should see that, at any rate, we receive an undertaking from the Government that, if they do not like "as many as may be required," they will favourably consider—not with any promise but with an eye to doing something—an Amendment by which a local authority may be able to obtain from this valuation officer as many copies as may be reasonable for the area in which they live. That is the suggestion I have to make. I hope it is a suggestion which the noble Lord opposite may be able to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask the noble Lord: what is the object of having only one copy, as laid down in the Bill? Surely a rating authority represents not itself but the ratepayers, and the ratepayers represent the public. They are entitled to knowledge as well as anybody else. Ratepayers are reasonable people. The ratepayer has the right to know why and how he is rated; therefore, one copy is absolutely insufficient. If we leave it at "a," we may depend that that word "a" will be interpreted by officials as meaning one only; and that is quite wrong. Can the noble Lord tell us why he objects to "a certain number" or "a number" being substituted for "one"?
LORD HENDERSON: If I may say so with great respect, there is little difference between us. The noble Lord's Amendment would leave the number open. The suggestion by my noble friend opposite is that there should be "a reasonable number," but "a reasonable number" can be interpreted in different ways. The only difference between us is whether we put on the face of the Bill either "a particular number" or another phrase the object of which, because of what I have already said, will in fact be provided.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but what we have on the face of the Bill is a particular number, which is "one."
LORD HENDERSON: I quite agree, but the noble Lord wants to widen it in order to provide "as many copies as may be reasonable." That is the difference between us—whether it is done actually by putting it in the Bill or by arrange-.

659
ment That is the sole difference. However, I want to be reasonable. I am willing to act upon the noble Lord's suggestion that we should look at this point again.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The noble Lord's proposition is that this clause shall stand as it is, but he hopes, at the next stage of the Bill, to produce an Amendment which will meet this point of the reasonable requirements of the local authority. I fully concur in what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said. We do not want to go too far, but we think that the Government are not going quite far enough. If there is that undertaking, then I shall ask to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HENDERSON: What I have undertaken is to have the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, considered by the Minister and dealt with according to whatever decision may be arrived at. My undertaking is without prejudice to either the noble Viscount or myself.
VISCOUNT GAGE: On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that in the case of the first valuation lists made after the passing of this Act the valuation officer shall, within seven days following that of the completion of the draft of such list, send to the occupier of each hereditament included in the list a notice of the gross net annual and rateable values of the hereditament inserted in the draft list."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of some importance. I am seeking to ensure that, after the first valuation lists have been completed, the valuation officer shall send to the occupier of each hereditament which is included in the list a notice of the new assessment at which his house has been assessed. Under the whole scheme of the Bill, the basis of the valuation of dwelling-houses—and this is agreed amongst us all—is entirely new. Everyone will start, as it were, from scratch. There has been no revaluation list made since 1934—that is to say, during the past fourteen years. It is generally agreed—and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would dispute it—that the first new valuation list to be made
660
under this Bill will contain alterations in the valuation of practically every single hereditament there is, and particularly in regard to the revaluation of small dwelling-houses.
At the present time, Clause 35 is drafted in such a way that within twenty-one days after the draft has been received, anybody during ordinary business hours can go to the offices of the rating authority and inspect the draft to see whether or not any new valuation has been made for his particular hereditament. In my Amendment, I say that in the case of the first valuation list made under this new scheme the rating officer shall send to the owner of every hereditament a statement setting out the assessment on his particular house. I think that it is wrong to leave the owner in a complete state of uncertainty, unless he goes to the offices of the rating authority, as to whether there has been an addition—and a considerable addition—to the assessment of his house. I believe that, as this is an entirely new system of valuation, the owner should receive information of whether or not his hereditament has been increased. In many cases and in many counties throughout the length and breadth of England, the offices of the rating authority may be many miles distant from the particular hereditament.
What the Bill is asking is that in many cases the owner of the house should proceed up to ten, and possibly twenty, miles to the offices of the rating authority for the purpose of finding out whether the valuation on his house has been increased. It is an unutterable waste of time and it will cause unending delay. The owner has to arrive at the office at a particular hour. If he is too late he will be unable to see it. He may have to queue up for a long time when he does get there. There are endless complications that your Lordships can see, without my referring to them any further. All I seek—and I think it is a reasonable Amendment—is that, in the case of the first valuation made under this Act, the valuation officer shall give the owner of the hereditament (that is to say, the house), information as to the valuation which has been placed upon that property as a result of the passing of this Bill. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
5.1 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid that I shall not be able to respond to the suggestion which the noble Earl made at the end of his remarks. His Amendment would require the valuation officer to send individual notices of the value assessed to the occupier of each hereditament in his area. This would involve a great deal of work, which means manpower, the vast bulk of which would be unnecessary. I can assure the noble Lord that in saying that I am not speaking out of any lack of consideration for the subject. The Minister considered this matter very carefully after the discussion in Committee in another place, but remained of the view that it would be unnecessary and wasteful. Notice of the existence of the new list will be published locally, and anyone sufficiently interested will be able to see his assessment. An increased assessment will not necessarily mean increased rates because, if everyone's assessment went up proportionately, the amount paid in rates would be the same. What most ratepayers are interested in is the amount of money they will have to pay, and it will not be until their first rate demand note, based on the new list, that they will see how they stand. If anyone missed his opportunity of objecting to his assessment on the draft list, it would be open to him to make a proposal for a reduction when he received his first rate demand, and the effect of this, if accepted, would date back to the beginning of the rate period. The owner, therefore, will be no worse off because he has not received individual notice; his right is fully protected. It is surely not worth using man-power and materials in circulating individual notices to everybody, merely to meet the case of a few people who might have objected to the draft list if they had had individual notice, but who for some reason or other were not able to see the deposited list. After all, that would involve many millions of notices. I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Why is it that England and Wales are treated worse than Scotland? I am told that in every
662
single case in Scotland, where a new assessment is made, the occupier, or the person who has to pay the rates, is always circularised as a matter of course and told what the assessment is. It may not need quite as much man-power to deal with these assessment notices north of the Tweed, but the argument of the noble Lord, if applied properly, would cause that facility, which works extremely well in Scotland, to cease. That is the first point. If he consults the officials from the Scottish Office in the box (perhaps they have all left since we finished that part of the Bill), I think he will find that I am accurate in what I say. The second point I would ask the noble Lord about is, where in this Bill is there a right of appeal against an assessment, even though it is not made within the twenty-one days laid down in the appeal clause? If there is this right of appeal, I should like to know exactly where that provision comes in this Bill. I may have missed it. It will obviously make all the difference to us if we can see that that is in the Bill, and not, if I may so put it, just in the draft.
LORD HENDERSON: I think I am right in saying that it is in Clause 40. May I read it to the noble Lord? It says:
"Any person who is aggrieved…may at any time make a proposal."
LORD LLEWELLIN: A proposal is rather different from an appeal, is it not?
LORD HENDERSON: It says there that the person:
"may at any time make a proposal for the alteration of the list so far as it relates to that hereditament."
—that is, his hereditament. That is on Page 26.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. The normal way, of course, is to have an objection to the draft list under Clause 36. If the noble Lord assures me that they can appeal at any time, without the limitation contained in Clause 36, where it has to be done within twenty-five days, then I can see no reason for having the twenty-five days mentioned in Clause 36. I thought that the old method was that on receiving your rate demand you could object and appeal only against the making of the rate, and not against the assessment of your particular hereditament. That.

663
I believe, was the old law; if this is altering it, well and good.
LORD HENDERSON: I am not sufficiently familiar with this to be able to answer the noble Lord's last question, but he will realise that Clause 36 deals with objections to draft lists, and Clause 40 provides the safeguard for a person who is aggrieved in respect of proposals to alterations in the list. As I say, if the person misses his chance on the draft list he does not lose it altogether; it is safeguarded for him in respect of the valuation list later on. That, I believe, was the central point that the noble Lord made. He asked me about the difference in treatment as regards this country and Scotland. I can only say that I am sorry there are not more Scottish noble Lords present to realise that Scotland is better treated in some respects than this country. Our difficulty is to convince Scottish noble Lords that that is so! If it is done satisfactorily in Scotland, let us leave it alone. But here we are dealing with this problem as it affects England and Wales. The real difficulty in sending out individual notices for England and Wales, as noble Lords doubtless appreciate, is that it would involve a big problem of administration and manpower. I hope that in view of the replies I have given the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I fully appreciate that what the noble Lord says makes the position appear different from what we understood it to be originally, and I am grateful to him for his explanation. It still seems to me, however, that it is a pity that there is no means of letting people know at an earlier date. After all, it would be possible (but I hope that no advantage would be taken of it) for the local authority to say: "You made no objection when the draft list was first drawn up, and now you only 'weigh in' at a late stage." That might to a certain extent prejudice a man's position. In any case, I would have thought it desirable that the matter should be brought to the notice of an owner of a hereditament at as early a date as practicable.
I have a compromise to suggest, with regard to which no doubt it would be difficult for the noble Lord to give a
664
definite ruling now. Would it not be possible to have the list pinned up, say, on the door of the parish Church in each parish, or at some other public place in the locality? To do that would not involve a great amount of labour or expenditure of man-power, which, I agree, is something that should certainly be avoided if possible at the present time. If that could be done I feel sure that it would be a great advantage to those affected. The sooner an owner has the opportunity of going to some local place and seeing what the valuation is, and so on, the better. If he did not take advantage of such an arrangement as I have suggested he would have no great cause for complaint. I put that forward merely as a suggestion. I am sure the Government will agree that the sooner these facts can be brought to the notice of owners, the better. If some modification of that kind could be introduced, I feel that it would be of advantage to all concerned.
LORD HENDERSON: May I assure the noble Marquess that under the Bill a ratepayer cannot be deprived of his right of appeal; he would not be prejudiced in any way. With regard to his second point, if I may respectfully say so, it relates to a different matter from that which has been raised on this particular clause. I am not sure if the noble Marquess was present, but a short time ago we agreed to take back and consider a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. The question of posting up lists or such portion of lists as apply to a particular area is again a matter of administration and of local arrangement. So far as I am aware, there is no reason why it should not be done. If the noble Marquess will leave that point over, I will see that it is considered at the same time that we look at the suggestion which was made by Lord Llewellin on the preceding clause.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I understand that the noble Lord will examine this question between now and the next stage of this Bill.
LORD HENDERSON: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I say that I think it can be done. Now all I want to make sure of is that, in fact, it will be done by one method or another.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Objections to draft lists.
36.—(1) Any person who is aggrieved—

(a) by the inclusion of any hereditament in the draft list; or

(b) by any value ascribed in the draft list to, I hereditament or by any other statement made or omitted to be made in the draft list with respect to a hereditament; or

(c) in the case of a building or portion of a building occupied in parts, by the valuation in the list of that building or portion of a building as a single hereditament,

may, at any time before the expiration of twenty-five days from the date of the publication of notice of the completion of the draft list, serve on the valuation officer notice of objection to the draft list so far as it relates to that hereditament.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "hereditament" where that word first occurs to insert "or by the incorrectness or unfairness of any matter in the draft list." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one which, although of some importance, can, I think, be described to your Lordships in a few words. My object is to bring the right of objection under the new law—that is to say, the law contained in this Bill—into line with that which exists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. I am not quite clear why the Government have thought it necessary to alter the objections which existed under the old Act; and I wish to bring those objections into line with this Bill. As I understand the clause as it stands at the moment, it means that if there is an objection or an appeal against an assessment it cannot be made on the ground that comparable hereditaments are assessed at a lower figure than the aggrieved person's hereditament. The only redress for which provision is made in the whole of this Bill is by way of a procedure which will, in fact, increase the assessment of other hereditaments in the same street as the hereditament belonging to the objector. If any ratepayer did that, it would not increase his popularity with his neighbours! All I seek to do is to put into the Bill what is in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and to ensure that the reasons for objection laid down in that Act can, in point of fact, be
666
employed under this measure as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, at end insert ("or by the incorrectness or unfairness of any matter in the draft list").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: The aim of this Amendment is to enable anyone to object against his assessment, not because it is wrong but because it is "unfair" as compared with someone else's. These words appear in Section 26 of the 1925 Act—the corresponding provision dealing with objections to draft lists under the existing machinery. I would point out that it has been held by the courts in the case of Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd. v. West Middlesex Assessment Committee, that these words do not, in fact, have this effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My words?
LORD HENDERSON: Yes. The only valid ground for objection against an assessment is that there is something wrong with it, and if someone is aggrieved because his neighbours property is valued, as he thinks, too low, then, if his own property is valued properly, his only remedy is to enter objection in respect of his neighbour's property on the ground that the assessment should be raised. This the clause as drafted would enable him to do. The noble Lord said that if a man's house in a row was more highly rated than a neighbour's, he could get that dealt with only by bringing into consideration the assessment of his neighbour's house. I agree. But the noble Earl in his Amendment uses the word "unfairness." I do not see how "unfairness" can be proved except in comparison with something else. The noble Earl apprehends trouble arising. I think it would inevitably arise if his Amendment were adopted. I do not think his Amendment would add anything to the clause, or improve it, or make it less easy, or more easy, for people to get their problems resolved.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I put this point to the noble Lord? Do I understand that if there are six houses in a row, and one house (my house, we will say) is assessed at £40 while the others are assessed at £25 each, then if, as the man whose house is assessed at the higher figure, I desire to appeal against it, I cannot appeal on the ground that comparable hereditaments in the same street

667
are assessed on a lower basis? What I have to do is to make my appeal on the ground that the other five houses in the street should, in fact, be assessed at the same level as mine—namely, £40. Is that correct?
LORD HENDERSON: I think that if the noble Earl were dissatisfied he would make his appeal on the ground that he had not been fairly assessed, and get his decision on that. In his own Amendment he says: "on the grounds of unfairness." I should have thought that the only way to appeal on grounds of "unfairness" would be by comparison with something else, and, in the circumstances which he has described, that comparison, I suggest, would be the assessment of other houses in the street. Although he uses that fact as an objection to the clause as it stands, it seems to me inevitable in the noble Earl's own Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I used to deal with a number of rating cases and it was the custom to take assessments which were most favourable from the point of view of one's own case to show how much lower other similar houses were assessed. Very likely the rating officer would then give many instances where they were higher. It was on those comparisons that the case was argued. I always understood that comparison depended on the words, long known in rating law, that a man who is aggrieved ought to be able to say that his assessment is unfair because that of a house two doors away is only half as great. I doubt whether he will be able to do that under the words at present in the Bill. All he can do now is to say he is aggrieved
"by any value ascribed in the draft list to a hereditament or by any other statement made or omitted to be made in the draft list…"
All he can say now is, "I am aggrieved at the value put on my hereditament."
A large number of cases hitherto have relied on the word "unfairness." Can a man still use that argument? Before taking out words which have been long in rating law one has to be careful to see exactly what effect the court will think that action has. Perhaps the Court of Appeal or this House, sitting on a rating appeal, may say that this comparison is now no longer proper and that the
668
County Court Judge was quite right in ruling out evidence on comparison, because that hung on the question of whether the assessment was "unfair," and the word "unfairness" must have been taken out by Parliament for some reason, which was that they did not want that comparison made in future. I can well see a Court taking that decision if these words are taken out. For that reason we suggest reinstating those words. I see no harm whatever in doing that. If we mean to continue the practice of making comparisons there is no earthly-harm in putting in the words the noble Earl has suggested. If we were trying to exclude that kind of comparison, the words should be kept out, but I understand that the Government are not trying to exclude it. Let us make the case certain, and do not let us have a Court saying that Parliament altered these words and, by altering them, meant to cut out the comparison which every aggrieved ratepayer thinks he should be allowed to make.
LORD HENDERSON: It is a little tricky but, as I understand it, the reason why the old provision is not included is because of a legal decision that the words do not apply in the way they were thought to apply. I am being very careful, because I am no expert on valuation, but I do try to understand it in a practical way. Let me suggest to the noble Lord what I think would be the procedure in such a case as he has raised. If a house is rated at a higher value than other similar houses, the occupier will lodge his objection to the local valuer and will certainly say, "You have assessed me at £40 and the other houses at £25. I think there must be a mistake somewhere." I imagine that the valuation officer, unless there were some particular reason which would justify the difference, would be able to see that there had been a mistake. That meets the point the noble Lord has made. I insist, with due respect and with a certain amount of hesitation, I admit, that the noble Earl's Amendment would not avoid the one difficulty which he says would in fact arise under the clause as it stands.
LORD AMMON: AS Chairman of my Assessment Appeals Committee for many years, may I venture to say that the Bill leaves wholly untouched the position as it is at the

669
present time? The present position, as my noble friend has said, is that if you appeal on the ground's that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, raised just now—that your house is assessed at £40 as compared with £30 for a similar house—you have the right to ask that your assessment should he reduced. I am advised that that right is unimpaired by the words we have in the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I hope the noble Lord is right in saying that: it is unimpaired. The whole point is that we are deliberately altering words on which rating appeals have been tried for a very large number of years, even before the Act of 1925. Right back into last century those words have been in rating law. We are all agreed that we want the practice to continue, and the point I am making is that if we want it to continue, why should we change the words? If we want it to remain, we ought to carry on the same words.
LORD AMMON: It is clone simply because they are unnecessary. The whole thing is here. I can assure the noble Lord that he need have no dubiety whatever. I have talked the matter over with those who have worked on these things for a very long time.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am not reassured and I am frankly still a little uncertain. In view of the assurance the noble Lord gives, however, I will withdraw my Amendment now and consider the matter afresh. The provision of Section 26 of the Rating Valuation Act 1925 is not reinserted in this Bill anywhere. All I fear is that if that provision is not reinserted, a man will not be able to appeal on the ground that his assessment is unfair, and he will not be able to take into account the assessment of houses in the same street.
LORD AMMON: Subsections (a) and (b) ensure that he can.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If that is their intention, the need for my Amendment does not arise. I would like to look at this again between now and the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (1), to delete "publication of
670
notice of the completion of the draft list" and insert:
"issue to him of the demand note on which the rate is levied in respect of the first rating period to which the valuation list applies.'
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I am suggesting that the twenty-five days allowed for appeal are to date from the issue of the demand note. At least, the period should not commence before. I felt at the back of my mind that the noble Lord might not agree to circulate the new assessments to every ratepayer, so I put down this simple Amendment. Even if you are not going to send the ratepayer a notice of assessment, you are certainly going to send him a rate demand note. Nobody is going to say it is too much labour to send those things out. Too much hangs on that, anyway. No local authority or any Government Department will say they will not send out income tax notices or rate demand notes, however many persons they have to be sent to. No question of the use of man-power then comes in! Everybody will get his demand note, so why should he not have his normal right of appeal twenty-five days after he gets the first notification? This proposal affords quite a simple way out, and does not involve using any more man-power. The ratepayer, on receiving the demand note, may then appeal against the draft list, or the small part of it to which he objects, and his appeal can go through the normal procedure. My Amendment provides the noble Lord with a handsome way out, if only he will take it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 44, leave cut from the second ("the") to ("serve") in line 1 on page 23, and insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment seeks to extend the period during which objection may be made against the draft list to a date twenty-five days after the issue of the first demand notes based on the final list. This is clearly not a practicable procedure, for the draft list has to be cleared out of the way before the final list can be settled; and the rates cannot be made until that has been done. But the intention of the Amendment is met by machinery later in the Bill. If the noble Lord will turn to Clause 40 he will find that anyone on receiving his first demand note is enabled to make a

671
"proposal" for a reduction in his assessment. There is no time limit. If the proposal is accepted, or upheld on appeal, the reduction will date back for rating purposes to the beginning of the rate period.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that is probably right and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
Clause 41:
Proceedings on proposals.
(6) Where notice of objection is made and is not unconditionally withdrawn—

(a) the person making the proposal may, by notice of appeal served within the time and on the persons hereinafter mentioned, appeal against the objection to a local valuation court; and

LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment is linked with the next, and both are of a drafting character. Subsection (3), which is being amended, deals with the time limit for lodging notice of objection to a proposal of which notice has been given under subsection (2). The Amendments proposed get rid of some complicated drafting which is not required, and leave a simpler provision which directly fits the provisions of subsection (2) (a) and (b) as to the service of notice of the proposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line, 3 leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 4.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 5, leave out ("not being such an") and insert ("where they are not the").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "unconditionally." The noble Viscount said: This is an unobtrusive little Amendment designed simply to save trouble. The sort of position I contemplate is that there might be a proposal
672
to increase a man's assessment for rates from £150 to £200, and a compromise of £175 might be arrived at between the valuation officer and the ratepayer. There might be no objection to it from anybody, but it has to go through this elaborate process of appeal. I am wondering why that should be necessary in every case, and whether time and trouble would not be saved if the word "unconditionally" were left out.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("unconditionally").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD HENDERSON: On the illustration used by the noble Viscount, I am assured that it will make no difference at all, and will not prevent being done what he has in mind. There is a previous reference to "unconditionally withdrawn," which the noble Viscount's Amendment does not touch. And since the noble Viscount does not propose to amend the first reference, it seems undesirable to have two provisions drawn up in different words. I am advised, on the merits of the use of the word "unconditionally" in both places, that it seems right to make it clear that the objector must be fully satisfied, after further consideration, with what is proposed. Having given the noble Viscount the assurance that it will not interfere with the sort of agreement he has in mind, I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I thought that by my Amendment it would be possible to take some of these cases out of the tribunal's province altogether, and thus save time. But if that is not the effect, and if, erroneously, this has not been connected with the previous use of this phrase, then it is right that I should consider this matter again. It is not a matter about which I feel strongly, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, without prejudice, and to reconsider it again.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the Amendment, may I just say this? I do not know what effect this word "unconditionally" has. Either the notice is withdrawn, or it is not. A notice of objection is made, and if it is not withdrawn the procedure must go forward. I am not suggesting that a man shall say: "If you give me a drink

673
I will withdraw it," or something of that sort, which seems to be the only way in which the word "unconditionally" might come in. What we thought was that the notice of objection might be withdrawn, in certain conditions. For instance, having talked it over with the valuation officer, who says: "I have made a mistake. You are quite right," the man may say: "If you put it right, I will withdraw the notice." So far as I can see, the man cannot now do that because of the word "unconditionally," although it may be a reasonable thing which any of us would do. He goes to the valuation officer, who tells him: "You say £50 is too high, and I think you may be right. I will make it £40."The man then says: "If you make it £40, I will withdraw my objection."
LORD HENDERSON: I appreciate the point that has been raised, but I think I am right in saying that the unconditional withdrawal operates only if the person is fully satisfied. The noble Lord suggests that an agreement has been made, and in that case there is nothing to prevent that arrangement being carried forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
Local valuation courts.
(3) Every such court shall consist of—

(a) either the chairman of the local valuation panel or the deputy chairman (or, if more than one, one of the deputy chairmen) thereof; and

(b) two other members of the panel selected in accordance with the scheme under which the panel is constituted.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "two" and insert "four." The noble Earl said: Under Clause 44, local valuation courts are set up for hearing and determining appeals against draft valuation lists, and against objections to proposals for the alteration of the valuation lists. Under subsection (3) the court is composed of one chairman and two other members. I seek, in my Amendment, to suggest that the number of other members should be increased to four—in other words, that the local valuation court should consist of five members instead of three. To be
674
perfectly frank with your Lordships, I do not feel very strongly about this one way or the other, but I believe that you might get a better judgment from a local valuation court composed of live members than from one of three members. I should like to hear the noble Lord answer my Amendment as to why it was thought necessary to limit this number to three. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 45, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: The answer to the noble Earl is this. The reason which led him to think that five might be a better number is also the reason why the Minister fixed upon three. In the Minister's view it is right to keep these bodies as small as is reasonably consistent with balanced judgment, and three seems a reasonable number for this purpose Moreover, the members of these courts will be giving voluntary service in a task which may not attract many people of the right type, and it would be wrong to make too many calls upon their time by having courts unnecessarily large. I think the reason now advanced is the reason which the noble Lord had in mind for five, and I hope he will accept that.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am obliged to the noble Lord. As there appears to be considerable doubt about obtaining three members, I had better withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Submission and approval of schemes]:
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment is aimed at clarification and the removal of ambiguity. Under the clause, schemes for the constitution of valuation panels are made by the councils of counties or county boroughs, or combinations of those councils. Subsection (5) (b) provides for the revocation or variation by the Minister of those schemes upon representations made to him and after consultation with the councils concerned. The Amendment makes it clear that the councils to be consulted are the county or county borough councils, whose scheme or schemes are being revoked or varied. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 3, leave out ("councils") and insert ("council of any county or county borough.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
Sittings, procedure and powers of local valuation courts.
(3) On the hearing of an appeal to a local valuation court—

(a) the appellant; and

(b) the valuation officer, when he is not the appellant; and

(c) the owner or occupier of the hereditament to which the appeal relates, when he is not the appellant; and

(d) the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament in question is situated, when that authority is not the appellant; and

(e) in the case of an appeal against an objection, the objector, where he is not one of the persons aforesaid,

shall be entitled to appeal and be heard as parties to the appeal.
(4) After hearing the persons mentioned in the last preceding subsection, or such of them as desire to be heard, the local valuation court shall give such directions with respect to the manner in which the hereditament in question is to be treated in the valuation list as appear to them to be necessary to give effect to the contention of the appellant if and so far as that contention appears to the court to be well founded, and the valuation officer shall incorporate in the list as settled, or, as the case may be, cause to be made in the list, such alterations as are necessary to give effect to those directions.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (3): "and to examine any witness before the court and to call witnesses." The noble Lord said: The words that I seek to put in at line 29 would appear after the words:
"shall be entitled to appear and be heard as parties to the appeal."
This has long been the procedure. Anybody should have the right to call a valuer in a rating court, and he ought equally to have the right to cross-examine the valuer on the other side. That is the way in which truth can be sifted out and good guidance given to the court. We say here that he is "entitled to appear and be heard." It is usual to put in the words that I propose, and I am certain that the Government intend that that shall be the procedure. Therefore,
676
let us incorporate the words in the Bill and make it clear that this long existing right is not being taken away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 29, at end insert ("and to examine any witness before the court and to call witnesses").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: A similar Amendment was moved in the Commons Committee, and withdrawn on an assurance from the Minister that the point would be met by regulations under subsection (2) of the clause. There are many points of machinery which will have to be laid down, and the intention is that these shall be settled by regulations rather than that they should all be set down in detail in the Bill. It would certainly be the intention to make this requirement as regards witnesses, following the precedent in Section 27 of the Act of 1925, to which the noble Lord has referred. I hope the noble Lord will feel that that meets his case.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I feel rather strongly about this. The Government say that they will put it in regulations, but this is a right of the citizen and one which should not be interfered with or altered by regulations. My view of the regulations is that where there are changing and flexible circumstances you should be able to alter regulations to meet the new circumstances. This is a right that the citizen has had laid down in the previous Act. I think there is no dispute between us on the question of principle that, in a case like this, what a man has had in the previous Statute he should still have in black and white in an Act of Parliament. I look rather differently at the next Amendment, which might well be dealt with by regulations. This is so inherent a right, and it is not one that is to be changed by regulations, that I must insist. I have no doubt that the noble Lord can meet me on this. There is no difference between us except in the way it applies, and we should include it, if only to save man-power. More copies of these regulations than of the Statute are printed, so let us save a line or two and put it in the Bill. Apart from that rather jocular intervention, I feel seriously that a right like this, which cannot be varied, and ought not to be varied from one regulation to another, ought to find its place in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will be able to agree with me.
LORD HENDERSON: I do not think the noble Lord will expect me to give an immediate reply. I recognise the force of the arguments which he has used, and if he will be satisfied with an undertaking on my part to have the clause reconsidered in the light of his arguments I will give that undertaking. There will always be time before the next stage to bring forward an Amendment, and I am quite prepared to consult with the noble Lord in the meantime.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would suggest a slightly different procedure in this case. Since we are all agreed on the principle of this matter I suggest that we should put in the Amendment now. If the noble Lord objects to my pressing it so far, perhaps he could just say, "No" and let it be carried in that way. I think it would be a good thing to put the words in, and I shall have nothing to say against the noble Lord if, at the succeeding stage, he moves to take them out.
Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) No person, being either a party to the appeal, or a witness in the case, shall be present while the Valuation Court are considering their decision on an appeal."
The noble Earl said: To save time, I would only ask whether it is intended to put this in the regulations. If it is, then I need not trouble to explain it.
678
I think it right, however, to insist on the insertion of these words and I should like to do it with the help of the noble Lord—who is always so co-operative.
LORD HENDERSON: I am always as co-operative as I am permitted to be, but I cannot accept the suggestion that we agree to this Amendment now, and that then, if the Minister dislikes it, we take it out on the Report stage. I have made a fair offer that I am prepared to take the clause back and have it reconsidered, in which case there will be an opportunity of bringing up an agreed Amendment—if it were agreed—at the next stage. If the noble Lord is not prepared to accept that, I am afraid that the issue is taken out of my hands.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Bridport, V.

Hylton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Lambert, V.

Llewellin, L

Townshend, M.

Long, V.

Merthyr, L.

Swinton, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Beatty, E.

Rochdale, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Saltoun, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Selsdon, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Broughshane, L.

Soulbury, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cherwell, L.

Templemore, L.

Munster, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Radnor, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Waleran, L.

Gifford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Huntingdon, E.

Amwell, L.

Morrison, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Hall, V.

Darwen, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henderson, L.

Piercy, L.

Holden, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Ammon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

LORD HENDERSON: Yes, it is intended to deal with this matter by regulation.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am obliged. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (4), after "list" where that word first occurs, to insert:
"or as to the omission from the valuation list of such hereditament or otherwise."

679
The noble Earl said: This Amendment also deals with the appeal court. I understand that it is usual for the powers of such a court to be defined in terms of the allowing or dismissing of appeals, plus the issue of directions to give effect to the appeal if it is successful. It seems to me that such a definition is necessary here. I do not wish to weary the House with a long and detailed definition of what my Amendment seeks to do, and I have probably said sufficient to enable the noble Lord to understand that what I want to include in this Bill is the opportunity for the allowing or the dismissing of appeals and the giving of effect to an appeal if it is allowed. It is a complicated legal matter, but I formally beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, 1ine 34, after ("list") insert ("or as to the omission from the valuation list of such hereditament or otherwise").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment is in fact unnecessary. Subsection (4) of the clause enables the valuation court to give directions as to "the manner in which a hereditament is to be treated in the valuation list." Sometimes the direction may be that the hereditament should be taken off the list altogether (for example, if it is found to be an agricultural or railway hereditament) and the Amendment seeks to make it clear that such a direction can be given. It is, however, unnecessary, for the wording in the clause is quite wide enough for that purpose. I think that that explanation will satisfy the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am obliged for the noble Lord's reply. This matter is so complicated that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 55 agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
Clause 56:
Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases.
56. Where the right to use any land (including any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure erected or to be erected on the land, and including also any wall or other part of a building) for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved to any person other than the occupier of the land, or, when
680
the land is not occupied for any other purpose, to any person other than the owner of the land, that right shall be deemed for rating purposes to be a separate hereditament in the occupation of the person for the time being entitled to the right, and shall be included in the valuation list as a separate hereditament accordingly, and, notwithstanding anything in Section three or Section four of the Advertising Stations (Rating) Act, 1889, in estimating the value of the land for rating purposes no account shall be taken of any value or, as the case may be, of any increased value arising from the use of the land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements in accordance with that right.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to delete Clause 56 and insert the following new clause:
"Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases.
. Notwithstanding anything contained in Part V—Rating of Transport and Electricity Authorities—of this Act the following provisions shall apply in every case where any land or hereditament is used temporarily or permanently for the exhibition of advertisements, or for the erection of any hoarding, frame, post, wall, or structure, used for the exhibition of advertisements

(1) That use shall be deemed for rating purposes to be a separate hereditament and shall be included in the Valuation List as a separate hereditament accordingly.

(2) Such separate hereditament shall be deemed for rating purposes to be in the occupation of the person who shall permit the said use (or if he cannot be ascertained then the person who shall use the same) and valued for rating purposes according to the value of such use as aforesaid.

(3) Sections 3 and 4 of the Advertising Stations (Rating) Act, 1889, so far as they relate to England and Wales are hereby repealed."

The noble Lord said: Before moving this Amendment, I think I should disclose that I have certain interests in the advertising industry. I suggest that Clause 56 as drawn is open to grave objection. It fails to achieve the purpose in view and, in my view, will result in the creation of certain serious anomalies.
The Minister of Health in another place indicated that the purpose of this clause was to make it clear that property let out for advertising purposes by the nationalised railway or electricity undertakings could be rated as a separate hereditament. No doubt, the intention of the Minister is to ensure that these undertakings are placed on the same footing as other owners of property who let out a portion of it for the exhibition of advertisements. I suggest that the clause, as drawn, would not have this effect. I am

681
advised by the poster advertising associations that under the present practice, by which the railways enter into direct contracts with the advertisers, no rates would be paid. On the other hand, if the railways let out a site to a contractor for advertising purposes, then such site can be rated unless Clause 56 is so drawn as to prevent this inequality. Your Lordships will agree that such an effect is inequitable and contrary to the expressed intention of the clause. It would mean that the railways, who are in direct competition with the advertising industry, would have an unfair advantage and would not be subject to any special rating. At the same time, an additional burden would be placed upon the advertising contractor.
I would also suggest that Clause 56 as drawn will give rise to serious administrative difficulties and difficulties of interpretation. In another place, the Minister indicated that this clause was designed to prevent this inequality, but I should like to point out that this is not the interpretation put upon it by the legal advisers of the bill posting companies. The point is that the sites let to the billposting companies by the railways and then let direct to advertisers should be assessed on the same basis—in other words, a fair assessment as between the nationalised railways and the private billposting companies. Perhaps the principal difficulty, in some cases, will be to determine who will be required to pay the rates. For instance, what is the meaning of the words "let out or reserved" which appear in the Bill, and which to me seem open to conflicting interpretations? It appears that it will be necessary for a rating authority in each case to examine the document by which the letting out or reservation has been effected before it can be determined who is liable to pay the rates.
I suggest that my proposed new clause would overcome the objections that I have mentioned. The nationalised railway and electricity undertakings would pay rates in the same way as any other person who lets out a portion of his property for the exhibition of advertisements, whether they enter into direct contracts with the advertisers or let out their property to advertising contractors. Under those conditions, equality would be achieved. In the case of property other than that of the nationalised undertakings, the person liable to pay would be the person permitting
682
his property to be used (or, if his identity cannot be ascertained, the person so using the property) and in this manner the payment of rates would be made by the person who receives benefit from the use of his property for the exhibition of advertisements. I suggest that my proposed new clause is equitable and would result in the minimum difficulty for local authorities in the collection of rates, and that the clause as drawn, although it may be the intention, does not make this provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 4, leave out Clause 56 and insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to say a few words in support of this proposed new clause. This is not a question of principle, but one of intention and interpretation. The British poster advertising industry have looked carefully into the matter, and their expert advisers say that the clause as at present drafted would have the effect outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. It seems extremely unfair that, supposing the British railways should let an advertising site, for instance, direct to Bovril Limited, that the site should not he rated, whereas if a series of sites were let to an advertising contractor, they would be rated. I think that the whole industry is at one on this matter. I feel that, if they could get together with the officials of the Ministry between now and Report stage, it is probable that an agreed clause would be obtained.
I think the Metropolitan boroughs are also interested; although in some small matters they differ from the industry, in principle there is very little between them. I would suggest to the noble Lord that an effort be made between now and Report stage to get an agreed clause. I do not think it should be difficult, because I really do not believe there is very much between us. This is a complicated matter, and one which laymen find it difficult to understand, but if the experts could get together on it I think they could frame a suitable clause.
LORD HENDERSON: The last speaker said that this was a complicated clause, and the mover of the Amendment told us that his legal advisers disagreed with the interpretation of the official advisers. I propose to play safe and keep to my brief. Clause 56 requires the separate assessment

683
of advertisements where the right is let out or reserved to someone other than the occupier of the land. The purpose was to get over difficulties which have arisen on the existing law under which the "advertising station" has to be assessed against the occupier of the land. Thus the advertisement might be run by an agency, the value will be assessed on the value of the advertisement to the agency; but if it is, say, on agricultural land, the farmer whose land is otherwise de-rated is liable to pay the rates on the advertisement.
The intention of the revised wording in the new clause is to secure local rates on advertisements on railway and electricity property which are not let out to persons other than the Transport Commission and the British Electricity Authority. In the absence of such a provision no rates would be payable locally, because of the operation of Part V of the Bill. But in the process the clause requires every advertisement to be rated separately, which would be an impossible requirement. Thus, when a firm advertises its products by advertisements off its own premises, it is possible to assess the value of the advertisement by the rent paid for the right; but how would it be possible to value the name of the firm, or description of its products when attached to its own premises? Would it even be an advertisement, or would it simply be an address label? And again, the new clause would make it necessary to value all the advertisements attached to the grocer's or the tobacconist's shop.
In so far as the Amendment is designed to deal with railway and electricity property, the same considerations apply. Many of the advertisements on such property will be part of the business of running the undertakings, and inseparable from it. For the rest, they too, in so far as they may help to make up the general wellbeing and prosperity of the undertakings, must be reckoned as part of it. Any attempt to split them off from the main undertakings leads moreover to absurd anomalies. An advertisement on a subway (which certainly does not cost the ratepayers anything by way of local services) would be rateable; the same advertisement in a train (which, as a moveable thing, is not rateable), would
684
not. In the light of those practical difficulties, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not quite understand one sentence of the noble Lord's reply, that an advertisement on the subway does not cost the ratepayers anything. I do not know of any advertisement that costs the ratepayers anything. So far as I can see, the whole point is this. There is a horrible hoarding which I dislike on railway property just outside the gate of my house. It is quite separate from the railway undertaking—it is not on the platform, or on the subway, or in the train; it is merely a case of the railway company taking advantage of a site and putting up a hoarding, just as a farmer might take the opportunity to put up in his field some of those "Carter's Little Liver Pills" advertisements which tell you exactly how many miles it is from London and which one sees at every mile along the side of the railway. If those advertisements are on railway property, will they be rated in exactly the same way as a site next door which is on a farm? It seems to me that in a case of that sort they ought to be.
I quite understand that an advertisement on the platform of a station, merely advertising the times of the running of trains, or that there is an excursion fare to Brighton, or where you will, is part of the undertaking. But assume that they let out their poster space: are they or are they not caught under the clause as at present drawn? If they are caught under the clause as at present drawn, I think the point is largely met. But the idea of some people who have considered this Bill is that they are not caught in that way, and I do not see why a railway company should be able to let its advertising space more cheaply than a private person because that private person has to pay rates upon his and the railway company do not have to pay rates upon theirs. That is the point. If the hoardings are in any way let out (even if not permanently let, but let for the putting on of a succession of advertisements, whether for "Bovril," "Guinness," or anything else), are they rated as a separate hereditament, just as is the one next door which is not on railway property but is on land adjoining the embankment? That is a point with which perhaps the noble Lord might deal.
LORD HENDERSON: This is a complicated provision, but the noble Lord has put a simple test, and I am advised that the poster to which he has referred would be locally rateable if it were let out.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that he must keep to his brief. From what the Minister said in another place, I think this question is largely one of drafting. Surely it is not the intention to make the position as between the nationalised railways and advertising contractors inequitable. I am sure it is not. It may well be that the way in which I have drafted the clause does not entirely meet the case, and I would be quite willing to withdraw it on the understanding that a more suitable wording is put forward on another stage of the Bill, after consultation with the interested parties. I feel sure that would be the best plan and, on that undertaking, I would certainly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: In his former reply to Lord Llewellin, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson said that the site would be rateable if let out. To whom would it be rateable—to the British Railways or to the contractor?
LORD HENDERSON: It would be separately rateable. It would be rateable to the person who was hiring the hoarding.
LORD GIFFORD: Not to the railway?
LORD HENDERSON: On the point raised by my noble friend, I really cannot give an undertaking to have this looked at. I am advised that the clause achieves what the Government has in mind. The noble Lord tells me that he does not disagree with the aims of the clause, but that the clause, in his view, does not achieve the aims which he says he agrees with. I ask him to withdraw his Amendment, and if he has any doubts about the suitability of the clause as drafted I am quite ready to arrange for him to see one of my advisers in order that he may be assured that the clause does achieve what the Minister has in mind.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has suggested, and in the circumstances I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment. I
686
should certainly like to have an opportunity of discussing this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 62 agreed to.
6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice that he would move after Clause 62 to insert the following new clause:
"Employment of valuers by rating authorities.
. Any rating authority or the council of a county may, if they think fit, employ, either permanently or from time to time as they may require, a competent person to give advice or assistance in connection with the value of any hereditament in their area, and any person so employed shall have power at all reasonable times and after giving due notice and on production, if so required, of authorisation in writing in that behalf from such authority or council, authenticated by the signature of their clerk, to enter on any hereditament in the area of of he authority or council which the such authority or council may direct him to enter."
The noble Lord said: I would like to move this Amendment in a slightly modified form; that is, with the words "either permanently or," in the second line, omitted. Even so, I cannot pretend that I am moving the Amendment with any great degree of enthusiasm.
In the first place, I do not want the ordinary citizen to be bothered any more than he need be with too many valuation officers. Further, I do not want the services and the resources of our valuation officers employed more than is necessary. My difficulty is this. I think it is under Clause 36 that the local authority are empowered to object to part of the lists, to make proposals, and to appeal and so forth. But as in many cases their valuation officers will have been taken away from them, they may not have anyone to advise them in this highly technical science. Further, there is this point. A local authority are in these days frequently the possessors or owners of valuable properties and it seems to me that it is in the interest of the ratepayers that those properties should be properly assessed. I am putting this suggestion forward chiefly with the object of discovering how, in the opinion of the Government, local authorities can efficiently perform the duties and obligations placed upon them without incurring the attention of the district auditors. I beg to move.
Amendment, as amended, moved—
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
(" Employment of valuers by rating authorities.
Any rating authority or the council of a county may, if they think fit, employ, from time to time as they may require, a competent person to give advice or assistance in connection with the value of any hereditament in their area, and any person so employed shall have power at all reasonable times and after giving due notice and on production, if so required, of authorisation in writing in that behalf from such authority or council, authenticated by the signature of their clerk, to enter on any hereditament in the area of the authority or council which the such authority or council may direct him to enter.").—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD HENDERSON: The new clause would enable rating authorities and county councils to employ valuers to watch the valuations made by valuation officers; and it even goes so far as to authorise such valuers to enter premises for survey. Any such proposal might clearly lead to an unreasonable drain on the available supply of qualified staff. This point—the fear of there being an inadequate supply of valuation officers—was stressed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the noble Viscount has just referred to it. The valuation officers will be public officials paid by the taxpayers, and with no axe to be ground, and it would be wrong to provide for another lot of officials, paid by the ratepayers, to watch them. The citizen who happened to be both ratepayer and taxpayer, would doubtless feel justly aggrieved if they came in succession to survey his premises, each to defeat the other. I think the noble Viscount was particularly concerned about a local authority who are owners of property. So far as I am aware, I can give him this assurance: that in a case of that kind there would be no impediment to the local authority employing a valuation officer to attend to their own property.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Of course it meets my point to a certain degree if that assurance is given on behalf of the Government—that there would be no risk of a local authority employing a part-time valuer in connection with the assessment of their properties being surcharged. That is a considerable safeguard. I am still not clear as to how local authorities are to perform their functions of objecting to draft lists without trained officials. And although
688
perhaps, it is not entirely in order, in speaking on this clause, I must say that I believe lack of valuation officers will cause difficulties in other directions, because such officers have been used in connection with other Acts of Parliament—for example, the Town and Country Planning Act. However, I feel that on the assurance of the noble Lord that my particular fear is baseless I can withdraw this Amendment, and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 [Services of notices, etc.]:
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment corrects an obvious clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 44, leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("authorised").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Membership of local authority, etc. not to be disqualification in certain cases.
67. A person shall not be disqualified to act as a valuation officer, as a member of, or as the clerk or an officer of, a local valuation panel or local valuation court or as the judge on any appeal to a county court by reason only that he is—

(a) a member of an authority deriving revenue directly or indirectly from rates which may be affected by the exercise of his functions; or

and a person shall not be disqualified from acting as aforesaid in relation to any property by reason only that an authority of which he he is a member either owns or occupies the whole or any part of that property:
Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise any such person to act in relation to any property which, or any part of which, he himself owns or occupies.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to delete the words "as a valuation officer." The noble Lord said: All these Amendments of mine to Clause 67 hang together. I do not mean "hang" in the sense that they should all fall together, but rather that they may all be accepted together. The alteration which I propose is simple. The opening passage of the clause as now drawn refers to any person who may be acting
"as a valuation officer, as a member of, or as the clerk or an officer of, a local valuation panel or local valuation court or as the judge on any appeal to a county court."

689
All such people are lumped together as though they were people likely to be (in accordance with paragraph (a) of the clause) members of a local authority.
It would be wrong, I submit, to visualise a County Court Judge as a member of a local authority. It would be equally wrong to visualise a valuation officer, who is a full-time servant of the Treasury, as also being a member of a local authority. My Amendment, put quite simply, is to leave the category of people who might be on local authorities not disqualified because they happen so to be serving. Take the Judge and the valuation officer out of that category, I suggest, so that they will not be disqualified merely because they happen to own a bit of property in the assessment area, and leave it that neither can act if his particular property should be concerned in a case before the court. I suggest that these rearrangements of the clause effect an improvement and I hope that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 1, leave out from ("act") to the first ("as") in line 2.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: I will repay injury by kindness. I am glad to inform the noble Lord that I will accept his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I thank him. But did he say he would repay injury by kindness? I thought I started the afternoon very well.
LORD HENDERSON: But later.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The following Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 3, leave out from ("court") to ("by") in line 4.
Page 41, line 14, at end insert new subsection—
("(2) A person shall not be disqualified to act as a valuation officer or as the judge on any appeal to a county court by reason only that he is the owner or occupier of any property within any rating area the rates within which are affected by the exercise of his functions")
Page 41, line 15, leave out ("Provided that").
Page 41, line 15, leave out ("such").
Page 41,line 16, after ("person") insert ("to whom this section applies").—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68:
Transfer of valuation offices, etc.
68. If the Minister is satisfied that any premises which are, or any interest in which is, owned by a local authority are, or at some time during the year 1947–48 were, used by that authority wholly or mainly for the purpose of their functions relating to the valuation of property for rating purposes and that it. 9 reasonable so to do, he may direct the authority to make over their interest to the Minister of Works, and where such a direction is given the like consequences shall ensue as would have ensued if a notice to treat had been given, on the date of the direction to the authority, by the Minister of Works in pursuance of a power conferred by Act of Parliament compulsorily to acquire that interest.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to leave out "or mainly". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simple. It is to protect the local authorities whose offices may be compulsorily acquired by the Ministry of Works when the new valuation department take over. The interpretation of the word "wholly" obvious and clear, but the interpretation of "or mainly" referring to the use of premises used for the purpose of valuation is much more difficult. A local authority may well occupy one portion of a building as their council chamber and another portion as their rating and valuation department. Although the council chamber might have been established for many years, it is; conceivable that the local authority might have to clear out of the whole building, because the major portion was mainly used by the rating valuation department and the council chamber was not the most important part of the building. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 21, leave out ("or mainly")—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. This clause provide? for the transfer of premises used by local authorities wholly or mainly for rating valuation purposes. The transfer is to the Ministry of Works, compensation being payable, for the use of the Inland Revenue Department. The Amendment seeks to leave out the words "or mainly." This would be I unreasonable. Most local authorities have

691
mixed rating valuation work with other work, and there would be few premises used wholly for valuation work. Premises would have to be found for the valuation officers and it is not unreasonable to expect local authorities to part with premises used now mainly for rating valuation. They will be left with premises used only partly for valuation. Perhaps I may refer to the instance of a council chamber given by the noble Lord. I should have thought its primary purpose was for council meetings and if used for valuation work it would be "partly" and not "mainly" used. The local authorities have a safeguard in that the transfer can be required only if the Minister of Health is "satisfied" (this is the word in the Bill) that it is "reasonable." The Minister will not be directly responsible for the valuation work. That falls on the Inland Revenue Department. He is interested in securing that the other work of the local authorities goes on unhampered and he can be regarded as an impartial arbiter in this matter. I think the transfer will have to be done largely on a basis of co-operation. That is the only way in which it can be done. The Minister has given the assurance that everything will be done to have the transfer carried through in harmonious agreement. I hope this will help to allay the doubts which the noble Lord seems to have, and that accordingly he will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand that many valuation offices of local authorities are situated in the Town Hall. Is it intended, if the Minister is satisfied that such is reasonable, compulsorily to acquire a certain portion of the Town Hall? That cannot be so; but that is what it says in the clause.
LORD HENDERSON: As I understood it, and I think I made it perfectly clear, the Minister has to be satisfied that it is reasonable.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It might be reasonable from the point of view of housing some additional number of Government servants.
LORD HENDERSON: But the Minister is not concerned merely with the housing of a number of Government officials. He is also concerned, as I have already said, with the wellbeing of local authorities in
692
other respects, and he will be an impartial arbiter.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I suppose that it is not intended to apply this where it means taking a certain number of rooms in the municipal buildings where the valuation office and others are all in one building. Surely the Ministry of Works are not going to acquire compulsorily Room 36 and Room 39 because they happen to be used for rating purposes. Where there are separate buildings it is quite right.
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord has put his finger on the point. The clause refers to premises and not to individual rooms.
LORD HYLTON: I cannot say that I am thoroughly satisfied with the noble Lord's reply, but this particular clause is not so bad as the clause we come to next, on which I have several Amendments. If the noble Lord can give us an assurance that this transfer refers only to the actual valuation offices and to nothing else, I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: I understand that "premises" will not include rooms which may be used only during part of the year. If it did not include part of a building I would be much more satisfied.
LORD HENDERSON: If a council chamber is made available for other purposes than council meetings, it is still a council chamber. That is its primary purpose, and therefore, in my humble opinion, it could not possibly come under this.
LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble Lord very much. This clause, as he admits, is so widely drawn it is difficult to see exactly what it does mean. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
6.39 p.m.
Clause 69:
Use of public rooms.
69.—(1) The valuation officer shall be entitled to require any county council or rating authority the whole or any part of whose area is within the area for which the officer acts to make available for use by him and his staff on such days or for such period as may

693
be specified in the requirement any such premises belonging to the council or authority as may be so specified and if the requirement is reasonable, the council or authority shall comply with the requirement.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON had given Notice of a series of Amendments in subsections (1) and (2), the first of which was, in subsection (1) to leave out "shall be entitled to require" and to insert "may make an arrangement with." The noble Lord said: Clause 69 is perhaps a much more important Clause and has met with vigorous objections from many county councils. It seeks to put a valuation officer in a position to require the use of what are described in the marginal note as "public rooms" of the council or rating authority. This phrase "public rooms" is not explained anywhere else. I hope the noble Lord in his reply will tell us whether it refers to council chambers and committee rooms only, or whether it refers to anywhere else. I submit it is a serious state of affairs when the Minister empowers a valuation officer, who is not a member of any local authority (he is a member of the Inland Revenue Department), to require local authorities to hand over their premises for particular purposes. Members of local authorities are elected by the public in the same way as members in another place, and one can envisage the feeling of resentment to which members in another place would give vent if any Minister were to give permission to officials of any Department to take part of their premises for particular purposes.
This is a matter that was gone into and largely brushed aside in another place on a false premise. The Minister is reported to have said in another place that these premises could be used without any form of payment, for the reason that assessment committees in the past have not paid in any way for their accommodation. I do not wish to argue the matter of payment at this point, because, with your Lordships' permission, I am coming to that matter in a moment. What we would rather see is that there should be mutual agreement between the local authorities and the valuation department on the use of these rooms. In a matter of this sort local authorities would be perfectly reasonable in making their rooms available. Surely what the Minister wants is good relationships between the local authorities and the
694
valuation department. The way to gain those good relationships is not by putting the valuation officer in a position where he can requisition and demand the accommodation from local authorities, but by doing it by ordinary agreement. This is a most dictatorial clause. There are several Amendments standing in my name, and those to which I should like to refer at present are the first, third and fourth on the marshalled list of Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 30, leave out ("shall be entitled to require") and insert ("may make an arrangement with").—(Lord Hylton).
LORD ADDINGTON: May I add one word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me that these are very drastic provisions. A requirement can be made for any premises on any clay that may be specified. Surely as a matter of principle it is more desirable that a matter of this kind should be arranged mutually and in friendly co-operation between the officers concerned, rather than that this drastic and widely worded requirement should be laid down.
LORD HENDERSON: I regret that I am unable to meet my noble friend on this Amendment. This accommodation will be needed partly for the convenience of local ratepayers, and partly to help to get over some of the difficulties resulting from the extreme shortage of office accommodation in the early days of the arrangements. If individual ratepayers are not to have to travel considerable distances to central offices, both valuation officers and valuation courts will need a large number of places where they can listen to objections and appeals. It would obviously be wrong to have to provide offices solely for the purpose of these interviews. Moreover, both courts and valuation officers will require more accommodation at certain times—namely, during the preparation and after the issue of a new valuation list—than in normal years, and it would be unreasonable to keep accommodation sterilised for that purpose. If the new arrangements are to work smoothly, there must be no doubt that such accommodation will be forthcoming; and it is not unreasonable to expect local authorities, who will benefit from the speedy and efficient preparation and amendment of the valuation lists, to I help to provide it.

695
In the vast majority of cases the accommodation will be found by arrangement between the valuation officer and the local authorities, but in some cases the will to make an arrangement will be assisted by the existence of the compulsory powers in the background. In other cases, the compulsory powers will be necessary because the local authorities, for one reason or another, may be unwilling to help the new organisation. In such a case it will be essential to have compulsory powers if the transfer to central valuation which Parliament is approving in this Bill is to be given a proper chance to work smoothly. As in the previous clause, the safeguard is in the fact that the Minister of Health is the arbiter as to whether a requirement is reasonable, and in carrying out this function he will have regard at least as much to the other functions of the local authority as to the needs of the new valuation service, in the running of which he will have no direct responsibility. Generally, local authorities would not be excepted to provide more than accommodation equivalent to that which they are already using for rating valuation purposes. But it is not possible to be dogmatic upon that point. Sometimes it would be reasonable to expect more, because of transfer of other services, and other changes which take place from time to time; and sometimes, for the same reasons, it would be reasonable to expect less.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, objected to the words "on specified days." Obviously it must be on specified days, because if the local valuation officer is going down to a particular area to deal with local inquiries and problems as to valuation it must be on some known day; otherwise, there would be no point in his going there, and there would be very little service given to the local ratepayers. Your Lordships will see that there is a double service provided: there is service to the ratepayers as well as service to the valuation office. I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, for those reasons.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My criticism here is that once again the matter is being approached in the wrong way. The local authority will normally want valuation proceedings on its assessments to go forward in an orderly and proper manner.
696
It is no good looking on local authorities as though they will be hostile people. They will want to make the proper arrangements, and they will welcome the valuation officer. He is coming to their area to get the assessments right. In those circumstances, where you have two perfectly friendly powers, if I may so call them, you are nevertheless immediately setting up machinery which places one above the other. You not only set one above the other, but you set the valuation officer—an admirable gentleman, no doubt, but, all the same, a bureaucrat from Whitehall—above the elected representatives of the locality. He can tell them that he is going to take their buildings and when they have to give them up. That is the power you are putting in his hands.
It is much better not to use compulsion, because that always causes friction. A much better way would be to accept the Amendment which my noble friend is proposing and let those two parties—both concerned in the same job of getting the balance right and the assessments completed, because you cannot estimate the rating until that has been done—proceed amicably together without one being above the other. I would seriously suggest that you are going the wrong way about it, because people in Government Departments always want to have the whip hand when they are dealing with anybody. They like to say: "We have the requisitioning power in the background," and not have to deal as ordinary men would. I suggest that we should provide for arrangements to be made and then have a consequential alteration at the end of this clause to say that in the default of any agreement being come to, the matter shall be decided by the Minister. But let the question be decided impartially, so that the little chap coming down from London does not come in and see the Town Clerk and say: "It does not matter what you say, I am going to have this room. Here is my power." Let him walk in in a friendly way. Let us have the final subsection altered in such a way that in the event of no agreement being reached the Minister may decide.
I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that in this matter the Minister of Health is impartial. One or two noble Lords sitting around me seem to think that that may not be so. But he is not

697
the boss of the valuation officer: that official does not come from his Department; he is a Treasury man. Nobody loves the Treasury anyway, so that probably does not endear the valuation officer much to the other Department. The Minister of Health has also an outstanding function in England and Wales to see that local government is able to carry through this operation properly. Let us commence by allowing these two parties to start as friends, without one being able to say: "I have the power in my hands. If you do not agree to let me have that room, I will just take it." It is much better for him to make arrangements with the local council and for the two parties to act as public servants. In default of agreement let the Minister of Health come in.
If the noble Lord would look at the matter in that light, I am certain he will see that that is the way to get things done without friction. Officials may come along in a perfectly friendly manner, but if somebody comes in and waves an Act in front of the Town Clerk, there will immediately be more of these appeals coming to the Minister than there otherwise would be. I know how strongly local authorities feel about this. They are equally responsible for this function, and they are equally democratic, and I suggest that it would be well for the Government to give way on this minor point.
LORD O'HAGAN: I would like to say one word in support of what my noble friend Lord Llewellin has said. Here is a matter which surely could be dealt with along the lines he has suggested. The words in the Bill are really causing great apprehension to some of these organisations, and I would like to add my voice in an appeal to the noble Lord to see, whether he cannot agree to the very reasonable suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.
LORD HENDERSON: I do not think there is a great deal between us. Noble Lords have said that in the main this matter would be settled by agreement. Of course it would be settled in the main by agreement. That is perfectly all right, but there may be some cases which will not be settled by agreement, and it is only in order to deal with points where agreement is not arrived at that this reserve power is required. Obviously it is not going to be invoked in every
698
locality, nor, if I may say so with respect to my noble friend opposite, need we visualise a valuation authority coming to the local authority, waving this Bill in his hand and saying: "I am going to take that room," We all know that it is not done in that way. After all, we realise that there is a great deal of responsible work to be done, and it is of great interest and great concern to local ratepayers. If it is to be done properly there must obviously be a basis of accommodation between the valuation officer on the one side and the local authority on the other. We believe that in the bulk of cases there will be that agreement and that co-operation, but there may not be in this case or in that case. Therefore, it is necessary to include in the Bill a reserve power which can be invoked in the case of a difficulty of that sort which might arise.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would make this suggestion. You should have in the proposed draft that they should make arrangements one with another, and, in default of an agreement, there should be the power of the Minister to decide. That is the suggestion from this side of the House. It is said that will not do, because there must be some power; but there would still be that power in the Minister. Suppose that there is a cantankerous Town Clerk who says "No." Is the valuation officer any worse off under the proposals that we are suggesting than under the proposals in the Bill? Certainly not. If you have a cantankerous local authority, they still have the power to come to the Minister. You will be much better off by the two going there to try to get agreement. This is only the practical way in which the noble Lord and ourselves would like to be treated, by coming in on an equal footing. They could say: "My dear fellow, I really must take this up to the Minister." This officer has the power to come down and say: "I am going to take it anyway." In every case where that happens there will be an appeal to the Minister, and there will be more cases than if we start with the friendly arrangement that I am suggesting. That is human nature. I would ask the noble Lord to see whether he can agree to this.
LORD HYLTON: I would ask the noble Lord whether he can see his way to accept the suggestion of my noble

699
friend. The advantage is that you start off on the right foot. You start by trying to come to an agreement, preserving the reserve power in the Minister's hands to iron out any differences. That must be the right way of doing this. Start by trying to agree and then, in failure, go by agreement to the Minister. As the clause is drawn, it is on the other foot. Here are the valuation officers who will not always come from London; they will probably be local men. But, wherever they come from they say: "We want this, that and the other thing." That is not the way to treat local authorities; I am quite certain of that. It is not the democratic way, it is the dictatorial way; and that I submit is not the proper way to try to run the local government of this country.
LORD HENDERSON: As I have said, I do not think there is a great deal between us. We all agree that the matter will be dealt with in the main by agreement. I would be prepared to have the clause looked at in the light of the discussion, if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps we might have a talk about it ourselves. It is a thing for which we can easily find some form of words to satisfy the local authorities and at the same time leave the reserve power in the Minister's hands. Equally, we will reserve our right to put down something again.
LORD HENDERSON: I shall be glad to arrange consultations.
LORD HYLTON: I am much obliged, because this matter is causing a great deal of heart-burning and an animosity which it is far better not to arouse. That is the reason why I have put down this Amendment. With the assurances given by the noble Lord, however, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
7.2 p.m.
Clause 70 [Savings and application of enactments]:
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, to add to the clause:
"(3) The Minister may, if he in any particular case thinks fit, by order provide that such provisions of any local Act as may be
700
specified in the order, being provisions relating to rating or valuation for rating to which, by reason of the provisions of this Part of this Act, effect can no longer be given, shall continue in force with such adaptations specified in the order as may be necessary to enable effect to be given to them."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to protect a useful provision in local Acts which it may not otherwise be possible to make, in consequence of changes made by Part II of the Bill. I understand that it has already been a matter of discussion between those concerned, and therefore I need not delay your Lordships with examples. I trust that this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: This addition to the clause will enable consequential Amendments to be made in any local Act provisions which refer to the existing rating and valuation machinery. It is a necessary and valuable addition to the Bill, and I am glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71:
Regulations for the purposes of Part III.
71. Without prejudice to any other provision of this Part of this Act enabling the Minister to make regulations, the Minister may make regulations—

(a) for carrying the provisions of this Part of this Act into effect; and

(b) for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act is to be prescribed; and

THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to omit paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment really in order to find out what paragraph (b) means.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Earl, with his eagle eye, will have discovered that the clause prescribes for certain things to be done by regulations. This paragraph lays it down how they are to be done. Unless something like it is included nothing is said as to the method by which "prescriptions" shall be made. It lays down that the machinery for prescribing things which the earlier clauses have

701
required to be prescribed is to be by regulations, and this is the power under which the previous provisions become effective.
LORD LLEWELLIN: YOU say in Clause 71 (b) that you may make regulations for prescribing anything you have power to do. No doubt, however, it is necessary and I suppose that somebody who reads this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will know what it means. In that hope perhaps we had better leave the words where they are.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I suggest that, as we have made good progress, this would be a convenient time to adjourn our discussion?
LORD AMMON: I entirely agree.
House resumed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1948.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.