May I ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Office if he will supply an answer to my question, of which notice has been given?

I am sorry that I have not the answer to-day.

There is no representative of the Postmaster-General present to reply to my further question which I have put—

"2. Whether his attention has been called to the case of certain assistant inspectors of traffic in the secretary's office of the Post Office, formerly employed as assistant superintendents of traffic in the London Telephone Service, who have been graded junior to officers from the provinces appointed at about the same time; whether he is aware that they have been placed at this disadvantage solely on account of the two years' delay in revising the scale of pay of the London class; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with their cases?"

I would remind the hon. Member that there is no obligation on any Minister to be present on Friday.

As a matter of courtesy, and in accordance with the custom of this House, when a question is put down, and having regard to the fact that we have to wait a week, ought not the Minister to be present to give an answer?

No. On the contrary, it has been the practice ever since I was a Member of this House that there is no kind of obligation on any Minister to be present on Friday.

I will not attempt to argue your decision, but having regard to the numerous questions this Session, I thought that when a question was put down on Friday, it would be answered. It is the last thing that I should think of doing to put down any questions which would inconvenience Ministers, but if they are not answered on Friday, can they go over until Monday?

If the hon. Member does not put it down for Monday he will receive a written answer in due course.

Can I put it down for Monday when the question has been called, and I have put it?

No, I am afraid not.

I beg to move "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Here again we have a legal question and I should prefer to have the presence of the Law Officers. I think we should be told what is the effect of this first Amendment.

The Attorney-General has gone out to get a copy of the Bill. He will be back directly, and will be able to answer every conceivable question which the ingenuity of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) can suggest. I do not know if the right hon. Baronet heard the terms of the Amendment and is aware of the original Title of the Bill, but it seems to me the meaning is perfectly clear. To my limited intelligence, the words of the Amendment are so clear that one would find difficulty in making its meaning any clearer. There is nothing I should dislike more than that my right hon. Friend should regard me as guilty of any discourtesy, but I am bound to admit that I cannot find words to explain more clearly the effect of the Amendment than the words actually employed here.

This is a rather long Amendment. I gather it applies to cases where a woman, through pain or some other cause connected with the birth of a child, is not conscious of what she is doing, and that the intention is that an offence committed in such circumstances, shall not be manslaughter nor murder, but some other undefined offence. It will be rather difficult to ascertain the woman's state of mind, and this is really going back to the True case. We shall have two doctors saying on the one hand that the woman was not in a state of mind to know what she was doing, and two doctors, on the other hand, saying absolutely the reverse.

The point of the Amendment is that a woman in such circumstances is to be adjudged guilty of manslaughter and not of murder.

That does not really touch the point that there might be considerable difference of opinion as to the state of the woman's mind. However, if the object is to substitute the word "manslaughter" for "murder," I do not object.

We ought to know the meaning of the new Sub-sections.

They are on the Paper.

The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill should tell us what they mean.

This Bill was originally a one Clause Bill, drafted without the legal mind being applied to it. When it went through Committee it was modified in accordance with the common-sense views of the Home Office. When it got to the House of Lords it was taken in charge by legal experts, and a short Clause of five lines was expanded into one consisting of four Sub-sections, each containing about 12 lines, but expressing exactly the same idea as that which the Home Office accepted in Committee. I do not think it necessary to go through all this legal verbiage. I assure the right hon. Baronet we shall have plenty of opportunity for discussion on the next two Orders—discussion which will be of more interest to the general public than trying to deliberate the difference between the legal words indicating the object of this Bill and the original layman's words in which it was framed. I cannot explain the difference. I do not think anybody except a lawyer could do so, and I do not think it would he of interest to the House to discuss these subtle differences when we might be dealing with some really interesting question such as the rating of machinery or the prevention of railway fires.

I do not quite follow that line of argument. I am not concerned with what we may discuss on some other Measure. I want to know what we are doing now. A great deal of legislation is passed simply because hon. Members—and I do not blame them, because they have so many things to attend to—do not in the least know what they are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I am not sure that I am any the wiser after the explanation which has been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He himself says he does not know what this means, and I am sure not a single Member present knows what it means. Surely the first thing necessary, in order that we should carry out the duties imposed on us, is that we should know what we are doing. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member emphasises what I said on another Amendment, for according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what has taken place is this. Common sense, represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Home Office, brought in a Bill, and in this House common sense alone acted, but when the Bill got to another place, acuter minds dealing with the legal question entirely altered the common sense of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because they put into four Clauses what he had endeavoured to put into one. The answer to that is, that in all probability his one Clause would not have been interpreted in a court of law except in various different ways, and the result would have been that there would have been a large amount of money spent in fees for counsel learned in the law, whereas the legal authorities in another place, being anxious to save money and to prevent His Majesty's subjects being put to unnecessary expense, put the Bill into such a form that it would be understood when it came, if it should ever come, before a court of law. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his speech, but I must still ask him very shortly to explain the actual Amendments with which he is going to move to agree. The position of a leader of a party entails responsibility, and therefore I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the responsibility which has been thrust upon him.

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I am quite willing to accept this.

When the Third Reading of this Bill was taken this day week, by the Rules of the House I was interrupted in the few remarks which I had intended to make on that occasion. I should like now to make it quite clear that I have no objection whatever to the principle of superannuation. I think it is an extremely good principle, provided it is carried out in a moderate and sensible manner, but, on the other hand, one cannot conceal from oneself that many of the superannuation funds which are in existence at the present moment are more or less in a bankrupt condition. I do not say that without having some knowledge of the matter, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) rather twitted me last Friday with not having any special knowledge of this particular matter.

I withdraw that unreservedly.

I am much obliged I have for many years been chairman of a superannuation fund, and therefore I have some knowledge of how that fund works. Of course, in all these cases there is—and I presume there has been in this case—a consultation with an actuary as to the effect of the scheme, and as far as I know in nearly every case at the commencement of the fund the actuary makes a calculation and comes to a conclusion which leads him to be able to say that, provided the provisions of the scheme are carefully carried out, that fund will be solvent. But circumstances have arisen in every case that I know of which have shown that the calculations of the actuary were unfounded and have bad to be entirely recast. When the actuary is confronted with that, he says that circumstances have arisen which he did not foresee and that consequently he is in no way to blame, and I think he is right. That state of affairs has arisen, not in one or two isolated cases, but probably in a great number of large schemes, where every precaution and every care has been taken to see that the fund not only was started in a manner which should ensure its solvency, but was managed in as good and as capable a way as it was possible to secure in this human world. Yet the result has invariably been that the whole basis of the scheme has had to he altered, or that the employers have had, out of their own pockets or out of the pockets of their shareholders, to find large sums of money in addition to the sums which they had originally agreed to find. In one or two cases the company has taken over the whole liability of the solvency of the fund, and though that was very nice for the servants and officials, I am not at all sure it was a wise proceeding for the shareholders. That brings me to the question of this particular scheme.

"This Act shall not apply to a local authority unless and until— (a) it shall have been adopted by such local authority by a resolution passed by a. majority of the members of such local authority, at a meeting called for the purpose, of which a month's previous notice shall he given to each member of such local authority, and such notice shall be accompanied with a copy of this Act, together with an estimate certified by an actuary of the cost to the local authority of adopting this Act; and such resolution shall also have been confirmed by such local authority at their immediately succeeding regular meeting held not less than one month after the passing of such resolution."

They object to a majority of Members still more.

Perhaps they do. I am very much afraid they always object to anybody having a control over his purse, and that they are always anxious to spend as much money as possible, especially if it belong to anybody else. That was the alteration made, and I think it was a very bad one, because it is a matter of common knowledge that the ratepayer is a very lethargic person, and, although when he finds that his demand note is £20 instead of £15, he is very angry, in many cases he will not take the trouble to attend meetings, or find out what is going on. In that matter he is not altogether to be blamed, because he has a good deal to do, and it is not always possible for him to attend meetings of the local authority. Of course, it may be said that if you become a member of a local authority, it is your duty to attend every meeting. It is equally the duty of every Member of this House to attend every Sitting of this House, and to know what is going on, but, as a matter of fact, neither of those two things occurs, and, certainly, during this Parliament, we rarely have 300 Members, or less than half, present, and of those 300 very few know what is going on.

How does the right hon. Gentleman connect his remarks with the Bill under discussion?

I certainly think I can show it. I pointed out that this alteration in the Bill would be bad for the ratepayers, because they could not depend upon a regular attendance of their members, and, therefore, a two-thirds majority of the members present might be two-thirds of a very small number, and I illustrated that by mentioning a very much superior body, with much more important duties imposed upon it, where it was difficult to get anything like a larger number of the members to attend. I merely used it by way of illustration. I believe there were some Amendments to that particular Clause, but I forget them at the moment.

"Provided that any part of a superannuation allowance which is calculated by reference to a war bonus or other similar allowance shall be calculated and liable to variation in accordance with the Rules for the time being In force with respect to superannuation allowances of members of His Majesty's Civil Service."

On a point of explanation, and in order to shorten the observations of the right hon. Baronet, may I point out that in this very Clause have been introduced words intended to bring about that on a reduction in the cost of living the bonus will fall too, and so the ratepayers pay less towards the cost of superannuation.

I know, but that is not my point. My point is that bonus should not be included at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely missed my point. My point was not that the bonus should rise or fall with the cost of living. I am perfectly well aware that that is so. My point was that it ought not be included at all. The word "bonus" does not mean the ordinary salary, but something which is given as an exceptional gift. Turn now to Clause 19. Here I see Parliamentary provision is made for what I spoke about at the beginning, and relates to a contingency that will probably occur, namely, a deficiency account—in other words, the thing becoming insolvent. The Clause says:

"Where on any such valuation the actuary certifies that a deficiency or a disposable surplus is disclosed the local authority"—

"shall submit to the Minister a scheme for making good the deficiency by means of payments by the local authority into the superannuation fund, or by means of an increase in the contributions as provided by this Act of the local authority."

"(3) Where on any such valuation the actuary certifies that in order to maintain an equality of value as respects persons becoming contributors after the date of the scheme between the amounts to be contributed by or in respect of such persons, and the amounts of benefit to which such persons will become entitled, it is expedient to increase or decrease the contribution as provided by this Act in respect of such persons, provision 'may' be made.…"

I am particularly anxious that the House should get on with the discussion of the Railway Fires Bill, but I do ask hon. Members to agree to the Third Reading of this Measure. Its general provisions meet with the approval and support of all those national associations which are entitled to speak on behalf of local government in this country, and it meets with the approval of the National Association of Local Government Officers. In addition the Bill has received the support of the Ministry of Health and from that point of view can be said to be an agreed Measure. I am sure that this Measure will be welcomed by the various local authorities of the country.

I also am very anxious to see this Bill passed into law with the least possible delay. As I have had no previous opportunity of speaking during the early stages of this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words at this point. I have had representations from those living in my constituency, both from those who represent the employés and the employers, asking that this Bill should receive the sanction of Parliament at the earliest possible date. On the whole I desire to give it a very cordial support.

"Provided that any part of a superannuation allowance which is calculated by reference to a war bonus or other similar allowance shall be calculated and liable to variation in accordance with the rules for the time being in force in respect to superannuation allowances of members of His Majesty's Civil Service."

While I cannot think that the House will be beguiled by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), he did make certain attacks on local authorities which call for a word or two in reply. He suggested that this House should constitute itself the defender of overburdened ratepayers owing to the lethargy of the local authorities. The industry of members of local authorities compares very favourably with the industry of Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman himself went on to say that, whereas we had a membership of over 600, there were seldom 300 Members present. If he had had experience of municipalities and local government, he would know that the proportion who attend is infinitely greater than the proportion of Members who attend this House. Therefore, it is not necessary that the local authorities, or even individual ratepayers, should look to the right hon. Baronet to champion their interest. The interest taken in local elections compares more than favourably in many districts with the interest taken in Parliamentary elections, and there is much more apathy here than in local affairs. Therefore, this Bill, which is of a permissive character, may well be left in the hands of those who are vigilant in looking after the interests of the ratepayers, especially as it does not impose any charge on the Exchequer, but is mainly on a contributory baths, though possibly a slight charge may fall on the rates. It has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who represent officially the views of the local authorities, and I have no doubt that the House this afternoon will, practically unanimously, give a Third Reading to a Bill which is to encourage thrift. Surely, the right hon. Baronet should support a Bill which is to encourage economy. It will make for more efficient administration in local affairs, owing to local authorities being able to pension officers who have overrun their time, but who now, owing to sympathetic consideration, are kept on because the authorities do not wish to throw them on the scrap heap. I think the right hon. Baronet should support a Bill which makes for thrift and economy and does not impose a charge on the Exchequer.

I did not say that I was not going to support the Bill. I was at considerable pains to show that, in my opinion, something of this sort is necessary, but I thought it my duty to point out the weak spots of the Bill.

I am sorry if I have misrepresented the right hon. Baronet. I am glad to hear that he is on the side of those who are supporting this Measure in the interests of the local authorities.

rose

I am afraid the hon. Member addressed the House last Friday.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Is it not the case, according to the Section which I read, that they are bound to accept the Civil Service scheme for the time being, and bound to follow the Civil Service rules?

They can, under the Bill, prescribe the basis under which superannuation will be contributed. The proviso to which the hon. Gentleman called attention is that if bonuses form part, then the bonuses will automatically drop in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service, and, if the rules of the Civil Service are amended, then, of course, the amended rules will apply. Part-time officials will receive only a corresponding amount in salary. A part-time officer, of course, is paid proportionately; he will contribute proportionately, and the superannuation allowance will be proportionate. With these few observations, I desire to thank the House very sincerely for the way in which they have received this Bill.

I do not desire to stand between the House and those other Bills which we are all so anxious to reach without the least possible delay, but I cannot help saying a word or two with regard to this Bill, because a great many years of my life have been spent in local government. I can assure the House that we have always felt the greatest difficulty in dealing with any of our officers who are getting on in years, and who are naturally anxious about their future, to know what is the proper course to take. Sometimes we have been obliged to follow the course of appointing them to the somewhat anomalous position of being in an advisory capacity. I think that has been an extremely undignified position for a public body or county council to be obliged under the circumstances to take up. I am glad to think that for the future, thanks to my hon. and learned Friend's pertinacity and knowledge of this subject, we shall no longer be obliged to follow that extremely undignified course of appointing them in an advisory capacity. It is the duty of those of us who carry on local government to see that the positions we offer are such as will attract the very best material for our purpose, and it is unquestionably the fact that, unless you offer to those in your employment some inducement by which they can look forward without fear to the future when they reach the age of 60, you are not likely to attract to your service the best material for your purpose. In other works, and on our railways, we have had for many years superannuation funds, and it was indeed an anomaly that the local government of the country, being of the importance that it is, should not have been able to give superannuation allowances to its officials. We have frequently discussed the matter. I think we are indebted to the House for passing with absolute unanimity, as I think we shall do, a Bill which will be for the welfare of the officials, and which most undoubtedly will assist in the efficient carrying on of the local government of the country. Those who, like myself, occupy positions on county councils, can look forward, having regard to this Measure, to attracting the very best material for the important business with which we are entrusted.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed."

On a point of Order. The hon. Member, as I understand, desires to move, on the consideration of this Bill, that it be re-committed. I want to quote a few words from Erskine May about the re-committal of Bills. I am afraid I have here a rather old edition (1906), but I find on page 497 a statement which I do not think has been altered in subsequent editions. It is as follows:

"On consideration of a Bill on Report, no Clause or Amendment may be proposed which creates a charge upon the public revenue, or upon rates or local burthens upon the people, but the Bill may be recommitted in respect of any such proposed Clause or Amendment."

"It may be necessary to recommit a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and occasionally to a Select Committee, before it is read a Third time."

I do not read the words quoted by the right hon. Baronet in the way in which he has put them. I read the first part and the second part as distinct propositions, the first part dealing with what may or may not be moved on consideration of a Bill, and the second part containing the simple announcement of the fact that a recommittal Motion is possible. Therefore I do not think the point raised by the right hon. Baronet is a good one.

The object of the Bill is that machinery shall not be taken into account for rating purposes if it is not affixed to the premises. We were told in the Debate on the Second Reading that one of the objects of the Bill was to give to England and Wales that which Scotland has long enjoyed, namely, an equitable and efficient system of assessment for rating. I regard this rather as an attempt to force on England and Wales a system which would not work equitably, and would not prove a valuable addition to our present rating system. Some of us are not prepared to admit, as a matter of course, that a principle which is working well in Scotland will of necessity, work well here, and I venture to suggest there is no parity between the respective rating systems operating in Scotland and in England and Wales at the present time, nor will this Bill bring about such parity until and unless the same course of action is taken in regard to abatements, deductions, allowances and other factors of that kind affecting what the ratepayers have to pay. On the Second Reading of this Bill we were informed that our manufacturers were finding themselves manacled and shackled. A similar Bill was brought to the attention of this House 32 years ago and the Measure has made 17 different public appearances. It seems very strange, if the Bill were really a workable proposition, that no Government should have taken it up officially and that it should have been so long before the House and made such extraordinary little progress. Is not that a clear indication that during that long period Parliament has felt that this would be an unwise and improper concession? This, however, is not the ground on which I ask the House to sanction the recommittal of the Bill. I want to urge it upon broad general grounds—on the ground, namely, that the information before the House is not sufficient to justify a far-reaching Measure of this kind. This Bill will not introduce the millennium; on the contrary, it will bring a great deal of friction into our already complicated rating system. It does not offer any clear cut definition in regard to certain vital points. In the first place, it does not give any definition of "first motive power," and that is a very important point.

On a point of Order. Is it not out, of order on a Motion to recommit a Bill to deal with whether or not it is a good or a bad Bill, or whether a certain new provision should be put into it, because a fresh provision can be put into it on Report? Because a particular alteration should be made, that is no reason why we should proceed to make it now, instead of waiting for the Report stage. It seems to me that the hon. Member is really making a Third Reading speech.

I think it will be necessary for the hon. Member to show some reason why the Bill should be recommitted and dealt with otherwise than by the whole House on Report.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As a new recruit, I find it very difficult to conform with all the technicalities with which the right hon. Baronet who has twice interrupted me is familiar. I would respectfully ask for the sympathy of the House in regard to the way in which I am venturing to present my case. This matter, only last Wednesday, came before the County Councils' Association, a body which represents every county council in England and in Wales, and they unanimously decided to ask this House to recommit the Bill on various grounds upon which I hope to be able to satisfy the House. The, Association of Poor Law Unions is also a body—

I am afraid that those are matters which can hardly be dealt with on this Motion. The hon. Member may put forward such reasons as that the Bill has been inadequately considered in Committee, or that the Government has not, intervened in the Committee to advise on points which should be considered by them. Those would be relevant reasons, but, the merits of the Bill, or the views of public bodies upon it outside the House, are really not relevant to the Motion.

My general ground is that the Bill has not been adequately considered. When it was before the Committee, they had not the advantage of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland. That was a very strong Committee, presided over by Lord Dunedin, and its Report has only been issued quite recently. The Committee's terms of reference were:

"To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised by local authorities for local purposes in Scotland, to report whether the,system is equitable and economical, and, if not, to suggest what alterations in the system are desirable."

"We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery, and as to what items are to he considered assessable in industrial works."

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member has made a statement which is incorrect. He says that the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland did not come out until after the Standing Committee had sat; but the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland came out on the 11th May, and I hold in my hand this statement: "Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922." Therefore, the Report came out—

On a point of Order.

You cannot interrupt.

The hon. Member can only interrupt if the point of Order be not persisted in.

My hon. Friend has, quite unintentionally I am sure, made a misstatement which upsets the whole of his argument, because, instead of—

I rather deprecate so long an interruption upon a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting, under the guise of an interruption on a point of Order, to put himself in the position of being able to make two speeches.

If I have made a mistake I am very sorry, but at the same time—

The Report was not available.

I venture to think that the facts contained in this Report had not been circulated to and digested by the Members of the Committee when they were dealing with the matter. The Report continues:

"There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machines. Blame has been laid on the fact that the word "first" is used before the words "motive power".… The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors, which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities. It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think this a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions in regard to these classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must, we consider, be undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose."

On a point of Order. I was Chairman of the Standing Committee which dealt with that Bill, and we had the advantage at that time of the attendance of a representative of the Ministry of Health. Are we not entitled to ask, as a matter of procedure, that there should be a representative of the Ministry of Health on the Front Bench when we are dealing with this Bill, having regard to the statements which were made before the Committee?

That is not a point of Order, and it hardly justifies the hon. Member in interrupting.

I will conclude my remarks, having, I think, now made my point, by saying that this is a very complicated matter. Anything which is going to take, as this will, 30 per cent. of the rates off certain people—[Interruption.]—I could show that the effect would be to take 30 per cent. of the rates off the shoulders of certain manufacturers and place them on the shoulders of others who might or might not be able to bear that burden.

That is an argument on the merits.

I will only conclude by saying that any Bill which will have such far-reaching effects should be very carefully considered, and that this complex subject does require further consideration if justice is to be done to all the interests and all the parties concerned.

rose—

Does the right hon. Baronet oppose the Motion?

Yes.

When the right hon. Baronet rose just now to a point of Order, I thought you ruled that it was not a point of Order but a speech. In that case he has already spoken. Can he speak again?

It was an attempted speech. I took care it was not an actual one.

I wish to oppose this Motion, and I do not think there can be any doubt that if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, the House will unanimously reject his proposal, because he has not brought forward, with one exception, which was not correct, a single argument in favour of recommitting the Bill. The whole of his arguments, with the one exception which was incorrect, were against the principle of the Bill. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that he is right, and that there ought to be further Amendments introduced before the Bill proceeds, his proper course is to allow consideration of the Bill to take place when a great portion of the Members of the House are present, and when they can put in, at his instigation, those Amendments which he thinks ought to be put in. Then if he thinks, notwithstanding that, that the Bill is one which ought to be rejected, he will have an opportunity of making on the Third Reading the speech which he came down provided with, which he could not then make, but which will be in order on the Third Reading. To recommit a Bill you must give reasons why it should be recommitted, for instance, that it has not been adequately considered in Committee. The hon. Member has not given one single instance to show that the Standing Committee did not adequately consider it. The only thing he brought forward was a statement that there had been a report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland on 11th May, which was not before the Committee. Here is a Report of Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922. That is six days after the Report. There were 41 Members present and the Chairman. That is an extraordinarily good attendance. It is double the quorum, and you could not have had a better attendance. There is no reason whatever why the Bill should be recommitted.

Was the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland circulated to these 41 Members who were present, and was their attention drawn to the particular paragraph?

That, of course, was the duty of those Members who were on the Committee and who held the view of the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was a bad one. It is no use coming here afterwards and saying that members of the Committee who share the hon. Gentleman's view did not do their duty.

There were many Scottish Members present on the Committee.

Supposing the members of the Committee did not know of the Report, everyone here knows of it, and here is an opportunity which ought not to be lost in the interests of the hon. Gentleman himself. He will be able to bring forward, not before the Standing Committee, but before the whole House, the arguments which are in this Paper and he cannot then say people were not aware of it, because he and I have both drawn the attention of the House to the statement, and if he does not do it, when we consider the matter on Report I will give him an undertaking that I will do it. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the proper course is at once to proceed to consideration of the Bill and advance arguments for and against.

rose

Under the Standing Order, I must put the Question forthwith.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I beg to second the Motion. It must be obvious that the change that is to be brought about, whether it be a good change or a bad change, will upset entirely the incidence of rating as applied to industrial areas. Rightly or wrongly, we are going to remove a burden from the shoulders which are accustomed to bear it, and we are going to put it on other shoulders. It is very undesirable that at the present time, when rates have reached an intolerable point in large industrial areas, that we should add further to the difficulty by altering the incidence of taxation in this way. A number of hon. Members waited on the Prime Minister recently on behalf of the local authorities and Poor Law guardians, and complained that the rates had amounted in some cases to 30s. in the £, and that it was a burden which could not be met at the present time. They sought assistance from the Treasury. That gives us an illustration of the difficulties which are encompassing local authorities to-day. This is not the time to take a burden from the shoulders of one section of the community and to add to the burdens of others.

Only in certain districts, which are very few, is there machinery rating.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend speaks with very limited knowledge. The difficulty of the situation is the great anomalies which exist to-day on the question of rating. The proposed changes will affect considerably the incidence in a great many localities. The effect will be to transfer from industrial undertakings to the wage earner many pence, and in some cases many shillings, per week in the rent. Ultimately it will have to be found by industry. Wages will have to be raised because rents charged are higher. Therefore industry will not get ultimately any relief, but the immediate effect of the change at a time like the present, when rates are at breaking point, is going to be disastrous. The representative of the Ministry of Health should be here to give guidance on this particular question. Under the Housing Act in 1919 the Ministry are protected by the levy of a penny in the £ on the houses which they are building. The immediate effect of this Bill will be to reduce considerably the yield of that penny, and consequently the Treasury will be the poorer. Another reason for this delay is that further inquiries should be made as to the effect of the change. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) suggested that the Report of the Select Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland was technically in the hands of Members before the Committee on this Bill sat.

While the Committee was sitting.

I do not appreciate the distinction. Members had not considered that Report.

The Scotsmen did.

Possibly we ought to have considered it, but because we did not consider it, we have a right to claim that this date should be deferred. On Second Reading the promoters said that in Scotland everything with regard to rating was working smoothly, and we must have the advantages which Scotland has. But in the Report to which I have referred there is an illuminating paragraph dealing with the very state of things which this Bill seeks to make applicable to this country, and during the years of inquiry which are now suggested there would be time for inquiring into how these defects which are referred to can be remedied. The Committee was a Committee of experts presided over by Lord Dunedin and comprising Lord Weir and other gentlemen skilled in industry and all these problems. In paragraph 105 of their unanimous recommendation they say:

"We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery and to what items are to be considered assessable in industrial works. There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machinery. Blame has been laid upon the fact that the word 'first' is used before the words 'motive power' in Section 1 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, a fact which it is said has much enhanced the difficulty of decision. The real grievance seems to consist in the varying practice of assessors"—

Is not the hon. Member making a Second Reading speech, instead of directing his attention to the Amendment?

I have not noticed that it had that effect.

The point is that it is most desirable that the effect of this change should be delayed until the Report from which I am now quoting has been considered by the Government, and until they have carried out the recommendations of this Report that another Committee should be set up to inquire into how the defects which they find in the present Scottish system can be remedied. It is very important that there should be some inquiry, so that the evils of the Scottish system should not be transferred to this country. We wart to follow Scotland where Scotland leads, but we want to avoid the mistakes which Scotland has made as shown by this Report. The Report says:

"The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities."

"It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought, which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think that is a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions as applied to those classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must be considered and undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose."

"The law relating to the valuation of machinery requires amendment."

I would remind the hon. Member that the new Clause relates only to the date of application of the Bill.

My argument is that we should accept this new Clause. During the delay inquiry could be held. I am glad that there is present the Minister of Health. This Bill will make a considerable difference in the incidence of rating. The Minister of Health has said several times that a Cabinet Committee is considering the whole question of rating. An additional argument in favour of postponement of the operation of this Bill is that we should not deal with the matter piecemeal but should first have the findings of the Cabinet Committee.

In order to save time, may I say that I gladly accept this reasonable Amendment?

I think the supporters of this Bill are meeting its opponents in an extremely reasonable and moderate spirit. When I moved the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, I put forward two main arguments. The first was that this was not an opportune time for bringing such a Bill into operation. The effect of the Amendment would be to carry the Bill over this time, and so far my objection is met. The second reason I gave was that I thought this problem should be related to the whole problem of rating. The Amendment will give us a period of time in which that can be done. That meets my second objection. On the Paper is a number of Amendments which have for their object the shaping of this Bill upon technical lines, which are thought to be right and proper by those who are expert with the matter. They may lead to a long, and, on the whole, perhaps not a very profitable discussion. After all, this House is not a House of experts. The Scottish Committee which inquired into the matter says that the Scottish law wants amending and that it is a matter for a body of experts. I am sure that every Member of the House who wants this Bill passed and believes in its principle, does not want on the Statute Book a Bill which, after 20 years of experience, the people of Scotland have concluded wants amending. I do not complain for a moment of the attitude of the Ministry of Health. All that the Ministry has done has been to try to get a good Bill. If the Minister of Health could now assure the House that he would set up a Departmental Committee which would look into this question with the assistance of experts, and take into account the decisions already given in Scotland, and the different classes of machinery to which the Bill would apply, and, having done so, recommend to the Minister Amendments which would make this Bill really workable and efficient, it would help to shorten our discussions this afternoon and lead to good results. If we do not get that assurance it will be necessary for us to proceed with the Amendments on the Paper.

Will hon. Members agree to let the Bill go through?

I think the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is not only most valuable, but also extremely fair, and if some agreement of this kind could be entered into, it would be very desirable. I may point out to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who spoke so strongly on this matter, that in Lancashire, where there is an enormous number of cotton mills, it is only in a few towns that the machinery is rated. The result is that the people with the most up-to-date and the best equipped mills are handicapped in favour of the retrograde and old-fashioned mills with machinery which should not be in operation at all. There are many unions where they do not rate machinery. Disparities and anomalies are numerous, and if this Bill were passed, these would be eliminated.

The hon. Member is getting away from the new Clause which we are discussing.

I only desire to add that, during the extra time which is secured under this new Clause, the matter can be considered, and, for my part, I desire to associate myself with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle.

I do not quite follow the procedure suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes). I fully realise, as everybody does, that the subject is full of technical difficulties and the Bill, as it stands, is by no means perfect, but requires considerable alteration from the technical point of view. On the other hand, we are not in any way hostile to the Bill or anxious to prevent it passing the Report stage to-day. There is another place in which Amendments can be inserted of a purely technical character. I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, and those associated with him, are prepared to withdraw their Amendments on the understanding that the Departmental Committee will go into the technical points with a view to the introduction later on of an Amending Bill. Reference has been made to the Report of the Scottish Committee. This Bill is largely based on the Scottish practice, and I do not believe you will ever have a Bill in regard to which a Departmental Committee will not suggest alterations and improvements. I am not quite so much impressed by the Scottish Report as some hon. Members. I shall be quite ready to undertake to set up a Departmental Committee, as suggested, to go into these points if the general principle be adopted.

I am glad to hear what the Minister of Health has said and I wish him to go a little further in putting this matter before a Departmental Committee and to ask that Committee to consider the effect on particular industries. I wish to refer specially to the mining industry.

The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill generally and not the new Clause.

I merely wished to ask that, in the consideration of this matter, regard should be bad to the interests of the mining industry, which, under these proposals, would be practically faced with ruin. I wish to point out that 33 per cent. of the whole rateable value is in the mining industry, and by this Bill it gets no relief whatever, or practically none.

No!

The Bill only seeks to relieve machinery that is removable.

Again I would remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded other hon. Members, that this is outside the scope of the Clause which we are discussing.

On another point, Sir, I am glad this suggestion has been accepted, because it allows time for consideration. I trust that the House, irrespective of any Commission or any Inquiry, will carefully consider this matter having regard to the interests of the principal industry of the country. Probably I am biassed in this matter, but if an additional rate is thrown upon the mining industry, five-sixths of it must be borne by the miners, who are to-day working for less than a subsistence wage.

The suggestion which has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and has been acquiesced in by the Minister of Health should go a long way towards meeting the opposition which has been put up to the Bill. By deferring the operation of the Bill, as proposed in the new Clause, we shall have time to go into the whole question and also into the very crucial difficulty with which the mining industry in particular is faced under the proposed Measure. We do not object to the whole system of rating being reconsidered. We want that done, but care must be taken that the new rating does not press unduly on any one section of the community, and the Departmental Committee will give us an opportunity of avoiding that. The immediate operation of the Bill undoubtedly will have the effect suggested by the hon. Member who spoke last, namely that of depressing wages in the mining industry and making conditions even less tolerable than they are at the present moment. I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept the proposals put forward and take the assurance of the Minister of Health, and subject to that, I, on behalf of the Mining Association, say we will be quite satisfied.

The last thing in the world which the promoters of the Bill desire is that there should be any injustice or unfairness. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the proposal that the terms in connection with the machinery sought to be exempted from rating, should be defined by experts. There are numerous technical terms with which, with all submission, this House is not quite competent to deal. The object of deferring the operation of the Bill until 1926 is obviously in order to save the enormous amount of expense which revaluation would entail, especially as revaluations have been made in the City of London and elsewhere for the next quinquennial period, and therefore the immediate operation of the Bill would inflict a hardship we are anxious to avoid If I understand the suggestion correctly, we are to be allowed to get this Bill through. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

The Amendments are to be withdrawn.

I understood the Bill was to go through on the distinct understanding that in the period between now and 1926 we are to have the Departmental Committee promised by the Minister of Health to settle all these points and, I hope, meet all the difficulties raised by various Members of the House, and that the conclusions should be put into force by an enabling Bill as soon as possible. That is a reasonable request, which I, for one, would be the last to object to in any way. I think it would meet the difficulties that have been raised, and I hope the House will allow that course to be followed.

I will be very careful not to go outside the Rules of Order, and I will give no reasons at all for stating why it is perfectly impossible for me to accept the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and accepted by the Minister of Health. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, I can only say that I am instructed by them, and it is my intention, so far as I can, to take very good care that this Bill should not get its Third Reading this afternoon. I will not give my reasons until the time comes, but I can be no party whatever to the suggestion that has been thrown across the Floor. I look, as a rule, with grave suspicion on these concordats which are arrived at between the promoters of a Bill and a Minister, anxious to save trouble, anxious if they can not to promote any hostility in any quarter, and I can only say that when the time comes, on the Motion for Third Reading, I hope I shall be able to give sufficient reasons to induce the House not to give this Bill its Third Reading.

I oppose this Bill to the utmost of my power. Its object is to transfer burdens from the manufacturing class to the agricultural class.

The hon. Member began by saying he was going to speak in opposition to the Bill, and I must point out that we are only dealing with the proposed new Clause.

I think you will see, Sir. that I am going to keep to the point. As an agriculturist, I strongly oppose the Bill. If the arrangement suggested were accepted, that would be admitting the principle of this Bill, that machinery should not be rateable, and on no consideration could I agree to that. If, on the other hand, the promoters of this Bill were really in earnest in wishing this Committee set up and in wanting a real decision of experts as to whether any loose machinery might be excluded from the ordinary law of rating—what ought to be done and could very well be done in the three years provided by the extension of time proposed in this Clause—let them withdraw the Bill and let the Committee be set up, and then bring in a further Bill when the Committee has reported.

We rely very largely on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in support of the Bill, so that we are not going altogether without expert knowledge.

I am only dealing with the suggestion thrown across the Floor of the House. I think the Bill should be withdrawn now, and that the Committee could be set up as has been suggested.

I am rather astonished that the promoters of the Bill have accepted this new Clause, because, after all, what does it do? It says:

"This Act shall not affect any local rate made before the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and no alteration in pursuance of this Ast of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date."

No.

As I read the Clause, it means that the purpose of this Act, which is to exempt certain machinery from rating, shall not have effect until the 1st April, 1926.

A revaluation will have to be made.

I really do not understand how that can be done, because the Clause says that

"No alteration in pursuance of this Act of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date."

As a matter of explanation, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that in the original Bill nothing was to be done until 1923, and nothing could come into operation until 1924 As a matter of fact, it only postpones the Bill for two years.

It may have been right to postpone it, because you could not help that, as you have to make new valuation lists, but it does not follow that we should insert this new Clause.

I hope there will be a spirit of compromise. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The opponents of this Bill, I think, have met the proposers perfectly reasonably. All that we wish is that the Bill be made the. best possible Bill for England, and I cannot see why, if it has been waiting for 11 years, it cannot wait another three or four years in order that we may get the best Bill possible.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "levied or made on or after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three."

beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words,

"such machinery only as is fixed or attached to,"

"(a) machinery, tools, and appliances in or on."

Absolutely!

In these circumstances it seems to me that the Minister of Health should be here now. This is a matter of more than mere courtesy; it is a matter of very great importance. If he had been here I should have proceeded at once to inquire from him most specifically what he was proposing to do with this Departmental Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen promoting the Bill can use any efforts to get him here, but in his absence I feel I must go on with my Amendment as it stands and trying to bring the House to a clearer sense than it possibly has of the difficulties that such a Committee may remove.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to accept the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) which proposes to leave out the words "Machinery as is fixed or attached to the hereditament and cannot be removed from its place" and insert the words "machines, tools, or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their place"? I think that would meet his case.

I am not quite sure, but—

What about the subsequent Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, that speaks of "machinery, tools or appliances"?

As I understand the proposal, which to some. extent I think might be adopted the difficulty is this: the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) deals with two questions—first with a definition as between machinery, and machines, tools or appliances; then it also turns to the question of fixtures and attachments. These are two questions which we think ought to be dealt with quite separately. I think that we should first of all determine the question as to the correspondence between the two Sections and the insertion of the same words in each, and then proceed to deal separately with the question of fixed or attached machinery.

The other Amendment on the Paper deals with the same subject, but if one of these Amendments be moved then it will rule out the other.

If the other Amendment is closely examined, I think it will be found to be distinctly different in principle.

I am going to make another suggestion which will enable the Minister of Health to elucidate the position. I would like to move my Amendment down to the word "appliances."

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances."

I beg to second the Amendment. I wish, however, to make it quite clear that I do not share entirely the views of my hon. Friend. and I reserve my right to move any of the Amendments which I have down on the Paper, no matter what arrangement is come to with the Minister of Health.

I wish to say that I am in exactly the same position.

I thought I had made it quite clear when I spoke last on this subject what my proposal was. I think I stated clearly that if the Bill was sent to a Committee, they should deal with technical questions such as those raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East. Newcastle (Major Barnes). I understand now that hon. Members are not prepared to come to any understanding on the subject and I do not see under those circumstances that my acceptance of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member would have any practical utility. It seems to me that hon. Members are opposed to the principle of the Bill. Obviously if this House passes this Measure as it stands I cannot sot up a Departmental Committee to go into the question as to whether the Bill ought to he passed or not, or as to how it affects other industries. Departmental Committees can only inquire into questions which tend to make the Bill better and more workable on the principle which has been accepted by the House.

I have much difficulty in understanding the difference between the two phrases which are used in this Amendment. I do not think the House has been treated respectfully in regard to this matter, because apart from the principle of whether machinery is to he rated or not we are also discussing what is a purely legal question, and I think we ought to have had the assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. This does add to our difficulties because we really do not know what we are dealing with or deciding. I have listened very carefully to the Proposer of this Amendment and I do not understand what is the distinction between the two phrases he has used. I am anxious to accept his Amendment to leave out "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to." My point is that machinery certainly ought to be rated and to that extent I accept that part his Amendment, but when he comes to insert the words, "machinery, machine tools and appliances," I do not know whether that will be an extension or a diminution.

It is an extension.

Then it is meant to be an extension of the exemption from rating.

No, it is the other way.

I confess that I really do not know what is the difference. I think I shall support the Amendment to leave out the words as suggested, but I cannot support the insertion of the words which are proposed.

This proposal does not seem to carry us much further, and if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to withdraw the Amendment and adopt the next Amendment, which covers all the ground, it would clear away any ambiguity there may be at the present time. This Amendment goes a very little way and does not help much. I believe that this Amendment was put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) at the instigation of the London County Council. It achieves what the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) wants to do, and it goes a little further. If he would adopt that Amendment, I think the promoters of the Bill would be prepared to meet him.

If we could get a promise from the promoters of the Bill that they would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington—

I will agree to it at once.

That, I think, will remove the bone of contention. Rating authorities are continually going to the Law Courts to decide what is fixed and irremovable machinery, and the acceptance of that Amendment will remove some of our objections. Thousands of pounds are wasted in legal expenses in fighting these questions in the Law Courts, and, in order to simplify the words in the Section and make the position clear, I shall be happy to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington and ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) to withdraw his Amendment.

I do not understand the meaning of these two Amendments. The Minister of Health said that this is not a Government Bill, and therefore it is not necessary for the Law Officers to be present. He is of equal importance with a Law Officer, and he is here. Why, therefore, cannot we have the presence of a Law Officer? It is an extremely difficult Bill to understand, and we ought to have a Law Officer to explain the effect of these various Amendments. I cannot understand the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). He is accepting all the Amendments of his opponents, with the result the Bill will be of little value. The Clause says:

"In estimating for the purpose of any local rate or of the basis or standard thereof, or of any valuation list. … there shall be taken into account such machinery only as is fixed or attached. …"

Of course, if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington were accepted, the word "not" would require to be inserted after the word "shall" ["there shall be taken into account"]. Otherwise, it would be nonsense.

We have passed that point, and cannot go back. It is not sense as it is, and I do not know what is the position. If we had had a Law Officer present, we should not have got into this mess. As far as I can see, the effect of the Amendment would be that, whereas at present only such machinery as is fixed to the hereditament is rated, all machinery will be rated. I understood that the Labour party were opposed to the Bill because they did not want certain machinery rated.

Not a single Member of the Labour party has expressed that view. Our view is that the rating of machinery should be made uniform in practice.

I was only endeavouring to find out exactly the views of the members of that party. I was mistaken in what I said, and I apologise and withdraw. Had their views coincided with mine I would have given them such little assistance as my ability would enable me to do. I do not think we can accept this Amendment. I do not see how we can. I think it had better be withdrawn to enable my hon. and gallant Friend to put something else in. It is an old rule of the House that an Amendment cannot be made which makes nonsense of the Bill, and, as this Amendment does make nonsense of it, I do not see how we can proceed with it.

I do not think that the Amendment makes nonsense of the Bill. When it has been dealt with one way or the other, then it will be for those responsible to decide what shall be their next step, but that cannot be decided until this Amendment has been disposed of. I propose to put the Question that the word "such" stand part of the Bill, and if it be agreed that it shall stand part, then the words proposed to be left out will remain in. But if, on the other hand, the word "such" be cut out—and I understand that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is willing that it should be—then all the words of this Amendment come out, and I understand the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) will move to insert the words "in or on." If he does that, the second Amendment after this I think would read properly. I beg the House not to enter on discussions as to technicalities, but to confine their attention to the question whether they wish the words shall remain in or come out.

I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is perfectly logical, and if the House inserts the following Amendment, then the whole thing will read logically. As I understand it the Amendment is to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert instead thereof the words "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances." Then later it will be proposed to insert the words "or fixed or attached thereto save that there shall not be taken into account such machinery, tools or appliances as are not fixed or attached or are only so fixed or attached to the hereditaments that they can". This seems to be to be perfectly logical and there is no great complication about it.

I should be very sorry if I misled anyone by saying that I would accept a compromise on this point. It seems to me, however, that without the word "not" being inserted