LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

HL Deb 11 March 1948 vol 154 cc716-91

4.37 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair.]

Clause 72:

Commencement of Part III and transitional provisions.

72.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into effect on such day as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes, different areas and different provisions of this Part of this Act.

(3) Section forty-six of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (which relates to the revision of valuation lists in London) shall, until the repeal thereof by this Act comes into force, have effect in relation to the period for which the valuation lists in force at the date of the passing of this Act continue in force, as if the references to the first four years, the fifth year, and the last four years, of the period were respectively references to every year except the last year, the last year, and every year except the first year, of the period.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to delete "different areas." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one which I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept. As sub-section (1) of Clause 72 is drafted at present, this part of the Bill can come into effect on such day as the Minister may appoint, and different days can be appointed for different purposes. Up to that stage of the subsection I am wholeheartedly in agreement. But the next two words, "different areas", indicate that the Minister will have power to bring Part III into operation in different areas. Those words seem to me to be remarkably wide. In the case of a borough, they would, in fact, enable the Minister to say that Part III could come into operation in one ward and not the other seven, or in seven wards and not in the eighth. I think that to be wrong. I cannot believe it is what the Minister intends to do, and I consider that the clause would be improved if we left out those two words. For that reason I beg to move the Amendment, seeking from the noble Lord some definition of the words and whether it is the intention of the Minister to act in the manner which I have stated.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 8, leave out (" different areas ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HENDERSON

The existence of machinery to bring these provisions into operation in some places, if all areas are not ready at the same time, is very valuable. The difficulties of finding staff and accommodation have been stressed, and are very real. It would clearly be a great pity if the machinery were ready to function in nine-tenths of the country—or, indeed, in every district but one—but the whole had to be held up while arrangements were completed everywhere. I think the noble Earl is labouring under a difficulty which can be put right. He cited the case of a borough divided into wards, and the scheme being held up because one or more wards might not be ready. The real point is that the reference to "different areas" does, in fact, mean "different rating areas." If the word "rating" were inserted I think it would meet the point the noble Earl has in mind. If he is prepared to make his Amendment read, "different rating areas," I shall be glad to accept it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should have thought that was just what we wanted.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord. May I get the position clear? As I understand it, if we insert the word "rating," and it reads "different rating areas," we shall, in point of fact, save the possibility of the Minister ordering Part III to come into operation in one particular ward of a borough council but not in others. I am not certain, however, about the counties. Does it mean that in the case of a county council—take, for example, the Surrey County Council—the Minister can bring Part III into operation in all parts of Surrey except one—a part which is an urban district, and a part by itself?

LORD HENDERSON

I think the noble Earl's explanation is quite right. I will only remind him that the Minister has given an undertaking on a clause dealing with the coming into operation of the first valuation lists that an order postponing the first new valuation list in any area will be made only for exceptional reasons. I am prepared to give the noble Earl a similar assurance in this connection.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am obliged to the noble Lord. In that case; I would like to withdraw this Amendment, and move it in the new form, inserting the word "rating" to make it read, "different rating areas."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I now beg to move the Amendment in its new form.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 8, after the, second (" different ") insert (" rating ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. One has only to read subsection (3) to see that it is slightly confusing. I suppose it is the best the draftsmen can do. I am not objecting to what it does in principle, but it reads rather oddly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

I hope—though I am not sure—that my explanation will be a little more lucid and intelligible than the subsection. The subsection which the Amendment proposes to leave out is little more than a clarifying provision. The machinery in Section 46 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, operates by reference to the beginning of the quinquennium; that is to say, by reference to the "first," "second," et cetera, years. When valuations were postponed by the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1940, it was necessary to deal with the situation in which there could be no revaluation within five years of the previous one. This subsection provides similarly—by reference to the end of the extended period rather than to the beginning of the normal period. In other words, when the period exceeds the quinquennium, it refers back and when it is dealing with the quinquennium period it refers forward. It sounds complicated, but I think the explanation I have given clears the matter up.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I must say, with great respect and friendship to him, that I thought I understood it better before he explained it than I do now. That being the case, perhaps we had better leave it as it is in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 73 and 74, agreed to.

Clause 75:

Scope of principle that gross value is to be ascertained by 1938 cost.

(5) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a small dwelling-house shall be construed as a reference to a dwelling-house of which the rateable value on the appropriate day did not exceed—

1. (a) in the case of a dwelling-house in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, one hundred pounds; and
2. (b) in the case of any other dwelling-house, seventy-five pounds.

In this subsection, the expression "rateable value on the appropriate day" has the meaning assigned to it by Section seven of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, and that section shall apply accordingly for the purposes of this subsection:

Provided that—

1. (i) where the rateable value on the appropriate day of a dwelling-house falls under subsection (2) of that section to be determined by an apportionment and no apportionment has been made by the county court, the valuation officer or, on appeal, any court or arbitrator concerned, shall himself or themselves make the necessary apportionment for the purposes of this subsection;
720
2. (ii) if the dwelling-house has not been separately assessed and does not form part of some other property which has been separately assessed, the valuation officer, court or arbitrator shall treat the dwelling-house as being, or as not being, a small dwelling-house according as the net annual value thereof, calculated as if it were a small dwelling-house, does or does not exceed, in the case of a dwelling-house in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, one hundred pounds and, in any other case, seventy-five pounds.

4.47 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

moved, in subsection (5), to omit "on the appropriate day did," and to insert "calculated as if it were a small dwelling-house for the purposes of this Part of this Act other than this subsection does." The noble Earl said: I frankly admit that this is a complicated Amendment. As I understand the clause, the definition of a small dwelling-house depends upon its valuation up to the year 1952 in the current valuation lists. If, on the other hand, it is first rated in the new valuation lists, then the definition is upon its valuation in the new lists. Any classification which is once made under this subsection is permanent. That, to my mind, involves, to put it mildly, two serious injustices. My first point is that I think it is admitted on all sides that the present valuation lists involve serious inequalities as between one rating area and another. As I understand it, that, in point of fact, is the whole justification for Part III of the Bill. It stands to reason that an identical house will qualify as a small dwelling-house in one rating area of the country, but it need not, and probably will not, qualify as a small dwelling-house in another area of the country.

My second point is that the valuation of dwelling-houses in the new lists will, in many cases—I think, indeed, in most cases—be higher than in the old lists. Consequently, houses which would have qualified as small dwelling-houses had they been entered in the current lists cannot possibly be so qualified if they have been first entered in the new lists. I think that the Amendment I am moving will remedy those injustices by applying to this subsection the machinery which the Minister has provided for certain cases which are found in subsection (2) of the same clause. The effect of my Amendment would be that a house would be valued under the procedure of Clauses 75 to 81. If it is so valued and falls within the prescribed limit of a small dwelling-house the valuation in that case will stand and, as I understand it, stand permanently. I believe that to be a procedure which would be completely fair to every class of case, and one which would probably be favourably received by your Lordships.

I might add, in conclusion, that in the Committee stage in another place the Minister showed himself to be perfectly aware of the difficulties which I have endeavoured to outline, and he was ready to consider any method or means to amend or alter the clause. Nothing has appeared, so I have put down this Amendment in the hope that the noble Lord will consider inserting it in the Bill. If not, perhaps he will give me an opportunity of discussing the Amendment with him before the next stage of the Bill to see whether we can find an Amendment that will be satisfactory to him and to ourselves. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 29, leave out from (" value ") to (" not "), and insert (" calculated as if it were a small dwelling-house for the purposes of this Part of this Act other than this subsection does ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HENDERSON

As the noble Earl appreciates, this is a very technical point. The effect of the Amendment is to define small dwelling-houses by references to the rateable value, reached by first making an assessment on the building cost method. It is argued that the basis in the Bill ties the question of valuation by reference to rents or building costs to out-of-date valuations. One of the arguments for the new valuation machinery is that the present valuations are uneven. The objection to such a proposal is that for the larger houses the valuation officer will have to make two calculations: first, the assessment on the building cost, and, second, if that brings it above the rateable valuation limits (£75 in the provinces and £100 in London) an assessment on rental levels. Apart from the extra labour involved, it will lead to further possibilities of controversy and argument. The best course seems to be to take the dividing line by reference to some fixed and known figure. If a dwelling-house is classified as "small" for rent control purposes, then it is reasonable enough to use the same classification for rating purposes. It may be anomalous to tie these controls to the old valuations, but that is another story.

Finally, when it is said that there will be large variations in gross value for nearly similar houses just above and just below the limits, we suggest that this ought not to be so. The "building cost" method has been designed to represent a fair economic return, stripped of scarcity values, and this ought to be roughly equivalent to the general level of rents of houses which were in reasonably good supply before the war—as they were at the limits of the present rent control. That was why these limits were placed on these values, and it is another reason for adopting them in the present context. The noble Earl referred to the fact that in another place the Minister promised to look again at this clause. It is perfectly true that no result has been reported, for the simple reason that on investigation it was found that no change could be made. The noble Earl has now suggested that perhaps it would be a good thing if we could consult to see whether there is any way of meeting his point, or whether the clause as it stands is satisfactory. Naturally, I am quite prepared to consult with the noble Earl, and I hope that in the meantime he will allow the clause to stand and will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I thought that the remarks which he made corresponded with what the Minister said in another place. What I am concerned with more than anything else, is the definition of the small dwelling-house—I need not repeat my arguments to your Lordships. The noble Lord has said that he will be good enough to look into this matter and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 agreed to.

Clause 76:

Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction."

(3) In compiling the said statements, the Minister shall be guided by the costs actually incurred by local authorities in either or both of the years nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and nineteen hundred and thirty-eight in constructing houses and buildings either in the rating area in question or in nearby comparable rating areas, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the Minister, in selecting the specifications, to confine himself to houses and buildings of types actually constructed by local authorities in those or any other areas in that year:

Provided that…

(4) The valuation officer, or, on appeal, any court or arbitrator concerned, shall, for the purpose of arriving at the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction of a dwelling-house or building—

1. (a) assume that the cost in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight of constructing houses or buildings conforming with the specifications included in the statement prepared by the Minister as aforesaid for the area in which the dwelling-house or building in question is situated was in each case that which is determined in relation thereto in the statement; and
2. (b) estimate on that assumption what would have been the cost in that year of constructing a dwelling-house or building similar to the particular dwelling-house or building with which the, valuation officer, court or arbitrator is dealing,

and the sum so estimated shall be deemed to be the hypothetical 1938 cost of constructing the house or building.

(6) A copy of the statement prepared by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section for any rating area shall be deposited at the offices of the rating authority for that area and shall be open to inspection during ordinary business hours.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3), to delete all words after "rating areas" down to the beginning of the proviso. The noble Viscount said: This clause purports to set out the principles upon which a large number of houses are to be assessed in future—namely, the small post-1918 dwelling-house. Largely because of the extraordinary anomalies of the Rent Restrictions Act—which the Lord Chancellor told us last autumn there was no time to revise—an entirely new basis of valuation is to be adopted. That is the basis under which an attempt is to be made to estimate what each of these houses would have cost had they been built in 1937 or 1938 by a local authority. Not only is this basis of assessment entirely new, but it is also exceedingly artificial, because numbers of small houses which were built by private enterprise between the wars were of weird and wonderful design, and cannot be compared in any way to any type of council house.

To meet this difficulty, as I understand the position—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will correct me if I am wrong—the Government propose to produce a series of hypothetical designs called "specifications." The hope is that if the valuer cannot compare one of these private enterprise houses to a council house, he may at least be able to compare it with one of these alternative designs, each of which is to have its appropriate costing attached to it. I am told by valuers that even taking into account the existence of these additional specifications, they foresee great difficulty in finding something in the houses they will have to value with which to make the comparison.

I am not for the moment concerned with the difficulties of valuers. What I am concerned with is the position of the ordinary ratepayer, because it seems to me that the wording of this clause is so wide as to give the ratepayer no valid ground of appeal. I hope that I have not misunderstood this clause, but I would point out that subsection (2) (a) gives the Minister the power to make specifications of any type that he thinks fit, and paragraph (b) empowers him to attach to these specifications an appropriate cost. The only limitation set upon that cost seems to be contained in the first sentence of subsection (3). Up to that point, presumably, the ratepayer could appeal, on the ground that the hypothetical cost of the house—which constitutes the basis of the assessment upon which he will have to pay his rates—bore no relation to the cost of any local authority house constructed in his locality. When we come to the next sentence, I must confess that I am rather puzzled. Either it repeats the point of subsection (2) (a), or it has a somewhat more sinister connotation. The object of my Amendment is to discover the object of these words which I propose to omit. If they are necessary, do they in any way empower the Minister to depart from the one and only concrete fact that protects the ratepayer from the fixing by the Minister of a purely arbitrary cost—namely, the actual cost which some nearby local authority may have incurred in constructing houses of their own? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 32, leave out from (" areas ") to end of line 36.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD HENDERSON

The clause deals with the method of assessing the "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction" of a house. The Minister will have the duty of preparing for each area a statement setting out the specifications of one or more types of house with the sum to be taken as the 1938 cost in each case. In compiling these statements the Minister must be guided by the cost of erection of local authority houses in 1938, but—and I want to emphasise these words because these are the words with which the noble Lord is concerned—the Minister is not obliged to confine the specifications for any area to the types of house actually built in 1938 by the local authority. It is essential to retain this provision. The specifications will have to be used by the valuation officers for a vast variety of houses—not merely local authority houses. It may be necessary to issue a specification for a type of house which local authorities do not build, but which private builders have built in any particular area. Or it may be decided to issue one or more fairly standard specifications as covering a normal range of building; and it would be absurd to have to omit any particular type in one rating area simply because the local authority did not build it in 1938. There may be many such houses in the area—all of which have to be valued—built in other years. Finally, something will have to be issued to enable valuers to deal with post-war prefabricated houses which, of course, were not built anywhere in 1938.

The noble Viscount asked whether the ratepayer had any right to object to the cost attached in the statement by the Minister. He will not have any right to object to that, because the valuation officer has merely to use this background against which any particular house of its own category is to be assessed. The ratepayer may object, according to the provisions of the Bill, to the valuation placed on his property, but he has no opportunity to appeal against the figure which the Minister states is the figure to be used in association with the specification. I hope that that will remove any doubt the noble Viscount may have, and may lead him to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to have further clarification here, because subsection (3) lays down that in compiling the statement "the Minister shall be guided by the cost actually incurred." We all agree that that is right, because there some actual test is applied. It is when we come to the latter part of the subsection— …but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the Minister, in selecting the specifications, to confine himself to houses and buildings of types actually constructed by local authorities in those or any other areas… that the difficulty begins. Does that mean that he need not confine himself to the cost of a house that was actually built by anybody? Or does it mean merely that if private individuals have built houses in that area he may be guided by the cost of those houses?

As I read these words they allow the Minister to be guided by nothing at all The first part says by what he is to be guided—that is, the actual cost incurred by the local authorities. The second part says that he need not be guided by that cost. I should not have any objection if he were guided by some houses; but with the drafting as at present, I do not know that he need be guided by anything. Does the second part nullify the first? I suggest that the point could be cleared up by an Amendment, perhaps at a later stage, reading something like this: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the Minister to select a house actually constructed by local authorities. So long as we have an actual house, and this matter is not, as it were, left in midair, I shall be satisfied. I think that that would make much clearer what is intended. I do not think it is the intention to nullify the whole of the first part of the subsection, but as the clause is at present drafted I am afraid that that appears to be the result.

LORD HENDERSON

What the Minister has to do is to prepare specifications. He will prepare specifications based on local authority houses that were built in 1938; he fixes the price in his statement and that is the guide to the valuer. In the case of privately owned houses not built by local authorities he will prepare a suitable specification relating to that type of house, but in fixing the cost that goes with the specification he must be guided by the cost to local authorities of building in 1938. The specification and the cost are therefore ascertained in the same way, but the Minister is enabled to provide a test of valuation for houses in an area which may not have been built up by local authorities but which may have been built at any time by a private builder.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The noble Lord's second explanation satisfied me a good deal better than his first. The two do not seem quite the same, if I may say so. Perhaps, to make it still clearer, the noble Lord will explain why it is necessary to have these words in at all. Subsection (a) refers to a statement which embodies specifications, set out in such detail as he thinks fit, of houses and buildings of such types as he thinks fit; Why are these words necessary? Do they repeat the sense of this subsection, or do they mean something different? If they mean something different, do they affect what is indicated in regard to the clause? If I can be assured that the Minister in assessing these unusual houses will be prepared to take into account the cost, however difficult it may be to relate, of local government houses, then I shall be quite satisfied; but it seems to me that the clause gives carte blanche to the Minister to put any cost he likes on the specifications.

LORD HENDERSON

That is not so. The Minister must be guided in all specifications by local authority costs. The noble Viscount asks why subsection (3) is necessary in view of paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) speaks of a statement which embodies specifications set out in such detail as he [the Minister] thinks fit… and so on. Subsection (3) opens: In compiling the said statements, the Minister shall be guided by the costs actually incurred— The very thing about which the noble Viscount was apprehensive—the freedom of the Minister to fix what price he likes—is prevented by this paragraph. The Minister must relate his specifications to the cost of local authority houses built in 1938.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I apologise for being so suspicious. We live in a world where officials have so much control over the lives of private citizens that a little suspicion may not always be out of place. In view of the categorical assurance that the noble Lord has given, that in all cases the costs will be related to local government costs, I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HENDERSON

This is purely a drafting Amendment. The reference to "that year" in line 36, page 46, referred originally to the year 1938 mentioned earlier in the subsection. When that reference was widened to "the years 1937 and 1938," the phrase should have been altered to "those years," as the Amendment proposes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, leave out line 36 and insert (" those years ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.11 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (4), to omit paragraph (a) and all words in paragraph (b) down to and including "year" and to insert take into consideration the statement prepared as aforesaid by the Minister for the rating area in which the dwelling-house or building is situated and shall in the light of such consideration estimate what would have been the cost in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight. The noble Lord said: Once the Minister has made a valuation on what, from our last discussion, seems to be a somewhat hypothetical basis, what happens in the next stage is dealt with in Clause 76 (4), which says: The valuation officer, or, on appeal, any court or arbitrator concerned, shall, for the purpose of arriving at the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction of a dwelling-house or building—

1. (a) assume that the cost…"

was the one set out in the Minister's statement. I am suggesting that, instead of the court or the valuation officer having by law always to make that assumption, they should take the statement as a guide. That, in fact, rather paraphrases what my Amendment means.

What happens under the Bill as drafted? Once those estimates, which nobody can inquire into at all, have been made somewhere in the Ministry in the way we have been discussing, nobody, so far as I can see, can appeal against them. What is more, the Minister makes different estimates of cost for different areas. Therefore, if an estimate of cost is made for a house in area A and an estimate of cost for a similar house in area B, quite different statements of cost are put into circulation from the Ministry. In that case, whatever may be thought of the difference by the valuation officer, the court, or finally the assessors or the County Court Judge, nobody can do anything about it. They must assume all the time that whatever differentiation the Ministry have made is absolutely right and there is no getting behind it. I see the force of there being some general standards in order to secure uniformity over the country as a whole, but I think it is going a little too far when what may be one of the main grievances of the occupier in question—that is, the right to discuss and go into this statement of values prepared by the Ministry—is not allowed for by Statute. That is what my Amendment seeks to alter. I do not want to waste any more time speaking on this Amendment, and for the reasons given I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 4, leave out from the beginning of line to (" of ") in line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would seriously affect a fundamental feature of this part of the Bill. Perhaps I may recall to your Lordships the words of subsection (3): …the Minister shall be guided by the costs actually incurred by local authorities in either or both of the years nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and nineteen hundred and thirty-eight in constructing houses and buildings either in the rating area in question or in nearby comparable rating areas. The effect of subsection (4) is that the valuation officer or the court of appeal first assumes that the figures in the Minister's statement are the 1938 costs for the specification laid down. They have to assume that, and that is basic to the scheme. Secondly, on that assumption, the valuation officer estimates what it would have cost to build the house being valued. He estimates the cost of the house being valued by reference to the cost included in the Minister's statement. It is quite true that there is no appeal against that statement. That is the yardstick applied by the valuation officer to all houses of comparable character.

In effect, this Amendment proposes to leave out the first stage and to replace it by vaguer words requiring the valuer to take into consideration the Minister's statement. As the noble Lord will realise, that is a very different thing from assuming that the Minister's figures are correct and assessing or estimating on that assumption. It is essential to the operation of this provision that the process of reasoning by which the hypothetical 1938 cost of a house is assessed shall be clearly established. That is done in the clause as it is now drawn. There is no earlier wording in the clause which does this, and the provision in subsection (4) is therefore necessary I am afraid that this means that I am quite unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am fully in agreement with the noble Lord on one point, and that is that, not on the whole principle of the Bill but on this part of it, my Amendment makes a fundamental alteration. It was so intended. In the first part of this clause the Minister himself is required to be guided by actual values. All I go on to say is that the valuation officer and the court should, in the same way, be guided by the Minister's statement. I have served in too many Government offices to assume easily that Government officials are at all times right, although I have defended them frequently and would say that they are generally right. However, let us do with our eyes open what we are doing. We assume here that some calculations are done in the Ministry without anybody being able to inquire into them. Are they, in a court of law or, when on appeal, in the County Court, to be assumed to be absolutely right for all purposes, although they may differ from one area to another? That is the assumption that we are laving down in this Bill.

I must say that in a number of cases I think that assumption may turn out to be wrong. I am by no means, saying that the assumption will be wrong in every case—in most cases, it will probably be right; but I believe then will be an odd case here and there, or a certain number of cases, where the assumption may not be right. There is a fallibility about all human beings, and there is more fallibility about the statisticians who are going into these cost specifications than about the average ordinary mortal. However, I think that the Bill, as drafted, is wrong. It would be much better with my Amendment inserted. On the other hand, it is not an Amendment on which I lay the utmost amount of stress. In consequence, I do not want the noble Lord to start the day by thinking that he is suffering from any injury, although I am afraid he will have to think that later on. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause: and any person shall, upon payment of the prescribed lee, be entitled to a copy thereof for his own use

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is simple, and I have another such Amendment on Clause 77. I seek to ensure here that not only shall an individual be allowed to examine at the office of the local authority a copy of the statement prepared by the Minister, but (since that statement is bound to contain innumerable details) that he shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be able to obtain a copy for his own use. The object of my Amendment under Clause 77 is precisely the same.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HENDERSON

If I may, I will follow the noble Earl's course of action and refer to both Amendments. We have no objection in principle to either, but they are not quite in the proper form for insertion in the Ball; they do not go quite far enough in one place. Perhaps the noble Earl will agree to a consultation, and we will find the appropriate words for agreed Amendments which the noble Lord can put down on Report.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 77 to 79 agreed to.

5.22 p.m.

Clause 80:

Other small post-1918 dwelling-houses, except flats and maisonettes.

80.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the gross value of any small post-1918 dwelling-house which is neither a local authority or housing association dwelling-house nor a flat or maisonette shall be five per cent. of the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction of the dwelling-house plus five per cent. of what is for the time being the value of the site, estimated on the basis—

1. (a)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "what is for the time being." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one of considerable importance. As Clause 80 is drafted at the present moment, the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction of the dwelling-house is naturally taken into consideration for assessment purposes; but together with that there is a 5 per cent. addition of "what is for the time being the value of the site." As I read that, it means that on the first occasion of the new valuation the valuation officer will take into consideration the cost of the house in the terms of the subsection plus 5 per cent. of the value of the site. In other words, that means quite clearly the rating of site value, which is an entirety new function in the whole of our rating law. Not only will the valuation officer take that 5 per cent. on the first occasion, but he will continue to do so on every occasion in the future, whenever the quinquennial period comes up. That is dealing with the private house.

Now let us refer to the house on the other side of the road perhaps, the local authority house. However that may be assessed, one thing is quite certain—the local authority house will not have that addition of 5 per cent. for "what is for the time being the value of the site." I think that that is extremely unfair—and for this reason. It is clear that in the course of time the site value of the privately owned house must continue steadily to rise and the site value of the local authority house will be at a permanent level; it will never move up or down. To my mind that is so clearly unfair that I believe that this subsection requires some alteration. Moreover, there is an addition which makes me feel somewhat concerned. If the procedure outlined in this subsection is continued in the case of the privately owned house, it will be only a matter of time before the private owner will be subsidising the local authority house, which may perhaps be on the other side of the road. To my mind—and, I believe, also to that of Lord Henderson—the matter is fundamentally clear. Is it fair to rate the site value of a private house on one side of the road and leave the local authority house for ever free of all site value? That is really the basis of my argument.

I might be satisfied if the noble Lord would agree to take out the words "what is for the time being," and agree to the insertion in the clause of words which will ensure that the first site value of the house in the first period of the valuation is one which will be settled and never again altered. Half a loaf is better than no bread; and, if the noble Lord can give me my second point, I might—though reluctantly—be prepared to withdraw my Amendment Anyhow, I have put this point to him for his consideration and I shall anxiously await his reply. I do not think that I need add anything further on this Amendment, and I beg leave to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 22, leave out (" what is for the time being ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HENDERSON

If I may say so, the noble Lord put his point very concisely. He objects to the site value for a private house being 5 per cent. of "what is for the time being" the value and he suggests, in their place, some such words as "the time of the preparation of the first valuation list." This is a rather elastic term, because the period may well extend over two or three years. What the noble Earl suggested more precisely was: Is it not possible to have a datum line fixed for this house, as there is already a datum line fixed for local authority houses? I do not know whether the noble Earl would consider, for example, the insertion in the Bill of a precise date, such as April 1, 1949. That, I think, would meet the point that he has in mind, and I should be prepared to look with favour on an Amendment of that sort. It might be best if we had a discussion between now and Report stage, and drew up an agreed Amendment. If that meets with the agreement of the noble Earl, then perhaps he will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and the date he has suggested would suit me. As I understand it, that will definitely mean that the private dwelling-house will be rated for the site value as on April 1, 1949, and, having been given that date, it will never fluctuate, one way or another, unless there is another Act of Parliament which deals with the matter. On that understanding I am perfectly prepared to withdraw this Amendment. I must, however, make this remark in conclusion. I am amazed that members of His Majesty's Government, whatever Act is brought into operation or whatever date is amended in any Act of Parliament, should always choose April1.

LORD HENDERSON

It is the beginning of the year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 agreed to.

Clause 81 agreed to.

Clause 82:

Gross value of other dwelling-houses.

(3) Where, under any such letting—

1. (a) the landlord undertakes any further obligation; or
2. (b) the tenant does not undertake to pay all the usual tenant's rates and taxes,

the rent payable on that letting shall be adjusted, before being taken into account under subsection (1) of this section, by deducting there from sums representing the cost to the landlord of any services provided by him to fulfil any such obligation (exclusive of profit) and the burden otherwise falling on him by reason of his undertaking any such obligation or by reason of the tenant not undertaking to pay all the usual tenant's rates and taxes:

Provided that the said cost and the said burden shall be estimated by reference to the levels of costs prevailing in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.

5.30 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "estimated," to insert: (a) in the case of a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, apply by reference to the cost thereof to the landlord during the years in which the first and each subsequent valuation list is made and, (b) in any other case.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with houses of other classes and particularly with those houses in respect of which the landlord undertakes further obligations than that of merely keeping the house in good repair. In this case, so far as I can understand, the method of calculating the value is to deduct the cost of services, et cetera, at the 1938 level. That is quite fair with regard to the general run of houses where a landlord has been able to adjust his rents because of the increased cost of services that he provides. I have in mind services such as heating (everyone knows how the cost of fuel has risen) or providing a hall porter or other attendants—the cost of that service, too, has gone up very considerably.

I must admit that I am not sure that my words are the most appropriate, but what I want to try to ensure is that in getting at the proper rateable value of that dwelling you do not just deduct the 1938 value of those services, but the present day value of them. It is quite clear that the two things are very different, and that you will be creating unfairness, in the case of rent-restricted properties if you do not take into account, in those cases where other services are provided, the increased cost which the landlord has to bear in respect of those services at the present time. That is why I move this Amendment. Paragraph (a) merely deals with the case of a dwelling-house to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920–1939 apply. In paragraph (b) I say "in any other case," leaving it as already provided in the Bill. I think that here there is a real point in dispute in respect of cases in which a landlord cannot raise the rent of a house although the cost of ser vices which he has to provide have risen substantially since 1938. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 40, after (" estimated ") insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

I hope to persuade the noble Lord not to proceed with this Amendment. Clause 82 (1) sets out the method by which the gross value of a house which cannot be dealt with under any other provision of the Bill is to be estimated. That is, by reference to the rents for comparable dwelling-houses which were being paid on August 31, 1939, under lettings in force at that date. That is the basic aim of the clause. In making an assessment, the valuer will have regard to the general level of rents of comparable houses in 1939. The rents which have to be taken must be on the basis of the landlord bearing the usual expenses of repairs, et cetera. Subsection (3) allows other rents to be taken into account—where the landlord bears some of the expenses normally borne by the tenant. The rent has first to be adjusted to show what it would have been had the landlord borne only the usual expenses. As the rent on which the adjustment is to be made will be the 1939 rent, the subsection naturally requires that the value of the extra expenses borne by the landlord shall first be adjusted to the same levels—that is, the 1938 levels. As the noble Lord has indicated, his Amendment I proposes to amend this by requiring that in the case of "small houses" the value of the landlord's additional expenses shall be assessed on current levels at the time of the revaluation.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Not purely on small houses; on rent-restricted houses. That is rather different. If it is not a rent-restricted house the rent can automatically be increased to meet additional charges.

LORD HENDERSON

I am obliged to the noble Lord for the correction. I should have said, small houses below the rent restriction levels. In the case of those, the Amendment proposes that the value of the landlord's additional expenses shall be assessed on current levels at the time of the revaluation. I think the noble Lord suggested that the "true" rent at any time will be the rent paid (which is restricted at the 1939 level) less the actual current value of the landlord's expenses: but may I suggest that this is not relevant to the particular point at issue? What is wanted is the 1938 value, not the current "true" rent. And, further, in taking this value, the valuer is not assessing that particular house: he is building up the general background of 1938 rental levels by reference to which he will make his assessment. Clearly, all houses must be taken on the same basis. That is the object of the clause, and its purpose would be defeated if, on the grounds mentioned by the noble Lord, we were to have deductions on current values which would have a bearing on the rateable value of any particular area. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

On one point, and a most essential one, the noble Lord has convinced me. I had, I think, overlooked the fact that this was only a process of building up the general level of values. If it is used only for that, it cannot bear so hardly on the owners of these houses. If it had been applied in the case of particular houses then it would, I think, have caused injustice. But if it is merely a matter of building up the general background of 1938 rental levels, by reference to which the valuer will make his assessments, I feel that my Amendment is unnecessary, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HENDERSON

This is a purely drafting Amendment, submitted in the interest of clarity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 22, leave out (" In arriving at the said gross value ") and insert (" In estimating the gross value of any dwelling-house in accordance with the provisions of this section.")—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.

Clause 85:

Railway or canal hereditaments and electricity hereditaments not to be rated.

85.—(1) Save as is otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, no premises which are or form part of either—

1. (a) s, railway or canal hereditament (as defined for the purposes of this Part of this Act); or
2. (b) a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority, an Area Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board,

shall be liable to be rated or be included in any valuation list or in any rate, and the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board shall, in the year 1948–49 and all subsequent years, make such payments for the benefit of local authorities as are provided for by, the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act in lieu of the rates which would, apart from the provisions of this Part of this Act, be payable to rating authorities in respect of those hereditaments.

LORD KINNAIRD moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "Authority," to insert "or." The noble Lord said: I would like to say a few words in explanation of this Amendment. The object which it is desired to attain is that Part V of the Bill, so far as it relates to the rating of hydro-electric undertakings and the payments for the benefit of local authorities, shall not be applied to the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and that in that area the present law of valuation and rating of hydroelectric undertakings shall remain unaltered. I would remind those of your Lordships who may not know the position in the north of Scotland that there are certain counties where hydro-electric undertakings are in operation which will now be invested in the Hydro-Electric Board. A considerable sum of money is involved in rating valuation; I believe in Perthshire as much as £40,000 to £50,000 per annum. In spite of this large sum, Perthshire County Council did not think it in the national interest to proceed with the scheme. The Hydro-Electric Board came up in force—the chairman and managing director and several experts—to try and persuade them to do so, and they pointed out to the county council the large sum they would gain in rating valuation if they consented to proceed. Still the county council were unmoved, and a Committee of Inquiry were appointed to go into the Tummel-Garry scheme under the Hydro-Electric (Scotland) Act.

This inquiry, set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, was held in Parliament House, Edinburgh, in April and May, 1945. May I read a paragraph from the evidence brought before that Committee? It said: In addition, a substantial increase in rates would fall to the Perthshire County Council in respect of the Tummel-Garry works, estimated at an approximate annual sum of £20,000. The rates referred to will not be paid now to the County Council; they will be pooled and distributed among the counties in the north of Scotland. I know the noble Lord, Lord Henderson will say, as he said on Second Reading, that all will be put right by the equalisation, grant. But I think there is an important point raised by this Amendment, and I am sure Lord Henderson will agree with, me. What are our standards of morality? It seems to me of the greatest importance that in this country we should keep up the high standard of morality we always have maintained. In this case a Board appointed by His Majesty's Government have gone to a county council and tried to persuade them to adopt a certain course by giving them certain assurances of what they were to receive. There has then been a Committee of Inquiry, also appointed by the Government, where certain statements as to the value of the increased rates were recorded. Now, within a very short period, the assurances given by His Majesty's representatives are ignored and become valueless.

It is difficult for county councils and other bodies to carry on the affairs of this country in a proper way if they cannot rely on assurances of the nature to which I have referred. It may be said, "You know that a Government Minister cannot always carry out his word. Ministers are changed, and you ought to be old enough to know that you cannot rely on this." Perhaps that is true but this is a rather different case, in which there is a Board and a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Government. I hear from the Perthshire County Council, of which I am a member, that the county councils concerned prefer to have the hydro-electric valuations in their valuation rolls, and that the Hydro-Electric Board are in sympathy with them. The Board would also prefer that the present law should stand, so that the promises made by members and officials to the county councils may be implemented. I hope that the noble Lord will explain to us what the financial position will be. It will have a different effect, I believe, as between the landward and other areas, but we have not had any definite figures in regard to it. The result of my Amendment is that the Hydro-Electric Board will remain outside the scheme. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 36, after (" Authority ") insert (" or ").—(Lord Kinnaird.)

5.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to support what the noble Lord has said. There was a perfectly clear understanding, not only in Perthshire but in a number of other counties in Scotland, that in the event of the Hydro-Electric Board starting operations there would be a positive improvement in rateable value, and it was largely on that account that a number of objections—which may have been right or wrong; I am not arguing that point—were withdrawn. Now the whole of that understanding is put on one side. Frankly, I feel His Majesty's Government should have explained matters to the county councils concerned Perthshire, Dumbartonshire, and Inver ness-shire—so that they may realise why this action is taking place. Further, I feel we should have a clear statement of what is the relative position from the rating point of view. I have in front of me certain figures, and I am bound to say it seems to me extremely doubtful whether the benefits accruing from the equalisation fund will be anything like the benefits accruing from the rating valuation. The noble Lord may have comparative figures, or may even hesitate to give figures. I certainly have not the complete figures. What is fair is that the county councils should know the position. They should know whether they are supposed to be gainers or losers in this transaction.

LORD MORRISON

I will endeavour to give the noble Earl all the information at my disposal and, if necessary, give him a few figures. Since the noble Earl discovered that my pet aversion was the use of figures to bolster my argument, he seems more determined than ever to press me to give figures. This point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has already been discussed at considerable length in another place—in the Grand Committee, on Second Reading and on Third Reading of the Bill. Moreover, as the noble Lord knows, it was discussed only two days ago in Scotland, when a deputation met the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on this very point. So it has not suffered from any lack of discussion.

This proposal must be considered in relation to the provisions of the Bill dealing with the new equalisation grant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the effect of these provisions, where the average rateable value per head of weighted population is below the national average, is that the rateable value equivalent to the difference is credited to the area; and the Government, in effect, by way of equalisation grant, pay the rates on the value so credited. The abandonment of these proposals in Part V of the Bill, in relation to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's undertaking, would not, I suggest, be an advantage to the rating authorities in that district. May I also point out that the burghs will benefit from the contributions received in respect of the undertakings in the landward areas, and, in the case of small burghs, from the additional equalisation grant attracted by the lower valuations? I know that statements have been made in another place (I rather think that have not been made here) and I propose to give to noble Lords one or two figures with regard to the two counties which I think are most affected by these proposals—namely, Dumbartonshire and Perthshire.

Dumbartonshire now has a rateable value from the railways of £865 and a rateable value from the electricity undertakings of £24,536—making a total of £25,401. At 15s. in the £, therefore, the rate product is about £19,000. Under the Bill, based on the 1947–48 expenditure the contributions from the railways and electricity undertakings will be £20,723. That is a larger sum than is being obtained from the existing rating. In addition, the equalisation grant gives another £52,736; so that Dumbartonshire, at any rate, will have an advantage under the new system. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me that he is not so much interested in Dumbartonshire as in Perthshire. I turn now to Perthshire. Under Part II of the Bill Perthshire and Kinross will receive equalisation and transitional grants of such amount as will result in a net gain to the joint county equal to the produce of a rate of four and four-fifths of a penny. In addition, under Part V of the Bill, each county and town council will receive its appropriate share, on the basis of rateable value, of the contributions paid by the British Transport Commission and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. On the basis of the 1946–47 figures, the amount of credited rateable value on which equalisation grant will be paid is approximately £224,000; and the amount of the equalisation grant is approximately £109,000. If the rateable value of the county had been increased in the normal way by new hydro-electric works, the amount of credited rateable value, and consequently the amount of the equalisation grant, would be correspondingly reduced.

I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State recently met a deputation on this point, and promised then to consider the representations made. I think that has been stated in the Press, but I am not sure. I should be misleading the noble Lord, however, if I said that, in my opinion, it will be possible to meet the wishes of the deputation. I do not think it will. So far as the question of allocating expenditure between the landward areas and the burghs is concerned (this is perhaps a subsidiary question, but it is none the less important within the county), this point has already been submitted to the Secretary of State, and he is giving it consideration. I ought to inform my noble friend, however, that there is no possibility of dealing with this point in the present Bill.

The final point raised by both noble Lords is as to assurances that were given by representatives of the Hydro-Electric Board. I have not had an opportunity of consulting with those who gave the assurances, but I should think the simple answer to the point is that when the assurances were given, in 1945, those who gave them were not in a position to know that a scheme for entirely changing the rating system, not only of Perthshire and Kinross and Dumbartonshire, but of the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, would be presented to Parliament. That is the only explanation I can advance on the point which the noble Lords legitimately made. I do not think I can add anything more. I know how hard the noble Lord has worked on this point, and how fairly he has presented his case, but I am not authorised to accept this Amendment. I take it that in moving this Amendment he is dealing with the same point covered by the five Amendments in his name.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I know the noble Lord is not partial to figures, but is it not possible to state simply what would be the relative position of the counties under the two systems? The noble Lord gave the impression that the counties would be better off. Why not state it, and say how the counties would be better off? If I may say so, with great respect, from the figures which the noble Lord has given (I tried to follow them closely, and I have been following the other figures) it is not clear whether or not the counties will be better off. He gave us what the figure would be with the equalisation grant, but he did not state anything approaching what the figure would be without it; that is to say, with the benefit of the rating system. I appreciate the noble Lord's position, but I believe that it would be in the interests of those who are promoting this Bill to let the counties know how they stand. I have considerable doubt at the present time as to whether they know if they are worse or better off.

LORD MORRISON

I will certainly bring that point to the notice of those responsible for the Bill with a view to seeing whether any further information can be obtained. But, by and large—if I may go back to my favourite rule of trying to avoid statistics—it seems to I me that it is rather a case of what you I lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts. If the system of rating in these counties had been continued, as before, obviously the revenue they would have obtained from other sources would have been correspondingly less. The position would not have been any worse or any better than it is today; it would be approximately the same. As it is, the figures which I have given show, as I said on the Second Reading, that out of thirty-one local authorities in Scotland, twenty-nine will benefit under this Bill. Both Perthshire and Dumbartonshire are included in the twenty-nine which will benefit.

LORD KINNAIRD

As the noble Lord has said there are certain matters still under consideration, I should draw attention to the fact that these hydro-electric schemes reduce considerably the value of shooting and fishing rights, and the rateable value of the county is thereby reduced. Under the new Bill, this will not now be balanced, as in the past, by additional valuations from hydro-electric works, and there is no special provision to cover even the loss of valuation due to the depreciation in fishing rights. I hope the noble Lord will keep that in mind and will perhaps be able to make adjustments in the considerations he has given. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1) to omit "for the benefit of" and to substitute "to." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the use of the phrase, "payments for the benefit of local authorities." It is one to which a considerable amount of attention was paid and objection made when the Bill was in Committee in another place. When it came to the Report stage, the Undersecretary inserted the words, "in lieu of the rates." The reply was exceedingly brief and took only seven lines of Hansard. He did not explain why those words could not be inserted in other parts of the Bill, or why it was necessary to retain the words "payments for the benefit of local authorities." I therefore thought that it would be more convenient if I raised the question on one Amendment, rather than put down a great many wherever those words occur.

I think, in the first place, that the words are objectionable in themselves. After all, rates are not paid for the benefit of local authorities any more than taxes are paid for the benefit of His Majesty's Government or the members who sit upon the Front Bench opposite. Any share which falls their way is no doubt abundantly earned and, therefore, cannot be said, strictly speaking, to be "for their benefit." As a matter of principle, I think the right phrase is the traditional one—" payments in lieu of rates." If the Government do not like that phrase, I have an alternative. They might substitute," for services rendered by." After all, these payments are made in respect of those services, and that seems to me clearly the reasonable phrase to use throughout this Part. There is another point. I think the words are rather redundant. Might it not be simpler to say "payments for local authorities" and delete the other words altogether? In this clause they are particularly redundant, because the phrase "in lieu of rates" occurs further on. Therefore the words, "payments for local authorities as are provided for…in lieu of the rates," will be perfectly sufficient in this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 42, leave out (" for the benefit of ") and insert (" to ")—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am afraid that I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. The object of this Amendment, as he said, is to remove the phrase, "for the benefit of." The noble Lord fears that it might later be forgotten that these payments are in substitution for moneys previously paid as rates and, therefore, are payments to which they have a right. To meet that argument—the noble Lord was quite right; he mentioned it himself—the words which appear in lines 43 to 46—namely, "in lieu of the rates which would…be payable to rating authorities "—were added in another place. I suggest that those words make the position abundantly clear. At any rate the omission from this clause only of the words "for the benefit of", would not do. The words occur several times in later clauses and ought to be referable back to this first mention, especially if later references in the detailed provisions are to connect back to the words "in lieu of rates," et cetera, which occur only in this introductory clause. Moreover—and this deals with a point which the noble Lord stressed—the later provisions which it is not proposed to amend provide for these payments to be made to the Minister, and not to local authorities. That is the reason why we could not accept the suggestion which the noble Lord has put forward. I think that answers his objection to the use of the words, "for the benefit of", and I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will be satisfied.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am sorry the noble Lord does not like my Amendment, and in those circumstances I will not press it. I thought the form would be better if we used the word "to". But if he does not like the Amendment I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85 agreed to.

Clause 86:

Definition of railway or canal hereditament.

86.—(1) In this Part of this Act, except where the contrary is expressly provided, the expression "railway or canal hereditament" means a hereditament occupied for any of the purposes of the British Transport Commission specified in subsection (2) of this section:

Provided that no premises occupied as a dwelling-house, hotel or place of public refreshment, or so let out as to be capable of separate assessment, shall be deemed to be', or to form part of, a railway or canal hereditament.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "refreshment" to insert "or for the manufacture or repair of equipment or goods." The noble Lord said: This concerns a point that I touched upon on the Second Reading of this Bill. I then endeavoured to point out that so far as local authorities were concerned these railway premises—which are really works for the manufacture of such things as goods waggons, engines and things of that sort—do not differ from any other works in the hands of ordinary commercial undertakings. They require similar services, and they involve a similar expenditure. I urge that it is solely just that those who conduct such works should continue to pay rates in a like manner to those persons who conduct commercial undertakings. They are far more akin to commercial undertakings than to any other part of the railway as such. There are probably not many of them. The one I have in mind is in the little town of Wolverton, near my home. That town is quite dependent upon railway carriage works and is, therefore, severely hit. There are sundry other places. If any of these works are to be extended, or if the railway undertakings erect any new works for such purposes in any local authority, that local authority will get no payment whatever in respect of services that either increase or are entirely new to those works. I do rot think there should be any difficulty in carrying out my suggestion which is, I think, fair and just. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 26, after (" refreshment ") insert (" or for the manufacture or repair of equipment or goods ").—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

The proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 86 sets out the hereditaments of the railway or canal undertaking of the British Transport Commission which are not to be derated—namely, dwelling-houses, hotels, places of public refreshment and places let out so as to be capable of separate assessment. The premises mentioned in the proviso, as it stands, are all clearly outside the main operation of the railway system. It has always been reongnised that they can, and should, be valued separately, and precisely similar provision was made in the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, excluding them from the scope of the railway cumulo. But this does not apply to workshops. They are part of the railway system, and inseparably bound up in its efficient operation. It would not be possible to assess them apart from the main undertaking, and even if it were I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be proper to do so. Why should a place which has a workshop reap its full value, when somewhere else which has, say, a marshalling yard, will have the value of the yard spread all over the country, including the place which has the workshop? In those circumstances, I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord once again.

LORD ADDINGTON

I do not think it is quite the same as a marshalling yard, because it would not make any difference to the railway if these particular works were taken off. I think they are perfectly capable of separate assessment, because the rating authority will be assessing exactly similar works in that and other places. As the noble Lord does not seem inclined to meet the case, I do not feel disposed to press it at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 86 stand part of the Bill:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I should like to ask one question on Clause 86. I think I understand the provisio to subsection (1): that no premises occupied as a dwelling-house, hotel or place of public refreshment…shall be deemed to be, or to form part of, a railway or canal hereditament. What I want to know, however, is whether a refreshment room on a station platform is included or excluded. I do not particularly want to know now, though I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider this between now and the next stage.

Clause 86 agreed to.

Clause 87 [Railway or canal hereditaments partly used for other purposes]:

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment corrects a clerical error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 32, leave out first (" annual ") and insert (" value ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 88 to 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 [Dwelling-houses of electricity authorities and boards to remain rateable]:

LORD HENDERSON

This again is an Amendment of a drafting character. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 3, leave out (" the hereditaments ") and insert (" a hereditament ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 92 to 99 agreed to.

Clause 100:

Provision as to making and division of payments for benefit of local authorities.

(2) The sums so paid to the Minister for any year shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to liabilities of the Railway Assessment Authority and the Anglo-Scottish Railways Assessment Authority, be distributed by him, at such times as he may determine, in the manner following, that is to say—

1. (a) the sums shall first be allocated among the rating authorities in England and Wales in proportion to the rateable values for their respective areas for that year;

6.15 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out all words after "allocated" and to insert: to each of those rating authorities to which there would, apart from the provisions of this Part of this Act have been payable rates in respect of the hereditaments omitted under this Part of this Act from the valuation list for its area and to an amount in respect of each such authority equal to the rates which would have been so payable for that year. The noble Lord said: This Amendment, like the others on this clause, is aimed at one purpose—and one purpose only. According to the provisions of the Bill the sums which these undertakings will pay are to be allocated: among the rating authorities in England and Wales in proportion to the rateable values for their respective areas for that year; That is the way it is intended to divide up these global sums to be paid in lieu of rates (that is probably the right phrase to use) by the Railway Executive Committee and by the Electricity Board. My Amendment provides, and all these Amendments provide, that there shall be a sort of first "rake-off" of this amount to the actual areas where there is a plant or railway workshop, or whatever it might be; and only after those authorities have been given back out of this global sum what they have lost in rates (because that hereditament has been taken out) shall the remainder be divided proportionately among the rateable areas of the whole of England and Wales, or in Scotland in its case. In passing, may I say that in this subsection (2) (a) I notice the word "first" appears, but I cannot find any reference to "second."

What I fear, although I appreciate that there will be some indirect compensation in the way of equalisation grants, is that local authorities will not feel encouraged to welcome one of these new electricity undertakings or plants into their area. There will be opposition from the council concerned, and from its town planning authority, to the erection of one of these great power stations in their area, because they are bound to lose something—whatever the designers of these stations may say about their magnificent chimneys and so on. From the amenity point of view, they are bound to lose by having one of these large—though necessary—factories stuck in their area. They are bound also, unless the whole of the fuel and so on is water-borne, to have more wear and tear on their roads. They are also bound to have living in the area more people of the kind—I do not intend anything disparaging—who are a charge on the rates, rather than people who pay more into the rates than they take out—I mean the people who have to be housed by the local authorities. They are, after all, a burden on the local authorities. These authorities will have to put up more houses and more schools for these people and their children.

I believe that we ought to look ahead a bit. If in all these cases the local authority receives nothing but a proportion, as every local authority does, equivalent to its rateable value, there will be the greatest obstruction to the setting up in the area of a new railway yard or workshop, or electricity plant. That is only human nature. We ought to divide up these payments in a different way. Every privately-owned factory that comes to a place has to pay its rates, and the payment of those rates does something to compensate that local authority for the amount of extra services they have to provide for the people working in the factory. If one of these new plants happens to be in the railway sphere, or in the electricity sphere, the local authority concerned does not get the same amount in rates as it would receive from one of these "general purpose" factories.

I am sure there is a great deal to be said for allowing these local authorities to get something back for the particular factory, on the basis of what that factory's rateable value would have been had it not belonged to the electricity or railway undertaking. That, of course, would mean that there would be less to distribute all round; but I am sure that the way the matter is being dealt with under the Bill now will make every local authority in whose area it is proposed to put up one of these new plants as resistant to it as they possibly can be. There are all sorts of ways in which they could hamper this very necessary progress: their town planning schemes, for instance, might not allow it. I want to see that if we have to put these plants in these areas the local authorities receive a direct contribution from the railway and electricity undertakings on whose behalf they have to provide quite a lot of local government services. I think the other authorities who have not these large factories or workshops should take less, because there will be less of the general rateable value to distribute. That is the effect of my Amendment. I believe that it represents practical common sense that we in this House are, as it happens, particularly fitted to apply I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 7, leave out from ("allocated ') to end of line 9 and insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

The noble Lord has made a powerful case for his own point of view. I have a considerable case against his proposal, but I think I can put it briefly and not traverse every detailed argument to building up a very substantial case. First of all, I was interested in the comment that the noble Lord made about the inclusion of the word "first."

LORD LLEWELLIN

Yes—where is the second?

LORD HENDERSON

I will have that looked into, but I take it that what it is intended to do is to indicate in paragraph (a) that the whole sum will be allocated to the authorities, and then paragraphs (b) and (c), in specifying different types of authority, indicate to whom it will be allocated. However, that is a drafting point which I will look into later.

If this Amendment were accepted, it would perpetuate an anomaly of the present system which it is one of the fundamental aims in this part of the Bill to remove—namely, flat a particular authority which has been fortunate enough to have a large installation put in its area reaps an undue advantage. The proposal would give rise to new anomalies because a district which happens to have a station at this moment would go on collecting rates on it as well as receiving, shall I say, a "whack" off the "pool," even though the station becoming obsolete might be put on a "care and maintenance" basis. A neighbouring district with one of the new generating stations now coming into commission would not have any rates on it, and would receive a diminished payment from the "pool" (as compared with the proposals now in the Bill) because other districts had already drawn upon it. The proposals in the Bill start from the assumption that it is wrong that a particular district should reap a large share of the contribution to local rates from these undertakings. The generating station, without its supply lines and consumers, would be useless. The system must be taken as a whole. The basis in the Bill is to secure that the contribution to local finances from these national "tentaculor" undertakings is spread on a uniform and equitable basis, rather than according to the fortuitous siting of particular installations. We must accept—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, himself accepts it—that it will not be possible in the future to attach values to separate pieces of these undertakings. And his Amendment proposes to keep the existing values in perpetuity and to put no value at all on the new and often more important units.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I did not mean to say that. It is a piece of bad drafting.

LORD HENDERSON

The noble Lord referred to the compensating factors, but he did not go into any details. I have a considerable list of them. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them. As all noble Lords know, there are various compensating factors provided, and they are intended to benefit these authorities who lose rateable value under this arrangement. I think the position can be stated summarily: this is an essential principle of the scheme, and any attempt to alter it would make it impossible to achieve the main purpose of the plan—that is, to distribute the benefit of a national undertaking across the whole country and not to give an unfair or an undue proportion to areas which, by mere accident, have had a power station or a railway works located in them. For those reasons, I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD HYLTON

I should like to press the noble Lord a little further on this. He talks about undue advantage being given to a local authority. Surely that is not so, because a local authority will receive some proportion of the extra expense caused to them by their territory (a city, or whatever it may be) having those large works placed in it. It is not a question of getting something for nothing. It is a question of getting something for services rendered by the local authority. They must necessarily be rather expensive. One cannot put down an enormous electrical transmitting station or even a railway goods yard or railway wagon shops in a locality and yet throw no additional burden on the rates. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has mentioned that there must be an increase in housing costs, education costs, road costs and all the expenses that fall upon the local authorities for all their social services. That must be so. A further point that the noble Lord has not mentioned in his reply is that no local authority will be anxious to receive such an industrial undertaking as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has referred, because it will be all expense and there will be nothing coming in to balance it. I think that must be obvious.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask one question. It is stated in subsection (2) (a) that: the sums shall first be allocated…in proportion to the rateable values. I take that as being actual rateable value, and not "credited" rateable value. If that is so, it is difficult to make that tally with what the noble Lord has said, that there shall be an equitable basis. The actual values are not on an equitable basis, and the whole purpose of this Amendment is to put them on a more equitable basis. Therefore, I do not quite see why that argument should be advanced, instead of the argument that the local people have the disadvantage of having placed close to them a large undertaking which they dislike very much. We have had all these arguments before with regard to similar matters in Scotland; they apply equally there. Local people have no advantage, and every single organ of local undertaking will be mobilised against something which in the national interest will be an advantage.

LORD ADDINGTON

May I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said? These expenses for the local authorities will be incurred with both present and subsequent works. That is really the point which His Majesty's Government seem to have left entirely out of account in their calculations.

LORD HENDERSON

I am afraid that I still am unable to respond to the strong pressure which is being brought to bear upon me to make a concession. It may be perfectly true that local authorities dislike having power stations or other industrial enterprises because of amenity reasons, but it may be argued that where they get a rateable value they do not mind the loss of amenity. I am not altogether convinced that what is suggested would in fact happen, because the power station, railway works or whatever it may be, carries with it a population which becomes a rate contributor to the area. It may be perfectly true that certain services have to be provided. I am not able to cite an illustration from personal knowledge, but I am informed that the services provided by a district for a power station are often negligible. In a rural district the erection of a large generating station would often involve the building of roads and the provision of water supply by the undertaking, not by the district council. I think the fact remains that there are local areas which, by the mere accident of having had a power station built within them, have had substantial proportions of their rates borne by the undertaking, which has been made financially secure not by the ratepayers within the area in which it is located, but by the consumers of the undertaking spread far and wide. I still say, despite the arguments that have been used, that I am unable to make any concession, because this is a vital principle of the scheme.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It may be a vital principle, but it is a bad one.

LORD HENDERSON

We differ on principle there.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Then I will say that in my view it is a bad one. The noble Lord says that it is an anomaly that a generating power station has been erected, let us say, at Barking, where there is a very large power station. So it may be; but it is equally an anomaly that Ford's works have been erected at Dagenham. It is a, complete anomaly that they were not built in the next rating area. But Ford's Works go on paying to that local rating authority, and are part of the assessment of that local authority. Speaking with great friendship and respect to the noble Lord, I say that he is wrong—and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison will know I am right, although he may not say so—in saying that when a large working population is brought into a district by the operation of a factory, the people as a rule contribute, through the individual rating of their own small houses, as much as it costs the local authorities to provide them with services. I think we all know that they do not, and that what makes up for it is the rating on the factory in which they work. That is what gives the local authority a compensating factor for bearing a lot of extra education costs, school meals costs, or any costs you like to mention, that are involved with small ratepayers. These costs are contributed to by the works. I am not saying anything against the small ratepayers, but they do not actually pay as much in rates as the services they get in return; however, the local authority get a compensating advantage in the rates they collect from the factories in which those people work.

In this case you are taking the factory in which they work out of the assessment of that area. You might just as well say that every factory should be taken out of the area, and that no factory should be rated for the area in which it exists. That is the logical conclusion to your argument—that every factory should be out and rated centrally, and all the factory costs accumulated into a great lump sum and divided up amongst the different rating areas of the country, in accordance with the rateable values in the respective areas. It would be logical if you were doing that; but it is not logical to say you do it only in the case of a railway or an electricity undertaking because people buy tickets to go to different parts of the country and there must be a railway workshop somewhere, or because people use electricity over the country as a whole. Every cost that keeps a factory going is paid for by consumers in every part of England, and perhaps all over the world. That is what keeps it going; just as I agree that the payment of electricity charges from consumers all over the country keeps the electricity works going.

But that does not get down to the fundamental point, and I say again that it was not my intention at all to frame my Amendment in such a way as to exclude new factories. I want every local authority, as a first cut "off the joint" of this sum, to get something to compensate them for having to provide the extra services caused by having that factory in their midst. From the point of view of the services they have to provide, it makes no difference to them whether the man with five children who have to be educated is working in the electricity undertaking at Barking or in Ford's Works at Dagenham; there is no difference from the point of view of the local authority. This thing has been done the wrong way round, and I cannot think why. There is nothing political in my argument in the very least; it is only a question of common sense. Somebody has thought out the wonderful idea that, because costs are paid for over the country as a whole, therefore all the country should get some part of the rateable value. You might just as well say that because silk stockings are bought in every town of this country the rateable value of the factory where they are made should be spread over the country as a whole. That is just as logical; it is exactly the same principle.

I really hoped that I would be doing something to help the Government in this matter, because I believe that, as a result of this clause, the greatest objection to these undertakings will be raised by every local authority, who will, from henceforth, welcome private industry coming into their district but will say, "We cannot bear having another electricity undertaking or another railway workshop, because we shall get nothing out of it at all." Believe me, there will be the greatest resistance from any local authority in regard to these new railway and electricity works being built in their area. All this clause will do will be to make the Government slightly more unpopular in some of these areas—and may I be saved from doing anything to prevent that!As the noble Lord seems intent on saving me from preventing that, I will, at this stage of the Bill at any rate, withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move the other. But I will have a quiet talk with him, if I may, between now and the Report stage because I honestly believe that what I am saying is correct.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 agreed to.

Clause 102 [Power to direct payments for benefit of local authorities to be treated as payments on account of rates]:

6.40 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY moved to add to the clause: (2) Where, under any statutory provision other than this Act, any amount falls to be calculated by reference to the rateable value for any area, the Minister or, as respects Scotland, the Secretary of State, may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of that statutory provision, the rateable value for the area of any local authority who receive any payment from the sums paid for the benefit of local authorities under this part of this Act shall be deemed to be increased by an amount calculated, by reference to the payments 90 made to that authority, in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent a serious financial loss to the new river boards. Put briefly, since the nationalised industries are to be derated river boards will lose the right to precept on that part of the local government valuation list. But boroughs and county boroughs will receive sums of money from the Minister in lieu of these rates. This Amendment, if agreed to, will allow river boards to precept on this revenue as hitherto. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord De Ramsey.)

LORD HENDERSON

I shall be glad to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. Having said that, I do not think that there is any need for me to give the reasons why I am accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 103 and 104 agreed to.

Clause 105 [Temporary grants by county councils to county district councils, parish councils, etc., in certain cases]:

LORD KERSHAW moved to add to subsection (1): or in meeting a warrant issued under Section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829.

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who I understand is not well, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 9, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD HENDERSON

This Amendment fills up a small gap in this clause dealing with the temporary grants to be paid by county councils to district councils. I am quite prepared to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HYLTON moved, after subsection (6), to insert as a new subsection: (7) Any payment under this section may, if the councils concerned so agree, be effected in whole or in part by making the appropriate deduction from the amount due under a precept.

The noble Lord said: I will not delay the proceedings of the Committee other than to say that this is simply a method of facilitating accounting between different categories of local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hylton.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am glad to have the opportunity of accepting this Amendment from the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to.

Clause 108 [Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland)]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 21, leave out (" Section nine of the Superannuation Act, 1935 ") and insert (" any enactment relating to the superannuation of persons transferring from local government service to civil service ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 46, at end insert: ("(4) In this section, the expression ' local authority ' has the like meaning as in the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, or the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, as the case may be ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109 agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 109, to insert the following new clause:

(" Investigation into working of provisions as to payments under Part V.

.—(1) In the year in which the first new valuation lists under Part III of this Act come into force in England and Wales and every fifth subsequent year the Minister and the Secretary of Slate shall, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable and also with the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, cause investigations to be made into the working of this Part of this Act.

(2) The Minister and the Secretary of State shall cause a report of the result of any investigation under this section to be laid before Parliament.")

The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to accept this Amendment; it raises a major matter. At this late hour I do not want to weary the House with the whole story of this part of the Act all over again. Briefly, my Amendment does this. Under Clause 93 there is laid down a sum of money which the British Transport Commission will pay in a lump sum in lieu of rates. In Clause 96 there is the same story with regard to the British Electricity Authority.

I said during the debate on the Second Reading, and I repeat now, that we believe that these figures which have been drawn up are grossly unfair. All I seek by this Amendment is to let the Government have four, if not five, years to examine the working of this scheme;, after which time, an inquiry having been held, the Minister would report the results of the inquiry to Parliament. Precisely the same thing is laid down in Clause 14 of the Bill. All I seek to do is to bring that portion of Clause 14 into this Part of the Bill. I cannot see what objection there can be to the Amendment. If the scheme is unfair, then the Government will be able to have this closely examined and make such alteration as may be necessary. Otherwise, they will be able to report to Parliament at the end of the period that the scheme has operated admirably, that it is fair and that there is no doubt in the minds of anyone about the admirable way in which it has worked or about the brilliancy of the Minister of Health in thinking it out in the first place. That is all I seek to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 109 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Earl has referred to the similar clause in Part I—Clause 14. There is, however, no comparison. Part I deals with a system of grants, which may be reasonable enough at one period of time and not so at another, with changes of circumstances, relative inoidence of cost of services, the kind of services being provided and so on. Part V lays down a mechanism for distributing the payments from the nation-wide transport and electricity undertakings. If the method is right now, it will always be right. Experience may show that the amounts ought to be changed, and Clause 109 (1) (c) provides the machinery, but it would be wrong to require, or allow, a review of the arrangements as a whole. Clause 109 provides all the machinery for review that is needed. If either side—the local authorities on the one hand, or the Transport Commission or the British Electricity Authority on the other—were to urge a reasonable case for review, the Minister and the Secretary of State would certainly consider making use of these powers in full consultation with both sides. As the noble Earl will remember, any result of such change would have to be reported to Parliament and would be subject to an affirmative Resolution.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It is true that under Clause 109 the Minister and the Secretary of State are to consider jointly, but do they bring in the local authorities as well? If any Order is made, that Order is submitted for a negative Resolution to both Houses of Parliament. What I seek is to ensure that there shall be an inquiry to see whether the scheme is working fairly and that there shall then be a report to Parliament. May I just give your Lordships two figures? Rates paid by electricity undertakings in 1930 amounted to £4,000,000. In 1935 the figure was£6,000,000. The figure for rates paid by electricity undertakings last year, I understand, was £11,250,000. The Committee will notice that in a period of five years there was an increase of 50 per cent. and since then there has been a much greater increase. Now the amount paid in rates by electricity undertakings is nearly three times as much as it was in 1930. All I want to ensure is that this scheme does not fall heavily upon local authorities, who, in their turn, will have to ask ratepayers to put their hands in their pockets and pay out more. Is the scheme outlined in the Bill for paying this lump sum in lieu of rates fair and equitable? All I ask is that at the end of five years, after the Minister has had an inquiry, Parliament should be given the opportunity of judging.

LORD HENDERSON

The noble Earl referred to what is called the standard amount in each case to be paid into the pool. The standard amount represents what would, in fact, have been paid by these two classes of enterprise if there had been no Bill. The Bill provides (I cannot recall the relevant clause) that that standard amount will be adjusted stage by stage, in the light of the change in rates and the change in what I might call the services or output of the undertaking. If there is any dissatisfaction with the distribution of the money, either on the part of the local authorities or the undertaking, they can approach the Ministers, who would obviously conduct an inquiry. I suggest to your Lordships that meets the point which the noble Earl has in mind.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am not going to pursue this subject. But the provision in the Bill by which the sum of money can be altered in lieu of rates is, in my opinion, founded on a formula which is not correct. However, before the end of five years we shall have a change of Government and there will be another opportunity for us. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 110 and 111 agreed to.

6.51 p.m.

Clause 112 [Financial loss allowance]:

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "incurred" to insert "or suffered." The noble Lord said: These words are to meet the case of a business or professional man self-employed or a partner in a firm. It is thought that the word "incurred" does not quite clearly meet the case. I understand that this has already been considered by the draftsman and I hope this Amendment may be useful and may be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 8, after (" incurred ") insert (" or suffered ").—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

If the noble Lord would change his Amendment to read "suffered or incurred" I would be glad to accept it. There is some significance in the change of order.

LORD ADDINGTON

If the noble Lord prefers, I will move the words in that order. First, I beg leave to withdraw the original Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 8, alter (" necessarily ") insert (" suffered or ").—(Lord Addington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of a series of Amendments to subsection (1), with the object of altering the allowances payable. The noble Lord said: In this clause we are allowing local authorities to pay for loss of earnings not more than 10s. if a meeting does not last more than four hours and 20s. if the meeting "lasts over four hours. There is a parable in the New Testament in which the people who worked all day in the vineyards received a penny and those who came in half an hour before the work stopped also received a penny. That may be a parable; difficult to understand, but there it is. My Amendment, which on the face of it may seem absurd, has a, good deal of practical common sense behind it. The purpose is to pay people up to 20s. for meetings under four hours and only 10s. if the meeting goes on for four hours—though I have altered the time to two hours instead of four.

Some people turn up at meetings and if they are to receive 20s. if the meeting lasts more than four hours, when it comes to three and three-quarter hours it is a pretty even bet that it will go over four hours. Somebody will talk just a little extra, in order to qualify for the additional sum. I do not expect the Government to accept this Amendment, but I wanted to point this out. There are a large number of people who do a lot of good work on local authorities who do not claim for expenses. Some of them may not need to, and others do not claim anyhow; they give their services without asking for anything. I do not think you ought to make a limit and pay more if the meetings go on longer, because then many people who ought not to be kept will be detained by people talking extra time if it is possible to obtain extra remuneration. I do not expect the Government to accept, and I do not need any reply, so I will not move the Amendment.

Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 113:

Travelling allowance and subsistence allowance.

113.—(1) A member of a body to which this Part of this Act applies shall be entitled to receive payments, at rates which shall be determined by the body but which shall not exceed those prescribed, by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance where expenditure on travelling or, as the case may be, on subsistence is necessarily incurred by him for the purpose of enabling him to perform any approved duty as a member of that body:

Provided that—

1. (a)….

(c) without prejudice to the foregoing provisos, a member of a body shall not be entitled to any payment under this section in respect of the performance of any approved duty within the area of that body except in respect of duties performed at. I distance of more than three miles from his usual place of residence;

LORD HYLTON moved, in proviso (c) of subsection (1), after "payment," to insert "by way of travelling allowance." The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is quite clear. Proviso (c) states that no payment shall be made either for travelling or subsistence allowances under three miles. That may be perfectly reasonable for travelling, but when it comes to subsistence I think the position is rather different. Members of local authorities are just as hungry, and as much in need of a meal, under three miles from home as they are over three miles from home. The distance is no criterion. The argument that is brought forward from the Government side is that the member in question can go home in the interval for a meal. Those of your Lordships who are members of local authorities must realise that adjournments in the middle of the day are invariably short and do not give members time to go from the meeting to their homes. I think that is a false position to adopt. If they did go home during a, short adjournment they would have to use a motor car, and would use that rare commodity nowadays, petrol. I think the Government should make a gesture and give the subsistence allowance for the short distance as well as for the long, from the point of view of saving petrol as much as anything else. I do not want to labour the point. It is common sense. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 42, after (" payment "), insert (" by way of travelling allowance ").—(Lord Hylton.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am afraid that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord has obviously read the discussion in another place, because he referred to it. That discussion showed a general feeling that this Amendment should not be accepted. There are differences of opinion among people on local authorities on this question. I cannot speak from experience, but that is what I find in discussing the matter with people who have experience. To make subsistence allowance payable where travelling allowances are not payable would be contrary to all good local government practice; so I am informed. Amendments which would have introduced this novel principle in relation to urban authorities were rejected by the Committee in another place. Secondly, the proposal would be unfair to town councils and urban district councils, who are to have no provision for subsistence expenses, even where the areas are of considerable size. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I do not want to expand the matter unnecessarily. I think he will appreciate that the two points I have made are ample justification for not accepting the Amendment.

LORD HYLTON

I am not convinced by what the noble Lord says. This would have been a small gesture to those councillors in rural areas who are not very well off. But, if the Government do not wish to assist them, I am afraid I can do no more in the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 agreed to.

Clause 115:

Meaning of "approved duty."

115. In this Part of this Act, the expression "approved duty," in relation to a member of a body, means any of the following duties, that is to say,—

1. (a) attendance at a meeting of the body, or of any committee or sub-committee thereof;
764
2. (b) the doing of any other thing approved by the body or by any committee or subcommittee thereof, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the body, committee or sub-committee;

7.1 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (b), to omit "or by any committee or sub-committee thereof." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, the wording of which has been slightly adjusted, seeks to alter the provision which, by Statute, confers directly on a committee or subcommittee the right to approve such duties as visits of inspection, delegation and kindred matters. It is suggested that there should be financial control. This power should be conferred by Statute on the parent body alone. Some major authorities certainly keep a very careful control on expenditure, and do not authorise members to proceed to delegations until they have received the consent of the full council to do so. Of course, it is always open to the parent body to delegate this power, if it wants to. I think this matter has already been discussed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 1, leave out from (" body ") to (" for ") in line 2.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am prepared to accept this and the two following Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON

I beg to move the next two Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 80, line 4, after (" body ") insert (" or of any ") line 4, after (" sub-committee ") insert (" thereof ").—(Lord Addington.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 116 agreed to.

Clause 117:

Regulations for the purposes of Part VI.

117.—(1) The Minister may make regulations as to the manner in which the provisions of this Part of this Act are to be administered, and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision, may make regulations—

(d) providing for the publication by a body to which this Part of this Act applies, in the minutes of that body or otherwise, of details of payments made under this Part of this Act.

LORD ADDINGTON moved to delete paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: This is a more controversial matter, and I am quite aware that it is contrary to the recommendations of the Lindsay Committee It is, however, a matter on which I have strong views, and I think those views are supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Amendment to delete this paragraph, which provides for the publication of the amounts which an individual councillor draws, is moved mainly in the interests of those working men whom we want to encourage to come on local councils, and to whom we want to make some payment to compensate them for the loss that they incur financially by so doing. I urge that it is most unfair and embarrassing for them if, at election time, for instance, the exact amount that they have drawn, either in payment for loss of time or for travelling or other expenses, is made known and bandied about among the electors. It would be particularly unfair if their opponent happened to be a man who could not, need not, or did not draw-such allowances. Many of these working men are valuable in attending delegations or conferences on behalf of their council. Such attendance naturally involves rather heavy expenses and, therefore, rather heavy payments to them. Again, it would be a little unfair to them if those figures were published.

I think it is largely a personal matter. As has been pointed out, it is entirely optional whether a councillor who is entitled to draw these allowances does so or not. I think that is also a matter about which the general public should not know. For instance, at the present time county councillors can draw travelling expenses for attendance at county council meetings. So far as I am aware—and certainly it is so in the council on which I serve—no one knows how much travelling allowance another draws, or whether anyone does or does not refrain from claiming travelling allowances. That is a principle which I think should be continued. It seems to me that both the accounts sub-committees of the councils and the auditor will have quite sufficient power to check abuses. The total amount that is paid will also be published, and will be provided for in the amount the council have to raise in order to meet their expenses. That also will be a safeguard. I submit that the embarrassment caused to those who are most deserving of our support outweighs any safeguard that this provision is meant to provide. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 9, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. Since the provision to be made under the Bill for members' expenses is both more extensive and more flexible than anything yet known in England and Wales, it would be necessary, in the absence of publicity, to control payments by close investigation of members' claims by officials. Lord Lindsay's Committee, to which the noble Lord referred, pointed out that this might be an invidious task; and that provision for publicity, which had worked well in Scotland, would reduce the amount of checking of claims required and would also serve to remove unjustified suspicion; from the public mind. I think that is adequate reason for not accepting the Amendment.

LORD HYLTON

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Addington in this Amendment. This provision applies principally to the poorer members of councils. That point has been entirety overlooked by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It is extremely invidious for a not-so-well-off councillor if all his expenses are to be published immediately before an election. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is perfectly right. During a, local government election those amounts: will be published, and it is not going to be easy for a borough councillor who has drawn a considerable sum in the course of two or three years, particularly if he is faced by an opponent who has, perhaps drawn nothing. Invidious comparisons will be drawn. It is quite unnecessary to publish these sums because, as the noble Lord has said, they will come before the estimates committee, they are all seen by the district auditor, and they, are all in the hands of the borough or county treasurer. There can be no question about the money being improperly drawn. It is a great mistake, to my mind, for the Government to insist on keeping paragraph (d) in the clause.

LORD HENDERSON

I will just reply to that point. It is quite clear that the Lindsay Committee had all these matters before them before making their recommendations.

LORD HYLTON

The Lindsay Committee may not have been right.

LORD HENDERSON

That is true. But the Lindsay Committee was set up to investigate this matter and make recommendations, and they did so. The public will know what expenses are being paid. It is far better to be clear and frank about it than to have suspicions that things are going on in a way that should net be allowed. Where payments have been made, I do not think that the electors in local elections will regard candidates who have rendered proper services and have been paid expenses for them, in a different light from that in which Parliamentary electors regard Members of Parliament, who are also paid.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord. I rather hoped that we were going to do something to support those in whom the noble Lord opposite ought to take the greatest interest. In the circumstances, I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 117 agreed to.

Clause 118 [Application of preceding provisions to Scotland]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 83, line 5, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to.

Clause 121:

Provisions as to precepts for expenses of Metropolitan Police.

121.—(1) No warrant under Section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, shall be issued by the Commissioner of Police in respect of any period beginning on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but, for the purpose of providing money for meeting such expenses as may be authorised by or under any enactment or by the Secretary of State to be paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund, the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue precepts to rating authorities in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Section.

(2) The said precepts shall be issued to all rating authorities with areas falling wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Police District, but where the area of a rating authority is only partly within that District, the precepts shall be so issued as to secure that the rate is levied only on that part of the area which is within that District.

LORD KERSHAWmoved, in subsection (1), after "Fund" to insert "being expenses for which provision is not otherwise made." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. The clause as a whole provides that the Metropolitan Police expenses falling to be met by rating authorities shall, in future, be met by the issue of precepts under the same machinery that applies to county council precepts. Some of these expenses are, however, met in other ways, and the Amendment makes it clear that it is only the remainder which can be levied upon the rating authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 23, after (" Fund ") insert the said words.—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Does that apply to all the Amendments on this clause? Do they all follow one another?

LORD KERSHAW

They do not go together.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KERSHAW

I beg to move the next Amendment also on behalf of my noble friend. This Amendment reads with the two following Amendments. They reduce the area over which Metropolitan Police Court charges may be levied from the Metropolitan Police district (which is the existing area of charge) to the Metropolitan Police Court area. The Metropolitan Police district includes a larger part of the Home Counties, whereas the boundary of the Metropolitan Police Court area is substantially identical with the London county boundary. It is not reasonable that "the Home Counties should bear a proportion of the Metropolitan Police Court charges as well as the costs of their own Police courts, and the Amendments will remove this anomaly in the existing law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 28, leave out (" The said precepts ") and insert (" Except in relation to the expenses mentioned in the next succeeding subsection, precepts issued under this section ").—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am prepared to accept these Amendments.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am glad the noble Lord did not say that it filled a small gap, because it seemed to me to fill a large one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KERSHAW

I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 33, at end, insert: (" (3) In relation to expenses of and incidental to the metropolitan police courts and the probation system within the metropolitan police court area respectively, precepts issued under this section shall be issued to all rating authorities with areas falling wholly or partly within the metropolitan police court area, provided that where only part of the area of a rating authority is within the metropolitan police court area, the precepts shall, except in any case where the Minister, on the application of the rating authority, by order directs that this proviso shall not apply, be so issued as to secure that the rate is levied only on that part ").—(Lord Kershaw.)

LORD HENDERSON

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KERSHAW

I beg to move the next Amendment also.

Amendment moved— Page 86, line 5, at end, insert: (" (4) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this section, one precept may be issued in respect of all the expenses mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, including as separate items contributions to each of the classes of expenses mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, and the preceding provisions of this section and the provisions of Section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, shall, with the necessary adaptations, have effect accordingly. (5) The receipts of and incidental to the metropolitan police courts and the probation system within the metropolitan police court area respectively shall enure for the benefit of the rating authorities mentioned in subsection (3) of this section to the exclusion of those not so mentioned, and the precepts to be issued under this section shall be issued accordingly. (6) Where the receipts of and incidental to the metropolitan police courts or the probation system within the metropolitan police court area respectively exceed the expenses of those courts or, as the case may be, of that system, effect may, notwithstanding subsection (2) of Section nine of the Rating and Valuation. Act, 1925, be given to the provisions of the last preceding subsection by means of the issue of a precept under this section requiring a rate 10 be levied in the areas mentioned in the said, subsection (3) or in a part of such an area of a lower amount in the pound than in the areas not so mentioned, or as the case may be, than in the other parts of that area. (7) In respect of the year 1948–49, this section shall have effect as if in subsection (a) thereof the words ' Except in relation to the expenses mentioned in the next succeeding subsection ', subsection (3) thereof and the three last preceding subsections were omitted. (8) In this section the expression ' metropolitan police court area ' means the area consisting of the police court divisions for the time being constituted under the Metropolitan Police Courts. Acts, 1839 and 1840 ").—(Lord Kershaw.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 122 to 126 agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after Clause 126, to insert the following new clause:

" Transfer of road property and liabilities.

.The council of a county and the council of a borough or urban district within the county may agree to extend and apply the provisions of section one hundred and seven teen of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which provides for the transfer to a county council of property and liabilities relating to roads vested in the county council on or before the appointed day therein referred to) to any road in the borough or district which since that appointed day has become a county road upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may be stated in the agreement and the provisions of the said section shall apply in respect of such road subject to the terms of the agreement."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to provide that the county councils may agree to extend the transfers of property and liabilities in connection with roads which cannot be classified as being vested since April 1, 1930. An Amendment was proposed in another place to make this transfer compulsorily. It was resisted, and the clause has now been re-drafted so that the transfer can take place by agreement between the parties. I understand that this has been accepted by the county councils concerned, and that it is a convenient provision. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am quite prepared to accept the principle of this Amendment, but the drafting needs to be looked into. I would suggest that if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment now, we could consult together in order to draft an Amendment for a later stage.

LORD ADDINGTON

In those circumstances, I will withdraw it at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 127 agreed to.

Clause 128:

Subscriptions to local government associations.

128. The council of a county borough, metropolitan borough, county district or rural parish may pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annually or otherwise, to the funds—

1. (a) of any association of local authorities formed for the purpose of consultation as to the common interests of those authorities and the discussion of matters relating to local government, or
2. (b) of such associations of officers of local authorities, being associations formed for the purposes aforesaid, as may be approved by the Minister.

LORD HYLTON

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 90, line 1, after (" a ") insert (" county ").—(Lord Hylton.)

LORD HENDERSON

I can accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to omit paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one of fundamental importance, and I shall not detain your Lordships longer than necessary in moving it. My proposal is to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 128. As that clause is drafted at the present moment, the authorities mentioned in the first three lines may pay subscriptions to the associations of local authorities, and also to the associations of officers of local authorities. As I read paragraph (b), it seems to indicate quite clearly that the ratepayers will be called upon to pay a reasonable subscription to the local government officers' association or, as I believe they are called, the National Association of Local Government Officers. That trade union—which is all it is—is affiliated to a political Party. In due time they pay their levy to the Socialist Party. It seems to us to be fundamentally wrong that ratepayers throughout the length and breadth of the country should be asked to subscribe to these associations when they are, in point of fact, political associations. For that reason we take very strong objection to this paragraph. Of course, if the noble Lord can tell me that that is not what is intended, it will certainly alter my views on the clause as it stands in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 90, line 7, leave out from (" government ") to end of line 10.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say this? Looking at the matter from the wider aspect, it seems to me quite right that local authorities should be allowed to subscribe to general associations which represent them, with great convenience to the central Government. I have in mind associations like the County Councils Association or the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is right that they should supply a small contribution so that their general views—and all of us know how convenient it is to have general views—may be put forward. That seems to me reasonable and right. But I am doubtful about paragraph (b). I am saying nothing whatever against these associations—I think it is right that there should be a National Association of Local Government Officers; I think it is right that there should be a National Union of General and Municipal Workers, or whatever other association it may be. They are necessary in the same way that the combined body of local authorities is necessary for consulting with the Government and perhaps making agreements with the ministerial Department. It is necessary that there should be these associations of officers or men working in these authorities, able to make joint representations to their local authorities on behalf of their members if a question of wrong accommodation, or whatever it may be, arises.

It is quite right that individual officers, if they want to join those associations, should join and pay their subscriptions. But it seems to me very odd that the local authority should, out of the ratepayers' money, make contributions to bodies which are normally going to sit on the opposite side of the table and negotiate with them. The subscriptions to those bodies ought to come from the members of the bodies themselves. Just as it is right under paragraph (a) that local authorities should subscribe to the body which is a joint body for them, so it is right for the individual members to subscribe to N.A.L.G.O. and associations of that sort. But it is extremely doubtful whether ratepayers' money ought to be subscribed for the purpose. It should surely be a matter for the members of the organisation themselves. For that reason I support my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD HENDERSON

I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding. The Amendment would exclude associations, of officers of local authorities from receiving subscriptions which, by the clause, local authorities may pay. Associations of officers of local authorities have important discussions on technical and professional matters, and the clause is carefully limited, both by its drafting and by the provision for the Minister's approval, to associations formed for consultation as to common interests of local authorities and discussion of matters relating to local government. Following criticism in Committee in another place, the clause was revised so as to make it quite clear that the associations mainly concerned with the interests of employees were excluded. The clause is based upon a common local Act provision, and it is considered inappropriate, without clear reason, to break with precedent and custom by excluding entirely subscriptions to associations of officers. I think that that disposes of the point which the noble Lord had in mind.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I ask if the matter is not bound up with the words: such associations of officers of local authorities as may be approved by the Minister "? I realise that associations of local authorities as a whole come together and discuss some common problem concerning, perhaps, sanitary fittings or something of that sort. That does put the matter in a different light, and I appreciate the explanation.

LORD ADDINGTON

All senior officers of local authorities have their own associations and they discuss particular matters, Acts of Parliament and so forth, that concern them. I believe that that is what is intended by this clause. I think that anything such as was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is ruled out.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 129 [Insurance by local authorities against accidents to members]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 90, line 29, leave out from (" authority ") to end of line 33 and insert (" means a county, town or district council ")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 130 [Disability of members of local authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts, &c.]:

LORD HENDERSON

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 91, line 20, at end insert (" and this expression ' share capital ' shall be construed accordingly ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.

7.25 p.m.

Clause 131:

Provision of entertainments

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of any enactment by virtue of which a licence is required for the public performance of a stage play or the public exhibition of cinematograph films, or for public music or dancing, or for the sale of intoxicating liquor or tobacco.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (3) to insert as a new subsection: (4) The expenditure of the council of a county borough under this Section shall not form part of the relevant local expenditure of such council for the purposes of Section four of this Act and in the case for the council of a metropolitan borough, a county district or the common Council of the City of London such expenditure shall not for the purposes aforesaid form part of the relevant local expenditure of the council of the county in which such authorities are.

The noble Lord said: When we come to Clause 131 I do not think that the noble Lord can say—though I do not want to take the words out of his mouth—that "all this is fundamental to the Bill," because Clause 131 was not in the Bill when it originally emanated from the Ministry. This is a new clause allowing the local authorities to provide entertainments—which is an extremely wide term. I am told that it will include greyhound racing tracks and things of that sort if the local authorities so desire. At any rate, it is an extremely wide clause.

It is true that the local authorities are limited to spending up to a 6d. rate upon it; but a 6d. rate means a considerable amount to some authorities: I am told that in Birmingham, for instance, it amounts to about £140,000, which is a good sum on which to run a municipal theatre. The object of my Amendment is not to take away the right to run these entertainments but merely to provide that if a local authority do provide them and make a loss they should make good that loss out of their own ratepayers' money. We do not want local authorities saying, "If we lose £10,000 a year on our entertainments we shall have to find only £5,000 out of our own rates because the other £5,000 will come out of the equalisation grant." By virtue of their receiving that amount from the equalisation grant, somebody else who needs a grant for more essential services may suffer. The first purpose of my Amendment is to prevent an authority who want to run entertainments from doing it at the expense of the taxpayer who has had no say in the matter. The Amendment is a very simple one, but a very important one; it seeks to ensure that a local authority shall not be able to put the burden of their failures upon the general taxpayer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

I gathered from the noble Lord that he was not objecting in general to the provision of new powers under this clause. He will realise that it has hitherto been possible for certain local authorities to spend money on entertainments —up to a limited rate; and no doubt that rate expenditure would come in for the old block grant assistance. Therefore it would be tied up with the percentage of block grant. The effect of this Amendment would be to exclude local authorities' expenditure on entertainments from expenditure on which the Exchequer equalisation grant and the county grant under the Bill are calculated. Such a proposal cuts across the whole principle of the grants, which is equalisation between rich and poor authorities, not the favouring or handicapping of certain types of expenditure.

The noble Lord referred to the amount of the expenditure that might be embarked on by a wealthy authority. However, I am sure that he is aware of the fact that, in the poorer areas with a low rateable value, a 6d. rate does not produce the large sums of money to which the noble Lord referred when he spoke of some of the large cities of the country. The Amendment also would cause great complications. It would be quite anomalous, since there are many types of expenditure, if this principle of selection were once permitted, which might be excluded with as much justification as the expenditure on entertainments. If the Minister is satisfied that an authority are inefficient or extravagant, he has powers under Clause 6 of the Bill to reduce his grant, if Parliament agrees. I suggest that that is an adequate safeguard.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I say a word at this point, although I must confess that I am not very familiar with this subject? On general principles, I feel that a certain differentiation ought to be made between what is called essential and non-essential expenditure. We all agree that, where there is essential expenditure, and where a district is poor, the rest of the country should subscribe to "carry" that poor district. There is no difference of opinion about that. But, when we come to a thing like entertainment, which is certainly non-essential expenditure, I think that many people might feel a certain reluctance, and even a certain irritation, if they live at one end of the country, at being expected to subsidise non-essential expenditure for the benefit of a district with which they themselves have nothing whatever to do. If these entertainments were economically self-sufficient and paid their own expenses, nobody would have the slightest objection. It is only in cases where a heavy loss may be incurred that I think it is putting an unnecessarily heavy burden upon the taxpayers of this country. The Government ought to take that point into consideration. It is not an argument against the main principles of the Bill. I refer to particular cases where expenditure is heavy and may be regarded as local expenditure not to be borne by the general body of taxpayers.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

On a matter of principle, I think the noble Lord has stated the case inversely. If there is a poor neighbourhood—a dismal place, as so many places are—then presumably that is a case where (if there is a case) some reasonable form of entertainment is required—more so, in fact, than in a well-to-do place where people can afford it for themselves. It is entirely wrong to go out of our way to prejudice a poor district, where a little brightness in the life of the people is required more urgently than anywhere else, and to say that they are not to be helped. Surely that is all wrong. I think that the noble Marquess should turn his thoughts the other way round.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not trying to deprive these poor districts of legitimate entertainment, but the Government are putting a heavy burden upon the general taxpayer of the country, although they make a good case for so doing. It is a question of the purposes for which such a burden is justifiable. It may be a thing entirely justifiable in itself, but there comes a point when one expects the ordinary taxpayers—many of whom are poor people themselves—to say that they are prepared to put up money for the essential services of this country—such as the feeding and clothing of the poorer people—but, when it comes to seeing that they have a certain type of entertainment which may appear to the local authority of that district the right one (but in which the man who pays has no say whatever because he is not a local ratepayer) I should have thought that it was carrying the principle of a block grant a little too far. The Government might have considered it further. I cannot see that it cuts across the essential purposes of the Bill.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am still on the question of the principle. I have been refreshing my memory by reading Clause 6 of the Bill. If the power is unfairly or extravagantly used, the Minister has complete power to intervene, under Clause 6. To come back to it again, surely if it is a poor area which has not the money and so cannot afford entertainment, it is not unfair that the general grant contributed by the body of taxpayers should, amongst other things, be used to help that authority to provide a little entertainment and brightness for the people. The whole scheme is designed deliberately to help the poorer authorities. Why should this point be excluded? It is nonsense to suggest that it should.

LORD LLEWELLIN

What the noble Lord in effect is saying is that, if an incompetent local authority—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, I am not.

LORD LLEWELLIN

—if there is an incompetent authority which runs at a loss some entertainment, even if it be a greyhound racing track—which is possible under this clause—the general body of taxpayers; have to come to the rescue. That is what this clause does. It says that the general body of taxpayers have to come in because a body that the general taxpayers, do not elect at all decide in their un-wisdom that they would like entertainment facilities. If the noble Viscount does not approve of greyhound racing, then be it a, theatre for Shakespearean plays. Because the people of the neighbourhood do not sufficiently strongly desire to patronise this entertainment and make it self-supporting, the rest of the country have to come in and pay for it. If authorities run their own forms of entertainment they ought to do it out of the money of, those who elect them, and who have the opportunity of replacing them if they do not like them. The general taxpayer has no power to replace them. Really, this is, taxation without representation with a vengeance! In principle I am in agreement with the noble Lord; I want people in those areas to have places to go to, but we are discussing places that are run at a loss. They are set up by the local authorities but they are not sufficiently patronised or wanted by the people of that locality and, therefore, they are run at a loss. That is the kind of thing we are thinking of here. I still think that my Amendment is a good one.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, suggested that I give a practical example of what we are now discussing. I thought that in harping upon the fact that local authorities may run greyhound racing tracks under this clause, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was stretching things a little too far. I think it is a 10,000 to I chance that any local authority will ever elect to run a greyhound racing track under this clause. The kind of example that I have in mind is one with which I am well acquainted. In a certain industrial area, the people were so poor that they were not able to pay to go to the Albert Hall, so the local authority decided to give them an opportunity of hearing some good music and engaged the London Symphony Orchestra. The seats were eagerly snatched up and the largest available hall in the area was completely sold out; nobody else could get in. Four shillings per seat was a fairly large sum to take from a very poor locality, and in that case they still did not take enough money to pay the cost of securing the orchestra. That seems to be a better example than that of a greyhound racing track.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is it possible for the Government to consider this matter a little further? We do not want to press it to-night, but we do feel that there is a case to be met. Both sides have, very naturally, stated the case which suits them best; but the fact remains that the local authority may put on something which the people in the locality do not patronise, and it is not the people of the locality who have to pay for it but somebody else who has no connection with the place at all. We have tried to put our arguments in a moderate manner but we think the proposal is a very dangerous thing. The provision of a greyhound racing track has been mentioned, but it may be that not many local authorities would think of doing that. It might be, however, that if they did start one, it would be a financial success. But there are other sorts of municipal entertainment. Anyone who knows a municipality knows that they might, thinking they were being progressive, try out something which the people did not consider at all attractive, and the municipality would have made a bad mistake. In a case like that, it seems rather hard that they should be carried by people who, as I say, have no control over them. Therefore, I would suggest that this is a matter which the Government might, without prejudice, consider further before the Report stage. That is all I am asking; I am not asking for any assurance.

LORD HENDERSON

We will certainly reconsider the matter in the light of the suggestions that have been put forward.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Then at this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.43 p.m.

LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (4), after "films," to insert "or for boxing or wrestling entertainments." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment after the rather large questions with which we have just been dealing, but it is a fact that in certain local Acts provision is made for the licensing of premises for these two purposes, and it is desirable that they should be included in this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 20, after (" films ") insert ("or for boxing or wrestling entertainments ").—(Lord Hylton.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

LORD HYLTON

I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (4): Provided always that it shall be a condition of the grant of any necessary licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor that the same shall not be sold under it except while the premises in respect of which the licence is granted are open and being used and to persons bona fide using those premises as a place of entertainment within the meaning of this section and that the holder of the licence shall not be entitled to apply for an occasional licence.

The noble Lord said: Once again I cannot say that quite so large a matter of principle is involved in this clause, because it only appeared late in the course of this Bill. Be that as it may, however, we are for the first time providing—at any rate generally—that these local theatres and places of entertainment shall be able to sell liquor. We know the difficulties it is possible to get into once the question of granting liquor licences arises. Your Lordships will remember that this problem arose over the Civic Restaurants Bill. All my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that these licences shall be available to these places of entertainment only in the same way as they are available to ordinary theatres. My Amendment is designed to put the local municipal theatre in regard to the sale of liquor on exactly the same footing as the ordinary theatre which is run under private enterprise in the West End or in any town in the country. That I believe to be the effect of my Amendment and that is its intention—to leave the two things absolutely pari passu, and not to put one in a better or worse position than the other. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 21, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

The management of a theatre licensed for the exhibition of stage plays can apply at a reduced rate for an Excise licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor as an ancillary to its theatre business. Any such licence would be subject to conditions such as those mentioned in the first two parts of this Amendment, and the holder cannot on the strength of it apply for an occasional licence—that is, a licence enabling him to sell liquor on other premises on specific occasions. The above provisions will apply to a local authority as to any other theatre management. If, however, the local authority applies to the Licensing Justices for an ordinary publican's licence, it is within the Justices' discretion whether to grant the licence subject to conditions, and, if so, what conditions. The Amendment implies that the local authority cannot be trusted to manage the sale of liquor at their theatres in a reasonable manner, and also that the Licensing Justices cannot exercise their discretion in a reasonable manner if local authorities apply to them in the matter. We do not think either implication arises.

LORD LLEWELLIN

No implication was intended to be made. All I was intending to say was what I understood the first part of the noble Lord's reply to be—that the two should be put on an absolutely equal footing and that where such and such a licence was given to, let us say, the restaurant or bar of the Haymarket Theatre, exactly the same licence would be given to the theatre opposite, whatever its name might be, which was run by the Westminster City Council. That is all I wanted. Does the noble Lord say that that will be done under the existing law, and that my Amendment is unnecessary? That is the point I would like to get clear. Probably we are at one on this; we all want them to be on the same footing. I think we are all agreed on that, and if the noble Lord says that under the existing law that is bound to happen, then I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, otherwise it seems to me that here we are adding a new kind of occasion when licences may be asked for. We ought, at the same time, to make certain that we are putting them neither in a worse position, nor in a better position, but in the same position as other people.

LORD HENDERSON

That is the substance of what I endeavoured to say in my first reply—that the two positions are identical.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I hope the noble Lord will not say that my Amendment was casting any implication on the people running these theatres, because it was not meant to do so. If he says that the existing law will do that which I am endeavouring to bring about by my Amendment, I certainly withdraw it; but perhaps the noble Lord and I could discuss the point between now and Report stage, so that he, with his officials, can convince me that it is covered. Because others, who are quite expert in licensing laws, do not think it is. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

This, is a drafting Amendment which simplifies the wording but does not alter the meaning of the paragraph.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 18, leave out from (" authority ") to end of line 23, and insert (" means a county, town or district council ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause: (10) This section shall extend to the area, of any local authority to which it may be extended by an order laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and approved by a resolution passed by-each House of Parliament and the provisions of the said Schedule relating to draft orders under that Act shall apply to the submission of a draft order under this section with the substitution therein for the Secretary of State of the Minister of Health and for the terms of the draft order set out in paragraph 1 thereof of a draft order in the terms following, that is to say:— ' In accordance with the provisions of Section one hundred and thirty-one of the Local Government Act, 1948, the Minister of Health hereby orders that as from the date on which this order has been approved by resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament, the said Section one hundred and thirty-one of the said Act shall extend to the (county borough or metropolitan borough, or county district of) (or to the City of London).'

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Wolverton, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in his name. Noble Lords who are acquainted with the Sunday Entertainments Act will realise that I am endeavouring to bring within the scope of this clause the procedure which is adopted in nearly every case in regard to the question of the opening or otherwise of Sunday cinemas. Only a short time ago, I understand that three local Bills relating respectively to Birmingham, Coventry and Scunthorpe, were promoted, and each of them contained the suggestion that there should be power to provide entertainment similar to that provided in the clause as the Bill now stands. The matter was referred to local polls of the inhabitants of the three towns in question, and the idea was turned down on each occasion. In the case of Coventry, I believe, there was a vote of over 23,000 against the proposal and 15,000 in favour. It seems to us that, before they have this burden thrust upon them, the people in any locality should be able to express their views, and to do so by the normal electoral method of secret voting. They should be allowed to say whether or not they desire proposals such as are contained in the clause to operate in their particular area. It seems to me a reasonable suggestion, especially as we have the examples before us of Birmingham, Scunthorpe and Coventry, in which towns the proposal was turned down at polls of the electors. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

7.50 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON

The noble Lord has indicated that this Amendment seeks to apply the procedure of the Sunday Entertainments Act to the obtaining of powers by local authorities for the provision of entertainments. Briefly, the Sunday Entertainments Act permitted the Sunday opening of cinemas in certain areas where the practice already existed, but laid down that the practice should be extended to new areas only after a special procedure had been adopted. Such procedure is quite inappropriate in this case. The local authority electors in any area already have their constitutional means of influencing the decision of a local authority. There is, therefore, no need to superimpose the procedure of the Sunday Entertainments Act. Where private enterprise is concerned, complicated machinery—like that of the Sunday Entertainments Act—is necessary in order to introduce an element of local democracy; in the case of the provision of entertainments by local authorities, however, that element already exists, and no further machinery is necessary.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Let us get this into its right setting. Up to the present time, the position has been that to run entertainments in a locality the proposal would have to be passed by resolution of the council, by a certain majority—I have forgotten the exact percentage which is required but it is laid down in the Local Government Act. Then, there has to be a local poll, and that local poll either sanctions the introduction of a private Bill or turns down the idea. In the case of Birmingham, Scunthorpe and Coventry, the main powers in the Bills on which the polls were taken related to entertainment. The local councils had approved but when the matter went to the poll the local electors turned the schemes down. So the local electors have at the present time a power which by this provision of the Bill as it stands—oddly enough in these democratic days—we are taking away from them. We are taking away the right of the electors to have this check on the local authority. Indeed, we are giving the local authorities carte blanche to do this without putting forward a new Bill.

I realise that the procedure for putting forward a Bill might cost the authority a lot of money, and it may be better to have it done like this. But, while it is done like this, ought local government electors to be deprived of this right of going to the poll? That is the only matter in the Bill which we are proposing to alter by this Amendment. We wish to ensure that if they like a project the local electors can vote for it and get it; on the other hand, if they, do not like it they can vote against it. If they vote against it they will not get it, nor will they, perhaps, have to bear the burden of an extra rate which might have to be imposed if an entertainment project resulted in a loss. I submit that this is a most democratic kind of Amendment to put before so democratic a House as this. It is a question of whether or not the Government should say that local ratepayers are to lose the power which they have hitherto had of stopping their councils embarking upon this sort of enterprise if they think that their councils are wrong. Personally, I think the Amendment is a pretty good one.

LORD HENDERSON

The position, if I may say so, is not quite that. We are now giving a general power to local authorities; and local authorities in the exercise of their general powers are controlled by their electors. If I may remind noble Lords of it, I think we had a similar issue raised when we were considering the Civic Restaurants Act. The issue then raised related to the question of taking a vote before powers were given for beer, or whatever it might be, to be sold on the premises of Civic Restaurants. The argument in that case, as in this case, was that there should be the practice of local option. In respect of general powers the democratic control of the electors is exercised by them through their local elections.

LORD LLEWELLIN

That might be merely a means of shutting the door after the horse has got out of the stable. After a council have been elected they may start building some white elephant of a theatre, or some other place of entertainment, and the only remedy which the Government would leave local ratepayers is that of turning out at the next election the people on the council who supported the scheme. Up to date the people have had the additional power under the Sunday Entertainments Act of saying "Yea" or "Nay" at the time. I would like to ask why it is that at a time like the present, when we take pride in the fact that people are better educated and more capable of giving decisions on public matters, we should take away the right, which the local ratepayer has always had, of going to the poll on this sort of question.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I cannot believe that there should be objections to this proposal. I appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, upon this.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I would like to ask the noble Earl about the Bills for the three towns which he has mentioned. They related to Sunday entertainments did they not?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

No, I do not think they did. They referred, I believe, to general entertainments. The noble Viscount would not call the towns which I have mentioned poor areas would he?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, I would not.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

All I want to do is to insert this into the Bill so that local inhabitants will have the opportunity of turning down proposals of a, local authority if they seek to do what is provided for in the Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In the case of Coventry, Scunthorpe and Birmingham, three private Bills were introduced. There were other provisions in them, apart from those relating to entertainment, but the main provisions to which the local government electors objected were provisions for starring large-scale entertainments in the three towns in question. They were all turned down in January last.

On Question, whether the proposed new subsection-ball be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:

Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.
Cholmondeley, M.	Monsell, V.	Hylton, L.
Salisbury, M.	Swinton, V.	Kinnaird, L.
Townshend, M.		Llewellin, L.
	Addington, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Rochester, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Carrington, L.	Soulbury, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	De Ramsey, L.	Teynham, L.
Munster, E.	Gifford, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Selkirk, E.	Hatherton, L. [Teller.]	Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Addison, V.	Chorley, L. [Teller.]	Kershaw, L.
Stansgate, V.	Crook, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
	Darwen, L.	Marley, L.
Ammon, L.	Henderson, L.	Morrison, L. [Teller.]
Amwell, L.	Holden, L.	Walkden, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.

8.4 p.m.

Clause 132 [War memorials]:

LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause: (3) The War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act, 1923, as amended by the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to Scotland subject to the following modifications—

1. (i) sections two and four shall not apply; and
2. (ii) the expression ' local authority ' means a county, town or district council."

The noble Lord said: The Act of 1923 does not at present apply to Scotland. The powers in relation to the repair and maintenance of war memorials given to local authorities under the Act will be considerably widened by Clause 132 of the Bill and will, it is thought, be found useful to Scottish local authorities. The Amendment will give those powers to county, town and district councils in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 133 agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after Clause 133 to insert as a new clause:

" Power for local authority to encourage certain organisations.

.—(1) A local authority with the consent of the Minister may contribute to the expenses incurred by any society, association, organisation or body constituted for an area which is coterminous with or includes the county, borough or district of the authority, with the object of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce in the area or for giving advice and information therein or otherwise for public benefit of that area."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to extend the number of organisations to which local authorities can contribute. They are now being encouraged by the Board of Trade to take part in the work of the regional industrial development associations. In fact, these associations depend for their continued existence on the contributions of local authorities towards their expenses. Under present conditions local authorities are unable to make contributions, which is hampering the work of the associations if it does not close them down altogether. I suggest that power be given under the Bill subject to the consent of the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 133 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle, although it should be re-worded from the standpoint of drafting. I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will consult with me and put down the revised Amendment at the next stage.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment on these terms.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 134 [Instruction, lectures, etc., on questions relating to local government]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 32, leave out from (" State ") to the end of line 36.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 135 agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after Clause 135, to insert the following new clause:

(" Power to assist in performance of transferred functions

.—(1) Where, by or under the Electricity Act, 1947, or any Act passed during the present Session providing for the establishing of public ownership of the gas industry, any undertaking theretofore carried on by a local authority is transferred to any other body, the authority may enter into an agreement with the body for the performance by the authority, as agent for the body, for such period as may be specified in the agreement, of such of the functions of the body as fall to be performed within the area of the authority as may be so specified.

(2) No agreement shall be made for the performance of functions by a local authority under this section for a period ending later than twelve months after the transfer of the undertaking in question except with the approval

1. (a) in the case of an undertaking in the North of Scotland District transferred by or under the Electricity Act, 1947, of the Secretary of State, or
2. (b) in any other case, of both the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretory of State and the Minister of Fuel and Power."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to facilitate the change-over. With nationalisation the area boards which have taken over electricity and other undertakings from local authorities have in some cases asked these local authorities to continue certain services connected with the rendering of accounts and reading of meters. The purpose of my Amendment is to afford the proper facilities for things of a similar nature which local authorities are willing to do, and the clause confers on them powers to carry this into effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 135 insert the said clause.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

The noble Lord has explained his Amendment. I am prepared to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 136 to 141 agreed to.

Clause 142 [Application to Scotland]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 101, leave out lines 26 to 32.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 143 agreed to.

Clause 144 [Repeals]:

LORD HENDERSON

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 103, line 19, leave out (" take ") and insert (" have ").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 145 agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

LORD ADDINGTON

This Amendment merely adds to the repeal a section of the Poor Law Assessment Act which has ceased to have any effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 107, line 27, at end insert (" section nineteen ").—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

Before accepting the Amendment to the Second Schedule which has been moved by the noble Lord, it should be made clear to the Committee that it is not, as a matter of practice, considered permissible to include in a Repeal Schedule anything which is not consequential on some provision of the Bill. If any other doctrine were admitted, it would be necessary for the Committee on every occasion to scrutinise Repeal Schedules carefully. This Amendment seeks to make a substantive change in the law, and is not consequential on anything in the Bill. It can, therefore, be properly made only on the understanding that, at a later stage, a provision will be inserted in the main body of the Bill upon which to hang the inclusion of this Amendment in the Repeal Schedule. The repeal to which this Amendment relates will involve the consequential repeal of provisions in two other Statutes, and this also will have to be done at a later stage. Having made that statement to the Committee, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I thought that what the noble Lord said was a prelude to not accepting the Amendment and to putting it somewhere else in the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, I am not one who stands on red tape or formula but, as I understood it, he is seeking to alter this matter somewhere else in the Bill. Does that mean that there will be a consequential alteration in the main Bill on the Report stage in order to justify the Amendment now being moved on the Committee stage?

LORD HENDERSON

It is an important point. Perhaps it might be better, having indicated that the Amendment is acceptable, that the matter should be dealt with on the Report stage.

LORD ADDINGTON

On that understanding, I will withdraw the Amendment, and raise it again on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.